“Save the nature”: what is behind this slogan?

More and more often I face in different sources articles, where it is going that this or that spices of animals or plants are under the danger of disappearance, climate is changing and not for better, there are so many problems to deal with in the environmental concern and so on. It is not a rare case to hear the slogan “Save the nature”. Though, what is being done to save it and how many people are really doing smth for this purpose?

There are certain prohibition to kill this or that animal, bird or reptile etc. or to cut this or that spice of the plant in almost each country. There exist certain quotas. Children at schools and students are being taught about environmental problems. There are NGOs like REDD, Greenpeace and there is UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) fighting against harmful impact on the nature. But the problems don’t disappear with time and even vice verse are becoming more serious and new problems arise. If everyone and every state (what is important because no international organization can force the state to do anything) really cared about the nature, environmental problems would start to disappear, what is logical. So, why do we have the opposite process?

States have established certain quotas for cutting certain plants or killing certain animals or forbid at all, for CO2 emissions etc. Though, trade with these quotas take place. It makes quotas to a greater extend useless, because the populations are being killed any way, ozone layer’s holes exist, an average temperature rises, the only things – poorer states have got the additional source of money (better to say the governors of that states due to the corruption).

There is one more “interesting” example of state’s mechanisms for preventing shortening of the population of animals. States like Denmark have legally prohibit to kill polar bears to everyone, except of the old local nation due to the tradition of these people to kill polar bears for eating. This local nation could kill polar bears and sell them. One more thing that is used with the same purpose is the right to kill the animal in case of the danger to person’s life. There are no cameras in wild nature to prove who was right. Also there are enough people, who live according to the Caligula principle: “after us there can be even a deluge”. At this point I mean to a greater extend MNCs. They care about their business, satisfaction, but not about the harm to the nature and future generations, i.e. their generations as well, because currently humans can habit only on the Earth. And theses MNCs got round 48% of the world trade and this percentage is growing. So, international law de-facto is not law for them.

Furthermore, in a modern society in my home country, and I am sure, not only in my, it is not cool among youth to protect and care about the nature. If you care – you must be a looser and “from the Greenpeace” as young people use to say. There is another side of the coin as well. To explain it, I would first give my opinion concerning care about the nature. I don’t wear clothes from fur and skin of wild animals. I think, for example, it is alright to kill the domestic animals to survive because of circle of life. Though, to kill an animal for satisfaction, to use the skin or hair of this animal in luxuries – I think, it is violence and real murderer. Because people can easily live without such luxuries, though animals can not. Once we were discussing this question with students at the university. Everyone has been speaking for saving our planet. And after the discussion, I saw girls wearing fur coats and discussing how they liked arctic fox’s fur!

There is a comparison of a person with the animal. All we know when such comparison is used, so no reason to explain that. Though, where has anyone seen violent, impudent, impertinent animals, who killed each other for satisfaction, because of money (in this case papers, that are not worth of any life) or business? And the opposite side of the coin: was there no occasion when animals saved people?

To sum up, the main message of this article – a lot has been told regarding saving of the nature on different levels, but comparatively little done in this concern. You might say: “But there are so many conferences devoted to climate and environmental changes, I believe, each state has the ministry of the environment”. Ok, but the decision process takes years till they agree on smth suitable both for the nature and for the business and the environment won’t wait. What to do left? – Maybe, to clone the Earth, but we should consider, that as a rule “artificial” clones don’t live long.

Thank you for reading my article!

Tereza Bielova


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s