> Jim Sharkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > It's certainly hard to convince people without food > that the red- > footed gnatcatcher's needs are greater than their > own. Even if you > can convince them in the abstract that the > extinction of another > species is a Bad Thing (tm), convincing them in the > "real" when their > priorities are more along the line of survival is > something else entirely, I'll warrant.
Responsible ecotourism and 'fair trade' companies could really help in this area, by giving economic incentives for preserving, or at least minimally impacting, various ecosystems, such as reefs, jungles and river basins. As Bob said: BobZ wrote: "In a sense ecology is for the rich; it is up to the rich who use a vastly disproportionate amount of the worlds resources and who have the technologic skill to do something about the environment to do it. This is not charity it is self-preservation for the haves as well as the have nots. A major economic and environmentatl upheaval will create chaos. It will scramble the deck. Those on top are unlikely to be on top afterwards not because they are inherently corrupt but because being on top is luck in the first place and you tend not to get lucky too many times in a row." Educating the rich about their peril, should chaos befall, is rather what Al is attempting to do with his movie, I think. Of course 'doing it because it's right' is good and noble, but some people need to see why sustaining a healthy environment and helping the have-nots out of severe poverty are important *to their way of life.* Debbi Educate, Inform, Empower Maru __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
