4 ms·

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. Permac

by 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).
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    I meant something else: I meant, could we take the sustainability lessons of the Native Tribes in such a way that we both live sustainably and keep furthering science? I.e. it's not about denying reality - it's about continuing to learn more about it, and to apply it. In the past centuries, most important of scientific discoveries required having an industrial civilization. So implied in my question is, can we keep the progress of technology going (at least the non-abusive parts of it), because it's a flip side of scientific progress - they feed on themselves, and you can't have one without the other.
    - ahevia 5y ago
      Yeah I don’t see why not. I’ve collaborated with a handful of scientists of indigenous backgrounds who still practice their culture. That’s never even been a contradiction in their head. Living a sustainable life doesn’t impact or hinder science whatsoever.
- hosh 5y ago
  Science is useful and has its own epistomology ... but it is also not the only epistomology. It's commonly assumed that science is capable of learning anything and everything, but I think science, while useful in many context, is itself limited. Maybe someone will surprise me, but there are matters of consciousness, sentience, sapience, awareness that I have doubts the scientific method will ever come to understand. For me, exclusively using science to understand everything is as foolish as completely denying science ... but I also get that each person are navigating through life in their own way.
ncmncm 5y ago
North American tribes kept the forests burned off to provide forage for game animals, particularly the bison, which ranged all the way to Louisiana. When Hernan de Soto released pigs during his exploration, initiating a continent-wide smallpox epidemic, the practice was perforce abandoned, triggering a little ice age as the new forests absorbed a huge slug of CO2. A century later, forest stretched from the Mississippi River all the way to the east coast. This is not to assert that they lived out of harmony with nature, whatever that might mean, but it does mean they had a different relationship with it than is commonly assumed.
- andrewflnr 5y ago
  That doesn't itself imply anything about the Hopi or Mohawk people. There were a lot of native cultures in North America with radically different practices.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    I don't think we know how the Mohawk lived before the Eurasian plagues wiped most out. But do we know the Hopi, anyway, weren't burning forests.
    - hosh 5y ago
      In several interviews and in her books, Carol Sanford would recount how her half-Mohawk grandfather taught her how to see the world, in a way that is different from mainstream, modern cultures. I would tell a friend of mine what I learned about permaculture, and when he talked with his father, his father would recognize those ideas as something his grandfather said the Native Americans would tell him. This was in Alabama. It's not how they lived so much as how they saw the world.
      - ncmncm 5y ago
        Anyway, as much as was left of how they saw the world after 80% died in one generation, and descendants of the survivors were forcibly relocated. What is remarkable is that anything remains. What was lost, we will never know.

by hosh 5y ago

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).
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  I meant something else: I meant, could we take the sustainability lessons of the Native Tribes in such a way that we both live sustainably and keep furthering science? I.e. it's not about denying reality - it's about continuing to learn more about it, and to apply it. In the past centuries, most important of scientific discoveries required having an industrial civilization. So implied in my question is, can we keep the progress of technology going (at least the non-abusive parts of it), because it's a flip side of scientific progress - they feed on themselves, and you can't have one without the other.
  - ahevia 5y ago
    Yeah I don’t see why not. I’ve collaborated with a handful of scientists of indigenous backgrounds who still practice their culture. That’s never even been a contradiction in their head. Living a sustainable life doesn’t impact or hinder science whatsoever.
hosh 5y ago
Science is useful and has its own epistomology ... but it is also not the only epistomology. It's commonly assumed that science is capable of learning anything and everything, but I think science, while useful in many context, is itself limited. Maybe someone will surprise me, but there are matters of consciousness, sentience, sapience, awareness that I have doubts the scientific method will ever come to understand. For me, exclusively using science to understand everything is as foolish as completely denying science ... but I also get that each person are navigating through life in their own way.

ncmncm 5y ago

North American tribes kept the forests burned off to provide forage for game animals, particularly the bison, which ranged all the way to Louisiana. When Hernan de Soto released pigs during his exploration, initiating a continent-wide smallpox epidemic, the practice was perforce abandoned, triggering a little ice age as the new forests absorbed a huge slug of CO2. A century later, forest stretched from the Mississippi River all the way to the east coast. This is not to assert that they lived out of harmony with nature, whatever that might mean, but it does mean they had a different relationship with it than is commonly assumed.

andrewflnr 5y ago
That doesn't itself imply anything about the Hopi or Mohawk people. There were a lot of native cultures in North America with radically different practices.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  I don't think we know how the Mohawk lived before the Eurasian plagues wiped most out. But do we know the Hopi, anyway, weren't burning forests.
  - hosh 5y ago
    In several interviews and in her books, Carol Sanford would recount how her half-Mohawk grandfather taught her how to see the world, in a way that is different from mainstream, modern cultures. I would tell a friend of mine what I learned about permaculture, and when he talked with his father, his father would recognize those ideas as something his grandfather said the Native Americans would tell him. This was in Alabama. It's not how they lived so much as how they saw the world.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      Anyway, as much as was left of how they saw the world after 80% died in one generation, and descendants of the survivors were forcibly relocated. What is remarkable is that anything remains. What was lost, we will never know.