After reviewing an article on biodiversity and listening to a presentation on endangered cultures, it is quite easy to see that there is a correlation between cultures and the natural world that they live in. A person is a result of their environment and a group of people are a result from the natural world that surrounds them every day. These cultures are formed by what they have to do to survive and live off the land. This goes for any culture from Western cultures to remote indigenous cultures. Therefore if a cultures land is taken and used for something else, or is destroyed for other purposes it would make sense that in a way that culture would be somewhat destroyed too. Part of their identity which makes them who they are will have been lost. I believe that the government should not be involved in protecting culture diversity but they should not force people or do things that will force people to acclimate into the dominate culture. I do believe that governments should try to protect natural land, plants, and animals that everyone benefits from and if by doing that they save a culture then so be it.
I do not believe governments should legislate or fund to save culture diversity as long as they don’t make it impossible for one to keep their culture. I feel like protecting culture diversity should be placed on the people who want that culture to survive. Culture is formed from the people and environment around you, if that is important than the people that it is important to should protect it. You can protect a culture without throwing money at it, culture is made up of people and as long as they keep it alive, then it is protected.
As previously said biodiversity and cultures are correlated with each other. That being said the government should be responsible for protecting the biodiversity of the land and natural resources, and by doing that are protecting the culture of the people who benefit from the biodiversity. So indirectly the government can and should protect culture diversity. This may be so, but the biodiversity of the natural world in a way is only part of a person’s culture and not all of it. A culture could still exist even if the biodiversity was not fully protected.
I do not believe governments should legislate or fund to save culture diversity as long as they don’t make it impossible for one to keep their culture. I feel like protecting culture diversity should be placed on the people who want that culture to survive. Culture is formed from the people and environment around you, if that is important than the people that it is important to should protect it. You can protect a culture without throwing money at it, culture is made up of people and as long as they keep it alive, then it is protected.
As previously said biodiversity and cultures are correlated with each other. That being said the government should be responsible for protecting the biodiversity of the land and natural resources, and by doing that are protecting the culture of the people who benefit from the biodiversity. So indirectly the government can and should protect culture diversity. This may be so, but the biodiversity of the natural world in a way is only part of a person’s culture and not all of it. A culture could still exist even if the biodiversity was not fully protected.