Brian D Williams wrote:
> From: "Billy Brown" <bbrown@conemsco.com>
> >You should also recognize that the situation calls for more than
> >just proselytizing. Most of the environmental degradation in the
> >Third World is not caused by evil western corporations trying to
> >get rich on the backs of the poor. Instead, it is caused by huge
> >numbers of impoverished people trying to survive as best they can.
> >Telling them to stop will do no good - they aren't going to let
> >their children go hungry to preserve a few more acres of forest.
> >What you need to do is give them an alternative way of providing
> >for themselves that doesn't destroy the land..
>
> I don't agree, much of the degradation is related to more advanced
> economies utilizing the people and resources of the third world for
> their own gain, plus since we don't utilize
> environmental/ecological technologies, we're the last one's who
> should tell anyone about it. Fortunately South America has an
> excellent example of it's own.... Gaviotas.
The natural question, then, is what can be done? I see the following
options:
1) We can preach at them. People in the really poor countries won't listen,
of course, because they can't change what they are doing without starving
themselves. We might make some headway in South Korea, Taiwan, and other
recently-industrialized nations, but that isn't where the big problems are.
2) We can use treaties, economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure to try to make problem countries change their ways. This, of course, is exactly the kind of paternalistic neo-colonialism that they hate, so it isn't going to make us any friends. It also doesn't address the problem, so it isn't likely to help.
3) We can invade the offending countries, shoot anyone who resists, march all those peasants, farmers and ranchers back out of the wilderness at gunpoint, and set up puppet governments that will practice conservation. I hope we can all agree that this 'solution' is worse than the problem.
Billy Brown, MCSE+I
bbrown@conemsco.com