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.