Frack Free SA forgets needy, hungry people

Frack Free SA once again is rearing to charge another windmill, “to protect our natural resources and heritage for future generations”.

This time it is the planning of further drilling in the seabed.

With all its environmental protectionist reactions for quite a long period against a host of positive development proposals (along with other similar groupings or individuals in the same boat), it clearly exposes itself as anti-development.

Broadly, this attitude implies it doesn’t want any more people and activities in our region.

Question: Must our greater Mossel Bay sub-region become static in order to protect every indigenous plant and animal, at whatever cost.

Frack Free SA clearly forgets needy and hungry people already present and still continuously migrating to our urban areas.

As I see it, this attitude further implies that these action groups or bodies don’t really accept that homo sapiens are part of every eco-system on this planet, and that these people are only one of a number of elements responsible for influencing changes in the environment.

Yes, not all the actions of people are for the good of a generally nice and prosperous environment.

Now, what are antidevelopment lobbyists doing from their side about the needs of people? People need food and shelter to survive.

Where does this situation leave authorities and producers of food, and work opportunities if they are blocked or strongly discouraged to embark on any initiative to meet developmental challenges in this world?

It is high time that environmentalists (read nature protectionists) accept that we in South Africa live in a dynamic, changing environment and that there is no reasonable and realistic space left for one-sided views against development for the benefit of its inhabitants.

Last question: If you want to preserve an “untouched” environment for future generations, what do you visualise they should do with such a static environment?