April 17, 2005 was a day of mourning. Baralapokhari, a village 142 km from Bhadrak town was attacked by an army of monkeys drunk on some perverted type of weed booze. The injured had to be hospitalized.
You can find the whole (sorrowful) story here.
Humanity and nature have a unique path together. Sometimes we work together, sometimes we fight when we could have worked together, but sometimes there is no choice but for humanity and nature to clash. In the Indian jungle, you kill the tiger, or the tiger eats you. A stranded hiker may have to choose between starvation, and eating an endangered cute koala bear. On a more familiar front, we choose to build roads, destroying what plants/animals/minerals lived upon that sacred ground. I am not even talking about the Amazon forest, but more about small patches of woods all along the American east coast where beautiful trees and squirrels are cut down to make room for human civilization.
My question is... if we have to choose between man and nature, where do we choose? Where is the fine line? If Mozambique could cut down all of its forests to save its country from starvation, should it? If Brazil's destruction of the jungle sent it to 1st world rich no-starvation status, should they cut it down? And I want no bull about cooperation, as I am only talking about scenarios where there is no possible cooperation.
Personally, I say we cut down as many koalas as we need to move into the future.
The only scenarios where cooperation wouldn't be possible would be limited to individual cases (such as the man vs. tiger scenario). By their very definition, nations such as Brazil and Mozambique are cooperative entities. The question your asking requires a cooperative solution by necessity since the long term consequences of any grand scale environmental destruction or species extinction will affect all of us.
ReplyDeleteBrazil is, of course, a very relevant example. While it would be unfair for industrialized nations such as the United States to demand policies providing for the preservation of the Amazon Rainforest, it would also ultimately be to Brazil's own detriment to allow for slash-and-burn agriculture to go unchecked, even if harvesting such vast resources would create a significant economic boost in the short term.
There are many possible approches that can be taken to this apparent dilemma; one such would be enacting an international 'environmental tax' that would provide nations in such a position with an economic counter-incentive.
Tom...
ReplyDeletethe idea of the exercise is to narrow the scope so as to focus upon an idea. In a heads-up battle with no cooperation option, do you choose man or nature?
Note how the Brazil and Mozambique examples were prefaced by an 'if'. Actual scenarios in those locations are irrelevant, as Brazil is Middle Income Country X and Mozambique is Developing Country Y. The examples are exaggerated to distill the point, but if it helps, you can just think of my simple example of laying a road through a patch of trees and squirrels.
If you do not allow me to narrow the scope, it will be impossible to reach any conclusion.
Any individual is entitled to self-preservation, so if someone's very economic livelihood depended on slash-and-burn - as their only option - then of course they're justified. However, by the same principle, it would be within everyone's interest in self-preservation to provide such an individual not only with other opportunities but incentives to pursue them.
ReplyDeleteShould the government be that of a Country X or Y, then it would be the responsibility of Country Z (the industrialized nation) to provide X and Y with the incentive to, in turn, make such a desperate and destructive way of living unnecessary to the citizen.
So we can narrow the discussion to the individual level, but my point is that such a situation should never arise in the first place if it is properly addressed at the collective level.
Sal, I'm confused if you want to narrow the scope of your hypothetical question so that it can't be applied to any real-life scenario what exactly is the point you are trying to get at? If you're asking if someone had to choose between saving a person and saving a gorilla, I think most people would say they'd save the person. Now, what if you knew that the person you had to save was a mass murderer, who would you save now?
ReplyDeleteYes Sal, what exactly are you getting at? The idea that man is something apart from nature, nay that his progress is somehow in conflict with nature, is so far from reality I fail to see any relevance. Or are you just trying to get a rise out of us?
ReplyDeleteNope - I wanted some intelligent discussion rather than a rise, which I apparently got.
ReplyDeleteThe point is to try to see where the fine line should come in a man vs nature lineup. Obviously man is not and should not be in complete conflict with nature, but if you are to understand anything, you have to break it up into its components. There is *some* conflict, and understanding it is interesting.
Sal, you're taking a very 'western,' reductionist view of things. It is indeed useful for understanding many things, but don't confuse it with the only way of understanding. There are others you are perhaps unfamiliar with.
ReplyDeleteAnd you can make jokes about intelligent discussion all you want, but I fail to see how you can expect much after that Koala comment.
Humor does not preclude intelligent discussion (for some of us).
ReplyDeleteIf you challenge my wealth of knowledge, you cannot do so without examples. I won't believe you. What are your magical methods for understanding complexity without in some ways invoking simplicity?
I'm referring to more Eastern modes of thought Sal, not challenging your "wealth of knowledge." You can poke fun at such "magical" and unintelligent methods all you want, but you do so at your own expense. They're on the cutting edge of many decidedly western disciplines like say physics for example.
ReplyDeleteThey are only magical because I was waiting for an example (which never came). Unintelligent is a word coming out of your mouth.
ReplyDeleteActually Ian... let me clarify.
ReplyDeleteI want to know more about this Eastern method. I have never heard of it, and I am baffled about how you can understand and then solve a problem without simplifying it.
Here is the issue. I think that 95% of arguments on the street are inherently pointless because the contestants are using NO method for understanding the concepts and problems.
Example:
Why is the economy bad?
We don't have a democracy.
That's 1000 arguments/challenges/questions in one. That question cannot concievably be argued correctly without a better approach. My approach, at the least would be to break it down into a host of relevant questions, one building on top of the other. Most of those arguments end up boiling down to nothing more than semantics. Maybe Player A thinks democracy means ancient greek democracy, but Player B is talking about the democratic party's more socialist approach.
Whatever the 'western' approach is... is simplifying the scenario. Whenver there is agreement, set that as an axiom. Once a decision has been made, set that as a further axiom. If you find actual disagreement on an issue, break down the issue further to figure out the root of the disagreement. You come down to a list of agreements and unsurmountable disagreements based upon morals/ethics.
The abortion argument is a good example, at least as far as I have reasoned it out. I think it boils out to a very simple disagreement that is unsurmountable. Group A believes that an unborn infant is alive and that it is their duty to protect it. Group B belives either that the infant is not alive, it is not their duty to protect it, or at least that other issues may outweigh their duty to protect it. Once you fall into either category, the debate is actually settled (even if the contestants are often too stubborn to realize it).
My questions to you Ian:
What is the eastern approach? How does it allow understanding of a problem? How can it be used to reconcile/understand differences?