The relative ineffectualness of environmentalists to save wild life can be blamed on many factors, among which is our abysmal ignorance of sociology, psychology, and anthropology, and how these pertain to cultural diversity. We environmentalists do not know how to move the masses; we do not know how to capture the publics' attention; we do not even know how the common woman or man thinks--if any exist.
Our failure to stop international trafficking in imperiled wildlife (and their body parts) is a prime example of this. We haven't even stopped whaling, despite the vast majority of the world's citizens siding with environmentalists against this slaughter. Were we to gain an understanding of how the consumers of rare wildlife parts think, we could probably stop their consumption in short order, for almost all this consumption is based on frivolous wants and not on essential needs. Most of it can be attributed to ignorance; some of it partly to perversity.
Let me offer a brief and tentative suggestion on how we might curtail consumption of imperiled wildlife, especially in those Oriental nations where such consumption is most rampant. I offer this proposal from the perspective of a wildlife proponent with several years experience in the US, almost no experience outside this country, but with a modicum of knowledge (through reading) about international trade in imperiled wildlife. I hope to influence the experts-- Earth Island Institute, Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund for Nature and Natural Resources, IUCN (is that International Union for the Confusion of Names?), and others.
Among the premises underlying this article, two need specific mention:
How, then, might we shame the Japanese men (and proximate others afflicted with the Y chromosome) into curtailing their consumption of imperiled wildlife? We might do it through an international media campaign, employing the time-tested technique of ostracism or shame. Perhaps for a few million yen we could ran an ad in the The Tokyo Times, say, that might begin with a line such as "Real Men Don't Need Aphrodisiacs" and then go on to explain that Oriental men are becoming the laughing stock of the world for their inability to copulate without first exciting themselves with tiger penis bones, bear gall, or other rare animal parts.
Just possibly, US wildlife advocates could even convince their nation's military to reenact its Somali bombardment peaceably: that is, air drop propaganda; let fly brochures ridiculing wealthy Japanese men for their impotence. Printed on kenaf and carried aloft in balloons, these fliers might be distributed at relatively little ecological cost and great potential ecological gain.
Japan-bashing is already falling out of favor among the politically correct (for incorrect reasons, alas), so I must cast some aspersions westward too, lest I be accused of xenophobia. We in the west may well be the worst anyway, with regards to wildlife.
Slovenly, gun-toting killers in the US and Canada are as culpable as impotent penis-bone powder snorting men in Japan. These mechanized killers (they do not deserve their common title, hunters) might similarly be shamed into curtailing their murderous ways. A fellow Sierra Club member--a woman, no less--once suggested to me that concerned women should let it be known that they'll avoid all men guilty of killing with guns, driving off-road vehicles, or otherwise gratuitously despoiling Nature. Since I share her goals (and am a lonely bachelor competing against many of these ruffians), I hereby endorse her strategy: Women, don't date men who kill for no reason; men, realize your love life may suffer if you violate natural diversity.
Of course, not all trade in wildlife parts is for aphrodisiacs. However, even where sex is not the main object, shame should work. Could not Chinese people be shamed into recognizing the wrongness of killing rare wildlife for foul- tasting placebos? Could not Yemenese men be shamed into eschewing daggers made of rhino horn? Could not European and American owners of aquaria and other cages be shamed into foregoing the pleasures of watching imprisoned tropical fish and birds? Could not Japanese businessmen be shamed into ending the sale of turtle shell jewelry? Could not rich American and European connoisseurs be shamed into sparing sturgeon eggs (caviar) and other wild foods from imperiled species?
The millinery feather trade in the US was stopped; women no longer even think of wearing the once-fashionable feather hats. Historians, sociologists, and psychologists suggest that feathers simply went out of fashion; possibly availability was a factor or possibly shame was. Shame seems to be working within the United States in the campaign against trapping for furs.
As one of the oppressor class (a male, "middle" [read upper] class, white [read "person without color"] American), I should end with an apology. I'm sorry to single out for derision nationalities that are no worse--historically, not nearly as bad, but catching up with US rapidly--than Americans. I'm much sorrier, though, to see my fellow conservationists floundering as human ignorance, greed, and impotence kill rare parrots, caimans, fish, sea turtles, bears, cats, whales, rhinos, elephants, as well as thousands of smaller beings. Let's shame people--including ourselves--into letting wild life be both wild and living.
John Davis is editor of Wild Earth (P. O. Box 455, Richmond, VT 05477) and a board member of The Wildlands Project. Neither of these nor Pan Ecology should be held in any way accountable for the views expressed here, which he admits are patently unorthodox and possibly libelous.