8 ms·
What's your point? That this is okay?
by folli 7y ago
What's your point? That this is okay?
- dpcan 7y agoI think the point is that it's hard for Western civilization to understand the true hardships people face in other parts of the world, and the fact that they are killing animals for single body parts is absolutely absurd to us, but to them, it's a last resort for survival in a society that seems quite hopeless. I don't think many of us know what we are capable of when it comes to actually trying to survive and provide for our young when there is little to no opportunity outside our front doors. We have computers in front of us where we type and complain online, but I can be honest with myself, and I'll be doing absolutely nothing with my day today to stop this from happening.
- everdrive 7y agoThey'd do anything except spare another life from coming into the world, and spare everyone else the constraint on resources.
- rayiner 7y agoBirth rates in the developed world have dropped tremendously. The birth rate in Indonesia is only a bit above replacement, same as the USA in 1970.
- hhas01 7y agoYou know what makes birth rates drop? Higher standards of living. Families who don’t have to raise their kids to work a harsh unrelenting subsistence living, who don’t need to birth twice as many infants knowing half of them will die of malnutrition and disease long before they reach adulthood, who have access to family planning and reliable birth control, have the luxury of choosing quality rather than quantity. Others don’t. Look back in your own family tree (or stump, in your case), and it’s only three or four generations since us westerners did the same, for the same reasons. So if you’re going to sit up there on your high horse, consider what your ancestors had to go through to put you there, and show some basic consideration for others still struggling on that road.
- option 7y agoI think the point is that the only effective way to prevent this is to create more lucrative opportunities for people than poaching
- pinkfoot 7y agoOr breed the animals, harvest the horns without killing anything, sell them for USD. Like we do with chickens. Context: done more than my share of rhino protection in Africa.
- option 7y agowell that sounds like safer and more lucrative opportunity than poaching ;) p.s. thanks for doing something about it
- hombre_fatal 7y ago> [Just] breed the animals, [it's that easy] TFA points out efforts to breed this rhino failed.
- xwdv 7y agoBasically yea. Swallow your privilege and accept that people and their families need to eat, and they can’t wait decades for their situation to get better, they have to eat now. And if that means a species must go extinct, so be it. Unless you want to say the lives of some obscure animal you only see in photos and will probably forget about after a few days anyway is more important than human beings like you and me, maybe you shouldn’t judge.
- Lio 7y agoPeople are just another form of animal life living on this planet, nothing more and nothing higher. If someone is going to drive another form of life to extinction for the sake of an erectile disfunction remedy that _doesn’t work_ ...sorry but I am going to judge them for that. The arguments being made here that not just poaching a bit but to full on extinction is fine because people are poor is just nonsense.
- rayiner 7y agoYes it’s okay. People are more important than animals. Europeans cut down all their forests and killed most of the native wildlife, and now live wonderful lives driving around in cars and drinking lattes. The people in the rest of the world have the right to do the same thing.
- saagarjha 7y agoHow many countries doing this can the world support?
- rayiner 7y agoAll of them. With $100/ton carbon recapture, and a nuclear grid country like France could be at net zero at around $500/per person annually. (They might have to be vegetarians, but Indians have that covered.)
- guelo 7y agoSince the western lifestyle produces 17 tons/person/year, even if that $100/ton we're a scalable reality it would still be way too expensive. One way to pay for that would be a carbon tax, but it's becoming pretty obvious at this point that environmentalists are going to lose the argument for doing anything at the coordinated global governments level, so that means the only possible salvation is going to come if someone can figure out how to make money from it. The price needs to be negative per ton. Let's hope that capitalists can save us.
- rayiner 7y agoThanks to nuclear power France is at 5 tons per capita per year. About 1.3% of French GDP. Way cheaper than the economic damage that will be inflicted by “doing anything at the coordinates global governments level.”
- guelo 7y agoCapitalists don't like nuclear, it only works if it's subsidized by governments. But due to your ideological position about the damage that governments cause, which is also the most powerful ruling ideology in the world, nuclear plants are not going to be built.
- irrational 7y agoThe rest of the world see the standard of living of Europeans and North Americans and want the exact same standard of living. If this means they have to do the same thing that the Western world had to do to reach those levels, then so be it. Go through an industrial revolution with polluting factories and industries. Subjugate nature and move all wild animals into zoos. Have a few world wars. Create terrible working conditions that require the need for unions. Overthrow government after government until one that is good enough to allow personal freedoms comes along. Etc.
- rayiner 7y agoDamn skippy.
- hhas01 7y agoThis. Meanwhile us westerners are so determined to hang onto what we already got, we won’t lift a finger to help them raise their own standards of living any less destructively. Oh well, let’s hope the next species to come along once we’ve driven our own dumb selves to extinction is much better at learning from others’ mistakes.