The primary reason that they went extinct was due to a loss of food. The Maori hunted all of the moa species of bird (large and flightless) to extinction. Another prime example of natives living "in tune" with nature...
There are thousands of examples, in nature, of invading or adapting species eating out the food supply of other species, causing extinctions. This isn't an example of natives not living 'in tune' with nature, it's an example of people being 'a part of' nature.
I think you may have missed the sarcastic subtext of the original post. There's a recurrent myth in the modern world, especially in technologically developed societies, that "natives" or "primitive man" or whatever somehow lived and still live "in tune" with nature or in harmony with it or whatever. They all supposedly respect the land in a way we don't, are inherently wise, spiritual, blah, blah, blah.
You are, of course, correct in pointing out that hunting species to extinction is a very natural thing t
past and "primitive" societies would have exploited or would exploit nature as thoroughly as we do, anyway, were it not for limitations of populations and technology.
Dead on. The only reason the buffalo was still around in huge quantities was because native americans didn't have rifles, or horses for that matter.
Native cultures were famous for "slash and burn" agriculture, possibly the most destructive farming method around that leeches all the nitrates out of the soil in just a few ye
Every one of them left an environmental mark on the world around them.
Yes, but the environmental mark was, on average, a lot smaller than modern living. The Australian Aborigines had a way of life that was essentially unchanged for tens of thousands of years. The lifestyle consisted of finding water sources, hunting for food, and collecting wild growing berries and fruits from the land (not farming). Everything that they constructed was made from wood and other natural, biodegradable materials, from completely renewable and sustainable sources. Without intervention, they woul
Our current lifestyle is based on consumption of resources that we can't replace.
Love it when people talk like this. I usually ask them "are you willing to give up modern life". You know, cars, fresh food year round, no fridge, modern medicine (universal healthcare) etc.
They all claim to want it, but fail when someone asks them to step up to the plate and put their money where their mouth is.
So, are you ready to give up TVs and other appliances and live in a tent or mud hut you made yourself? You willing to
What is your point? Of course people want all the advantages of modern living. But it is all built around the easy availability of energy from fossil and nuclear fuels and precious metals from the ground. Unless we discover some new source of energy, the supplies we currently have will run out, and then the modern lifestyle will end.
It is possible to appreciate the benefits of modern living, but at the same time acknowledge that a lifestyle based on consumption of finite resources will end when those resources are used up. It does not follow logically that acknowledging the latter implies the former can not be true, so your argument makes no sense.
Your original implication was that it was better than it is now. Promoting the idea that the old ways were "sustainable" is nothing more than smokescreen.
(people will do their best to adapt, but that adaptation may involve going back to a lifestyle of 200 years ago, with a strong focus on manual agriculture and labour).
The problem with your reasoning, is this. 200 years ago, they said the same things as you're saying now, only it was other things that we were using up at astonishing rates. Some where predic
So where is that new technology? I understand both your guys' points, and you're both right.
Back in the day, 200 years ago, some predicted cities would be buried in their own horse manure from all the traffic. Then came gasoline, and within 30 years(!) the horses were gone and along with them went the entire support staff and infrastructure. (Think horse manure haulers, hoof trimmers & shoers, and stagecoach builders.) They adapted to the new technology (like stagecoach builders did) or just ende
Money will say more in one moment than the most eloquent lover can in years.
In Tune... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you may have missed the sarcastic subtext of the original post. There's a recurrent myth in the modern world, especially in technologically developed societies, that "natives" or "primitive man" or whatever somehow lived and still live "in tune" with nature or in harmony with it or whatever. They all supposedly respect the land in a way we don't, are inherently wise, spiritual, blah, blah, blah.
You are, of course, correct in pointing out that hunting species to extinction is a very natural thing t
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
past and "primitive" societies would have exploited or would exploit nature as thoroughly as we do, anyway, were it not for limitations of populations and technology.
Dead on. The only reason the buffalo was still around in huge quantities was because native americans didn't have rifles, or horses for that matter.
Native cultures were famous for "slash and burn" agriculture, possibly the most destructive farming method around that leeches all the nitrates out of the soil in just a few ye
Re: (Score:5, Informative)
Every one of them left an environmental mark on the world around them.
Yes, but the environmental mark was, on average, a lot smaller than modern living. The Australian Aborigines had a way of life that was essentially unchanged for tens of thousands of years. The lifestyle consisted of finding water sources, hunting for food, and collecting wild growing berries and fruits from the land (not farming). Everything that they constructed was made from wood and other natural, biodegradable materials, from completely renewable and sustainable sources. Without intervention, they woul
Re: (Score:2)
Love it when people talk like this. I usually ask them "are you willing to give up modern life". You know, cars, fresh food year round, no fridge, modern medicine (universal healthcare) etc.
They all claim to want it, but fail when someone asks them to step up to the plate and put their money where their mouth is.
So, are you ready to give up TVs and other appliances and live in a tent or mud hut you made yourself? You willing to
Re:In Tune... (Score:2)
What is your point? Of course people want all the advantages of modern living. But it is all built around the easy availability of energy from fossil and nuclear fuels and precious metals from the ground. Unless we discover some new source of energy, the supplies we currently have will run out, and then the modern lifestyle will end.
It is possible to appreciate the benefits of modern living, but at the same time acknowledge that a lifestyle based on consumption of finite resources will end when those resources are used up. It does not follow logically that acknowledging the latter implies the former can not be true, so your argument makes no sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Your original implication was that it was better than it is now. Promoting the idea that the old ways were "sustainable" is nothing more than smokescreen.
The problem with your reasoning, is this. 200 years ago, they said the same things as you're saying now, only it was other things that we were using up at astonishing rates. Some where predic
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the day, 200 years ago, some predicted cities would be buried in their own horse manure from all the traffic. Then came gasoline, and within 30 years(!) the horses were gone and along with them went the entire support staff and infrastructure. (Think horse manure haulers, hoof trimmers & shoers, and stagecoach builders.) They adapted to the new technology (like stagecoach builders did) or just ende