Oh, ok. So let my litle brain work for a while and try to understand what you said
I know it'll be tough. You'll actually have to think instead of feel for once.
Let's play a little thought game here:
... but there are certainly more than three refrigerators and ten cars there. The city of Nairobi, alone, probably accounts for more than 20,000 of both such devices.
It's the Western countries ... who are self-imposing restrictions on CFCs and other pollutants ... No such restrictions, self-imposed or otherwise, happen in places like Africa.
1. West is good because Nairobi's 120,000 fridges and cars poluted the planet with CFCs. It wasnt the 20,000,000+ cities in the western hemysphere, coal plants to produce power "on-demand" (for uneducated, that means "when you turn on the light, there is enough energy for it to light up, always"), airplanes, deodorants widely used in underdeveloped places etc. Ok, got that one!
2. West is also good because, imagine, they self-imposed a CFC polution ban on the world and, ofcourse, on themselves, because for the last 80 years, the Africans and underdeveloped have been driving all the cars and it is the africans and the underdeveloped that, in fact, made the global warming happen and depleted the world oil reserves.
Now, please show me how these two statements are related. What I said was true, and what you said was hogwash. I'll even help you to support your argument rationally (but then I'll probably knock the wind out of your sails).
I'll agree with you that the West uses a lot of coal (which pollutes far too much, and is not terribly economical, anyway) to produce power. That is bad. A far better solution would be for the rest of the Western nations to mimic the French, and set up a system of nuclear breeder reactors.
I'll agree with you that the majority of air travel is probably done by Westerners. Why is that bad? Would you rather nobody travelled anywhere? Why? Would the world be better if we just all stayed in our own cubby-holes and shut the hell up? Okay. If we, say, in the U.S., were to do that, we'd get along alright. Our prices for some things would be higher, but all in all, we'd be self-sufficient. Would Uganda survive without our shipments of grain, tourist dollars, foreign aid, and other goods?
From my experience, the U.S. uses (now CFC-free, voluntarily) deodorants (though I cannot say the same for many Europeans I've met). I dare you to tell me that that is a bad thing. I, for one, would rather not stink.
Additionally, the U.S. has probably the highest concentration on the planet of refrigeration devices (which are now CFC-free, voluntarily). I rather like that fact, as it keeps me comfortable and keeps my food from spoiling. That we have switched to Freon R-134, which is supposedly Ozone-safe, voluntarily takes a bit of the wind out of your sails. Sure, there are legacy systems out there still using the older refrigerants (especially Freon R-12), but those are slowly being replaced or converted, as time and economics dictate.
The U.S. (except for those backwards-ass dumbshits in California) has power on demand. Why is that bad? It makes life more convenient for us, and wouldn't be so polluting if we would set up a rational energy policy and stopped using coal to fire our power plants. I'm with you partially on this point, but we see it from different angles. It just so happens that mine is well thought-out, and yours is purely reactionary with no thought given to the causes and possible solutions.
Did you ever stop to think that it is people like you who made nuclear power a no-no, and that it is because of people like you, who do not think before they blather, that we still use coal and pollute the air? I thought not.
Have you ever stopped to consider ... that parts of the Amazon jungle exist because of the influx of Western tourist dollars?
3. West is good because all the tourists flock to "remote desrinations" and infact keep them from being shutdown and exploited by littering, shooting animals, taking pictures and generally poluting the area with their presence. It is the ignorant "remote destination" peoples that should learn how to save the habitats, not the innocent tourists who are, as westerners, out ouf touch with other cultures and they "just wanted to help".
What I fail to see is how people, by their presence, can pollute an area. Zebras fart and release "greenhouse gases". Do you hold such animosity for them?
How does taking pictures pollute an area? This makes no sense to me, unless you believe that capturing an image of a place on film somehow steals part of the "soul" of that place. If that is your belief, well...
As to the littering aspect: you may have a point there. Is it at all significant? Probably not, but I'd be willing to cede that point to you.
As to westerners shooting animals and selling parts of them off as booty, I can say only "China imports tiger penises as aphrodesiacs, and has done so for millenia." Is China a Western culture? Hardly. Do Westerners kill the tigers? My magic eight-ball says, "Not Probable." (Though I'm sure you can point to a couple dumb white dudes in the bush, whacking tigers for their genitalia...).
And just how do you expect Western "remote desrination" people to learn how to save habitats when they cannot travel to see them? How do you expect someone to be inspired by the beauty of the Serengeti by seeing rectangular images on television and not having been there, breathing the air, and experiencing the place? Isn't the world view that you're espousing more isolationist, more confining, more ignorant, and just more backward in general than what actually happens when Westerners visit game preserves on vacation?
Hmm... did you know that the (not Western!) governments of such places as Kenya actually issue game permits for people to hunt, to control the animal populations so that herds of animals don't starve? Hey... isn't that better for all the animals? Or, would you, not thinking, rather see vast herds of starving animals, miserable and diseased?
They outlaw the sale and import of ivory, sponsor the protection of wildlife refuges and game preserves, whether by direct donation, or by imposing trade and economic sanctions on governments who refuse to protect their natural places...
4. It is the white people that are good running the conservation programmes in Africa because it is the inhabitants of these areas that kill thousands of elephants for food, ivory (which they use for tools, ya know) and they also wear 20,000 dollar fur coats made of disappearing leopard skins. Hmmm. Let me take this further, if I may. Please stay with me.
You're doing pretty well, other than this point: It is the non-white, non-Western governments of Africa and other places that run these game preserves and conservation areas.
Also, I don't think you'll see the inhabitants of such places wearing $20,000 leopard skin coats. Instead, some of them wear jackets and other clothes made of leopard skins, but they're probably not finely-crafted enough to demand $20,000.
Oh, that was sarcasm? You mean to say that Westerners wear such things? Funny - I've never seen one in person.
Oddly enough, you'll probably see more leopard skins on the backs of natives than you will on the backs of rich white women in the West.
Did you realize that, currently, there are more trees on the North American continent than were here when Columbus arrived in 1492?
"Better a bear in the orchard than an Orchard in the bear." Now, imagine if Americans and other westerners were as evil and destructive as you say - would there be any wilderness left? Any bears and cougars?
How many habitats even here in North America have been preserved because your next door extremely poor American with the old car wanted a nice place to go and visit and "return to nature"?
5. It is the white people that brought the continents and all species happyness by being in tune with the nature. So, when we try to "survive" the harsh hiking and skiing conditions of the Rockies and a dumb stupid cougar or bear appears in a habitat that's not his own any more (!) so we shoot it, it is the poor animals fault because "he should have known better where to walk his ass". But let me take it further.
Beside the fact that what you said has absolutely no relationship to what I said, what you said is just inane.
People take risks when they go hiking, especially in places inhabited by wild animals (which, by definition, makes those places their habitat). People defend themselves against wild animals when they go hiking. Would you rather they did not? What if your son went hiking, so that he could get in touch with nature, and enjoy and cherish its beauty, and was confronted by a bear? Would you propose that he just sit and let the bear maul and mutilate him?
Precisely nothing that relates to what follows, in any discernable way.
6. It is the Indians that slaughtered themselves because they could not bear to live without electricity anymore, they begged the white men and indeed, the white men came on white horses and gave them what they wanted - urban asphalt jungles with CFCs, diseases, crime, TV, all warped abuses and cases you can hear of etc.
FACT:The indiginous population of the American continents had a non-zero growth rate prior to the arrival of Columbus in 1492, and the subsequent arrival of other Europeans.
FACT:The indiginous population of the American continents used available resources to ease their lives. They used trees for dwellings, tools, and fires. They used animals for food, clothing, and shelter.
FACT:The indiginous population of the American continents made war on each other long before the arrival of Europeans.
FACT:The indiginous population of the American continents held slaves long before the arrival of Europeans.
Now, what was the point you were trying to make?
I will agree that Europeans did some truly shitty things to natives, and that immigrants and native-born people of European descent followed in the fine footsteps of their European ancestors. What was on display was truly barbaric. We will agree on this point.
But, to say that the native peoples of these (or any other - reference Africa) continents were shiny, happy people who danced in the sun for all their lives in total harmony with nature, never hurting a fly, is patently absurd.
7. Now, the underdeveloped are askig for it too, and sure, we will be there to help out.
I'll assume, then, that you would rather Westerners did not help underdeveloped places to advance.
You would rather see (estimated - not by me) 30,000 children per month go blind because they were not able to access rice genetically altered by Western scientists to provide beta-carotene.
You would rather see Africans starve to death because civil wars (between Africans) keep them from raising their own crops, and you would disallow Westerners from shipping grain to these places.
You would rather see millions of Africans and Indians (from India, no less) die from malaria and other such maladies each year than to allow them to fight it using Western technology.
Aren't you just a saint? So concerned. So concerned.
Since they have lived in beautiful conditions for the past 300 years, we decided to help even more and colonize them.
Westerners (specifically, Europeans) may have colonized these places 300 years ago, but I don't see many Western powers with colonies these days. Please point out at least one, that I may further ruminate on this.
After en masse exploitation we gave them "independence".
You seem to forget that many of these colonies fought and won their independence and, in forgetting this, you denigrate these places and people.
Ofcourse, in the shambles of new democracies we left corpses of wildlife slaughtered en masse to satisfy the passions of high-positioned wealthy benefactors of life in the west.
I think the problems in these places run much deeper than this. But, to each his own.
Now, we come back to run sanctuaries and reserves and when someone points the finger we say "hey, we are running the reserves. It is not we who killed off everything, it is not we who are the market for the ivory, it is not we who consume and travel, it is you!"
Again, you forget that it is the local, non-white, non-Western governments of such places that run these preserves. We encourage them to do so, because we care (or, at least some of us do) for the environment and want to preserve natural places.
Oh, and please, try to import ivory into the United States. Either the goods will be confiscated and destroyed, or sold by the government or an agency or affiliate thereof, with proceeds going to fund wildlife preserves in places like, say, Africa. You will probably serve (lots of) time in a jail for the attempt.
As for the pittiful young fool as I am, I should get a job and try paying bills for once and wake up.
That would be helpful. If you choose not to get a job, maybe you can still wake up and look around!
They [the children] should be taught in school that "we are a great country, the most-technologically advanced etc." and we are putting a ban on CFCs, on ivory-trade and everything else we did for the past 200 years with our western brethren overseas because it didnt count
Specifically, it is because we were ignorant, and now we are more enlightened. It is our advanced technology which may help to save more natural places, and restore those that have been damaged.
The children should be taught to be responsible, but to also look at facts rather than just going off on a misguided crusade that often does more harm than good! It's that whole "Think THEN Act" lesson all over again.
And hey, while at it, can you please kidnap a baboon or two from the savanna and bring it to the west so we can try some experiments on him/her and see if we can find a better pill to loose weight.
How about, instead, we breed them in captivity from a small (but sufficient) existing stock? That would seem to me to be far less destructive. Why has this not occurred to you?
...because, didnt you know, it is the poachers who went crazy and decided to kill animals, it is not the big-wealthy market outhere in demand.....
Yes, there is (unfortunately, disgustingly) a market for such goods. Do not, however, make the mistake of believing that all who desire such things are Westerners, and do not think that it is only Western markets that support such poaching. Empirical evidence dictates the opposite.
I am sorry for being such a hypocrite and so naive ... :(((
Merely ignorant. If you open your eyes, you may yet learn the truth, and then you can direct your passion to fighting the correct battle.
i don't see any nanorobots or jet engines or laser holography or orbiting death satellites.
i just see some orangutan throwing code-feces at a computer screen.
[ Parent ]