Hello friends,

It is with a heart weighed on by worry and despair that I ask you to sign THIS petition.

The widespread concern that the presence of this airport will cause harm to the priceless Sacred Valley and the one and only Machu Picchu is quite logical and expected. The enormous amount of traffic, noise and pollution that follow this construction's success are just not worth it.

I don't know if signing the petition would help in any way, but truthfully I don't see what more can be done about it. The president approved it. The billionaires have already cashed in on this investment opportunity. This is the last stand, as I see it.

It really breaks my heart...Yes, it will bring more tourists to Peru and will improve its GDP by a lot, but at what cost? How much money is preserving the priceless legacy of the great Incan civilization worth? Greed is suffocating this world...

I understand your sentiments and sympathise with them. But as you already pointed out, it could potentially make a lot people wealthier. It is all well and good for us to sit with all our comforts and rue the destruction of history and the environment, but what moral right do we have prevent the local people there from seeking wealth and the comforts that come with it.
As you rightly pointed out it is human greed. But the Peruvians have as much right to be greedy as we are. It is sad but there are no easy answers.

To an extent I agree with you my friend. However I believe we absolutely have to consider the possibility that local peruvians will see barely anything from all the money a selected few will earn through this airport. Yes, it will create a few hundred jobs maybe. It will also increase the flow of tourists in these areas, which will benefit the small merchants. All of this is undeniable. I'm just wondering how much will all that pollute and destroy the area, and if a 3 percent increase in the GDP of Peru and 10% better quality of life for the people there is worth decimating the Incan legacy.

Guess we'll have to wait and see.

I was going to say what antares said.

The same applies to the logging of tropical rainforests. I live in a wealthy, temperate climate country. It used to be forested, but over the centuries of development and agriculture the forest cover has dropped to near zero. And people in my country get outraged when they hear that Thailand or Brazil are clearing their forests for oil palms or pastures. They say those forests are the lungs of the world and should be seen as some kind of world heritage that needs protection. If that's the mindset that is to win, I feel sorry for the people of those 3rd world countries; what have they done to deserve having to host on their land something that benefits the whole world, but cripples their development, without getting anything back from the world that is being benefited, when the Western countries got wealthy by doing the exact opposite (on top of colonialism, exploitation, slavery...)? What right do we have to demand that? It's like saying "OK, we did plunder, exploit, rape and burn, and we got rich, but you developing countries shouldn't make the same mistake. Material wealth is not important after all, you have spiritual wealth, you don't need to eat; leave that low vibration stuff to us."

If we want to preserve ecosystems or cultural heritage in third world countries, why don't we pay them to do it? If we claim something in their countries belongs to the whole world and not just the country that hosts it, why doesn't the whole world contribute to it?

Another thing, Peru is very poor, if someone goes hungry and wants to have a normal meal once in a while that we take for granted every day, is it still greed? Does it make sense to use the word 'greed' in reference to poor nations? Of course there are wealthy individuals in every nation, then there is corruption etc., and an increase in GDP doesn't always translate to the improvement of the average person's quality of life. But it may and often does.

Yeah, I get that and I've considered it too. It's not fully in our right to say what should and should not happen to land and heritage we are not connected to, directly.

What I don't get is why it's okay to deforest an entire area and make palm or soy bean plantations so some hungry peruvians can get a normal meal once in a while, but the indigenous tribe people that were living in those forested areas for millenia are suddenly not that important. Why is that? Because they're only a fraction of the hungry peruvians that needs a way of sustenance? Are we really in a position to expel those people from the land they've raised generations on and claim it so we can create more jobs and increase the well-being of some other people?

I'm not saying that what you two wrote is not correct. I'm just saying there are more aspects to this issue than that.