Have you met people?
Elephants aren't destroying the world.
Neither are regular, common people in botwasana.
If rich people can trophy hunt elephants than I get to trophy hunt rich people
~~Eat~~ mount the rich.
*porn music starts playing *
The debate is about legalized and ostensibly regulated trophy hunting by tourists. So "Europeans" presented as a monolith here is confusing things: some of those trophy hunter tourists are European, who obviously don't care about elephants, which is why other Europeans are trying to stop them.
The president of course is correct to say that it is unreasonable for the Global North to demand that Botswana does not develop its standards of living in order to preserve wildlife. It is a colonialist way of seeing things.
The answer cannot however come from the destruction of the elephants, who are humanity's shared heritage. Europeans have a stake in Botswana's elephants as humans same as Botswanans have a stake in, say, the Parthenon or Stonehenge: as humans, as a shared human heritage.
The answer should instead be for the Global North to pay to Botswana development subsidies, increasing them as needed to achieve the required balance. So that standards of living can improve without needing to endanger the elephants.
Europeans have a stake in Botswana's elephants as humans same as Botswanans have a stake in, say, the Parthenon or Stonehenge: as humans, as a shared human heritage.
Europe had its elephants too. Lions once lived in southern Europe, and wolves in Britain. Aurochs roamed all of Europe except Scandinavia. Wonder where all that shared heritage went.
That's a silly argument. Lions for example haven't lived in southern Europe since antiquity. If you're going to ask pointed accusatory questions of the Greeks for the fate of lions, go and ask the same of the indigenous people of North America about the fate of giant sloths. The concept of managed biodiversity conservation is a modern one.
I'm not blaming the ancient Greeks or the ancient Americans. They, as you said, knew no better. I'm blaming the modern Europeans (and North Americans) for not re-introducing these animals to their lands, and expecting Africans to do everything.
I'm sure the elephants would be thrilled to have their biome arbitrarily swapped out from under their feet 🙄
I'm sure they'd be overjoyed to go to a place where thich cares so much about them! (Also, what about the Botswanans you're asking to move out of their ancestral lands?)
Just for the record, nowhere did I argue for moving Botswanans out of their land.
Fair. But Botswana is facing a water crisis, so unless something is done there is going to be a conflict.
Yes. Which is why I'm arguing for the global north to subsidize the global south.
That would be better than nothing, yes. And maybe Botswana will agree to that. But when you're hit with a drought, there's only so much money can do. Botswana is land-locked, and their neighbours (except South Africa to some extent) are also quite arid. Maybe they can eventually transition their economy to something that uses less water, but transitioning a national economy takes decades, and till then they're screwed.
The Europeans of today do not have any way to influence what the Europeans of the past did.
No, but they do have the power to set aside land for the conservation of megafauna. Not doing that and asking poorer countries to do it for them is just hypocrisy.
Very true! Although to be fair there are many conservation-focused nature preserved in Europe where a variety of animals live. Outside of their natural habitat some degree of human intervention is necessary to keep them alive so perhaps just having elephants roaming the Czech countryside isn't practical... Or perhaps I don't know what I'm talking about and they'd love it!
there are many conservation-focused nature preserved in Europe where a variety of animals live.
Yes, but none with elephants or lions. Even wolves are controversial, despite being far less dangerous than either.
just having elephants roaming the Czech countryside isn't practical
But elephants roaming the Botswanan countryside is?
My point is the elephants already live in Botswana, releasing them into Europe without a managed environment wouldn't necessarily be good for the elephants.
Managed in what way? Elephants (different species, similar ecology) historically lived in Europe, so they can definitely thrive there. There will need to be some changes in vegetation, landscape, etc., but elephants can alter the landscape and vegetation to their requirement.
The last time elephants naturally lived in Europe was thousands of years ago. The climate was very different and there wasn't the same level of human occupation. Yes the vegetation and landscape would need to change, and I'm not sure why on earth you think the elephants would do it?? There aren't a lot of elephant ecologists as far as I'm aware. Plus the effects of releasing elephants would go beyond the effects on the elephants themselves, there would need to be management of other species that may be impacted by moving elephants in to avoid other damage to the ecosystem.
I'm not sure why on earth you think the elephants would do it?
Elephants, like beavers, are ecosystem engineers. They can change the vegetation community, as well as make the terrain elephant-navigable by removing obstacles.
there wasn't the same level of human occupation. there would need to be management of other species that may be impacted by moving elephants
And these problems would not arise in Botswana?
Yes, but that doesn't mean they would be able to entirely make a new habitat habitable for them. You can't dump a beaver in the Sahara and expect it to survive. Even if they did, like I said the impact on the preexisting ecosystem also needs to be managed or you just trade one problem for another.
You don't have to do this in Botswana because the elephants are already in Botswana...
You can't dump a beaver in the Sahara and expect it to survive.
Of course not. But beavers had also gone extinct in most of Europe (though not for as long), and have since been reintroduced to most of the continent. From an ecological perspective, the same can definitely be done for other species. And yet, there is a strange silence whenever the question is raised.
You don't have to do this in Botswana because the elephants are already in Botswana ...
There are a couple of problems. First, Botswana is a very dry country. About three-fourths of the land is desert, and the rest depends on a single river system. And global warming will make this worse. Second, the country is transitioning from a mining and tourism based economy to one based on agriculture and animal herding.
The combined effect is that there is going to be a water crisis. Guess what elephants do when their usual water sources dry up? Oh, and did I mention that Botswana has over 50,000 elephants? Either other countries have to take up some of them, or the elephants will have to be culled. This is the problem.
I've never met an elephant who staged a coup when their party of redneck facists failed to win a general election.
Just to be clear this isn't what the President of Botswana did either.
Kind of, yeah.
Elephants are incredible animals. They have complex communication and even communicate through seismic vibrations through the ground via their feet, and they can even recognize the elephant sending the seismic message. Additionally, they have cultural practices, including funeral rituals.
For citations for these claims and more information, here is a blog post of mine (I have ads turned off and don't benefit from my blog in any way).
If Europeans are SO worried about the planet maybe they can start by replanting their forests before sticking their nose in other countries.
People have a bigger impact on the planet than elephants. /dark
Honestly very disappointed in the comments here. There’s a valid point to what he’s saying, and the “have you met people?” line of thinking just talks right past that.
We can't just kill every animal we don't like. Elephants, wolves, bears, etc. all play an incredibly important role in the health of our ecosystems and help keep plants and animals healthy. Sometimes, they keep nuisances at bay, too, or keep stuff like prion diseases in check.
I get that elephants can eat crops or wolves can eat cattle, but we've managed to build space shuttles and end worldwide diseases through amazing vaccine campaigns. I'm sure we can rewild some major areas and build better, non-lethal deterrants in others.
It's helped restore Yellowstone's biodiversity and drive incredible amounts of tourism after the wolves were reintroduced.
"Why don’t you for a moment experience living with them? That’s why this offer was made to yourselves to have them in Hyde Park"
Don't threaten me with a good time 😋
Europeans did a lot of bad things to Africa, including Botswana. Misdirected care seems the least harmful thing they have done. If I were Botswana's president I'd be happy with this progress.
European-style 'fortress conservation' often ends up displacing people. Conservation that is controlled by local communities is equally good at protecting wildlife, and ensures that the economic benefits are not stolen by outsiders.
there's 8 billion people already.
I thought Europeans are people...
Oh.... I see now...
Well... yeah? The world needs less humans and more elephants.
That's ecofascist thinking.
We should start by getting rid of westerners. Let's do Europe first.
News from around the world!
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
