3 ms·

So … what about the numerous indigenous people who saw the world in interconnection and lived in an ecologically balanced way?

by hosh 5y ago

TeMPOraL 5y ago
Name three. I can't think of a single society in the history of the planet that "saw the world in interconnection and lived in an ecologically balanced way". It would be hard, given that it's only for about a 100 years that we actually have any clue about ecological balance, and have both biological knowledge and theoretical tools[0] to think about the environment as a whole. Known groups were usually expanding as much as they could and strip-mining their immediate environment, and their main limits were manpower and wars with other groups. -- [0] - Such as feedback loops, courtesy of cybernetics, and calculus underlying it.
- carapace 5y ago
  Have you seen the movie "The Gods Must be Crazy"? I don't know if they're a good example but the !Kung seemed to live an idyllic life of ecological and social harmony.
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    I haven't, I'll check it out. From what little I read about them, they were at times committing infanticide, so their life probably wasn't as idyllic as it would seem.
    - carapace 5y ago
      ncmncm could be right in that sib comment, it's not an anthropological documentary. > they were at times committing infanticide, so their life probably wasn't as idyllic as it would seem. I'm not sure how to respond to this. Infanticide is tragic, but they don't have condoms nor doctors who can perform abortions, so...? They live in a harsh environment (in the Kalahari Desert) so the ecological effects of overpopulation would be pretty evident to them, I imagine. They're not "expanding as much as they could and strip-mining their immediate environment", eh? But (if the movie is not a fable) they seem pretty happy.
    - kragen 5y ago
      "Idyllic" primarily means "pertaining to everyday rural life", and there's no reason infanticide is incompatible with that.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    That was not about any actual !Kung, although it had some in the cast. It was just a fable.
  - kragen 5y ago
    That movie was fiction. Don't reason from fictional evidence. It makes you look like a fool.
    - carapace 5y ago
      Sure, in general, but the first third of it is pretty much a documentary, or seems to be. It may well be a fable as ncmncm says in a sib comment, I don't know.
      - kragen 5y ago
        No, none of it is a documentary. The people in it are all actors; the main character is actually San, but in his everyday life, he was a cowherd, not a hunter-gatherer.
- hosh 5y ago
  The Hopi and the Mohawks off the top of my head. There is a documentary about the regenerative and restorative practices from the Native American tribes. Permaculture is a synthesis of modern ecological science and drawing deep from indigenous practices. And yes, I would say a history of civilization is a history of value extraction, exploitation, and fighting over resources. You don’t actually need the science to live in a way to see things in wholes, but the science can help.
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    Thank you for two specific mentions. I can't find any "dirt" on them off the bat, so I'll try to find where I've read about pre-European contact Native American tribes being not as sustainable as it's commonly held. Incidentally, I've just found a 2020 paper claiming they did not have a noticeable impact on ecology before European arrived[0]. I currently have two competing hypothesis if it turns out I was wrong, and the various tribes did in fact lived sustainably. The first one is, they understood nature enough to live in a balanced way on purpose. The second one is, they just weren't large enough as a group to meaningfully upset the ecosystem around them. I find the second slightly more likely given the information I have. But even if the first hypothesis is correct, there's still the question: would we like living like they lived? Are the lessons we could apply to lead sustainable lifestyles without abandoning the progress of science, and all the health improvements it brought? > You don’t actually need the science to live in a way to see things in wholes, but the science can help. I kind of disagree. Without the science, any kind of "seeing things in wholes" is limited to very small, local wholes, and/or lucky guesses. -- [0] - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200122123700.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200122123700.h...
    - ahevia 5y ago
      > Are the lessons we could apply to lead sustainable lifestyles without abandoning the progress of science, and all the health improvements it brought? I have met very few people who try to live sustainable lifestyles but actively deny science. I agree that science can help inform and enhance how we live sustainably, but the way this question is posed makes it seem that those who live sustainably also deny reality. (I dont doubt they exist, I know a few, but they are the minority of folks who live this way).
artpi 5y ago
Humboldt was very impressed by them. His one beef with Jefferson was over slavery. He considered colonialism the biggest stain on humanity's record.
- hosh 5y ago
  He sound like he was ahead of his time for someone from the colonial culture.
  - eschulz 5y ago
    Certainly, but I think it's important to consider that the Prussian landed gentry did not utilize slaves as did the land owners of Jefferson's fellow Virginians. Jefferson's writing often show someone ahead of his time, but his actions contradicted them in many ways since he was clearly addicted to the financial security of slavery (he also owed a lot of money throughout his life). Von Humboldt had no such ties to slavery in his affairs or those of his family or Prussian neighbors.

So … what about the numerous indigenous people who saw the world in interconnection and lived in an ecologically balanced way?

by hosh 5y ago

So … what about the numerous indigenous people who saw the world in interconnection and lived in an ecologically balanced way?

TeMPOraL 5y ago

Name three. I can't think of a single society in the history of the planet that "saw the world in interconnection and lived in an ecologically balanced way". It would be hard, given that it's only for about a 100 years that we actually have any clue about ecological balance, and have both biological knowledge and theoretical tools[0] to think about the environment as a whole. Known groups were usually expanding as much as they could and strip-mining their immediate environment, and their main limits were manpower and wars with other groups. -- [0] - Such as feedback loops, courtesy of cybernetics, and calculus underlying it.

carapace 5y ago
Have you seen the movie "The Gods Must be Crazy"? I don't know if they're a good example but the !Kung seemed to live an idyllic life of ecological and social harmony.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  I haven't, I'll check it out. From what little I read about them, they were at times committing infanticide, so their life probably wasn't as idyllic as it would seem.
  - carapace 5y ago
    ncmncm could be right in that sib comment, it's not an anthropological documentary. > they were at times committing infanticide, so their life probably wasn't as idyllic as it would seem. I'm not sure how to respond to this. Infanticide is tragic, but they don't have condoms nor doctors who can perform abortions, so...? They live in a harsh environment (in the Kalahari Desert) so the ecological effects of overpopulation would be pretty evident to them, I imagine. They're not "expanding as much as they could and strip-mining their immediate environment", eh? But (if the movie is not a fable) they seem pretty happy.
  - kragen 5y ago
    "Idyllic" primarily means "pertaining to everyday rural life", and there's no reason infanticide is incompatible with that.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  That was not about any actual !Kung, although it had some in the cast. It was just a fable.
- kragen 5y ago
  That movie was fiction. Don't reason from fictional evidence. It makes you look like a fool.
  - carapace 5y ago
    Sure, in general, but the first third of it is pretty much a documentary, or seems to be. It may well be a fable as ncmncm says in a sib comment, I don't know.
    - kragen 5y ago
      No, none of it is a documentary. The people in it are all actors; the main character is actually San, but in his everyday life, he was a cowherd, not a hunter-gatherer.
hosh 5y ago
The Hopi and the Mohawks off the top of my head. There is a documentary about the regenerative and restorative practices from the Native American tribes. Permaculture is a synthesis of modern ecological science and drawing deep from indigenous practices. And yes, I would say a history of civilization is a history of value extraction, exploitation, and fighting over resources. You don’t actually need the science to live in a way to see things in wholes, but the science can help.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  Thank you for two specific mentions. I can't find any "dirt" on them off the bat, so I'll try to find where I've read about pre-European contact Native American tribes being not as sustainable as it's commonly held. Incidentally, I've just found a 2020 paper claiming they did not have a noticeable impact on ecology before European arrived[0]. I currently have two competing hypothesis if it turns out I was wrong, and the various tribes did in fact lived sustainably. The first one is, they understood nature enough to live in a balanced way on purpose. The second one is, they just weren't large enough as a group to meaningfully upset the ecosystem around them. I find the second slightly more likely given the information I have. But even if the first hypothesis is correct, there's still the question: would we like living like they lived? Are the lessons we could apply to lead sustainable lifestyles without abandoning the progress of science, and all the health improvements it brought? > You don’t actually need the science to live in a way to see things in wholes, but the science can help. I kind of disagree. Without the science, any kind of "seeing things in wholes" is limited to very small, local wholes, and/or lucky guesses. -- [0] - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200122123700.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200122123700.h...
  - ahevia 5y ago
    > Are the lessons we could apply to lead sustainable lifestyles without abandoning the progress of science, and all the health improvements it brought? I have met very few people who try to live sustainable lifestyles but actively deny science. I agree that science can help inform and enhance how we live sustainably, but the way this question is posed makes it seem that those who live sustainably also deny reality. (I dont doubt they exist, I know a few, but they are the minority of folks who live this way).

artpi 5y ago

Humboldt was very impressed by them. His one beef with Jefferson was over slavery. He considered colonialism the biggest stain on humanity's record.

hosh 5y ago
He sound like he was ahead of his time for someone from the colonial culture.
- eschulz 5y ago
  Certainly, but I think it's important to consider that the Prussian landed gentry did not utilize slaves as did the land owners of Jefferson's fellow Virginians. Jefferson's writing often show someone ahead of his time, but his actions contradicted them in many ways since he was clearly addicted to the financial security of slavery (he also owed a lot of money throughout his life). Von Humboldt had no such ties to slavery in his affairs or those of his family or Prussian neighbors.