I agree in theory, but (in my opinion) the difference is that we now realize how much we screwed things up in other places, so we don't want more people to do it. It's a flawed argument, seeing as modern civilization isn't really doing everything it can to prevent climate change, so the obvious, easy answer is to not let underdeveloped civilizations follow in our footsteps.

Again, I don't disagree with your reasoning, and it is easy to back up by saying everyone else has done it, why would we stop them from doing it. I guess my argument against this point is that every society in the world should be doing their best to try to prevent things like this, so we shouldn't just let people do obviously terrible things to the environment, just because we have previously done it.

This is obviously a high-level response, not getting into particulars, but I hope you get the point at least.

I was thinking how maybe industrialization in general led to the killing off of many of the larger and more rare fauna around the globe so would that mean that Africa following in our more industrialized footsteps, even if it isn't us directly guiding their hands in doing so, is still somewhat our fault for inspiring that notion?

People cite their distaste and dislike of American and European all over the world yet the vast majority of those places champion all things American or European / white, if only in things like food, music, entertainment, fashion, and lifestyle -- if not more / everything. I know it's not "our" responsibility after a certain point so I'm just being curious on a very "surface level" here.

> how much we screwed things up in other places, so we don't want more people to do it

Dunno. Look at EEU; all the garbage that was known not to work in WEU was thrown into it instead of giving them the newest, safest and cleanest tech. Also pressuring them to cut their forests and sell raw wood for cheap to WEU, Ethiopian-style. Do you think Africa will fare better?

And we are spending huge sums (probably bigger than some of the economies you are pointing to) in order to undo what little damage that can be undone from what our forefathers did.

In terms of climate change, Europe and North America have made huge cuts in emissions at great cost to their economies. Unfortunately, not all large economies are doing their part globally.

Amount of money being also poured into the countries who’s cooperation is needed for conservation is also not small. No one is asking countries to help for free.

It’s a very disheartening argument to say that because others have made mistakes, anyone that has a choice today should make the same mistake. Especially, since those being killed off can’t exactly fend for themselves.

You don't need to kill a Giraffe just for its tail to build a city.

This is extremely anthropocentric.

Most posters here are human.

Going to need a source for that.

Generally most of us humans are anthropocentric, even though we want to balance that with respect for the environment.

Most modern preservation plans are about offering even stronger economic incentive to locals than other development would allow.

You reminded me of an interview with a woman from India, in the film "Before the Flood". She mentions:

India has 300 million people without electricity, and they're doing exactly what the US and other nations did years ago: focus on improving their quality of life, using inexpensive coal and fuels.

There is a big difference: European growth numbers have been as high as today‘s in Africa

Exactly. If you look at Harari's book Sapiens, he has a timeline where shortly after human colonization of an area, megafauna are wiped out.

I think this push to save endangered species is basically a form of colonialism where rich white people (whose ancestors destroyed their native fauna) tell poor brown people what they should value even when it gampers development.