In fact usually I would say "The truth is good, ALWAYS" but I want to give the benefit of the doubt-raising technique used by most lots of charities to protect the environment. Let me explain. WWF, Greenpeace and so usually advertise their work with large pictures of leopards, pandas, elephants and other animals photogenic and popular, launching fundraising campaigns in the name of these animals and most often presenting as the incentive for nature conservation their beauty. This technique is the so-called "charismatic megafauna," that use "promotion" of known animals, big and spectacular to entice the public to make donations that then will be used to save whole ecosystems, not just the species in question. Now, if it comes to shell out some coin for a good cause a few hippies, middle-aged loosening the close on the portfolio only if the wave front of a picture of a tiger, there is nothing wrong with that. But this method to see and hear only what the people want to see and hear first of all, keeps people ignorant about the true, far more important reasons to donate (the salvation of entire ecosystems, property and made from it, in addition to their both waved, although effective, beauty) and the creatures that defend (newsflash: most of the components of an ecosystem has six legs and do not appear very well on the lovely Christmas cards I sent the WWF, but is nevertheless essential equally interesting and worthy of living on this world), and secondly alienates the sympathies of those who receive the message as a simple "nature is nice and hairy, let's help we?" and rightly says: "Chemmifrega?". If real news is divulged SCIENTIFIC the nature and importance of ecosystems and all their inhabitants not only as a source of beauty, but also as sources of knowledge, medicine, food, money and above all, like a house on which we depend, in my opinion it would increase the interest of anyone to make a donation. But if a nuisance is disappointed because for every tiger defending also saves millions of cockroaches, you fuck.
0 comments:
Post a Comment