Peru's history has shown many times that extractive "industries" have not been very keen in supporting sustainalbe development. Whether in terms of human and colective rights, or environmental protections, the existence of this enterprises has been posible not only because of the needs of the world's newly born market, but because of the abscence of coherent legislation. One good example of this was the rubber fever around the first decades of last century (about one hundred years ago). This material was needed for the car industry, so in many countries such as Peru, this industries settled down and started extracting rubber trees from our jungle.

The impact was huge, for not only biodiversity was in danger but also native communities rights (well, around that time no rights were implemented, not even thought). According to our school books of history, trees were logged indicriminatedly and very soon rubber bussinesmen gained a very bad image for native comunities. They were evil-bearers because they were contaminated with their diseases, like tifus and malaria. For this, and brutal working conditions (natives were punished severly if they didn't collected at the end of the day the stablished amount of rubber, and work in slavery conditions -they were not retributed for their work in any way), around 40 thousand natives died while the rubber fever lasted. On the other hand, just in the year 1884 around 540,529 kilos of rubber were exported, and in 1905 this amount increased to 2 million kilos. And then, the era stopped, because rubber was transplanted in India and Ceilan, brittish bussinesmen lesser production costs, and so everybody started buying from them.

So, there are some lessons that we could learn form this historical episode:

a) Never relly blindly on extractive industries, without protecting your natural heritage. This, on the economic side, is not profitable because eventually all will be gone, and on the environmental side is conter-productive because it threatens biodiversity, reducing (or extinguishing it) to very minimum amounts. Making of sustainable plans would be the best alternative.

b) Never work without the proper legislation. Otherwise, we will be vulnerating and endangering human and environmental life contidions.

c) But also, make sure that is FAIR legislation. Pitfully, we have seen later on that sometimes legislation protects intererests of the powerfull and forget the ones from the people.

a) Sometimes what we want is not what we need. It has happened that many people, perhaps all people, want a luxury life, full of commodities and just thinking about yourself. You can see this in all lottery advertising and also in media presentations of what "welfare" means. But I think we should have less-selfish perspective of living. Our conception of "self" should include individual and collective condions. So, the kind of life I'll like to live would be filled with people that really cares about each other, not because it loks would or just to show off, but because is the best and more coherent way of development we could chose.

b) Of course, the answer is "no". But not in such a dramatic way. For instance, I cannot direct my country choices, I cannot directly decide whether my country goes to war or not, signs some agreements that would benefite/ disserve the people, etc. Certainly, even some close desitions are influenced by closer social circles, such as family or friends. For example, in your career choice, parents tend to like laws, medicine, engieneering, etc... but if you decide to study other things like art, music, even social science, it is not widely accepted. Still, speaking personally, I think I have negotiated what I like with what other people might want for me.

c) It's not like a 100% no. But I think we are lacking more conversation an negotiations skills. Good reuslts can be achieved for both sides of any problem through talking. Specially in environmental issues, we can choose to have a life rapped with concrete, or a life that mixes up biodiversity contidions of living and ours.

Just walking around for hours around the city, and sometimes outside, listening music and watching how everything interacts... see how things can be complemented/ repelled by certain tipes of action. I like walking a lot.

Well, nowadays not only me but many people find it difficult to just walk around the city, because the city council has decided to break up and build more highways. Not very fun to walk around these days at all!

Well... it depends. For instance, now there is medium coverage around the activities of the Ministry of Environment. Now that I think of it, it's been since the Ministry was reated that more attention was granted to environmental issues. For example, yesterday the minister spoke at a national radio, named RPP, about Peru's fight agains transgenetic food. He claimed that we've had several different types of crops and, for centurys we have tamed several crops such as potatos, sweet potato and corn. We should protect our natural heritage and our consumption proccess through buying peruvian growth crops.

There is a certain trend, perhaps it will be more than a trend (hope so!), that consists in protecting peruvian goods and heritage, such as the culinary, crops, dance, culture, enterprises... And in this point the proclaim to protect our environment has echo in media this days. Just check out this link:

Of course! Well, let's face, it has not still reached quite a big agreement, but, as said before, since the creation of the Ministry of Environment the climate issue has been in the spotlight. The minister, Antonio Brack-Egg, attends several meetings and promotes sustainable development for peruvians. Please, check out this website:

(no answer yet)

(no answer yet)

(no answer yet)