Message-ID: <32D0C054.73B@mind.net> Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 09:05:24 +0000 From: "B. Diamond" <mailto:bdiamond@MIND.NET> Subject: Re: Re[2]: pushing development--or pushing the status quo? To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Angus Barnes wrote:> The notion that indigenous cultures achieved a sustainable
> lifestyle is debatable. Tim Flannery in his book "Future Eaters"
> portrays a disturbing history of human migration through New
> Guinea, Australia and the Pacific islands which is based on
> exploitation of the available resources resulting in massive
> changes to ecosystems. While their technology and population
> levels meant the impact was over a longer period of time, their
> role in causing extinctions, alterating forest ecosystems etc was
> still dramatic.
I agree with you that there is a tendancy to over-romanticize indigenous "harmony" with their world. The examples you use are but a few out of many examples of exploitation of the environment by native peoples. However, many misconstrue this ideaology to suggest that the only reason native peoples did not wreak the havoc that we have is because they didn't have the technology and/or the population size to do so. However, I'd suggest that population, via ritual and custom, was in fact intentionally controlled by many native groups because they knew that too many people = not enough food; and this was at a time when the earth was relatively "unspoiled" by today's measures. As to the technology part, when your focus is on the long-term, and you place the good of your community above all else, one could certainly make the argument that the externalities of capitalism would simply not be tolerated. The mark of a good chief was usually how much wealth he gave away, not how much wealth he amassed for himself. The potlatch ceremonies, where entire families gave away all of their worldly possessions to the community, was designed in large part to ensure that the people never became too attached, or placed too much emphasis on their possessions, for the value of community was seen as far more important than the value of things.
>
> Indigenous cultures didn't live in a static,
> environmentally-friendly cocoon for centuries. Its fine to use
> that as the mythic basis for a new age of environmentalism, but
> the history of indigenous cultures also includes exploration,
> colonisation and exploitation of resources.
I can assure you that it is far more than a "mythic basis" albeit a little over romanticized by new-agers. Capitalism has been around for a mere 300 years at best, do you really think that we can continue this way for another 500 or even a thousand years? Ironically, most of the great cultures (Mayan, Aztec, Egyptian, etc.) who had existed for thousands of years, eventually collapsed because they degraded their environment beyond the capacity to support themselves. Look around Angus, we currently loose topsoil (one inch of which takes approx. 150 years to recreate) at a world-wide rate of 7% per year, more than 3/4 of the world's fisheries are in a steady decline, the coral reefs are dying, and industry pumps billions of tons of pollutants into our air and water every year. Does this sound sustainable to you?
B. Diamond
"We are made wise not by our recollections of the past, but responsibility to the future." (George Bernard Shaw)