Gorilla Massacre for Valuable Land

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=4482861

This article is about a park ranger in Congo who is suspected of masterminding a mountain gorilla massacre. The mountain gorilla is an endangered species, and of the mere 700 left in the world, an estimated 360 are living in the Virunga National Park in Congo. Conservationalists were protesting cutting down gorilla habitat for lumber. Locals disagreed with the movement because they need the lumber and its by-products to make money. It is speculated that the park ranger organized the poaching as a way to protest the conservation movements that had been occuring.

This article reminded me of something we talked about in AP Environmental Science a while ago. It is known world-wide that gorillas are endangered animals. Even more broad than that, it is known that cutting down their habitat is severely damaging the environment, especially with a climate like that of Africa. However, despite what these people do or do not know, it is sometimes necessary for them to vandalize their habitat in order to survive. If one is educated on the subject, then it is fairly obvious that the long-term effects of too much forestation and over grazing will be disatrous. However, there comes a point where it doesn't matter what will happen in the future because the people need to survive now, and if cutting down an endangered species habitat is the way to do that, then so be it. This gets people sucked into a vicious cyle of devastation. The more damage done now to survive, the more damage there will be in the future, making it more impossible to survive off of what is available.

Now this does have something to do with economics. The same thing (well, not entirely to the same scale, but it's relevant) is happening in the U.S. Logging companies are fighting environmental groups because they need to log more trees in order to make a profit. If they don't make enough money, they put their lifestyles at risk. However, the more logging they do, the more habitat is destroyed, and it takes years to grow back. I guess it's all a question of how much we are willing to sacrifice to preserve our world. In Africa it's different because many of those people will die without this land, but here we can probably afford to give a little up. It's also a reminder that as much as people want to save the gorilla by donating to wildlife funds, you will indirectly help by giving to funds that help the people; because if the people aren't so desperate the gorilla won't be as endangered.

Your Average 27 Story Home

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/GadgetGuide/story?id=4150486&page=1

This article is about India's richest man, trillionaire Mukesh Ambani, who decided it would be fun to build a 27 story home on the outskirts of New Delhi. Located near a city in which over 6 million impoverished people live in slums, Ambani has received his share of ridicule from worldwide humanitarians protesting his tower-esque home.

The mostly glass home was engineered by a Chicago architect. The high ceilings will make 27 stories seem more like 60, which is needed, of course, for the helicopter landing on the roof. If one has a fear of flying they can always park in one of the 168 parking spots in the built-in parking ramp, and them be escorted inside by one of 600 servants. Along with a health club, the humble abode will contain a full size movie theater and swimming pool - perfect for when his three children want to have sleepovers.

Now, in my opinion, this is completely ridiculous. This man technically only needs a home big enough for the five people in his immediate family, and no, I don't think that him saying he's taking in his mother-in-law is rationale enough to add an extra 25 stories onto a house.

In a country that deals with as much poverty as India, one would think that if he or she had an extra billion dollars or so lying around that there would be better uses for it than making sure you can survey the countryside for miles around by standing on your roof. With a quarter of its people below the poverty level and the 2007 GDP being an average of $2700, it's obvious that the people less fortunate than Ambani could benefit from his pocket change.

Also, if the ridiculously rich decided to donate their extra money (even if they kept enough to proclaim they still had more than everyone else) the population problem in India would be lessened. More income means more education, meaning a better chance for a good job, meaning less time to raise a family, meaning less kids. More money also means better health care, so one can have only one or two kids and not worry about them dying before the age of five. Better education also leads to more knowledge of family planning. If the population decreases, then the current social, economic, and environmental problems won't be as severe. I realize that it's not really this simple, but everything is interconnected, and it all starts with the common impoverished people being able to receive enough money to get an education. If that is allowed, then millions of other problems will naturally solve themselves over time.