<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for How a little blue pill could get big results—in species conservation, we mean]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Biodiversivist http://www.grist.org/article/smith1/ Tue, 22 Mar 2005 08:43:14 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/smith1/1 The idea has potential as an education tool.

Well now, let's take a critical look at this idea. How much would some guy pay for black-bear gall bladder, macaque meat, or powdered seahorse in alleys and backrooms of Manhattan? I would guess, a hell of a lot more than he would pay for a Viagra pill.

Logically, he would buy the pill if cost or availability were his concern. If cost or availability were not his concern, then giving out free pills would not help matters. I know for a fact that black market Viagra is far easier to get and far cheaper than powdered wildlife. Google it and you will find it easy to order without a prescription off the net. It would be smarter to start an education campaign in those places around the world letting customers know that Viagra works better and let the black market in illegal drugs take it from there.

Now what else is wrong with this idea other than the fact that Viagra can kill an old guy with heart trouble? How about the fact that it actually works and is bound to cause a certain percentage of unintended pregnancies? Like introducing foxes to Australia to control rabbits, would a third world awash in "free" Viagra generate millions of additional births and backfire? We are screaming towards 9 billion now, with almost all of the growth in third world nations where much of our critical biodiversity hotspots are also located.

I think the idea has great merit if it were part of an education campaign to turn people away from wildlife aphrodisiacs, but handing out free Sildenafil citrate has great potential for doing more harm than good.

http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com

]]> The idea has potential as an education tool.

Well now, let's take a critical look at this idea. How much would some guy pay for black-bear gall bladder, macaque meat, or powdered seahorse in alleys and backrooms of Manhattan? I would guess, a hell of a lot more than he would pay for a Viagra pill.

Logically, he would buy the pill if cost or availability were his concern. If cost or availability were not his concern, then giving out free pills would not help matters. I know for a fact that black market Viagra is far easier to get and far cheaper than powdered wildlife. Google it and you will find it easy to order without a prescription off the net. It would be smarter to start an education campaign in those places around the world letting customers know that Viagra works better and let the black market in illegal drugs take it from there.

Now what else is wrong with this idea other than the fact that Viagra can kill an old guy with heart trouble? How about the fact that it actually works and is bound to cause a certain percentage of unintended pregnancies? Like introducing foxes to Australia to control rabbits, would a third world awash in "free" Viagra generate millions of additional births and backfire? We are screaming towards 9 billion now, with almost all of the growth in third world nations where much of our critical biodiversity hotspots are also located.

I think the idea has great merit if it were part of an education campaign to turn people away from wildlife aphrodisiacs, but handing out free Sildenafil citrate has great potential for doing more harm than good.

http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com

]]> Comment #2 by hardisun http://www.grist.org/article/smith1/ Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:07:40 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/smith1/2 Also, no labels on endangered aphrodisiacs

Caveat emptor:

My $300/oz vile of 'musk ox rump hair' didn't carry any instructions on what to do if I was tent-hut for more than 4 hours.  Another tip: the spray version is not covered by Medicare.

]]> Also, no labels on endangered aphrodisiacs

Caveat emptor:

My $300/oz vile of 'musk ox rump hair' didn't carry any instructions on what to do if I was tent-hut for more than 4 hours.  Another tip: the spray version is not covered by Medicare.

]]> Comment #3 by ECMyers http://www.grist.org/article/smith1/ Tue, 22 Mar 2005 17:04:31 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/smith1/3 Well, yeah, but...

Of course:  preserving diverse and delicate ecosystems and protecting their inhabitants is absolutely essential--I hope Viagra helps.  I also hope that, years from now, we don't find out that aquatic creatures are getting bombarded (as the result of runoff) with its main ingredient, as we now know is happening with The Pill.

]]> Well, yeah, but...

Of course:  preserving diverse and delicate ecosystems and protecting their inhabitants is absolutely essential--I hope Viagra helps.  I also hope that, years from now, we don't find out that aquatic creatures are getting bombarded (as the result of runoff) with its main ingredient, as we now know is happening with The Pill.

]]> Comment #4 by dragonflygraphics http://www.grist.org/article/smith1/ Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:24:20 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/smith1/4 warping the meaning of conservation

I love it, an "aid"  package containing condoms and viagra. What about women all over the world who want birth control and can't afford it? Why is that not in the package? THAT, of course, is different--somehow "against nature".

I thought everyone was concerned about population and yet, the reality is that men should have sex until they're dead and women should "control themselves" and stop "getting" pregnant.

The framing of this as being for the natural world is totally strange to me.

First, it is promoting a pharmaceutical drug manufactured by a huge company that is destroying enormous amounts of animals and plants by its very existence.

Second, it is condoning and even promoting sexism by encouraging men to feel free to have sex forever while withholding birth control from women, which should be a much larger priority. True, birth control pills are pharmaceutical drugs as well, but no one is claiming to be saving the turtles by giving women more control over how large their family is.

Third, it is warping the meaning of "conservation". How is it "conservation" to add to the growing corporation that manufactures Viagra? How is it "conservation" to continue throwing western solutions to communities who actually were fine and in balance before westernization screwed them up? How is it "conservation" to laugh and hand out viagra to men while leaving women to the task of bearing children they may not want to have? How is it "conservation" to ignore the entire rest of the web of life and say "if we can get everyone on viagra then no one will kill a sea turtle anymore." Wow! Problem solved! This is a totally ridiculous "solution".

How about putting that money and energy where it belongs: helping communities in the third world restore their old ways of life that worked fine for thousands of years until western "solutions" sent them into poverty. There are plenty of organizations that empower people in the third world to bring back a respectful relationship with themselves, each other, their community, and the earth.

The only real conservation efforts that I can see are organizations like the Greenbelt Movement in Kenya and the Landless Worker's Movement in Brazil, who are making huge strides in restoring OVERALL balance. There are lot of others worldwide and they could always use more funding since apparently there is all this extra money laying around for saving the planet.

]]> warping the meaning of conservation

I love it, an "aid"  package containing condoms and viagra. What about women all over the world who want birth control and can't afford it? Why is that not in the package? THAT, of course, is different--somehow "against nature".

I thought everyone was concerned about population and yet, the reality is that men should have sex until they're dead and women should "control themselves" and stop "getting" pregnant.

The framing of this as being for the natural world is totally strange to me.

First, it is promoting a pharmaceutical drug manufactured by a huge company that is destroying enormous amounts of animals and plants by its very existence.

Second, it is condoning and even promoting sexism by encouraging men to feel free to have sex forever while withholding birth control from women, which should be a much larger priority. True, birth control pills are pharmaceutical drugs as well, but no one is claiming to be saving the turtles by giving women more control over how large their family is.

Third, it is warping the meaning of "conservation". How is it "conservation" to add to the growing corporation that manufactures Viagra? How is it "conservation" to continue throwing western solutions to communities who actually were fine and in balance before westernization screwed them up? How is it "conservation" to laugh and hand out viagra to men while leaving women to the task of bearing children they may not want to have? How is it "conservation" to ignore the entire rest of the web of life and say "if we can get everyone on viagra then no one will kill a sea turtle anymore." Wow! Problem solved! This is a totally ridiculous "solution".

How about putting that money and energy where it belongs: helping communities in the third world restore their old ways of life that worked fine for thousands of years until western "solutions" sent them into poverty. There are plenty of organizations that empower people in the third world to bring back a respectful relationship with themselves, each other, their community, and the earth.

The only real conservation efforts that I can see are organizations like the Greenbelt Movement in Kenya and the Landless Worker's Movement in Brazil, who are making huge strides in restoring OVERALL balance. There are lot of others worldwide and they could always use more funding since apparently there is all this extra money laying around for saving the planet.

]]>