Then I guess I'm conceited! Once again you've treated us to the successes of the environmental movement.
Your notions of success are interesting. You manage to prevent further cutting of the rain forest and in doing so keep the indigenous people mired in poverty. You deny them conveniences that you take for granted, dooming them to live in squalor for the entirety of their brutishly short lives. You call that success?
How about the conservation efforts that just plain outright kills them? Even Scientific American published an article on the deaths of indigenous peoples when the conservation movement ignores the cost to the people in the way. Exactly like the robber barons of old.
Must be they really don't care about those little brown people after all, hmmm? They sure don't make much of an effort to preserve them.
When Restoration Efforts Are Pitted against Human RightsSaving Earth might mean trampling indigenous societies
"Conservationists have historically been at odds with the people who inhabit wildernesses. During the last half of the 20th century, millions of indigenous people in Africa, South America and Asia were ousted from their homelands to establish nature sanctuaries free of humans. Most succumbed to malnutrition, disease and exploitation, recounts anthropologist Michael Cernea of George Washington University. Such outcomescoupled with the realization that indigenous groups usually help to stabilize ecosystems by, for instance, keeping fire or invasive weeds at bayhave convinced major conservation groups to take local human concerns into account. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) now describes indigenous peoples as natural allies, and the Nature Conservancy pledges to seek their free, informed and prior consent to projects impacting their territories."
Conflicted Conservation: When Restoration Efforts Are Pitted against Human Rights: Scientific American