Richard Klim
-------------------------
Robertson 2014. Talking point: Conservation, the big picture and the elephant in the room. Brit Birds 107(3): 185–186.
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: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.
Responsible conservation:
1. Don't breed
2. Don't give funds to anything that keeps humans alive
John
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:
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
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.
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".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
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.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).
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.
Depends on the attitude of the people in question.Eventually you might ponder the question if increasing wealth with constant population helps or harms conservation (there are examples of both).
The entire BB website seems to be unavailable at the moment.I can't access the article via the above link.
That goes against evolution though. If they are not able to survive they should be left to die. Does that sound familar to you?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.
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.