One of those old 'free will dilemmas'... Reading this news article about this 92-year old man who admits to killing Sumatran tigers since he was 17... Seventy-five years of killing tigers, about 50 tigers, figures up to one every 18 months...
Now what do you do with the man?... Give him five years in jail?... At 92?...
And then reading another news story about this issue, you learn a dead tiger is worth about $3,200 to an Indonesian villager... In an economy where the average monthly income is $200 and women run large home gardens to supplement their family's income about $2 a day (and this is considered a small fortune if they are good at it)...
I guess what bothers me the most about all of this is that our new 'BFF' (China) recently allowed 11 tigers to starve to death in one of their zoos... MSNBC article...
Is it better to allow the government to kill endangered tigers inhumanely than for a single person to have a life-long livelihood in a poverty-stricken area?...
Or to not set aside large enough areas of natural habitat for this species (and its subspecies) to live naturally without having to hunt man to survive?...
Where does the balance of all of this settle out to be?... Jail a 92-year old man for doing something a foreign government has also knowingly done to the same endangered species?...
I mean, where does it all balance out?... Where does the evil get punished, the right get rewarded and the planet and all of its species are in harmony with each other?...
The reverse of harmony is chaos --- when do we as the predominant species finally decide things equitably and fairly --- crossing over boundary lines of countries and poverty versus conservationism?...
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment