Since Shayna Called Me Out
ok, just in case anybody was actually waiting for a follow-up to my last blog (which I doubt), I apologize. Sorry for the delay, and sorry that this is not the follow-up. it'll come sometime. That said, somebody (who shall remain nameless in the body of this post) confronted me recently about my lack of postings. So, here's a little something off the top of my head pertaining to one of my classes at school. Oh, glad you asked -- it's Geographic Perspectives of Latin America.
So, we're talking about the rainforest, and the book we read doesn't really mention a link with global warming at all. I found that strange, since it seems like popular knowledge makes that correlation almost a given. Actually, according to my prof, the verdict is still out on how much the forest stores greenhouse gases, but scientists now believe that the ocean is a much bigger carbon sink than the hardwood forest.
anyway, what I wanted to mention was this: the book puts the loss of cultural diversity as one of the potential costly losses with the degradation of the rainforest. Some indigenous cultures have lived for centuries or millenia in the forest, and have in many cases developed a sustainable way of life -- one that doesn't tear up their rainforest habitat, which modern people can't seem to avoid doing.
Liberal activists (a generalization for sure, but it seems like they are the ones who are most concerned about this issue) are fighting hard to leave these peoples unmolested so that they can continue to live in harmony with the forest, in blissful ignorance of modern society. What I find interesting is that these activists don't seem to value educating the natives about the available choices so that they can decide for themselves how they want to live. (Doing that would likely change their lives drastically, since giving them metal axes or cooking pots has in many cases caused major societal changes.) In our own society, however, the liberals are fighting for change (by definition, right?) against the objections of the conservatives, who may wish to remain in blissful ignorance. So, why does one group get change forced on them, while others (rainforest dwellers) aren't even given the chance to change? Is that contradictory in principle?
P.S. If you're wondering, I came out a capitalist (socially moderate, economically conservative) on this political test.
posted by david @ 11/09/2005 01:10:00 PM
7 comments
7 Comments:
The Blake, you hit on an important point that lies at the heart of all extremist groups . . . self-contradiction. The real issue that Liberals have is with the Christian right trying to stop the teaching of evolution and the activists that you're speaking of are for the environment (whatever that means.) So while you, as an outsider, can point this out with clarity, the people don't even realize that they are a contradiction.
very interesting point, and while I agree with the idea of leaving cultures alone, I do see your point about trying to change the "ignorance" of the conservatives.
BTW, I came out a centrist...social moderate and economic moderate. I've taken the test before and the first time I came out as a liberal, but just barely.
Heh heh heh...I'm a totalitarian. One day I'll rule the world!!! ;)
I'm socially conservative and economically liberal, according to this test.
According to the test, I am best described as a democrat, socially and economically liberal. Any surprises there?
alright - 4 comments! that's a new personal record! :)
Hannah - looks like we're going to have to keep an eye on your, um, tendencies.
Margie - I tend to want to leave cultures alone as well, but I think it does raise ethical issues. Would we want to be left alone if we were an Amazonian Indian youth, or have the knowledge to evaluate our lifestyle options? Should we press other cultures to adopt American cultural norms that don't seem to fit them? (such as freedom of religion and gender equality in the Muslim world)
Shayna - you may be right that all extremist groups are self-contradictory. I'll have to examine that further. I'm not sure I understand your example, though... please explain.
I'm personally very reluctant to forecast doom and gloom from global warming, but that doesn't mean it's a total farce/non-threat or that we shouldn't study the issue to figure out its correlations and implications.
Just because a process is natural doesn't necessarily mean that it's benign (just ask the dinosaurs). So, if we can possibly do something to inhibit a harmful process, I'd say it's worth a second look.
also, to imply that scientists were wrong before so they're wrong now seems to me like a fallacious (non-sequitur) argument.
I'm proud to say I was vindicated by my professor, who pointed out in class yesterday that it was elitist or "kinda like playing God" to think we could/should make lifestyle decisions for "undeveloped" indigenous folks.
Post a Comment
<< Home