Hrm.

Not everything in Darfur makes perfect sense. I just completed a paralyzingly dull day of workshops on the environment and natural resources in Darfur - most of which was in Arabic and thus of predictably little value to me. One of the few portions sufficiently translated was an exploration of how an explosion in the number of nomadic herders (and consequently in their flocks) has ravaged the environment of Darfur. The numerous and hungry sheep, goats, cattle and camels devour grass, shrubs, trees, roots, and whatever other edibles they can find in an already shockingly inhospitable environment. This further dries the environment, erodes the soil, kills most of the plants lucky enough to escape the goat's teeth. More immediately, it also drives the growing number of herders onto land occupied by a similarly soaring population of farmers, where their critters, being critters, find lovely and well-nurtured crops upon which to feast. The herders are desperate, the farmers aghast, and one or both of these parties usually has an AK-47. Throw in a hefty dose of Machiavellian meddling from the central government and a ton of complexity I haven't hinted at here, and voila - you get the Darfur conflict. So it's clearly an idea beyond reproach that, among a great many other things, weaning a few well-armed nomads off their herding lifestyle might pay some delightful dividends in reduced environmental damage and bloodshed.

The next presentation was a discussion of how to improve the lot of nomadic herders by making it easier for them to increase the size of their herds.

This is one of the lesser of many insane contradictions espoused by well-meaning people today. What an odd place.