Reader's Digest vs. National Geographic: The Orangutan

I am really sorry that I haven't posted in forever. I've been meaning to for the past two and a half weeks, but haven't gotten around to it. Anyway, in the latest issue of Reader's Digest there was an article discussing the endangered orangutan. Predictably, they put almost all the blame on evil loggers cutting down habitat, and, predictably, not stating that they probably had to do it to make a little bit of money to survive on (In fact, the Indonesian government pays $16.50 for the right arm of an orangutan, further reducing their numbers). The main cause of habitat destruction in Indonesia is, prepare yourselves, BIOFUELS! As usual, they fail to mention that demand for palm oil for ethanol and other uses encourages more palm oil plantations, and in fact dedicate most of another article to glorifying biofuels. In the latest issue of National Geographic, however, they point out the underlying reason for the problem of constant palm plantation expansion: it's a pretty poor country, and more foreign buyers equals more money. Put yourself in the position of the average Indonesian. Would you rather kill orangutans and end up better off, or save them and remain dirt poor? One study found that when per capita GDP reaches $8000, the public starts to be more concerned about things such as habitat preservation and saving endangered species. I was surprised when NG actually pointed out these problems and including biofuels in the blame. Needless to say, they earned a whole lot of respect frome me.