4 ms·

> A planet full of similar nomads (at their normal density) would likely last a billion years on the planet. Australian indigenous nations managed a whole cont

> A planet full of similar nomads (at their normal density) would likely last a billion years on the planet. Australian indigenous nations managed a whole continent pretty successfully for 60,000 years. Agricultural-industrial civilisation has brought it to its knees in under 200. Our climate stability is collapsing at breakneck speed, the Great Barrier Reef is nearly dead, we have the most catastrophic mammalian extinction rate of any continent, our topsoil is being flushed out to sea, our great river systems are diminishing before our eyes. (Though it's worth pointing out that Australian indigenous people were neither nomads nor hunter-gatherers, contrary to popular myth). > his however requires legions of poor working all over the planet and destroying it. I see your point, but the poor are only being used as tools by the rich. It is the rich for whom our living planet is being sacrificed. They will buy themselves comfort for another 50-200 years, as our world collapses.

perilunar 9y ago
> (Though it's worth pointing out that Australian indigenous people were neither nomads nor hunter-gatherers, contrary to popular myth). Where did you get that from? Everything I've ever read about indigenous Australians says they were hunter-gatherers, with only very limited agriculture.
- crispinb 9y ago
  It was the traditional view, based on an assumed stereotype: ie. a simple hunter-gather/agriculture dichotomy that contemporary research hasn't borne out. Indigenous Australians certain used hunting and gathering amongst a variety of food-obtaining methods like fish farming and yam cultivation (very various in the different nations). But they did so in landscapes that they actively managed through a range of techniques (including but not limited to use of fire) to make the flora and fauna of their choice readily available in their country (and to keep them available throughout good & bad seasons). Popular accounts of the contemporary research can be found in Bill Gammage's The Biggest Estate on Earth and Bruce Pascoe's Dark Emu. It's a fast-changing research landscape, though, with much left to be discovered.
srtjstjsj 9y ago
If you are posting on HN, you are "the rich" of the world, living a life that is unsustainable globally. http://www.globalrichlist.com/ http://www.globalrichlist.com/ $50K/yr -> You’re in the top 0.31% richest people in the world by income.
- crispinb 9y ago
  Yes and no. Firstly, I don't have the numbers to hand, but I've seen economic work suggesting that the 'real' rich (ie. 'our' 1st world 10%) are responsible for grossly disproportionate resource use. Those vast houses, yachts, constant flying etc all take their toll. Secondly, although no doubt true on average, you addressed your 'if you are posting on HN' to an individual, and you're wrong in this case. I'm on less than a third of what you suggest. I live in a small forest shack, use a modest motorbike for travel, rarely eat meat, don't fly etc. Even then though I'm well off by world standards, and I'm a beneficiary of rich-world infrastructure, an expensive medical system, yada yada. But does all that matter? Pointing out that the rich are (almost literally) eating the world doesn't give any of us the instant means to change the system we live within. We can only do what we can do, but there's nothing to do without awareness.

perilunar 9y ago

> (Though it's worth pointing out that Australian indigenous people were neither nomads nor hunter-gatherers, contrary to popular myth). Where did you get that from? Everything I've ever read about indigenous Australians says they were hunter-gatherers, with only very limited agriculture.

crispinb 9y ago
It was the traditional view, based on an assumed stereotype: ie. a simple hunter-gather/agriculture dichotomy that contemporary research hasn't borne out. Indigenous Australians certain used hunting and gathering amongst a variety of food-obtaining methods like fish farming and yam cultivation (very various in the different nations). But they did so in landscapes that they actively managed through a range of techniques (including but not limited to use of fire) to make the flora and fauna of their choice readily available in their country (and to keep them available throughout good & bad seasons). Popular accounts of the contemporary research can be found in Bill Gammage's The Biggest Estate on Earth and Bruce Pascoe's Dark Emu. It's a fast-changing research landscape, though, with much left to be discovered.

srtjstjsj 9y ago

If you are posting on HN, you are "the rich" of the world, living a life that is unsustainable globally. http://www.globalrichlist.com/ http://www.globalrichlist.com/ $50K/yr -> You’re in the top 0.31% richest people in the world by income.

crispinb 9y ago
Yes and no. Firstly, I don't have the numbers to hand, but I've seen economic work suggesting that the 'real' rich (ie. 'our' 1st world 10%) are responsible for grossly disproportionate resource use. Those vast houses, yachts, constant flying etc all take their toll. Secondly, although no doubt true on average, you addressed your 'if you are posting on HN' to an individual, and you're wrong in this case. I'm on less than a third of what you suggest. I live in a small forest shack, use a modest motorbike for travel, rarely eat meat, don't fly etc. Even then though I'm well off by world standards, and I'm a beneficiary of rich-world infrastructure, an expensive medical system, yada yada. But does all that matter? Pointing out that the rich are (almost literally) eating the world doesn't give any of us the instant means to change the system we live within. We can only do what we can do, but there's nothing to do without awareness.