3 ms·

Indigenous people aren't any more or less of the ecology than anyone else, unless you believe in blood and soil. Humans are part of the ecology, being indigenou

Indigenous people aren't any more or less of the ecology than anyone else, unless you believe in blood and soil. Humans are part of the ecology, being indigenous has nothing to do with it.

curioadu 3mo ago
In some ways I agree with you, but I also think that the other commenter indirectly might uncover some insights. For instance, Australian Aboriginals mighy have historically both; fire-stick farmed ("farming" in the sense of clearing land for animals to hunt, apart from some foraging, as far as I can tell) so much and in such a large area that both large animal species and perhaps some plant species went extinct or were greatly decreased in numbers and area; and done it for so many years and generations that the ecology changed and adapted according to repeated and frequent fire-stick farming, to the point of becoming reliant on humans doing fire-stick farming.
- suddenlybananas 3mo ago
  Of course, but that's no different than the changes brought on by urbanization or climate change due to carbon emissions.
  - tkel 3mo ago
    Seems as though you are intentionally misunderstanding me. Urbanization is a practice that humans developed without ecological integration, it is a practice of subjugating or disregarding the surrounding ecology, and extermination of most of life within an ecosystem. As opposed to living within an ecosystem for thousands of years, not above or apart from it, most indigenous human societies in the Americas developed in such a way that is compatible and unique to it's hyperlocal ecological niche. Do you rely on the surrounding plants and animals in your area for sustenance, creating tools, daily life, etc? You do not, that's what I mean by living above/apart. Living in this way does not lead to an ecological society or a shared knowledge base of the surrounding ecology. Do your spiritual and cultural practices involve or integrate that reliance in some way? That's what I'm getting at.
    - Jensson 2mo ago
      > Do you rely on the surrounding plants and animals in your area for sustenance, creating tools, daily life, etc? Europeans did that a few hundred years ago, almost everyone did all over the world, that is not unique to anywhere.
tempfile 3mo ago
> unless you believe in blood and soil Not true, there are obviously other ways. There is an intuitive distinction between living in harmony with natural systems and simply dominating them with technology. That is all you have to believe, it doesn't have to be grounded in ethnonationalism. Humans are unquestionably part of the environment, and everything humans do bends the environment to their will, but it would clearly be at odds with how we use words to argue that say a nuclear power station is just as much "part of the ecology" as cultivation of soil.
- RugnirViking 3mo ago
  > distinction between natural systems and simply dominating them with technology No? There's a rhetorical distinction, there isn't a physical distinction. It's like holistic medicine vs modern medicine, or wellness vs health, or human-centered design vs regular design, or chemical-free food vs regular food Any given thing is one or the other of these soley based on your perspective of it. Im sending this message to you right now by performing a ritual on a object made of rocks some guy found in the ground
  - tkel 3mo ago
    Everything is nature , but clearly human society is also distinct. Both can be true. Some anthropologist philosophers have referred to this as "first nature" and "second nature", second nature being human society which is also part of first nature but distinct from it.
    - suddenlybananas 3mo ago
      But you're making out that indigenous people are part of this "first nature" rather than the "second nature", while industrial civilisation is strictly "second nature" which is frankly racist.
      - tkel 2mo ago
        The 201 definition is that second nature is a realm of development beyond the bio-social realm, that tends to form into institutions that have their own methods and rate of development and change beyond biological evolution (natural selection, gene flow, mutual aid, etc). Bands, clans, tribes, federations, nations, etc. Other animals such as orcas also have been shown to have societies, language, culture, and history that is passed onto children. You could perhaps say that is also second nature. Call it what you want, but clearly modern human society is distinct in that it stands above (quite literally in the form of cities) and uniquely has the ability to threaten the rest of life on the planet. While at the same time being part of nature. Humans are part of the surrounding ecology whether we recognize it or not, as others have noted in this thread. The difference is many indigenous societies have tended to recognize it and integrate it into socio-cultural practices as a necessary part of survival in their local ecology, while our modern human society mostly does not. Consider the Kucadikadi people of now-Mono Lake , whose autonym literally means "eaters of the brine fly pupae". That is how closely their society, culture, and language is related to their local ecology, which "evolved" (in the 2nd nature sense) out of thousands of years of human society development and survival in that place. Notably their society has not developed to threaten or extinquish the brine flies on which they depend.

Indigenous people aren't any more or less of the ecology than anyone else, unless you believe in blood and soil. Humans are part of the ecology, being indigenous has nothing to do with it.

curioadu 3mo ago

In some ways I agree with you, but I also think that the other commenter indirectly might uncover some insights. For instance, Australian Aboriginals mighy have historically both; fire-stick farmed ("farming" in the sense of clearing land for animals to hunt, apart from some foraging, as far as I can tell) so much and in such a large area that both large animal species and perhaps some plant species went extinct or were greatly decreased in numbers and area; and done it for so many years and generations that the ecology changed and adapted according to repeated and frequent fire-stick farming, to the point of becoming reliant on humans doing fire-stick farming.

suddenlybananas 3mo ago
Of course, but that's no different than the changes brought on by urbanization or climate change due to carbon emissions.
- tkel 3mo ago
  Seems as though you are intentionally misunderstanding me. Urbanization is a practice that humans developed without ecological integration, it is a practice of subjugating or disregarding the surrounding ecology, and extermination of most of life within an ecosystem. As opposed to living within an ecosystem for thousands of years, not above or apart from it, most indigenous human societies in the Americas developed in such a way that is compatible and unique to it's hyperlocal ecological niche. Do you rely on the surrounding plants and animals in your area for sustenance, creating tools, daily life, etc? You do not, that's what I mean by living above/apart. Living in this way does not lead to an ecological society or a shared knowledge base of the surrounding ecology. Do your spiritual and cultural practices involve or integrate that reliance in some way? That's what I'm getting at.
  - Jensson 2mo ago
    > Do you rely on the surrounding plants and animals in your area for sustenance, creating tools, daily life, etc? Europeans did that a few hundred years ago, almost everyone did all over the world, that is not unique to anywhere.

tempfile 3mo ago

> unless you believe in blood and soil Not true, there are obviously other ways. There is an intuitive distinction between living in harmony with natural systems and simply dominating them with technology. That is all you have to believe, it doesn't have to be grounded in ethnonationalism. Humans are unquestionably part of the environment, and everything humans do bends the environment to their will, but it would clearly be at odds with how we use words to argue that say a nuclear power station is just as much "part of the ecology" as cultivation of soil.

RugnirViking 3mo ago
> distinction between natural systems and simply dominating them with technology No? There's a rhetorical distinction, there isn't a physical distinction. It's like holistic medicine vs modern medicine, or wellness vs health, or human-centered design vs regular design, or chemical-free food vs regular food Any given thing is one or the other of these soley based on your perspective of it. Im sending this message to you right now by performing a ritual on a object made of rocks some guy found in the ground
- tkel 3mo ago
  Everything is nature , but clearly human society is also distinct. Both can be true. Some anthropologist philosophers have referred to this as "first nature" and "second nature", second nature being human society which is also part of first nature but distinct from it.
  - suddenlybananas 3mo ago
    But you're making out that indigenous people are part of this "first nature" rather than the "second nature", while industrial civilisation is strictly "second nature" which is frankly racist.
    - tkel 2mo ago
      The 201 definition is that second nature is a realm of development beyond the bio-social realm, that tends to form into institutions that have their own methods and rate of development and change beyond biological evolution (natural selection, gene flow, mutual aid, etc). Bands, clans, tribes, federations, nations, etc. Other animals such as orcas also have been shown to have societies, language, culture, and history that is passed onto children. You could perhaps say that is also second nature. Call it what you want, but clearly modern human society is distinct in that it stands above (quite literally in the form of cities) and uniquely has the ability to threaten the rest of life on the planet. While at the same time being part of nature. Humans are part of the surrounding ecology whether we recognize it or not, as others have noted in this thread. The difference is many indigenous societies have tended to recognize it and integrate it into socio-cultural practices as a necessary part of survival in their local ecology, while our modern human society mostly does not. Consider the Kucadikadi people of now-Mono Lake , whose autonym literally means "eaters of the brine fly pupae". That is how closely their society, culture, and language is related to their local ecology, which "evolved" (in the 2nd nature sense) out of thousands of years of human society development and survival in that place. Notably their society has not developed to threaten or extinquish the brine flies on which they depend.