• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Conservation... (1 Viewer)

A good article and I agree with all of it. Protecting anything but relatively small pockets of habitat is probably beyond us, as is protecting any large species which requires large areas of space. One irony, not metnioned here, is that the Chinese are actually pretty good at protecting their own national parks and the species within their borders.

cheers, alan
 
You could argue that the majority of conservation organisations do rather little to help combat the global squeeze on the environment and natural resources. Mostly, those organisations are focussed on raising enough funds to support themselves and tend to concentrate on relatively parochial issues rather than the bigger picture. We look proudly at the successes – such as breeding White-tailed Eagles Haliaeetus albicilla, Ospreys Pandion haliaetus and Common Cranes Grus grus – but while it is great to see these species in Britain they have huge world ranges, they are not remotely endangered and the British population is a drop in the ocean.
Exactly! Conservation treating wildlife as an amenity – a blinkered nationalistic approach prioritising the maintenance of localised biodiversity to improve the 'quality of life' of the already over-privileged populations of wealthy nations. :smoke:
 
Responsible conservation:

1. Don't breed
2. Don't give funds to anything that keeps humans alive

John

Agreed

Give blankets, clothes, and foodstuff only to the poor and deprived.. money is too easily taken by others for the wrong reasons, and is easily laundered.

Regards
Kathy
x
 
Exactly! Conservation treating wildlife as an amenity – a blinkered nationalistic approach prioritising the maintenance of localised biodiversity to improve the 'quality of life' of the already over-privileged populations of wealthy nations. :smoke:

Unfortunately it's always going to be easier and more popular to breed cranes than stop humans breeding. Tell a democratically elected government to cap number of kids, mandatory sterilization for certain criminal acts and see how far you get.

I don't think conservationists are necessarily blinkered, just afraid to tell an unpopular truth which could ultimately cost them funding.
 
Agreed

Give blankets, clothes, and foodstuff only to the poor and deprived.. money is too easily taken by others for the wrong reasons, and is easily laundered.

Regards
Kathy
x

No, Kathy:

Don't buy West Africans mosquito nets or their population will increase - ditto water purification technology, anti-diarrhoea medicines; don't perpetuate overpopulation by supporting them with foodstuffs either robbed from the over-fished oceans or from putting more and more wildlife habitats under cultivation. No more anti-AIDS meds.

Don't ever put a penny in the collection plate of any church that doesn't advocate birth control.

No more IVF, on or off the NHS.

Congratulate the Chinese for their one-child policy instead of castigating them.

And that's just scratching the surface....

John
 
No, Kathy:

Don't buy West Africans mosquito nets or their population will increase - ditto water purification technology, anti-diarrhoea medicines; don't perpetuate overpopulation by supporting them with foodstuffs either robbed from the over-fished oceans or from putting more and more wildlife habitats under cultivation. No more anti-AIDS meds.

Don't ever put a penny in the collection plate of any church that doesn't advocate birth control.

No more IVF, on or off the NHS.

Congratulate the Chinese for their one-child policy instead of castigating them.

And that's just scratching the surface....

John

Harsh but true. If it was any other species people would advocate a massive cull.
 
Speeding up the demographic transition (from r-strategy to K-strategy, so to speak) in Africa and some other places via educating local people (especially women) and distributing contraceptives will prove more effective and humane than most of the measures mentioned above. This development could have been less dramatic if it weren't for decades of well-meaning but ultimately disastrous foreign aid policies.
 
Speeding up the demographic transition (from r-strategy to K-strategy, so to speak) in Africa and some other places via educating local people (especially women) and distributing contraceptives will prove more effective and humane than most of the measures mentioned above.

After many years of contraceptive availability and education we have a huge rate of unwanted teenage pregnancies, so pardon me if I take that with a pinch of salt.

John
 
After many years of contraceptive availability and education we have a huge rate of unwanted teenage pregnancies, so pardon me if I take that with a pinch of salt.

John
It doesn't matter much in terms of statistics though, as AFAIK the total UK birthrate is not very high. Demographic transition means that people have fewer kids, whom they value more. As opposed to the astronomic birthrates in some African and Asian countries, which foster wars, hunger, and mass emigration. None of which are desirable from the perspective of the rest of the world. The solution is neither "breed like rabbits" nor "don't have any kids" (the latter is totally against our nature), it's "be responsible".
I've heard that demographic changes are already happening (for example, birth rates throughout the Middle East/North Africa/Iran have plummeted dramatically), it's just that stupid "aid" measures (which you've already named) as well as many of the the representatives of the two major world religions are actively working against those changes. One of the reasons why Boko Haram (as well as pretty much any of the Totalitarian movements in Europe) thinks Boko is haram is because they need "human resources" for their wars, and modern "Western" education works against that.
 
I hope you jest. ;) Check what is really the population growth currently (hint: negative in most of the world) and what is human lifespan (hint: most of people alive on 2050 are already born). Eventually you might ponder the question if increasing wealth with constant population helps or harms conservation (there are examples of both).
 
I hope you jest. ;) Check what is really the population growth currently (hint: negative in most of the world) and what is human lifespan (hint: most of people alive on 2050 are already born).
I don't quite understand what you mean by that. Population growth is of course not only affected by birth rates, but also by mortality factors. However, I've heard from numerous sides that birth rates have declined sharply in some countries (e.g. Iran or Brazil) and are starting to do so in others. That means that population growth in those places will grind to a halt and we may even be seeing a decline at some point.
Originally posted by CIA World Factbook:
Brazil's rapid fertility decline since the 1960s is the main factor behind the country's slowing population growth rate, aging population, and fast-paced demographic transition.


Eventually you might ponder the question if increasing wealth with constant population helps or harms conservation (there are examples of both).
Depends on the attitude of the people in question.
 
Last edited:
I can't access the article via the above link. If post 5 above is a quote from the article then not surprisingly I agree with it completely.

I find post 9 totally offensive even if it is meant as some sort of wierd irony. It is a disgraceful thing to post. Suggesting that people should be left to die of malaria or diahorrea is appaling.

The way to a better world is respect for all life not contempt and disrespect.

This whole thread is bizzare. Is it some sort of a spoof?
 
Last edited:
I find post 9 totally offensive even if it is meant as some sort of wierd irony. It is a disgraceful thing to post. Suggesting that people should be left to die of malaria or diahorrea is appaling.
That goes against evolution though. If they are not able to survive they should be left to die. Does that sound familar to you?
 
of course it does but the context, the morals and ethics are entirely different.

We are taliking about people dying of preventable illnesses often children. You should be ashamed of yourself for making the comparison.
 
I find post 9 totally offensive

That goes against evolution though. Does that sound familar to you?

of course it does but the context, the morals and ethics are entirely different.

We are taliking about people dying of preventable illnesses often children. You should be ashamed of yourself for making the comparison.

John, your standard position is non-interventionist, what will be will be. You oppose all conservation on these grounds - so why a different approach with human populations?

In this post, you point to a moral or ethical reason for intervening to save children (a standpoint most would agree with), but most on this forum at least would equally say there is a moral or ethical reason for wildlife conservation.

When your positions are so radically strange to many, why the surprise that someone points out an apparent contradiction in your posts?
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top