I recently listened to an NPR Environment podcast that contained a rather surprising message. The program featured a wildlife biologist named Alan Rabinowitz who is working closely with the military junta governing Myanmar in order to establish a wildlife refuge for tigers. Apparently, Myanmar has some of the best remaining tiger habitat in the world, and the junta leaders, despite their espoused lack of interest in human rights, are quite enthusiastic about protecting these animals. Rabinowitz has been widely criticized by both wildlife conservation groups and human rights advocacy organizations for working with such an oppressive regime.
His response? “I’m trying to save tigers.”
I am deeply impressed with people like Rabinowitz. It takes a great deal of wisdom to be able to look past personal disagreements in order to achieve your goals. As Rabinowitz points out in this podcast, refusing to work with the junta in Myanmar is synonymous with saying goodbye to these tigers. The junta is happy to work with conservation groups, but they are understandably preoccupied with oppressing their people and ruling with an iron fist. Working with these individuals does not equal condoning their actions. Rather, it indicates the importance of accepting less than ideal circumstances in order to get where we want to go.
This is a key point with regard to our own efforts to meet goals. Ethically we must be careful about what we condone, either actively or passively. However, sometimes we are wise to accept some negative consequences in order to avoid others. Let’s be realistic. If Rabinowitz doesn’t work with the junta in Myanmar, is that going to lead to their downfall? Probably not. What it will lead to is the loss of pristine tiger habitat. I think working with an oppressive regime is a worthwhile price to pay in this case.
Some may disagree with my assessment, especially those who feel that human rights are more important than environmental issues. In this case, however, they are somewhat disconnected, and that is the point that I want to stress. Sometimes in life, we try to make political statements by the choices we make, and often this is a powerful and meaningful thing to do. But sometimes it isn’t, and we end up missing opportunities to achieve certain goals because we have a misguided sense of our ability to make an impact.
In the case of our example, Rabinowitz can do little to stop the human rights issues in Myanmar, no matter what he does, but he can do a great deal to help the tigers. Thus, he helps the tigers. Its important to have principles and stick by them, but we need to also take a realistic approach towards what we can and cannot do, and know when to get out of our own way in achieving our goals. Not every ethical dilemma is really a dilemma, and it’s essential to develop the ability to make this distinction.
Comments
Leave a Reply