7 ms·

https://phys.org/news/2023-07-highlights-importance-indigenous-cultural-perspectives.html https://phys.org/news/2023-07-highlights-importance-indigeno... https

https://phys.org/news/2023-07-highlights-importance-indigenous-cultural-perspectives.html https://phys.org/news/2023-07-highlights-importance-indigeno... https://phys.org/news/2021-10-indigenous-knowledge-myth-wilderness.html https://phys.org/news/2021-10-indigenous-knowledge-myth-wild... There's a lot. I can rec. a few books? The UN has a lot on it too!

ilyt 3y ago
[flagged]
- fastball 3y ago
  It would be more constructive if you could explain why you think these sources are crap, like the other commenter.
  - ilyt 3y ago
    Why would I explain same thing again ?
    - fastball 3y ago
      If you don't have anything constructive to add, I think HN would prefer if you don't comment at all. Decreasing the signal-to-noise ratio helps nobody.
      - ilyt 3y ago
        You keep adding noise by complaining about it tho
        fastball 3y ago
        I think trying to improve the quality of discourse is not quite noise, but yes I agree it would be better if not required. That being said, your root comment is flagged/dead now, so this entire subthread contributes little to the noise regardless as it will be hidden to most users.
fluoridation 3y ago
>https://phys.org/news/2023-07-highlights-importance-indigenous-cultural-perspectives.html https://phys.org/news/2023-07-highlights-importance-indigeno... I don't understand the argument. "Certain structures built by certain cultures are ecologically beneficial, therefore ecological restoration efforts should be culturally informed"? Why? I'll grant that earthen and shell mounds are beneficial. So build them. I don't understand why the fact that this or that person built it is relevant. More to the point, "some practices of culture X are ecologically beneficial" doesn't lead to "culture X is better at preserving the environment than culture Y". >https://phys.org/news/2021-10-indigenous-knowledge-myth-wilderness.html https://phys.org/news/2021-10-indigenous-knowledge-myth-wild... Anti-scientific garbage. The author clearly has a preconceived notion that Europe and Enlightenment ideals (presumably including science) are evil, and the rest is derived from that.
- avianlyric 3y ago
  > So build them. I don't understand why the fact that this or that person built it is relevant. I don’t think the specific person that built it is important, that would be ridiculous. But I can completely see the argument that structures built by cultures that evolved in exact environment they’re being built in are much more likely to be ecologically beneficial, than those designed by cultures foreign to that environment. The local culture will be filled to brim with historical knowledge and techniques all formed and shaped by the unique resources and requirements of their local area. You could rediscover all of that knowledge using the scientific method, but why bother? The local cultures have already done the heavy lifting, just find away to continue applying it. I don’t see why it’s surprising that indigenous peoples end up building more ecologically appropriate structures. > Anti-scientific garbage. The author clearly has a preconceived notion that Europe and Enlightenment ideals (presumably including science) are evil, and the rest is derived from that. Quite frankly, Europe/science has just been through an extend period of believing that humans are capable of overcoming nature, and can generally just ignore ecological consequences, because future technology will deal with those consequences (the Victorians were renowned for this type of thinking, something the UK is still dealing with today). We of course know now that just ignoring nature and building over it results in an unimaginable number of unintended consequences, and far more that we’re capable of innovating our way out of. Overall it’s smarter to avoid impacting our environment as much of possible, and to use tools and techniques that are sympathetic to the local environment, rather than treating the local environment as an obstacle to be removed.
c0pium 3y ago
The indigenous people of China are dumping rather a lot of plastic into the ocean.
- gitaarik 3y ago
  That are obvioulsly westernized indigineous people. Original indigineuos people don't have factories that produce plastic.
  - c0pium 3y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
    - gitaarik 3y ago
      Before the westerners came, they didn't actually have plastic. So as long as you're talking about non-westernized indigineous people, your scotsman simply didn't have any sugar to put on his porrige.
      - c0pium 3y ago
        You should really follow that link, the degree to which you are falling into that fallacy is borderline physically painful.
  - fennecfoxy 3y ago
    I don't have a factory that produces plastic, yet somehow I'm always recycling plastic that the products I consume are packaged with. Hmmmm.
    - gitaarik 3y ago
      The society you grew up in produces plastic. Indigineous people didn't use plastic before they became westernized. Is that so hard to understand?
- 3y ago

ilyt 3y ago

[flagged]

fastball 3y ago
It would be more constructive if you could explain why you think these sources are crap, like the other commenter.
- ilyt 3y ago
  Why would I explain same thing again ?
  - fastball 3y ago
    If you don't have anything constructive to add, I think HN would prefer if you don't comment at all. Decreasing the signal-to-noise ratio helps nobody.
    - ilyt 3y ago
      You keep adding noise by complaining about it tho
      - fastball 3y ago
        I think trying to improve the quality of discourse is not quite noise, but yes I agree it would be better if not required. That being said, your root comment is flagged/dead now, so this entire subthread contributes little to the noise regardless as it will be hidden to most users.

fluoridation 3y ago

>https://phys.org/news/2023-07-highlights-importance-indigenous-cultural-perspectives.html https://phys.org/news/2023-07-highlights-importance-indigeno... I don't understand the argument. "Certain structures built by certain cultures are ecologically beneficial, therefore ecological restoration efforts should be culturally informed"? Why? I'll grant that earthen and shell mounds are beneficial. So build them. I don't understand why the fact that this or that person built it is relevant. More to the point, "some practices of culture X are ecologically beneficial" doesn't lead to "culture X is better at preserving the environment than culture Y". >https://phys.org/news/2021-10-indigenous-knowledge-myth-wilderness.html https://phys.org/news/2021-10-indigenous-knowledge-myth-wild... Anti-scientific garbage. The author clearly has a preconceived notion that Europe and Enlightenment ideals (presumably including science) are evil, and the rest is derived from that.

avianlyric 3y ago
> So build them. I don't understand why the fact that this or that person built it is relevant. I don’t think the specific person that built it is important, that would be ridiculous. But I can completely see the argument that structures built by cultures that evolved in exact environment they’re being built in are much more likely to be ecologically beneficial, than those designed by cultures foreign to that environment. The local culture will be filled to brim with historical knowledge and techniques all formed and shaped by the unique resources and requirements of their local area. You could rediscover all of that knowledge using the scientific method, but why bother? The local cultures have already done the heavy lifting, just find away to continue applying it. I don’t see why it’s surprising that indigenous peoples end up building more ecologically appropriate structures. > Anti-scientific garbage. The author clearly has a preconceived notion that Europe and Enlightenment ideals (presumably including science) are evil, and the rest is derived from that. Quite frankly, Europe/science has just been through an extend period of believing that humans are capable of overcoming nature, and can generally just ignore ecological consequences, because future technology will deal with those consequences (the Victorians were renowned for this type of thinking, something the UK is still dealing with today). We of course know now that just ignoring nature and building over it results in an unimaginable number of unintended consequences, and far more that we’re capable of innovating our way out of. Overall it’s smarter to avoid impacting our environment as much of possible, and to use tools and techniques that are sympathetic to the local environment, rather than treating the local environment as an obstacle to be removed.

c0pium 3y ago

The indigenous people of China are dumping rather a lot of plastic into the ocean.

gitaarik 3y ago
That are obvioulsly westernized indigineous people. Original indigineuos people don't have factories that produce plastic.
- c0pium 3y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
  - gitaarik 3y ago
    Before the westerners came, they didn't actually have plastic. So as long as you're talking about non-westernized indigineous people, your scotsman simply didn't have any sugar to put on his porrige.
    - c0pium 3y ago
      You should really follow that link, the degree to which you are falling into that fallacy is borderline physically painful.
- fennecfoxy 3y ago
  I don't have a factory that produces plastic, yet somehow I'm always recycling plastic that the products I consume are packaged with. Hmmmm.
  - gitaarik 3y ago
    The society you grew up in produces plastic. Indigineous people didn't use plastic before they became westernized. Is that so hard to understand?
3y ago