Let's be quite clear about this. It is not "my statement" (regardless of if I agree). The title of the thread is the title of the article I linked.
That article contains links to the paper (only abstract freely available) , links to the press release, and links to the World Bank report, and UN report, among other links. If you've bothered to read through any of those you'll see that there is nothing that disproves this.
This is a direct quote from the Co-Author:
"We looked at three countries with very different climates and species, to see if the pattern held true across these different regions--and it did," said co-author Ryan Germain, a postdoctoral fellow at Cornell University. "From frogs and songbirds right up to large mammals like grizzly bears, jaguars and kangaroos, biodiversity was richest in Indigenous-managed lands."
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_rele...98.296063103.1564837499-1442857251.1564749024
I'm not playing a game - let alone a fallacious one. If you want to play a fallacious game - you'll be playing with yourself.
Let me try and put this in terms that I think anyone who genuinely wants to understand, will:- the difference is between:
* Natural Asset consumption and unsustainable environmental harvest (rapidly leading us along the path of the man-made sixth great extinction event)
and,
* Natural Asset preservation and sustainable environmental harvest (respect and affinity for 'Mother' Earth, acknowledging that both of our fates and ongoing quality of life are intertwined).
Chosun :gh: