The Price of Rat Meat Quadruples in Cambodia

[Virulent]

Your post seemed to have a mocking air to it, which disturbed me and prompted my reply.

I'm not mocking you, though I do think you're demonstrably wrong. If I seem abrasive, I apologize, and I hope you no longer feel that I'm mocking you, yet continue to reply anyway.

Where in my post did I suggest rat is considered a delicacy. Reuters did I didn't. You are disagreeing with article you yourself posted not my post.

I can't find that anywhere in the article. You're right though that you didn't say that rat meat was a delicacy. I never said you did, either. There are two other instances where you claim some of my simply factual statements are meant as claims of ignorance on your behalf; when I cite a fact there is not a concurrent implication that you specifically didn't know it.

I agree Cambodians would rather eat beef, but rat is not the last resort food one may think. Rat like dogmeat is a poor man's food much like rabbit is considered in England. Eating rat does not have the social stigma it does in the west.

I think you're splitting hairs to distinguish between "poor man's food" and "last resort food" in a country where so many die of malnutrition every year. I will agree that it doesn't have the same social stigma though; do you think that might be because the people who can afford rat get to watch the people who can't die in the street?

Regarding "increased corporatization", my point was in response to denu

If your replies are specific to one individual, and you'd rather not have others comment on them, you can always private message them I suppose. Or do you just mean you'd rather I not reply to you in general?

I was suggesting western governments could encourage multinationals to open factories there to provide jobs and stimulate the economy as an alternative to aid. You disagree that increased capitalism is a solution for Cambodia. Well it works for America and Europe and worked for the Asian Tigers and newly devloped nations...

...I didn't follow your leap from foreign investment instead of foreign aid to who is cutting down trees.

a.) The Asian Tigers attracted foreign investment while retaining tight state controls on profits from natural resources. The Chinese government makes a killing on their rape of the country's few remaining lumber stands. Cambodia, contrarily, is exporting natural resources with only individual benefit.

b.) I am not going to take the time to talk about the differences between Cambodia aspiring to an industrial standard of living in the 21st century and Europe and America doing it in the 19th century. That would be a book. If you think there is any merit to this simile, then consider me to have conceded to you.

Maybe I'm being confusing. Here's a clear premise: Cambodia's forests were cut, primarily, by Western lumber concerns. There had to have been a terrific amount of money made in the clear-cutting of Cambodia's forest. That the vast majority of the people still suffer in abject poverty seems like a clear demonstration that foreign investment, such as that of lumber permits, is ineffective (and in fact, only serves to enrich those who already have more wealth than any human needs).

What is the relationship between deforestation and beef price increase.

Other than they're both emblematic of a nation in crisis where the poor are getting screwed extra hard? Regardless, I didn't say there was a relationship deeper than nationality.

Deforestation has been going on for years. It has not suddenly increased.

I suppose it depends on your time scale. Its been going on for less than 40 years. To go from 70% forest to 3.1% forest that quick seems pretty sudden to me. Most importantly though, the people didn't benefit.

As to your last two paragraphs... I was making what I thought was an obvious attempt at humor (Denu got it, at least). I have no interest in defending the epistemological accuracy of statements made in jest.