The Environmental Dilemma

Wrong to treat orang utans like human babies, say activists
Bukit Merah (near Taiping), Perak: An orang utan sanctuary where baby apes wear nappies, sleep in cots and are cared for by nurses dressed in masks and starched uniforms has drawn the wrath of environmentalists.
Tourists snap photos as they file past large windows looking onto a facility billed as the world’s only rehabilitation and preservation facility for the endangered primates.
Behind the glass, adorable baby orang utans like two-month-old Tuah lie swaddled in nursery sheets and cling to baby rattles.
But the care lavished on the animals, which are fed every two hours by a staff of seven nurses on duty round the clock, is lost on environmentalists who say this is no way to treat wild animals facing the threat of extinction.
A 2007 assessment by the United Nations Environment Programme warned that orang utans would be virtually eliminated in the wild within two decades if current deforestation trends continue.
Managers of the 14ha Island, which is part of a resort hotel development, say they aim to return the animals to their natural jungle habitat, but so far none have been released. The centre’s veterinarian defended the facility, situated in this tourist town, which opened in 2000 and now houses 25 orang utans.
(The Star 1 June 2009)

Despite the name, orang utans should not be treated like orangs. Animals should be left to be what they are, fending for themselves without human interference. Even when there is a need for human assistance to ensure survival of the animal species, it should be done in a manner that does not make the animals less animal. Some animal species by nature are hunters (Tigers for example). But once they get used to being fed fresh warm meat without having to hunt for it, they become lazy and in the end become less of a tiger.

So, stop molly cuddling the animals and let them be themselves.

On another note, it was noted that if current deforestation trends continue, the (wild) orang utan population will be eliminated within the next 20 years. That’s the thing with forests, we need them to complement our lives, i.e. we need wood to build houses, schools, hospitals, factories, furniture; we need land for farming and to breed livestock; we need space for the ever increasing population but cutting down trees (indiscriminately) for these purposes will cause other environmental issues. The rate of human growth outstrips the rate of reforestation.

So, how do we go about finding a balance between cutting down trees and meeting our needs? Do we say stop building new houses? But then the new families need a roof over their heads, where are they going to stay? Stop making furniture? Stop using fireplaces? Where are we going to rear the cattle? And we need land to plant vegetables.

It’s about time everyone; governments, industries, universities, Greenpeace, the UN and you and me to get together and come up with a win-win solution.

And no, limiting one person to one chair per lifetime is not a solution.