knowse said:
If we buy maricultured organisms, the reefs will be slowly destroyed/depleted from all the consequences of this activity (cyanide, reduced biodiversity, etc). But if we don't buy them, they will be decimated at an even faster rate to pave roads. So, its a catch-22 then? Not necessarily.
Remember, I said "the absolute bottom line is that the reefs are as undisturbed as possible." Turning them into roads or damaging them with runoff is not leaving them undisturbed, is it? Obviously, a third solution is needed. The problem is one of saving people vs. saving a natural resource. The cynic in me thinks that the former is renewable, yet the latter is not.
Or is it? It sounds like the only reason the "poor fisher folks" can't make a living is because of the interference of "western" people and how little of the money we fork up for moorish idols actually makes it to them. If we stop lying and cheating the "poor fisher folks," as I have read from several sources (including RK magazine I believe), they wouldn't think we put no value on the reef. If we put money into sending scientists there, researching ways for them to aquaculture (read: farm) themselves using the ocean water surrounding them, and emphasizing how we want to grow the reefs, and pay them if they help us, then everybody can be happy.
Wait a minute, aquaculture can HELP the reefs?
Maybe.
This particular solution opens up its own can of worms regarding the possible disruption of local species populations, where will the funding/interest come from, how the heck will it work, etc. But what are the consequences if something like this isn't done? The reefs will be gone forever, and then the people will just start starving again. Everybody loses.
Instead of saying "can we do anything to save the reefs?" we need to say, "what MUST be done in order to ensure the reef's survival in as close to a current state as possible?" It's a subtle difference, but it gives us a much more useful outlook. ask yourself, if the consequences of failure are that people die, then what must be done to succeed? (this is how the military views training). In this case, the animals will die before the people, but as noted above neither of them are in a very good position.
This argument is voiced often, and it always manages to irritate me: "if we protect nature, we will be starving people...we have to sacrifice nature so we can help the people, its the lesser of two evils." This argument is at best one of laziness and at worst a denial of the real problem at work here:
third world populations being exploited for their natural resources and labor. They don't have the ability to fight back, because we bring health care and education and better standards of living, and in turn pay them rates that have been illegal in the US for a century.
Yes, the goverments are so poor they must sell their natural resources for a pittance in order to provide even the minimal health care and education they have now. But where are they getting even this money from? First world countries! We are the ones keeping them at those poverty levels! Granted, many of these goverments are plagued with corruption or internal/external strife, and much of the wealth of these countries are squandered in such ways. However, it is cheaper for crate & barrel to make that lovely wooden bookshelf by harvesting lumber in the US, shipping it to malaysia, paying them pennies to make it, and shipping it back here than it does to just make it in this country.
do you really think raising chickens or pinapples instead of fishing will pay them any more money? Not bloody likely.
(knowse: please don't think i'm trying to pick a fight with you! you addressed my post and gave an excellent summary of the contingencies at work so i'm using that as a base to work from, not argue against 
)maybe I should rephrase my outlook: "if the consequences of success are making lots and lots of money, not even the destruction of the earth or the people upon it will stop you."
It is not the intention of this post to anger anyone or start any raging political debates. however, some of the contingencies at work in this situation are political and raise issues that aren't comfortable to many of us, myself included. i bought that bookshelf! shame on me! but that's capitalism at work, and it allows wonderful things like stylish furniture and reef tanks to be brought to our door...but we also have to be aware of the cost, if at least so we can try to fix it.
