The Dogs And Cows Demographic And What It Teaches Us About Environmental Conservation
On earth, dogs of all species produce on average six puppies, three times a year. One can start with one dog at the start of a year and, solely through reproduction, have a pack of 19 dogs by the end of the year. Moreover, after growing for just two years, each puppy is ready to spawn an extra eighteen puppies within the following year. On the other hand, cows of all species produce, on average, one calf, once a year. One would therefore expect dogs to multiply at a much faster pace than cows, especially since cows are butchered for their meat every day whereas dogs are not.
Why, then, do we have more cows than dogs in Uganda and on earth? The answer lies in The Value Theory of Apollo Buregyeya which states that “by default, what we value grows, and what we don’t value diminishes.”
*************************
Let us now relate this theory, first to deforestation, and then to plastic waste management, in the context of environmental degradation.
According to this theory, deforestation inevitably happens when the value of forestry products is low relative to those of the products of alternative uses of land. When forestry products are of lower value than coffee beans and tea leaves, then the forests will be cleared to make way for coffee or tea growing. On the other hand, when strong incentives are created for the preservation of forests, there will be less deforestation. When forestry products have high market value relative to alternatives, there will be more afforestation. Therefore, the logical way to deter deforestation or accelerate afforestation is to raise the value of forests and the products of forests. This can be achieved by promoting or encouraging the consumption of locally sourced timber and trees in the construction and manufacturing industries.
When owners of forests are prohibited from cutting trees, it will mean that their forests are of little value to them and that it’s better to replace them with crops that have no such restrictions. When there are no deterrents to the smuggling of forestry products from war-ravaged areas in neighbouring countries, local entrepreneurs in forestry will gradually be forced to abandon their ventures since the smuggled products will so distort pricing that it will not be possible to get attractive returns. The entrepreneurs may cut down the forests to put their land to more profitable use, or they may forsake the plans they had for the expansion of their forests. People will plant trees on their land once they know that they will get very good returns in future. This can only happen if they have more freedom to cut down their trees, and if local industries are reserved for local forestry products.
Regarding plastic waste, the perception that value can be created out of it (by, for instance, using it in secondary products such as concrete blocks and pavers) has fostered the impression that its danger to the environment can be averted while creating useful products in the process. But when one closely examines the vaunted value addition, they realise that the danger is not averted but postponed, at best. Cutting plastic bottles into small pieces and mixing them in sand to make block pavers ends up creating a future problem of poisoned sand (increased volume of waste) and fine plastic dust that will end up contaminating our air and water bodies when the construction materials have expired, which normally happens within 20 years. The misperception that the reuse of plastic waste is good for the environment is reflected in the innovation awards that have been given to those who have mixed microplastics and melted them in sand/soil matrices. These rewards for innovations of false value lead to an increase in such innovations and show how myopic we can be as a society. Plastic waste should only be penalised. That we can celebrate poisoning our near future environment as we further complicate waste extraction is a trend every critical thinker should worry about.
There is a pressing need for mindset change. If we want to see more plastic waste, let’s innovate to give plastic waste value. If we want to see less plastic waste, let’s penalise it. And if we want to accelerate deforestation, let’s prohibit the cutting of trees.