4 ms·
I wonder. Have humans managed as a collective to do anything responsibly in their entire history?
by ebg13 6y ago
I wonder. Have humans managed as a collective to do anything responsibly in their entire history?
- wombatmobile 6y agoAustralian aborigines managed a whole continent the size of the USA sustainably for 60,000 years. http://www.workingwithindigenousaustralians.info/content/History_2_60,000_years.html http://www.workingwithindigenousaustralians.info/content/His...
- missedthecue 6y agoAt an unimaginably low standard of living.
- wombatmobile 6y agoIf you lack imagination and don't get out into nature much, you might not get it. But read Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn and you'll gain some understanding for how rich traditional aboriginal life was.
- zdragnar 6y agoStandard of living is a different metric than cultural richness. I'll keep access to modern medicine, indoor plumbing, food availability and the options to provide for myself that don't involve hazardous physical labor. Nature is great, but can also be a harsh mistress.
- wombatmobile 6y agoIndoor plumbing is awesome. Food availability is a double edged sword. Climate change is the harshest mistress of all.
- missedthecue 6y agoI would not want to live in a world where the average life expectancy was 25 years, and where most people died from exposure to the natural elements, easily curable diseases, or being eaten by wild beasts. Sure, they may have enjoyed a life free of that ol' 9-5 grind, but I much prefer air conditioning and vaccines to stoning rabbits to death to evade starvation every week.
- willcipriano 6y agoCompared to aboriginal life, Huck Finn might as well been aboard the deck of the Starship Enterprise. Steamboats, cannons, metallurgy, the beginnings of modern medicine. The mid-nineteenth century was during the industrial revolution. I'd say your life today is closer to Huck Finn than a typical aboriginal person.
- ioseph 6y agoI'd probably take it over the average lower class European's standard at the time.
- prebrov 6y agoThey still ate all the megafauna within a couple thousand years of their arrival, and, arguably, significantly contributed to deforestation of the continent. So, not that different from the Homo Sapiens anywhere else.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- wombatmobile 6y agoRegarding deforestation, prebrov, that didn't happen in the way that, for example, the Amazon was deforested in 20th century South America by clear felling old growth forests to produce coffee and soy mono-cultures. Australian aborigines used fire to cultivate the land in mosaic patterns of cleared grasslands forested conserves. The result was an altered landscape which retained natural ecosystems whilst supporting human and animal populations sustainably. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-18/indigenous-burning-before-and-after-tathra-bushfire/10258140 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-18/indigenous-burning-be...
- mc32 6y agoOne big difference, I imagine, is the population that forest is being extracted for. The Amazon isn't only being extracted while sustaining 100s of millions of South Americans (prior to colonization AUS had fewer than a million inhabitants), but also serving the world's demands. So I think it's different although in balance both unsustainably.
- wombatmobile 6y agoYes, it's a vastly bigger population now, mc32, and that's what is unsustainable. The vastly bigger population is still increasing at a rapid clip, but the forests and the oceans are not.
- prebrov 6y agoI don’t argue that it happened the same way. Impact sure took longer than what we can achieve with modern technology, but the fact remains. Humans arrived into the last jungles of Pangea, and by the time of European colonisation, Australia was a Red Continent, with Eucalyptus being the dominant large plant. There seems to be a strong indication that human activity contributed significantly to the climate change in Australia. Not belittling the choices humans make to opt-out of the modern civilisation, but romanticising and mythologising “closeness to nature” just isn’t productive. Profound effect on the environment is a feature of all life forms, and sustainability isn’t really on any life form’s agenda. Who’s to say that Cyanobacteria aren’t “close to nature”? Yet buggers were so successful, and polluted atmosphere with oxygen so badly, nearly all life went extinct. Even that worked quite well in the end.
- anitil 6y agoI believe they did wipe out much of the mega fauna, so not necessarily sustainable in a modern sense.
- wombatmobile 6y agoThis May 2020 article presents a different perspective https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/may/19/humans-australia-megafauna-to-extinction-climate-queensland https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/may/19/humans-austr...
- anitil 6y agoHuh I guess the jury is still out then
- RobLach 6y agoLumber is currently close and I bet could potentially totally be if you reverted to wood burning energy sources. That said, I’m unsure if having more trees is actually responsible given the fire risk.
- stefan_ 6y agoDespite popular belief, it is not a great idea to release a shitton of CO2 in a hot minute just because over 200 years, a newly grown tree can consume it back.
- FooHentai 6y agoBit of an overstatement in both directions. If you burn an entire tree each year and maintain a woodlot of 20 trees that take 20 years to grow, you’re neutral. Scale as necessary. It’s bad for local air quality. Also need to be clear on whether we’re talking individual home wood heating or industrial centralised systems.
- totetsu 6y agoPollarding(removal of the upper branches of a tree, which promotes the growth of a dense head of foliage and branches) seemed pretty responsible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollarding
- nix23 6y agoDeveloping vaccines and the declaration of human rights (after 2 World-wars)...but yeah there is really not much more.