I watched a documentary about conservation the other day and it got me thinking. The programme gave the Maldives islands as an example of how man can have a detrimental effect on the ecosystem of the planet. By looking at a place with a small area and limited resources, it demonstrated how our actions can destroy areas of greater size (like the whole planet), through our ignorance of the natural cycles and interdependencies of the Natural world.
I found out the other day through reading a book about the British Empire, that the Maldives were taken over by the British during the height of the Empire for a couple of reasons. 1- It gave them a naval base to exert their naval supremacy on the area and 2- The Islands were thought to be of economic value as the climate was good for growing Sugar cane, one of the Empires most profitable trading staples.
The Island was colonised and the growing of Sugar cane was started. Over time this destroyed much of the Natural plants (as they were torn up to plant sugar), while most of the Natural species that lived there fell foul to introduced species like rats (and snails apparently but I won’t go into that). Those which were not vulnerable to these mammals often still died as the rats consumed the things on which they relied to survive, thus causing a collapse in the local food chain that caused the extinction of pretty much all the local Wild life.
The Maldives is now going through a process of recovery. Some conservationists are trying to save the remaining unique species and are meeting some success.
The thing that interests me the most is that the idea of conservation is directly traceable to the British Empire. Many of the Explorers and pioneers of this empire had some pretty profound realizations about the world in which we live, Darwin springs to mind straight away. It was a direct result of the mass emigration of a Nations people, that brought together in one place, for the first time, information of the Natural world at large.
The islands were seen as a monetary asset to the Empire. The important thing to remember is this ‘money’ was acquired to extend and strengthen the Empire and Britain’s influence through out the world. By having this income, any potential war which they became involved in, could be financed through the profits of such colonies.
So, with this in mind, do you think it possible that we will ever again find a balance with which we can live with and sustain the Natural world as we know, seeing that as time goes by, competition between the Human species itself raises the bar of survival ever higher, when Nature clearly has a limit to how much it can provide. The Maldives reached it’s limit a long time ago, but we live in a global society today, the Planet is fast becoming such an island.
The primary reason to occupy the Maldives was survival of the Empire, the people who made it rich came second to this consideration, and the Maldives were not considered at all. At present it is estimated that the human race consumes annually approximately a quarter to a half of all the plants grown on earth. As our population increases, so does our consumption. This is coupled with the destruction of Natural habitats which removes Natures chance of recovering. How, when everything has a value, and the rarer it is, the more valuable it is, can we reverse this terrible predicament? Capitalism isn’t going to save the planet! What is?
Originally posted by marinakatomb
I watched a documentary about conservation the other day and it got me thinking. The programme gave the Maldives islands as an example of how man can have a detrimental effect on the ecosystem of the planet. By looking at a place with a small area and limited resources, it demonstrated how our actions can destroy areas of greater size (like the whole pl ...[text shortened]... s, can we reverse this terrible predicament? Capitalism isn’t going to save the planet! What is?
Self restraint is going to save the environment. Nothing else will.
Originally posted by ivanhoeEvidently this is correct, though were is the self? I can exercise all the self restaint i like, but my actions won't make enouph difference. There needs to be a collective restraint but in a competitive world, he who restrains himself gives the unrestrained free licence to consume whatever they have restained themselves from.
Self restraint is going to save the environment. Nothing else will.
For example, imagine the British had not occupied the Maldives. They had not created an Empire because in doing so they'd destroy the Natural Environment through their profit generating actions. The resulting weakness of the UK encourages the aspirations of Empirical Nations (Napolian, Hitler, the list of Wannabe's isn't hard to imagine).
Any high minded notions of Conservation go out of the window as a peoples survival comes first. How do you restrain everyone when we're all so divided?
Do you think it is possible for the people of the world to come together enouph to achieve this imense change that is required to save our own lives? Profits come first, no matter what happens profits come FIRST!!! Whatever the reasons are for generating those profits (National security, greed, whatever) that is the status quo. We are hopelessly tied up in this out look, i persanally can't see that changing, but it is exactly that that needs to change if the planet is to survive in it's present incarnation.
How do you restrain everyone when we're all so divided?
More to the point, how do you restrain anyone, when you need to be in a position of power to do it. The difficulty being, in order to be in a position of power, you must be loose with your ethics, such as any ideals of conservation. Catch22, isn't it?
Originally posted by marinakatomb
[b]How do you restrain everyone when we're all so divided?
More to the point, how do you restrain anyone, when you need to be in a position of power to do it. The difficulty being, in order to be in a position of power, you must be loose with your ethics, such as any ideals of conservation. Catch22, isn't it?[/b]
No need to become too pessimistic here. The Kyoto protocol is a good but not perfect example of how nations can practise self-restraint. Now we only need to get the US, Australia and a lot of other third world countries to sign the treaty .... we've just started to pay attention to the environment after centuries of neglect.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI quite like how you include my Great Country amongst third world nations. I have to agree with you. Australia is richer now than it ever has been, and yet we are unable to make a few sacrifices (like paying more for our electricity) to contribute (even if in a small way) to the greater good. Clearly Australian consumers prefer to have large imported 4 WD vehicles and large TV screens. Consumerism is far more important than not suffering droughts, bushfires and the extinction of much of our unique flora and fauna.
The Kyoto protocol is a good but not perfect example of how nations can practise self-restraint. Now we only need to get the US, Australia and a lot of other third world countries to sign the treaty ....
Kyoto is flawed. There is no doubt about it. But it is an important start.
Originally posted by MaustrauserMaustrauser: "I quite like how you include my Great Country amongst third world nations."
I quite like how you include my Great Country amongst third world nations. I have to agree with you. Australia is richer now than it ever has been, and yet we are unable to make a few sacrifices (like paying more for our electricity) to contribute (even if in a small way) to the greater good. Clearly Australian consumers prefer to have large imported ...[text shortened]... flora and fauna.
Kyoto is flawed. There is no doubt about it. But it is an important start.
😀 I also noticed when I reread my post ...... I guess Freud doesn't just do his work in the sex field but also in the field of international politics .... and he should .... it keeps us awake ....... 😉
Anyway ... Long Live the Coyote Protocol !