The wonderful new series Life on Earth had a small sequence last week where a baby penguin had fallen down a hole in the ice. After much deliberation, one of the crew "recued" it and it was returned to its mother. Without human intervention it would have died.
It was explained that they had in fact broken an unwritten rule in wildlife journalism by intervening in nature, where the survival of the fittest ensures healthy species.
Now the controversial question - why doesn't that rule extend ACROSS nature? Why do we Western countries spend vast amounts of our wealth on trying to solve other of nature's problems that affect humans in the developing world?
By intervening, are we actually diluting the strength of Africans and Asians by allowing all to survive rather than the fittest?
I tend towards the view that we are creating a dependence culture in many countries, where the population would have to find their own solutions without us.
2006-11-15
01:51:48
·
2 answers
·
asked by
Essex Ron
5
in
Other - Society & Culture