Esta mañana, con mis alumnos de 2º de Bachillerato de Ciencias de la Tierra y del Medioambiente hemos estudiado tres enfoques para la gestión de los recursos naturales: la explotación incontrolada, el conservacionista a ultranza y el desarrollo sostenible.
Para explicar los tres puntos de vista el libro utiliza a los elefantes africanos, tratándolos como un recurso natural más. Para mostrar el enfoque “conservacionista a ultranza” utiliza como ejemplo a las empresas de safaris que, para ganar dinero, no quieren que se mate a ningún elefante. El punto de vista de “explotación incontrolada” lo representaban con los agricultores que veían sus cosechas dañadas por los elefantes y querían matar a todos ellos para evitar las pérdidas, comer su carne y vender el marfil.
The book advocated a "sustainable development" approach. That is, "hunting only to regulate the elephant population, avoiding overexploitation of the resource (which can lead to its extinction), but also preventing environmental damage resulting from excessive population growth."
The students perfectly understood the three points of view: the safari operator's, the farmer's, and the book's author's. But when I told them that a fourth point of view was missing—that of those most affected by the decision to kill or not kill elephants—no one responded. No one knew who else needed to be taken into account.
When I said that the elephants themselves were the ones most affected, some people smiled, thinking I was joking. What has the education system done with its empathy for animals that prevents them from seeing an elephant in the room?