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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
good idea with the donating to the people, but before that we should really be trying to get them jobs so that they can work up money on their own and they will be less likely to blow it if they make it up themselves. Surviving is a natural thing for people in the world, because everyone wants to live as best as they can. Lumber will give jobs but kill off the gorillas slowly, there isn't much other job opportunity around there so what else can they do to survive? If they have less children then there could be a way to fix the problem because the less children means more available jobs in the future. But before even that can be considered, they need to find some kind of industry that is better than logging in their forests, what that job may be who knows...
i like yer thinking jo jo. The country of Congo is not rich enough to discourage the killing of the gorillas while simultaneously providing incentive (other jobs) to end this practice. it's hard to say. maybe if other countries didn't take advantage of their lack of experience they would be able to profit better on the goods and services they are able to provide the world. the democratic republic of congo has a long history of being screwed over. ugh. remember the days when there were no cars or trains or planes and you survived by trading with the people around you? i don't. and i might be wrong but it seems like things were simpler back then. i don't know. maybe it's never been simple.
Like tony said, we obviously need to lower the need of the people, and donating can cover some of it, but jobs have to be created so that the people can continually provide for their families. How, i don't know. My mom went to the Congo recently, and I guess that it's extremely rich in natural resources, but they just can't get the industry going to make good use of them. Maybe that's an outlet for need...
off of Tony's speculation, you can't just teach them to have less childeren. They have so many childeren because the healthcare in the Congo is not so great, and the parents want childeren but often times their kids die at a young age, so they have a lot in hopes that a couple will survive. So if we can hopefully get them some jobs to get their own money, hopefully their healthcare and infrastructure can improve as well. It is kind of a cycle, so maybe helping one of the problems would help all of the others, but then again helping one problem might get ruined unless the others are helped as well. Its a tricky situation.
i agree with tony. if we concentrate more on finding people jobs and helping people out, then i think the other problems of killing endangered species, or destroying the environment will disappear.
while everyone touting larger donations to poor countries like this sounds great, the thing is, areas like this have been receiving foreign aid for years, generally with very little results. this type of situtaion requires a very different type of donation: human capital. The thing is, Congo's governemtn is very corrupt so any money you give is going to be skimmed off the top continually until it almost disappears. My solution would be for the government (probably ours, not theirs) to start a program providing incentive for trained professionals and workers to spend some time teaching their trade, in order to create skills and education. Also, it might help if the congolese govt offered tax breaks in order to encourage businesses to move in and take advantage of a largely untapped market.
Post a Comment