Conservation... (8 Viewers)

[Trystan]

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 don't think anyone rational wants to see people dying unnecessarily but I think the point is that with in excess of 7 billion people, deaths are necessary. It would be preferable to manage the population through education, contaception etc but people have been banging that drum for years and how much progress has been made?

Humans dying of preventable diseases is the lesser of two evils from a totally moral and ethical perspective.

 

[Farnboro John]

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

I am really looking forward to you explaining why the context, morals and ethics are entirely different. It sounds awfully as if you think humans are better, or more important, than nature - or even not part of nature. It smacks to me of the lame Biblical justification of dominion over the beasts etc.

With seven billion humans in the world there is no way I will value human life at the same level as (for instance) a Mountain Gorilla life. I am unconcerned about individuals that I don't know, or tribes or generations to come: my worries are about human-caused extinctions. I will not fund non-wildlife charities especially those that seek to reduce human death rates where wildlife is on its last legs.

John

 

[Jimmybirder]

I am really looking forward to you explaining why the context, morals and ethics are entirely different. It sounds awfully as if you think humans are better, or more important, than nature - or even not part of nature. It smacks to me of the lame Biblical justification of dominion over the beasts etc.

With seven billion humans in the world there is no way I will value human life at the same level as (for instance) a Mountain Gorilla life. I am unconcerned about individuals that I don't know, or tribes or generations to come: my worries are about human-caused extinctions. I will not fund non-wildlife charities especially those that seek to reduce human death rates where wildlife is on its last legs.

John

I'm sad when good people die before their time. The rest of humanity I don't really give much thought too as they don't add anything to society or the planet - quiet the opposite in many cases.

 

[fugl]

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 do believe you're quibbling, John.

 

[fugl]

I'm sad when good people die before their time. The rest of humanity I don't really give much thought too as they don't add anything to society or the planet - quiet the opposite in many cases.

In which category do you place yourself?
And why?
[I'm mostly curious about the "why" since I'm pretty sure I already know the answer to the first question. ]

 

[Peewit]

The bottom line to me (like it, or not) is that the Governments of the countries who are dealing with starvation, disease and poverity -THEY are the ones who should be responsible for their own people, and not other countires who have more than enough issues of their own to deal with.

I watched a TV programme about issues as we are discussing here. It said for a fact that any money (given as a gift from the UK, or otherwise) is waylaid and misused by the government for their own 'rich' lifestyle, and that is wrong. :C

Simple as that! It is illegal and wrong. All governments should take stock of their own issues in their own countries with their people and stop landing all the issues onto other countries.
I simply hate seeing endless adverts (daytime TV) for people who are starving, and poor and everyone else has to pay the price to help them - why because it is their spineless Government who do nothing to help at the end of the day

Just my tuppence worth :C

Regards
Kathy
x

 

[Farnboro John]

The bottom line to me (like it, or not) is that the Governments of the countries who are dealing with starvation, disease and poverity -THEY are the ones who should be responsible for their own people, and not other countires who have more than enough issues of their own to deal with.

I watched a TV programme about issues as we are discussing here. It said for a fact that any money (given as a gift from the UK, or otherwise) is waylaid and misused by the government for their own 'rich' lifestyle, and that is wrong. :C

Simple as that! It is illegal and wrong. All governments should take stock of their own issues in their own countries with their people and stop landing all the issues onto other countries.
I simply hate seeing endless adverts (daytime TV) for people who are starving, and poor and everyone else has to pay the price to help them - why because it is their spineless Government who do nothing to help at the end of the day

Just my tuppence worth :C

Regards
Kathy
x

That's a good tuppence worth. Bravo!

John

 

[Jos Stratford]

The bottom line to me (like it, or not) is that the Governments of the countries who are dealing with starvation, disease and poverity -THEY are the ones who should be responsible for their own people, and not other countires who have more than enough issues of their own to deal with.

I watched a TV programme about issues as we are discussing here. It said for a fact that any money (given as a gift from the UK, or otherwise) is waylaid and misused by the government for their own 'rich' lifestyle, and that is wrong. :C

Simple as that! It is illegal and wrong. All governments should take stock of their own issues in their own countries with their people and stop landing all the issues onto other countries.
I simply hate seeing endless adverts (daytime TV) for people who are starving, and poor and everyone else has to pay the price to help them - why because it is their spineless Government who do nothing to help at the end of the day

Just my tuppence worth :C

Regards
Kathy
x

Lucky for you that you were born in a rich country, spoon fed more than you could ever really need, and basically have the luxury to dwell on the plight of others, dismissing it as you go.

Big on you for 'simply hating seeing endless ads' to help the starving, be assured they do not suffer the same misfortune - heck they are just starving, not unlucky enough to be plonked in front of a TV in your centrally heated cocooned home. And poor you, stuck in one of those countries with 'more than enough issues of their own to deal with', gee must be tough.

A bravo for that tuppence worth? Not in my book.

 

[Peewit]

Lucky for you that you were born in a rich country, spoon fed more than you could ever really need, and basically have the luxury to dwell on the plight of others, dismissing it as you go.

Big on you for 'simply hating seeing endless ads' to help the starving, be assured they do not suffer the same misfortune - heck they are just starving, not unlucky enough to be plonked in front of a TV in your centrally heated cocooned home. And poor you, stuck in one of those countries with 'more than enough issues of their own to deal with', gee must be tough.

A bravo for that tuppence worth? Not in my book.

I have a lot of connections with South Africa as that is where my mother is from, so I am very aware of what is going on to this day.

After two trips over the years, (in the 70's, and the 90's), I know what my family endure, poverty, and what happens there with the less well off society.

I have seem the changes over the years, and it is frightening to be honest.

Just curious Jos do you get a lot of adverts where you stay, about the lesser well to do people.

Regards
Kathy
x

 

[Jos Stratford]

I have a lot of connections with South Africa as that is where my mother is from, so I am very aware of what is going on to this day.

After two trips over the years, (in the 70's, and the 90's), I know what my family endure, poverty, and what happens there with the less well off society.

Then if you are aware, I'd say you are callous.

And big deal if your mother is from South Africa - presuming she is white, the poverty was what exactly?

I am also impressed that two trips in a grand total of 45 years has equipped you so well to formulate your position that starving people should stay that way because their governments could do better.

 

[Peewit]

Then if you are aware, I'd say you are callous.

And big deal if your mother is from South Africa - presuming she is white, the poverty was what exactly?

I am also impressed that two trips in a grand total of 45 years has equipped you so well to formulate your position that starving people should stay that way because their governments could do better.

Hi Jos

No, I am not callious, just a realist - my mother is white.

The information attached to the situation with people who are in a 'poorer' situation than we are.. goes a long way to understanding why this is the case. What we all read in the local press and see on TV is only scratching the surface

I have visited poor townships and it is awful to see the deprivation of people.

Things go a lot deeper than what you think - family status, religion, having many children (10 or more in some cases), no birth control, family unions, and so much more that is even beyond my understanding, as I am not in their shoes.

Their lifestyles are so different to mine, and yours Jos.

Anyway enough said now as I have said my peace. End of

Regards
Kathy
x

 

[Jos Stratford]

No, I am not callious, just a realist

Yeah, one who is sick of adverts on daytime T.V. about starving people, hey could just stop watching daytime T.V., maybe the 'problems' would go away too.

And incidentally, if you are realist, maybe think about the real truth - your sentence "It said for a fact that any money (given as a gift from the UK, or otherwise) is waylaid and misused by the government for their own 'rich' lifestyle" is total rubbish, if you believe it, so be it.

 

[ovenbird43]

All governments should take stock of their own issues in their own countries with their people and stop landing all the issues onto other countries.

While it would be great if each country could take care of its own people, some will inevitably lack the resources to do so, since natural resources are not distributed equally across the globe. To me this is the same mentality that fosters and excuses income inequality WITHIN countries, this idea that "oh if that person just worked harder they wouldn't be in poverty", and "why should I pay for welfare and food stamps, those people are there by choice". At least, those are the opinions of the political right here int he US. Would you be in favor of cutting all social services in UK? To me, this idea of "every country for itself" is no different than "every man for himself". After all, countries do not exist in a vacuum, we are all part of a global economy and a single entity - humanity.

Do I contribute to aid charities? Generally not - I do not have an infinite amount of money to give away, and my priorities are wildlife/nature conservation, and occasionally local issues. But I could not, in good conscience, advocate the abandonment of such aid programs. Sure, I agree that controlling population growth is the single most effective way to halt habitat and biodiversity loss, but if I wouldn't be willing to sacrifice myself or my loved ones to the cause, what right do I have to demand that others be forced do so? If you're going to suggest that, then why stop there, why not suggest the government of your own country remove all federal funds for health care - you don't want to be paying to keep people alive and reproducing, right, when their deaths could help reduce the population? Somehow I suspect not. Education and reform are the way to go.

 

[Peewit]

While it would be great if each country could take care of its own people, some will inevitably lack the resources to do so, since natural resources are not distributed equally across the globe. To me this is the same mentality that fosters and excuses income inequality WITHIN countries, this idea that "oh if that person just worked harder they wouldn't be in poverty", and "why should I pay for welfare and food stamps, those people are there by choice". At least, those are the opinions of the political right here int he US. Would you be in favor of cutting all social services in UK? To me, this idea of "every country for itself" is no different than "every man for himself". After all, countries do not exist in a vacuum, we are all part of a global economy and a single entity - humanity.

Do I contribute to aid charities? Generally not - I do not have an infinite amount of money to give away, and my priorities are wildlife/nature conservation, and occasionally local issues. But I could not, in good conscience, advocate the abandonment of such aid programs. Sure, I agree that controlling population growth is the single most effective way to halt habitat and biodiversity loss, but if I wouldn't be willing to sacrifice myself or my loved ones to the cause, what right do I have to demand that others be forced do so? If you're going to suggest that, then why stop there, why not suggest the government of your own country remove all federal funds for health care - you don't want to be paying to keep people alive and reproducing, right, when their deaths could help reduce the population? Somehow I suspect not. Education and reform are the way to go.

Hi OBird

The big difference that we in a Western country do not have 10 plus children at one time - that is population overload to me

If we had 10 kids each family (though some have big families in this country too. 2 kids are more then enough) it would not go down well with the benefits people, and the UK would sink into the sea.

I am like you, and I have contributed a lot towards animal charities, RSPB, WWT etc...and a lot of my valuable time over the years working (voluntary work) in a conservaton group (worked full time weekdays for 30 years)
How many hours would take me forever to work out in all the reserves building fences, digging ponds, upgrading pathways, planting trees that is my contribation back to the environment.

Humans need to give back, as well take, and that applies to all human kind. Governments need to add their quota to encouraging people to do what is right for them - that would stop all the warring going on as it is now

Regards
Kathy
x

 

[Mysticete]

yeah but it's a chicken and egg deal you are describing

Why don't people in the UK/USA (on average) have "10 kids"? Because generally speaking we have low infant mortality, a well-educated female population that aspire to things greater than being a wife, and families don't depend on support from young children to survive (tending crops, goats, working in factories, etc).

 

[ovenbird43]

yeah but it's a chicken and egg deal you are describing

Why don't people in the UK/USA (on average) have "10 kids"? Because generally speaking we have low infant mortality, a well-educated female population that aspire to things greater than being a wife, and families don't depend on support from young children to survive (tending crops, goats, working in factories, etc).

Exactly, which is why I see education and reform as the true solution, not purposely refusing aid. Heck our own ancestors had large broods not terribly long ago... my grandparents on both sides had six kids each, which I understand was common back then but not so today. What changed? Undoubtedly this can't be attributed to a single factor, but increased education and opportunity for women in our society since that time is certainly part of it.

 

[Farnboro John]

I don't think we have time for education and reform. I'm sure wildlife hasn't....

Education is already available to the ruling classes in every country where aid is going, but instead of standing on the shoulders of giants and reaching up as did our forebears in setting aside parts of the GDP to formulate and create health services that not only cared for all but also researched new and better treatments, they feather their own nests and allow endemic corruption in every part of their societies, oppress their peoples, foment hatred at home and abroad, marginalise tribes, genders, sexual orientations, scramble ruthlessly and without care for the environment or the betterment of their people after capitalist bribes.....

Then introduce the international aspect. The influence of China's strong economy (its good that the cracks are now appearing there), its utterly compunctionless attitude to wildlife and its vast manpower (also viewable as its vast market) is creating pressure everywhere.

The tiger bone scandal is a great example because it typifies China at its worst, pillaging an increasingly scarce wildlife resource while making the deprived carry the risks, for an end that is completely pointless despite China having full knowledge and understanding of Western science up to and including the ability to create thermonuclear weapons, complex machinery and sophisticated electronics. Education has not tamed that wanton selfish ruthless beast.

All the developing nations' greedy leaders see of China is the proffered dollar, and they sell themselves and their nations' heritage for it.

The only valid argument for Western aid that I can think of is its capacity to forestall Chinese influence, but it needs to be much much more tightly controlled and that is a job for governments, not charities. I'm sure Sport Relief's celebrities would be appalled at the idea that they are making themselves responsible for the end of Africa's wildlife but I insist that is what they are doing by preventing the natural controls on population in African countries. Education and reform FIRST - then when evidence of changed behaviour exists, life-saving aid.

John

 

[Jimmybirder]

In which category do you place yourself?
And why?
[I'm mostly curious about the "why" since I'm pretty sure I already know the answer to the first question. ]

Well I don't have kids and do my bit in terms of money,volunteering and advocating on a number of conservation issues so I reckon I'm not the worst example of the species out there. Looking at the world today I reckon I'm nearer the better end of the human league in terms of my impact and the future shaping of the living planet.

 

[fugl]

Well I don't have kids and do my bit in terms of money,volunteering and advocating on a number of conservation issues so I reckon I'm not the worst example of the species out there. Looking at the world today I reckon I'm nearer the better end of the human league in terms of my impact and the future shaping of the living planet.

I of course was just teasing and didn't expect a serious response. What can one say in the face of such complacency?

 

[fugl]

I'm sure Sport Relief's celebrities would be appalled at the idea that they are making themselves responsible for the end of Africa's wildlife but I insist that is what they are doing by preventing the natural controls on population in African countries. Education and reform FIRST - then when evidence of changed behaviour exists, life-saving aid.

"Natural controls" on African populations, wow! You're one tough hombre, John, one tough hombre!