North vs. South

I thought it might be interesting to discuss some of the mindsets, movements, and opinions of the 'south' or developing countries in comparison with the mindsets, movements, and opinions of the 'north' or already developing countries. We often think of the north as being really progressive and open to change, and aware of the environmental issues that are occurring everywhere, but I think we've seen and discussed some situations that have proven that to be untrue. I think we've read about some instances where the south or other undeveloped countries have been more in touch with environmental issues.

When our group was leading the discussion in class, Mark asked a question about the readings pertaining to how those being colonized might have viewed the colonizers and saw what led to the beginnings of conservationism.  I didn't answer at the time because I hadn't thought about it yet, but I think it very much could have been a situation in which those on the ground and interacting with the environment around them on a daily basis knew much more about its state than those making the decisions. I know this is a common occurrence, its a reason policies are so hard to develop sometimes. We can think of the people still in Europe, leading the countries that are discovering new lands as those in charge of the decisions and those who decide where the money goes, and we could think about either those indigenous to the newly developed land or even those who are residing on the land being colonized as those who are on the ground. I would imagine that those indigenous to the lands being colonized knew that threats to the environment existed before anyone else did. I would think that they understood what conservation methods needed to take place before those who actually began the conservation movement did. We touched upon this idea again in lecture on Thursday, when considering whether or not an agency or organization should intervene with the ecology of an area where an indigenous population lives in order to conserve or to save an endangered species. I think we would have a similar case where those indigenous to the area are much more in touch with the environment around them than those coming in and attempting to change it, even if their intentions are good.

I think this idea can also be applied to the situation in Ghana with GMOs. I think that there are positives and negatives associated with GMOs, and that some of them are necessary. For instance, vitamin enriched foods. Most Americans don't get their daily recommended dose of Vitamin D or calcium and this would be even more true if pasta and bread didn't come with Vitamin D and calcium in them. The passive nature of this health behavior allows everyone to be healthier. Obviously, people in the United States and other developed countries hold the same view as those in Ghana, who are protesting for the elimination of GMOs. In countries in Europe, there is less tolerance of GMOs in food as well. I see these countries as being the ones who have noticed that there are harmful aspects of GMOs and they are stepping forward as the problem solvers. I think, many times, we see ourselves as the problem solvers and forward-thinkers, but maybe we could allow some of the credit to go to the south as well. We've also seen situations where developed countries have met time and time again to sort out our global environmental issues and conferences have ended with no deal in sight.

Obviously, there are benefits to being a developed country when it comes to environmentalism as well. The world will be much more willing to listen if the United States or China propose a monumental idea than if an undeveloped, less influential country did. But its interesting to see where the knowledge sits on colonial conservation and how movements and policy changes can happen in smaller countries.