I kept thinking about the book "playing God in Yellowstone" while reading the two articles. I've never actually read the book :), but Bryson has told me about it a number of times and from what I know...it can relate.
When thinking about conservation needs it's important to think about other aspects that are linked to the situation. Adams, after pointing out the different positions one could possibly take on the matter, he writes "All positions are consistent with the call for conservation organizations to identify and monitor the social impacts of their work and to take corporate responsibility for operating in a socially accountable manner". As I read each position and tried to determine which one I felt rang true for me, I felt like it couldn't be simplified into one position but there was a mixture of them. There is a link between conservation needs and poverty reduction. To think the environment that humans live in has no impact on the humans is silly. It's also hard for me to believe there is a true "win-win" situation. There has to be sacrifices somewhere.
I felt like Sachs options were not taking the human aspect into account. As he lists off options to teach the people how to use the land, use different seeds, etc he's quick to overlook that people are slow and often resistant to change. There is often history behind the way we perform things and there must be a tangible benefit to encourage change.
Basically to sum my thoughts up, everything has an impact on something else (making no exceptions for the environment and humans)so when creating a new plan of action I think both sides need to be monitored as the intervention continues. It's hard to focus on one project because I feel like they are so interlinked that it is best to let them build upon each other.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I really like your ideas about the interconnectedness of all the aspects of poverty and foreign aid. I think that's been one of the major things I've learned this semester: the problem is always more complicated than we think. Everyone wants to find one person to blame, but both the problem and the solution are dependent on an interconnected web of various forces.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading this article, I was also trying to figure out which view I agreed with. I agree with you that it should be a combination of all of them..but I think that I agree mostly with position 4. I think that it is great to aim for biodiversity conservation, however, I think that poverty alleviation holds a higher priority. I want to echo your thoughts on your concluding paragraph, sometimes it is frustrating to realize that their usually is no win-win solution...and if there was, I would hope that we would have already implemented it. Everything effects other things, pretty much everything is interconnected. It seems as if we need to compromise and try to do good for both, but if it comes down to choosing which is more important, I would definitely say the reduction of poverty is more important.
ReplyDelete