The Giver, The Iron Heel, Hunger Games, and dot dot dot

I just saw Jeff Bridges and Lois Lowry on the Colbert Report and listened to them talk about the Giver, the cinematic version of Lowry's wildly popular teen book. I read the book when my daughter Delilah did to see what was popular and I thought it was pretty good post-apocalyptic fiction, and WAY better than Hunger Games or Divergent. I tried both of these. Anyhow the theme in the Giver is that emotion, history, controversy and conflict are bio- and socio-engineered out of existence to ensure harmonious human life. Fair dinkum in terms of sci-fi themes and one of the better presented ones. But the issue I have with these works, and I love this genre, most likely more than any, just have a look at my early 20th century pre-post-ex-whatever-apocalyptic collection, is that they are so heavy handed to miss the truth about what is really going on with mind-numbing media and the current future we are living in. You don't think we are living in the future? Take a look at Star Trek, check out what the communicators are capable of, and recognize that we are post Star Trek. Anyhow, this relates to development and conservation in that so much of our conditioning is to look for the apocalyptic, dramatic examples of disaster and dysfunctionality (sorry, I hate to use "-isms, -ities", etc. but I am too lazy right now to avoid it). The Giver, Hunger Games, etc. are overly dramatic...ebola, drought, resource based conflict (cf. the Middle East), are enough examples of the future that we are starting to encounter. Get involved where you think you can make the change. As bad as you may think things can be, they can also be tremendously better, take a look at this: http://blogs.worldbank.org/africacan/african-successes-listing-the-success-stories 

Poverty reduction and bending the truth in development

My co-alumni and frequent social media user Zhe Yu Lee (https://www.facebook.com/zheyu.lee?fref=nf) has posted a very interesting article/essay/opinion piece from Al Jazeera (still one of the most interesting news and opinion sites out there) entitled Exposing the great 'poverty reduction' lie (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/exposing-great-poverty-reductio-201481211590729809.html) written by Jason Hickel  (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/profile/jason-hickel.html). (Apologies for font and size issues, this is still a new endeavor for me and I wanted to get this stuff down before tech issues overwhelmed me). Hickel's piece is incisive, factual, and damning of the BINGO and UN score keeping shenanigans that continue to serve those giving aid rather than those needing it. But what I really liked about the piece is that it reminded me that many metrics of development, poverty, aid, etc. are arbitrary, and beyond that, serve the interests of donors. I was also reminded how difficult it was for me to internalize 'happiness' metrics over consumption metrics as measures of development and well-being. But it is truly a marker of how blind our big brains can make us that I could not then, and have only recently begun to recognize, that development and its quantitative measures fall way short of human desires and needs. Zoh Laguna community members in southeastern Mexico measured happiness in family, health, and well-being. Material goods were appreciated but peripheral for most to personal achievement. It may be our burden to come up with mobile, and meaningful development measures to avoid arithmetic critiques of the UN in the future.

Why elephants now

The BBC published a factual and predictive article on elephant hunting and its future in Africa (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28842965). There are good figures provided and a compelling case has been made for the eventual eradication of elephant if current trends continue (~7% or Africa's elephants killed annually--above the replacement level) or intensify. The usual suspects, the Chinese are blamed, though the article points out that this is a global problem. It also recognizes, unlike many of the other pieces written, that pachyderm populations vary across the African landscape with the south holding sufficient numbers and other parts (the east, central, etc.) at risk of elephant extirpation. I cannot argue with any of the main points made and have made feeble attempts earlier to contextualize elephant hunting in southern Africa (http://erickeys.blogspot.com/2014/08/from-huffington-post-nra-wants-to-kill.html). I don't see a need to rehash these arguments made earlier by more articulate colleagues (cf. William Moseley at Macalester College-http://www.macalester.edu/academics/geography/facultystaff/billmoseley/).
What interests me now is how elephants have made their way back into the mainstream media (not front page stuff but still present (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/100000-elephants-killed-across-africa-in-two-years-study-finds/; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/candace-calloway-whiting/tiny-baby-elephant-rescue_b_5689500.html; and plenty more on this topic). If we can look at news of Syria, Ferguson, South Sudan, or Los Angeles, shake our heads and move on what hope does the conservation of charismatic species have? Plenty, and here is where I become opinionated...I think that the prospect for elephants is probably better than that of their human relatives because the problem has a solution: eliminate poaching and manage herds responsibly, shame a villain (China and poor Africans involved in the ivory trade), and donate money to what seems to be a non-partisan and non-risky proposition. While elephants will disappear from the headlines in a few days or weeks (and will come back again, they always do) the pathway to their preservation is mostly clear and mostly painless for the West and partners and painful for the Chinese. A win-win all around?

From Huffington Post: NRA Wants to Kill Elephants

Childhood images of Dumbo and family afford elephants an iconic status in the United States and much of the west and their size and apparent human like emotions and characteristics make them ideal charismatic species. In certain parts of Africa elephants are at severe risk of extirpation (for a very thorough discussion of elephant issues check out WWF--   http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/endangered_species/elephants/african_elephants/).

 I was reading the news/opinion pages yesterday and came across this piece:
The NRA Is Quietly Fighting For Your Right To Kill Elephants For Their Ivory ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/12/nra-ivory-elephant-hunting_n_5671332.html?utm_hp_ref=miami&ir=Miami). The article is mainly a cheap shot at the NRA (and I am no defender, just think that the article could make a more important point) but points out the difficulty of regulating the trade in a product that is illegal to harvest in one place and legal in another. 

Ivory, taken legally (in Southern Africa for example) or illegally (in the East for example) ends up in the hands of hunters and traders. Because ivory is ivory and figuring out where it comes from is difficult poached ivory leaves the continent often through apparently legit means. This means that many conservation organizations oppose all legalized elephant hunting in Africa, and they have some very strong arguments to support their view. Unfortunately many poor communities in Southern Africa benefit from legal elephant hunts and use the income from the hunts to improve welfare. Total bans harm these folks, but partial bans encourage poaching. These are the type of sticky problems that conservation-with-development proponents encounter these days and it seems as though the solutions rely less on science and logic and more on ethics and values. As long as we have competing values--conservation and hunting ban; welfare and elephant hunting--we will be challenged as above. 

Charity, responsibility, and AID

I have not had the chance to write in a few days, life, as per usual, got in the way of best intentions. I had the chance to see an old friend in the Twin Cities (one who grew up in Central America, travels extensively, and has a great blue collar head on his shoulders) and meet a new friend. While in the cities the president of Somalia was in town to discuss plans for that country with the thousands of Somalis and other interested folks. While I did not go to the meetings or hear the address by the Somali president I did have the chance to listen to people think out loud about how Somalia, the homeless in America, and other sundry surprisingly related issues were vexing.
One of the most interesting aspects of these discussions revolved around the international development aid movement (for any number of reasons--guilt, soft power, NGO reproduction) and the continuing problem of money being used for unintended causes (e.g. corruption, warlord enrichment, ...). One side of the table (metaphorically speaking, it was actually at a bar) argued that aid fueled corruption and should be re-examined. The other side thought that aid organizations could not control uses of money and that processes internal in the receiving country had to rectify bad uses of good money.
This theme was repeated with the issue of homeless people in St. Paul. The Dorothy Day Center (the local well known center for homeless assistance) was seen as a magnet for the homeless who used the precious resources for drugs, alcohol, or for all I know Pokemon cards. A similar argument to the international aid argument was offered, that money should be withheld rather than be misspent.
These discussions/arguments arise frequently in the development-conservation-aid world and are most likely no closer to being solved than they were when they began, and indeed when they began prior to our current conceptions of aid (see Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm) for a scathing satire over this very issue from 1729) were formed.
Francisco Toro's outstanding blogs (http://boringdevelopment.com/ and http://850calories.com/) offer insight into the at times apparent futility of development work and I have mentioned Ed Carr's (http://www.edwardrcarr.com/opentheechochamber/) site as well. What these authors, and I guess I, have arrived at is that the key to interventions that work is helping folks achieve what they want and need. Funds may be misused or misappropriated because the intended use did not matter than much in the first place to the targeted groups or missed the mark. Your thoughts are welcome, it is late and I know I need to revisit this one.