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
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 would probably have continued their lifestyle for tens of thousands of more years.
From wikipedia: "There was considerable innovation occurring within Aborginal technology in the last 3000 years prior to colonisation. Quartz was used as a substitute for chert and was being worked by indigenous craftsmen. The dingo was brought from southern Asia. Small scale agricultural developments occurred with eel farming in western Victoria and yam planting e.g. in Geraldton"
Just because they didn't reach the same technological heights as Europeans did at first contact doesn't mean that the aboriginies sat around doing the exact same thing their great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great Grandpa did.
We also probably didn't see the cultural attributes that did not survive because they weren't sustainable. And we didn't see the outcome of the unsustainable practices that were around when Europeans arrived -- disease and violence came first.
From what I understand, the lifestyle of Aborigines was essentially unchanged for over 40,000 years. In the last 5,000 years things did change. The link from Wired [wired.com] supports this:
"Aborigines arrived 45,000 years ago, spreading across the continent with startling rapidity. Then, in anthropological terms, they cooled their heels for the next 40,000 years: no significant population expansion. No fundamental changes in lifestyle. That changed 5,000 years ago. Populations shot up. Settlements increased in number,
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:In Tune... (Score:2)
From wikipedia: "There was considerable innovation occurring within Aborginal technology in the last 3000 years prior to colonisation. Quartz was used as a substitute for chert and was being worked by indigenous craftsmen. The dingo was brought from southern Asia. Small scale agricultural developments occurred with eel farming in western Victoria and yam planting e.g. in Geraldton"
Just because they didn't reach the same technological heights as Europeans did at first contact doesn't mean that the aboriginies sat around doing the exact same thing their great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great Grandpa did.
We also probably didn't see the cultural attributes that did not survive because they weren't sustainable. And we didn't see the outcome of the unsustainable practices that were around when Europeans arrived -- disease and violence came first.
Re: (Score:2)
From what I understand, the lifestyle of Aborigines was essentially unchanged for over 40,000 years. In the last 5,000 years things did change. The link from Wired [wired.com] supports this:
"Aborigines arrived 45,000 years ago, spreading across the continent with startling rapidity. Then, in anthropological terms, they cooled their heels for the next 40,000 years: no significant population expansion. No fundamental changes in lifestyle. That changed 5,000 years ago. Populations shot up. Settlements increased in number,