ࡱ> 02/Y #bjbjWW `,==]4 F6 $ ZZZZZZ T9v Zachary Neal Guha It is hard to say what Guha's position on rainforest use is, since he primarily discusses his negative argument against deep ecology, but does not present a substantial positive argument for another environmental program. Nonetheless, it might be possible to deduce what his position might be on the basis of his deep ecological criticisms. He seems to agree most with Galbraith's belief that the appetite itself is the ultimate source of the problem. That is, the real issue one ought to be discussing is the sustainability of consumption, rather than the intrinsic and disconnected value of nature. If this is his position, then it seems in response to questions about rainforest use, one must first evaluate the sustainability of that use. For example, suppose an American company is clearcutting the rainforest to make room for a highway. This type of action might be unsustainable, first because it will completely eliminate the rainforest. Second, because the highway will bring about economic expansion, leading to higher levels of unsustainable consumption. Third, in the long run, the additional pollution generated, and decreased C02 4 02 conversion previously provided by the forest, will create an unlivable atmosphere. Therefore, it would be wrong to clearcut a rainforest for such purposes. Now consider the case of a rainforest dwelling indigenous tribe which uses plants in the forest for their medicinal properties. They are acutely aware of the balance they must maintain with the forest, and so they harvest only enough medicinal plants to ensure that the population of medicinal plants will continue to exist in the next season. That is, their actions are consistent with sustaining the growth of the plants. In this case, it is permissible for these people to use the rainforest for their own use, since their consumption is a sustainable one. However, it does not matter that these people are indigenous. An American pharmaceuticals company would be just as entitles to such harvesting of plants, provided that their harvesting practices were sustainable. Amanda Fine Radical Environmentalism and Wilderness Preservation Ramachandra Guha argues that deep ecology is a completely Western idea that philosophers have tried to pin down as originating in the Far Eastern Religions. Guha also states that when these deep ecologists try to preserve land and animals they don't give any thought to the people that may live there, especially in Third World countries. The question is not whether preservation is bad or not but how it effects the people who live on the land trying to be preserved. Guha mentions the tiger preservation parks, how the former residents were moved, and how the rich and elite have the power and receive all of the money. It doesn't seem right for the people who live where these "parks" are being established. I wouldn't want to live next door to a tiger or be forced to leave my home. At the same time, my Western thought kicks in and I want to preserve the tigers, the land, and the other animals. I care for the people there but I also care about wildlife and believe that we should preserve it. It offends me when Guha title's her paper "Racial... ". I believe that the need to preserve is a global concern. There is so much left to be discovered and species die every day due to deforestation. The people of the area, the villages, the women, the poor should have some ownership of the land they are on and some rights to it. The industries that clear miles of forests each day are the ones that should be stopped. The money from the forests they clear does not go to the poor or even to the country in which the trees are being cut. What is done in one part of the world affects the whole planet. Maybe the indigenous peoples in the rainforests and the industries cutting down the trees would be better influenced to preserve if they knew the consequences of cutting all of the trees down. Rainforest preservation may seem like a Western idea to Guha but when they are all gone and there is not oxygen left to breathe what do we do then. Deep ecology should be a worldwide philosophy because it believes in preserving the entire earth not just a few small villages in the Third World. Also, the Third World is not being picked on; it just happens to contain most of the rainforests. If the US had rainforests and the entire planet counted on them to survive, I'm sure a little bit of indigenous people uprooting would be in process. John Torresala "GuhaRadical Environmentalism..." Guha presents a valid criticism of deep ecology and its tendencies toward the preservation of nature in all parts of the world, especially the Third World. Guha explains that preservation of wilderness in the Third World, which would obviously include rainforests, occurs at the expense of the poorest and least politically influential members of humanity. Indigenous peoples are the first and most affected humans when preservation movements are implemented. Guha seems to be saying that "deep ecology's" belief that all creatures on Earth are equal and therefore the environment should be devoid of human interference, is missing one important aspect. Humans are part of nature as well and as such the needs and wellbeing of humans must be considered. To say that all rainforests should be protected regardless of circumstance is inconsistent with both deep ecology traditions, and the extent of human interaction with the environment. I think Guha would say that after all considerations are made, the only course of action would be to minimize the negative effects on all creatures as a result of preserving rainforests. If the costs outweigh the benefits, then preserving rainforests should not be the priority. I would most definitely agree with this justification. Should we preserve rainforests and other ecological landscapes to the detriment of humans? Guha presents the case of wildlife conservation in India, where the poor were relocated, losing livestock and other resources. Guha writes: "environmental problems that impinge far more directly on the lives of the poore.g., fuel, fodder, water shortages, soil erosion and air and water pollutionhave not been adequately addressed." If preserving the rainforests means displacing the indigenous peoples, then no, it's not right to stop using the rainforests. Obviously indigenous peoples are not the cause of environmental problems, since they have existed within rainforests for hundreds and thousands of years without visible negative effects. The only instance when rainforests are threatened is when outsiders infringe on the environment to build a road to increase transportation, or to rape the land for resource consumption. Preserving the rainforests would end the environmental problems created by outsiders, but it would also end the rights of the indigenous people to live and use the land positively, as they have for their entire existence. An instance where rainforest preservation would be right is similar to the national park system in the United States. Guha says the reason for such park systems in India not working, is that poor and native people in the areas they wanted to preserve weren't considered. Since there are little to no indigenous people in the areas of the national parks, preservation works to protect the environment and yet doesn't hurt natural human interests. If areas of the rainforest were devoid of native and indigenous peoples, then preservation would not only be justified, but also pertinent. Guha seems to advocate that in order for preservation of anything to be right, then humans needs must be assessed as well as environmental needs. The case in India is not precisely comparable to rainforests because rainforest are an entire biome, but the principle is the same; it's wrong to use the environment negatively and therefore preserving it against such use is justified, but if the environment is being used positively then preservation against that use would be wrong as well. } JQ#>*CJOJQJmH  OJQJmH CJOJQJmH  5CJmH 5CJOJQJmH CJOJQJmH CJmH  MNi n o p | } 99 $ rd  4" $ 4" 4" !!MNi n o p | } 99:##9:##d $/ =!"#8$8% 0/ =!"#8$8% 0/ =!"#8$8% [@Normal:@: Heading 11$CJOJQJkH:@: Heading 21$CJOJQJkH:@: Heading 31$CJOJQJkH:@: Heading 41$CJOJQJkH:@: Heading 51$CJOJQJkH:@: Heading 61$CJOJQJkH:@: Heading 71$CJOJQJkH:@: Heading 81$CJOJQJkH: @: Heading 9 1$CJOJQJkH<A@<Default Paragraph Fontn,,?,#9##HLekQ U :>  $( L3moPeter YacobucciA:\guha.html.docPeter YacobucciC:\Temp\guha.html.doc@dasl_laser (outside)\\Sbsri\dasl_laserqHPPCL5MSHP LaserJet 4M Plusdasl_laser (outside)@w XX@MSUDHP LaserJet 4M Plus<d dasl_laser (outside)@w XX@MSUDHP LaserJet 4M Plus<d LLZLp@G:Times New Roman5Symbol3& :Arial9Garamond"@hJfJfJ 8!20H JZachary Neal GuhaPeter YacobucciPeter Yacobucci Oh+'0( @L h t KZachary Neal GuhaachPeter Yacobucciete Normal.dotuPeter Yacobucci2teMicrosoft Word 8.0 @@xT9@xT9J ՜.+,D՜.+,|8 hp  SBSRI 8 H j KZachary Neal Guha Title 6> _PID_GUIDAN{122BB853-A50D-11D4-8738-00E0295582F3}  !"#$%&()*+,-.1Root Entry FT9`5T931TableWordDocument`,SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8'CompObjjObjectPool`5T9`5T9  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q