Comment on Humans are part of the ecosystem.

deranger@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

• fossilesque@mander.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  It’s called Indigenous TEK and it’s pretty well established.

  en.wikipedia.org/…/Traditional_ecological_knowled…

  source

  • deranger@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Thank you for providing sources.

    source
• dumples@piefed.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Except the fact we have lots of evidence that native population (which also includes pre-industrial European culture) built sustainable systems which includes altering the environment. Throughout North America there tons of evidence of the use of fire was used. The classic prairie environment of the Oak Savana is only possible through burns and supports a large buffalo population. There’s tons of evidence of strategic cultivation of trees and other plants within the Amazon rainforest that allow people to get food and medicine close by that to the untrained eye looks identical to the rest of the forest.

  That being said some of those same people them destroy the same forest via slash and burn agriculture in order to earn a living for cash crops and more traditional agriculture. So profits is a main driver

  source

  • deranger@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    So profits is a main driver

    This is exactly what I’m getting at. If these groups of humans were placed in the same scenarios that Europeans or other westerners were placed in, would they not be susceptible to the same greed that motivated them?

    I do not deny that many native societies appear to live in more harmony with the environment than your average westerner. There is certainly a lot to learn there, and I believe we would do better if we emulated some of those characteristics. However, I think that we’re all susceptible to the same flaws, as we are all human.

    Ultimately what I’m saying is I don’t think that natives have some superpower where they have figured out how to escape the flaws that have plagued humanity for thousands of years.

    source

    • SpookyBogMonster@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      So, there were indigenous societies that were highly class stratified, or did bad things to the environment. No one is denying that.

      But generally speaking, indigenous peoples in say, the Americas, developed methods of agriculture and other forms of production that were more economically sustainable than the European methods that settlers brought, and then revised to be more extractive.

      The dust bowl, for example, didn’t just happen. It was a product of Colonialism. A region which was relatively recently colonized, had its forests and grasslands ripped up, in favor of shallow rooted monocultures that couldn’t sustain drought conditions.

      There weren’t dustbowls for the millennia prior to colonization, but a sudden shift in the mode of production, to a highly extractive one, artificially produced an ecological disaster

      source

      • Arctic_monkey@leminal.space ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        I mean, the main sustainable feature of indigenous food systems is their small population size relative to the environment’s carrying capacity. Trying to feed a large city on hunted game would be far less sustainable than modern agriculture…

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • dumples@piefed.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      While I agree that people are fundamentally the same the cultural values can alter their behavior. A culture that says Human are separate and above nature who should submit to it’s will acts differently than one who thinks humans are the youngest sibling to plants and animals who have lots to teach us. So by understanding cultural values, mindsets and techniques we can alter how we interact with the rest of the world.

      source
  • architect@thelemmy.club ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    95% of people can sing kumbaya in their little eco friendly circle jerk but if that 5% is over it and ready to fight over that belief the 95% better buck the fuck up and rise to the obvious existential threat in front of their fucking face or else they lose.

    Oh look, that’s what happened.

    source
  • bobzer@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    What do you consider pre-industrial?

    Agriculture directly led to the destruction of native biomes in any country that practiced it.

    More people = more agriculture = more land cleared.

    So long as most people who live die from avoidable famines, war and disease, then yes, it’s sustainable. But “in check” is probably the better term.

    source

    • dumples@piefed.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Altered doesn’t have to mean destruction. A human touched ecosystem can be different but doesn’t have to be a monoculture. There are a huge number of human specific plants, most of which we call weeds now, that only exist around people that can provide food and medicine to us. Looking at how modern permaculture farming works there’s a huge amount of diversity within their food forests which are directly human touched while leaving more wild sections. These wild sections are more native specific and their value is acknowledged instead of called wasted space. Humans are part of an ecosystem so we alter it but don’t have to destroy it

      source
• shawn1122@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Many indigineous cultures uphold sustainability as a crucial part to their culture.

  It is actually a common logical failing of Western culture to assume that everyone sees the world and interacts with it the way they do.

  source

  • Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Many indigineous peoples uphold sustainability as crucial to their culture.

    Many of every other nation, race, culture and creed do to.

    It is actually a common logical failing of Western thinking to assume that everyone sees the world and interacts with it the same way (like them).

    See how the second sentence describes the crime you committed in the first?

    source

    • shawn1122@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Many of every other nation, race, culture and creed do too.

      Not in the way that Indigineous cultures do, see the sources listed by fossilesque above. Indigineous peoples often find themselves in a position where they have to protect the environment from Western corporate interests.

      No, there is value in sperating out the West here. I refer to the past 500 years of human history as the reason why. You can claim that my approach is binary ie. western by seperating them out as an entity but the reality is it was their binary view of the world (ie. white people being superior) that has left us with that division. They had the economic and tchnologic leverage to make that binary our lived reality. Ignoring that would be naive at best, disingenuous at worst.

      source

      • Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        There you go doing it again, despite being shown. Your error is deliberate, purposeful. Dangerous, disingenuous and dishonest. You only see what you want and think your blinders fashionable.

        source

        • -> View More Comments