Comments by "HomerOJSimpson" (@Homer-OJ-Simpson) on "The Impossible Ethical Bargain Behind African Safaris" video.

@LENZ5369 Actually the video mostly agrees that safaris are a net benefit to conservation and to the people. It was a little more mixed on the trophy hunting.
36
Tanzania is that authoritarian? I didn't know.
21
@whatkenyan7684 I loved the safaris in Kenya. I went to the Masai Mari and the safari right there near Nairobi. Did 3 days in Daini Beach. The safaris were great but I ended up getting sever food/water poisoning (spend half a day in the ER) and picked up bed bugs while in Diani Beach. Plus my significant other got some severe eye infection in the first 2 days we were there. A trip with so many ups and downs.
8
Even Wendover (Sam) usually does the 'rich guy bad' or "US sucks, Europe is the best". This video was far more nuance than I expected from Sam though lately I've seen him tone down his biases, at least on this channel (half as interesting is a different story). Don't get me wrong, it often is 'rich guy bad' but not always or it's more nuanced than that. I still think the video was a little harsh on the luxury safaris -- that seems to be the best at helping conservation efforts and helping the locals. It's a lot of money with fewer people needed in the parks to achieve the same revenue.
7
I went to a safari in 2019. It was an amazing experience and I feel confident that they are a positive not only for animals but the people. We spent lots of money on the trip and it's still cheap compared to the lower luxury. The safari itself I spent nearly $1000 for 2 people for 4 days or so and nearly $2,000 for 9-10 days total in Kenya including flights. That included the hotel, the driver and vehicle to get us from Nairobi to the safari, the guide (also the driver), and spending buying things from the local maasai people. Downside was I get serious food or water poisoning. Now, the trophy hunting is something I'm not sure about. It incentivizes potential bad behavior in a system that can be corrupted. I understand it raises money and it's supposed to be hunting animals that are no longer fit to breed but the incentives are a potential problem. We need more research to really understand it.
6
@mystery19933 What exploitations? You want Kenyan's to stay poor forever?
5
@mystery19933 Change my mind how? You're making an argument to not give poor people any business. How is that good?
5
@LENZ5369 non hunting is still less than a third of the income. You say dozens of you spent $40K, according to the vid -avg single 'hunter is spending $15k-25K and high rollers closer to 60k." Where do you get that non hunting is less than 1/3 of their their income and hunting is 2/3 of their income? Is that for one specific park, all of Africa, one country? And yes, the hunters might pay $15k-$25k. But they aren't as many of them. I saw hundreds of people in the non hunting safaris each day. There certainly weren't dozens of hunting safaris each day.
4
@ileutur6863 "Those aren't biases, they're objective verifiable facts. " This is a flat out wrong way to argue. Facts can be bias in how you present them and what you ignore from facts. It's like a pro Putin person making a video of how Putin helped Russia in the 2000's and don't discuss any bad things that Putin did and exaggerate with suggestions about how much Putin's involvement was in the economy bouncing back -- all while ignoring that oil prices were at historical lows in the 90's and surged in the 2000's. A video with "objective verifiable facts" can have biases and not tell the whole story.
3
@LENZ5369 I was referring to non-hunting safaris. it's certainly a net positive. The video is unclear (though suggest net positive) on trophy hunting. "It's not like there is going to be $10k hot air balloon rides to replace killing an elephant." Except you have thousands each day on safari in some of these countries. I spent over $1k for two of us over 4 days on a safari. There were were dozens of us in this one small complex so assuming they all paid the same, that was probably over $40k in one week at that facility. I stayed in a relatively cheap place -- there were 'resorts' inside the park that would probably be 4x to 10x more expensive. These were all non hunting safaris.
3
@LENZ5369 "you keep bringing in stuff that is not relevant and expanding the issue." I'm literally bringing up the relevant issues, it's you that isn't. - "This not about total tourism or whatever -this is about what is happening in that "PROTECTED" area." Like this, you refuse to understand what is relevant to the discussion. Total tourism was to fact check your suggestion of how trophy hunting safaris bring in more money. There is a difference between bringing in more money PER person vs bringing in more money in TOTAL. That's why total tourism matters. Why do you keep trying to argue that non-hunting safaris are bad because trophy hunting safaris are happening? They are not the same and some countries don't allow trophy hunting safaris, such as Kenya. Each time I try to defend the non-hunting safaris, you dish-nestly conflate it with hunting safaris. They are separate arguments and not related to each other. - "Do you honestly believe supporting 20 or 30 times more people in that park will be less damaging than the handful of rich aho?" If they only deal with the rich who want trophy hunting, there is less incentive for these poor countries to protect a much larger area of their country. - "The issue was supposed to be the wellbeing of THAT Park and if it is in fact actually being protected or simply being slowly 'used up' for profit." Ideological people with low intelligence tend to think that poor countries will simply protect lands without any profit. Are you a communist as well? You think people will just magically work their hardest for the common good to produce food and goods or do you think incentives (money) help more?
3
THE DOG FOOD IS MADE OF SOYLENT GREEN!!
2
@gtasaints What justifications? Are you also wanting poor people of Africa to stay poor? or are you making fun of the other guy, anonymous?
2
@mystery19933 So you do you want africans to stay poor. Why? You do know that without people buying what they are selling (in my case I bought safaris and a trip to the beach), they will stay poor. Why don't you care for poor people to become financially better off?
2
@nunya___ Hey now, that's my quote!! "Alcohol: The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems".
2
@LENZ5369 Those figures? You mention how much ONE safari might bring up, no mention of how many trophy hunting safaris there are per day or per week. Therefore it's not very relevant to say a trophy hunting safari can bring in 15k to just 1k for non-hunting safari without mentioning how many of each are happening. I went to safaris in Kenya and trophy hunting is illegal. I'm not sure how accurate it is but I looked up Tanzania and they generate something near or over $2 billion in total tourism spending from and $0.2 billion from trophy hunting so it's only 10% of total tourism. The trophy hunting figure was total spent while they were there so not just the fee for the hunt. "And as I already said; MORE people means MORE infrastructure; which means MORE destruction of natural habitat." Without reasons to monetize nature, they will not protect nature. That's how it is -- especially for poor countries. You must be some extreme ideological type that doesn't care how the real world actually operates.
2
@markallen6433 In democracy index, the highest rankings in sub saharian africa are Mauritius and Botswana. Both are also fairly wealthy by sub-saharan standards. South Africa is 4th and it's also fairly rich relative to Africa.
1
@markallen6433 Mauritius is the only country labeled as 'full democracy' in the EIU democracy index. It's number 19. But in another it's 50th. Democracy Matrix has, Cape Verde is the highest and it's number 37. So african countries (both subsaharan and northern africa) compare disfavorably.
1
@markallen6433 "Mauritius btw isn't African" Its included in all the indexes as Africa but I agree with you. Africa has a long way to go...even their best is not much better than the worst in eastern Europe.
1
@lucidmoses When I said luxury safaris, I didn't mean the ones that hunt. I'm talking about those that pay $1,000 a night for a villa inside the park. Trophy hunting, to me, is a different 'experience'. I'm not sure the trophy hunting is a net positive because I think it incentivizes potential bad behavior. If the system has little or no corruption, then it would be a positive. But with a corrupt system, it increases the chances that the animals up for trophy hunting are not past their mating life.
1
@Matt, I agree. In addition, the poor countries have to be willing to do it as well and have limited corruption in the process.
1
@LENZ5369 You're a communist, right? Or very left wing socialist? You tried explaining the issue in a socialist way and ignoring that poor countries need money and can't simply just protect the lands without monetizing from it. Only a communist thinks that people will magically work their hardest for the common good.
1
@LENZ5369 "; thinks ANY simplistic political labels have real world applications beyond rhetoric " Can't even deny that you aren't a far left socialist or communist. I think that made my point. If poor people around the world are willing to do anything for money, why would they then protect a bunch of land without being paid while missing out on chances to make money by destroying the nature for it's resources?
1
@LENZ5369 Ok??
1
@whatkenyan7684 what, kenyan?
1