The people of the Amazon River basin, who live in rural poverty, have begun burning and clearing large sections of the forest. They are doing so to create farmland in order to earn a living for themselves and their families. But the burning and deforestation destroys ecosystems of rare plants and animals and contributes to global warming. As a result, representatives from environmental groups in the United States and other wealthy countries have traveled to the region seeking to persuade the locals to cease this practice and pursue a more sustainable livelihood based on ecotourism. The people of the Amazon River basin are offended by these proposals. They point out that North Americans already have destroyed much of their own forests and become prosperous. "Who are you to criticize us?" they ask. "It is a luxury to worry about what the weather will be like a hundred years from now. We have to worry about what we will eat tomorrow."
Whose position do you find more persuasive here-the environmentalists or the people of the Amazon River basin? How would you balance global concerns about deforestation and global warming against the subsistence needs of cultures in environmentally sensitive areas?