Message-ID: <32D14899.2B1C@mind.net> Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 18:46:49 +0000 From: "B. Diamond" <mailto:bdiamond@MIND.NET> Subject: Re: pushing development..... To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.--------------59A57CB23029 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> ----- Original message follows -----
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: pushing development or...
> Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 18:39:44 +0000
> From: "B. Diamond" <mailto:bdiamond@mind.net>
> Reply-To: mailto:bdiamond@mind.net
> Organization: Office of Environmental Affairs
> To: mailto:devel-l@amercian.edu
>
> > ---------------------- Original Message Follows ----------------------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)
--------------59A57CB23029 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline
Received: from localhost (localhost) by one.mind.net (8.6.12/8.6.10) with internal id SAA02914; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 18:35:18 -0800 Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 18:35:18 -0800 X-UIDL: 852604521.000 From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON> Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown (Name server: amercian.edu: host not found) Message-Id: <mailto:199701070235.SAA02914@one.mind.net> To: <mailto:bdiamond@mind.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="SAA02914.852604518/one.mind.net" Status: U X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
This is a MIME-encapsulated message
--SAA02914.852604518/one.mind.net
The original message was received at Mon, 6 Jan 1997 18:35:15 -0800 from ip21.mind.net [206.99.66.216]
----- The following addresses had delivery problems ----- mailto:<devel-l@amercian.edu> (unrecoverable error)
----- Transcript of session follows ----- 550 <mailto:devel-l@amercian.edu>... Host unknown (Name server: amercian.edu: host not found)
----- Original message follows -----
--SAA02914.852604518/one.mind.net Content-Type: message/rfc822
Return-Path: mailto:bdiamond@mind.net Received: from 206.99.66.216 (ip21.mind.net [206.99.66.216]) by one.mind.net (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id SAA02912 for < mailto:evel-l@amercian.edu>; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 18:35:15 -0800 Message-ID: <mailto:32D146F0.6876@mind.net> Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 18:39:44 +0000 From: "B. Diamond" <mailto:bdiamond@mind.net> Reply-To: mailto:bdiamond@mind.net Organization: Office of Environmental Affairs X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mailto:devel-l@amercian.edu Subject: Re: pushing development or... Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> ---------------------- Original Message Follows ----------------------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)
--SAA02914.852604518/one.mind.net--
--------------59A57CB23029--