Memo 6

In the article “conservation refugees” talks about how tribes in Asia and Africa are being booted out from their land in which they resided for over two centuries.  The article states that during the early 20^th century, conservation groups were concerned about how there were certain territories in Asia and Africa that was threatened, and should be restricted from indigenous people. In result forest preserves, national parks, and wildlife conservation land was implemented in the efforts to preserve such territory. Consequently, indigenous people were being forced to leave and placed in a society where they have no skills, or education to survive. The article also touched upon how all these renowned conservation groups gave out a grant to preserve these lands and, didn’t do an adequate job. The indigenous people felt that they have been grazing, hunting, and harvesting this land for decades, and by extracting them from this land is morally wrong.  The article goes on to say that this involuntarily movement of the indigenous people is only increasing. From the 1960’s till today the implementation of conserving land has rose exponentially, and unless there is some sort of legislation that passes through the United Nations, there are going to be many tribes finding themselves in an impoverished environment.

In the article “Dehydrating Conflict” discusses the possible conflict of wars over water supply. The article mentions that you would have to look over four thousand years to find a war over water, however with the increase of human population and the decrease of water can possibly result in wars especially in Eastern Europe, Africa and West Asia. I don’t really think there is any comparison with this article to the first; maybe perhaps the conservation of resources. However, in the first article I feel the primary focus was how indigenous people were being treated unfairly and booted out of their homelands in the pursuit of conserving land. In Dehydrating Conflict, primarily discusses the possible outcome of wars if water supplies around the war go dry. Although if you truly dissect it, you can make a point how the two articles compare by how the first article stresses conserving resources and how by doing so we can prevent wars over resources; more specifically water.

My opinions on the first article were I feel sad for the people who are being booted out of land in which they resided in for over two centuries. I think if they are not wasting resources, or damaging the environment then why tell them to leave. I think humans are part of ecosystems as well and we also have rights. I strongly feel sometimes conservation groups are blinded by conserving the territory or the animals that they forget humans belong there too. We are also animals; just because we are the most advance species on the planet intellectually speaking doesn’t mean we don’t have the right to be left in peace as well. As far as the second reading I believe a war over water is kind of far-fetched. I think Asian countries and other countries will agree on some sort of water regulations that will keep peace between the two countries.

Memo 4

In regards to “Biodiversity Conservation and Poverty” I feel that is a serious issue. Almost like a catch 22, where there is no win win situation, rather more of a tradeoff.  The article basically gave two standpoints discussing that if you can achieve conservation while also eliminating poverty at the same time, or do you have to tackle each issue separately. My standpoint on this issue is I feel you have to do both. I believe its government’s job to analyze their own people’s situation and resources it has, and strategically develop a plan that will create economic growth and conserve biodiversity at the same time. As the article so clearly noted, this idea is very difficult. If I had to choose, I would decide based on the culture. I would do an extensive cost benefit analysis and see if the people truly are better off than the status quo, or is the majority of them worse off. Who really receives the benefits if it’s only government than I think it’s not a good idea to pursue economic growth in expense of the people’s well-being, unless the government allocates funds to their people. Even in the United States we face issues like this every day, but not in the perspective of poverty rather in the perspective of damaging our environment. With cap trades, and cap taxes the United States has to choose between economic growth and being environmentally friendly. It has gotten to the point where humans have evolved to a new being, where we were once hunter gathers, we have now became dependent on energy and technology, and most importantly money, which results to the destruction of many ecosystems.

In the article “Can we afford to conserve biodiversity” I believe James does have some strong points. James mentions how it cost in the billions of dollars to maintain forests, wetlands, and many other terrains. The article also mentions how they pay billions of dollars and the end result is not worth the money put in. James goes on to say that the opportunity cost of forgoing utilizing these protected lands are monumental in the sense that these developing countries are in dire need of money and resources, and by prohibiting the harvesting and the utilization of this land is only maintaining poverty rather than resolving it. This goes back to my previous comment on the previous article of is it feasible to eliminate poverty and sustain economic growth. It seems like the answer is no its not. However, that should stop anyone from trying. Again it all goes back to cost benefit analysis, the only question is who are the stakeholders? Who are going to be the ones affected? Policy makers have a real tough job to allocate the limited resources they have efficiently in the pursuit of accomplishing conservation while reducing poverty.