4 ms·

This has nothing to do with "noble savage" or whatever other ideologically loaded words you want to surgically introduce to manipulate people's opinions. Human

This has nothing to do with "noble savage" or whatever other ideologically loaded words you want to surgically introduce to manipulate people's opinions. Humans are the apex predator. They have a huge influence on whatever the downstream ecological equilibrium winds up being. This is hardest to deny in formerly glaciated regions because humans were there exerting pressure on the ecosystem the day after the glacier left (well not quite, but close enough). So if you take for example somewhere like pre-colombian Wisconsin, the development eventually pine forest and then hardwood forest all that happened with humans around eating things. The number of wolves you get depends on the number of deer you have which depends on how many the humans eat. And of course the deer eat things too so they affect the plant balance, which affects the other wildlife. And so on and so on. It's a complex web. In places like the Amazon it's less cut and clear because humans showed up around/just before the last serious change in climate (end of ice age) but once again they've been there for the entire development of the "modern" ecosystem so whatever your balance of plants and animals is that balance is reflective of the pressures put on it by human activity.

modo_mario 3mo ago
Nah, I was adressing the idiology already present there. I don't dispute that humans are in essence a keystone species, part of nature, etc, etc but the OP talked about indiginous people specifically. We can just as easily say that the japanese were ecologically compatible....up to a point. The only reason it's brought up is due the idea of the indiginous in tune with nature who was essentially not limited in his ability to further exploit but chooses not to.
- GroksBarnacles 3mo ago
  Shouldn't you consider individual populations, cultures separately, and not be lumping all native people's together? One can do something another didn't.

modo_mario 3mo ago

Nah, I was adressing the idiology already present there. I don't dispute that humans are in essence a keystone species, part of nature, etc, etc but the OP talked about indiginous people specifically. We can just as easily say that the japanese were ecologically compatible....up to a point. The only reason it's brought up is due the idea of the indiginous in tune with nature who was essentially not limited in his ability to further exploit but chooses not to.

GroksBarnacles 3mo ago
Shouldn't you consider individual populations, cultures separately, and not be lumping all native people's together? One can do something another didn't.