[…] Priscilla wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptAlthough this presentation was done at the Sullivan Summit which I attended from day one to the end, I only this through the web and I found it interesting since people never seem to agree on where HIV/AIDS originated from. … […]

i am a doctor.
I agree about the origin probably from the bushmeat of diseases like AIDS or hemmoragic fever.
The virus are “closed” in the forest ecosistem in the past: logging, hunting,etc have exposed the people to new diseases

I work at the CDC in Atlanta and have always believed this to be a fact.
I just wish the people would listen and stop doing this horrible act.

Well, that is interesting. So, what’s going to happen first? Human apes will kill off all the non-human apes for dinner or we’ll all die of AIDS? Until human apes see the benefits of a vegan diet and lifestyle for themselves (because nothing is as self-centered as a human ape), for the environment, and for wildlife conservation, we’re doomed to fail. We will fail to save non-human primate species because we speak with a forked tongue when it comes to the purpose of non-human animals on this planet. You can’t tell people that it’s OK to factory farm or otherwise farm animals for food and then tell them it’s not OK to hunt whatever’s moving in the wild.

s.

Hi Antonio, Wanda and Sheryl

Bushmeat present a serious health hazard but many people don’t take this seriously due to ignorance, probably culture and poverty.

However, fighting bushmeat from a health hazard point of view has presented serious challenges to conservationist especially after Ebola outbreaks. If anti-bushmeat message is not carefully packaged, the affected communities can wipe out entire populations of “reservoir” primates species, thinking that this will eliminate the source of the disease and hence stop future outbreaks!!

These are some of the challenges that we are facing on as anti-bushmeat crusaders. Your good ideas on how to overcome this problem are welcome.

Mwenja

Good grief, I hadn’t thought of that angle. So, how do we get the local people to value wildlife as much as some of us do?

s.

I disagree with most of Sheryl’s first comment, but her second comment I think is right on - the gateway to real, lasting, and positive solutions for everyone is how to “get the local people to value wildlife as much as some of us do.” And, as Mwenja showed with his comment, the *reasons* for protecting the animals strongly affect how the animals are valued (or not), that is, what it is they are valued *for*. Health, wealth, well-being, knowledge, beauty, etc. And obviously some values (e.g. basic nutrition, safety, health, etc.) must come before others (long-term wellbeing, esoteric knowledge, aesthetic beauty). Eating the animals is presently a means to nutrition, money, etc. If protecting the animals can legitimately be a means to basic values, and not just “higher” values, then I think it’s possible for these communities to protect the animals in a lasting and effective way. Only when the basics are taken care of do “higher” values motivate people at all.

Alternatively, there is a way to directly protect animals because of their long-term importance to science, ecosystems, sensitive sensibilities and all the rest. It’s just not popular, and given the (un)reliability of many African governments (I don’t know the particulars of those in the Congo Basin), it’s not practically feasible currently. But, all you’d need is a Bill Gates or Google or some other obscenely wealthy individual(s), and a government that actually protects property rights, and they can buy the land, the animals, and everything on it - provide the current owners are willing to sell it at the price offered - perhaps even negotiating agreements for local communities to continue living on the land (although that’s a perk more than a necessity in the transaction). Whoever owns the land, with some basic information and counsel, they could choose to selectively sell it to those with explicit eco-interests, who can then fund more, better research.

But, if the government doesn’t recognize or systematically protect property rights, then the new owners would have to act like a little police force themselves, to keep poachers off their land, when that’s properly the government’s job. They’d go broke (or just give up) on security, rather than funneling additional investments into conservation, research, etc.

As I said, it’s not currently feasible - due to inadequate property rights protection (which is as much a problem for the Congolese as it is for Big Private Wildlife Preserve) - and it’s not popular, since most people (and especially eco-people) hate Big Money types on principle. Bad seeds in each camp don’t preclude mutually beneficial arrangements though, and if Sergei Brin is sending people into space on his own dime, he and people like him could easily take an interest in bushmeat species, the Congo Basin, and countless other really important things.

Katie
I totally agree with you that on this statement, “ If protecting the animals can legitimately be a means to basic values, and not just “higher” values, then I think it’s possible for these communities to protect the animals in a lasting and effective way. Only when the basics are taken care of do “higher” values motivate people at all” and this is the point that some conservationist who fight legal and sustainable consumptive utilisation options miss. There are socio-economic costs associated with living with wildlife which we can not afford to ignore as the cost of such ignorance is huge to wildlife – we have lost 60% of our wildlife in less than 30 years under this misguided protectionist policies!!.
Mwenja

To clarify, I am an ethical vegan. I believe it is wrong, morally wrong, to kill animals for food, or clothing, or entertainment, or to experiment on. I absolutely believe that many of the problems we’re having right now could be solved by veganism, especially wildlife extinction and global warming pollution.

That’s where I come from and it’s not going to change.

s.