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.