At first, the premise of this article seems
a little counterintuitive. Economic growth preventing extinctions? What the hell
have you guys been smoking? A closer look however reveals that this is merely
viewing the same issue through a different lens, and the connection is so
obvious that I slapped myself for not noticing it.
Essentially, the article states that richer and more stable countries
have an easier time protecting the environment than poorer countries do. At a
basic level, one can make the connection that more funds leads to well-paid
rangers and parks that actually do a good job of protecting animals, but that's
not the only point. The other point is stability. As wars around the world have
proved, the victims of human conflict aren't always human. Weaker governments
also have a hard time enforcing environmental laws, assuming that they have any
in the first place. Strong governments are also more likely to respond to
the demands made of them by their populace, instead of falling prey to rampant
corruption. This, I suppose, is a connection I made in my unconscious mind but
never fully appreciated until now. South Korea, for example, has mostly stable
forest cover and is also one of the fastest growing countries in the world.
China, even with its growth rate “slowing” to 8 or 9% a year, has set aside
three times as much land for national parks as the US has.
Compare this to North Korea, or countries in Africa. While the fighting
may have died down, North Korea’s isolationism and Africa’s questionable
stability have made both countries lose vast amounts of their precious
ecological resources. Even as the people grow more and more aware of the
negative impact of humanity on the Earth their government is crippled by
corruption. This is not to say that there is no hope for developing
countries. I was quite surprised
to learn that deforestation in Brazil had dropped by 23,000 sq. km. in nine
years. This makes sense. The world, on average, is getting richer, and poverty
is being slowly defeated. The chief cause of this change is the accessibility
of education, and this in turn lets people think for themselves when it comes
to protecting the planet’s wildlife.
I think that this change can only be good. With young countries growing
faster and faster more people, and by extension their governments will come to
realize that protecting wildlife is a priority. With new growth, countries will
have the money they need, and the developed part of the world should to all
they can to encourage this. Food production will also need to be improved and
the negative stigma of GM foods should be eradicated. I believe that with
further growth that many countries are already on their way to achieving we can
slow and finally stop the extinction of many of our planet’s species.
The article makes mention of the fact that global warming may be
stabilizing, as their has been a hiatus in the trend of rising temperatures.
There will be no hope for any animals on the planet if the temperature reaches
the high end of the scale. New technologies and alternative energy sources get
cheaper by the day. With fuel as expensive as it is now, people opt for
electrical cars, bikes, or pedestrianism. Simple common sense is what is
driving a revolution in people’s attitudes. There is still a long way to go.
Governments in conflict-wracked zones must be stabilized. There is hope for the
future, but only if the richer countries of the world extend a helping hand to
those who are less fortunate. This crisis, the “sixth great extinction”, cannot
be averted unless we are willing to work together.
