Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I heard him interviewed on NPR.* Paigow wouldn't be too happy to hear that his other thesis is that reintroduction of endangered species to populated areas is a real, honest-to-goodness hardship to humans, mostly to poor people. Reintroduction of the saltwater croc to sparsely populated northern Australia is one thing, but when India's reintroduction program for the same species meant that people randomly started losing toddlers in the mangrove marshes of western India --- after having hunted the same predator to virtual extinction to avoid just such a problem --- it's people like that wot cause unrest.
Long story short: rural inhabitants have always "managed" deadly predators. It's easy for urbanites to pontificate about peaceful coexistence among all species, but if there were grizzlies in Greenwich Village, American environmentalism would be a somewhat different science.
*Warning: This post contains 23% misinformation.
|
I am not sure you fully appreciate my view on this. My view is not so much about keeping endangered species from dying so much as keeping species from being endnagered. We do this by having people STOP GIVING BIRTH in huge numbers. Curb the sprawl. Stop relying so much on cars to get around. Keep it local. Stop polluting. Sopt littering. Tread lightly. It isnt just our planet, we cohabitate with plenty of other species. Moderation, people.
And if this means giving up your "no contraception" bullshit religion, then so be it. If we and the animals are all truly God's creatures, then I think Em would like us to share our space and coexist peacefully.
Of course, this could segue into a "fuck the poor and their religious (opiate of the masses) ways", but I wont bc that isnt really my point.
