11–20 of 41 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Australian aborigines managed a whole continent the size of the USA sustainably for 60,000 years. http://www.workingwithindigenousaustralians.info/content/His...
They still ate all the megafauna within a couple thousand years of their arrival, and, arguably, significantly contributed to deforestation of the continent. So, not that different from the Homo Sapiens anywhere else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At an unimaginably low standard of living.
If you lack imagination and don't get out into nature much, you might not get it. But read Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn and you'll gain some understanding for how rich traditional aboriginal life was.
Nature is great, but can also be a harsh mistress.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Australian aborigines managed a whole continent the size of the USA sustainably for 60,000 years. http://www.workingwithindigenousaustralians.info/content/His...
They still ate all the megafauna within a couple thousand years of their arrival, and, arguably, significantly contributed to deforestation of the continent. So, not that different from the Homo Sapiens anywhere else.
Australian aborigines used fire to cultivate the land in mosaic patterns of cleared grasslands forested conserves. The result was an altered landscape which retained natural ecosystems whilst supporting human and animal populations sustainably.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-18/indigenous-burning-be...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Australian aborigines managed a whole continent the size of the USA sustainably for 60,000 years. http://www.workingwithindigenousaustralians.info/content/His...
I believe they did wipe out much of the mega fauna, so not necessarily sustainable in a modern sense.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/may/19/humans-austr...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you lack imagination and don't get out into nature much, you might not get it. But read Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn and you'll gain some understanding for how rich traditional aboriginal life was.
Standard of living is a different metric than cultural richness. I'll keep access to modern medicine, indoor plumbing, food availability and the options to provide for myself that don't involve hazardous physical labor. Nature is great, but can also be a harsh mistress.
Food availability is a double edged sword.
Climate change is the harshest mistress of all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder. Have humans managed as a collective to do anything responsibly in their entire history?
Lumber is currently close and I bet could potentially totally be if you reverted to wood burning energy sources. That said, I’m unsure if having more trees is actually responsible given the fire risk.
Such beautiful animals. It's a shame we haven't found a way to fish them responsibly.
For some definition of beautiful
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They still ate all the megafauna within a couple thousand years of their arrival, and, arguably, significantly contributed to deforestation of the continent. So, not that different from the Homo Sapiens anywhere else.
Regarding deforestation, prebrov, that didn't happen in the way that, for example, the Amazon was deforested in 20th century South America by clear felling old growth forests to produce coffee and soy mono-cultures. Australian aborigines used fire to cultivate the land in mosaic patterns of cleared grasslands forested conserves. The result was an altered landscape which retained natural ecosystems whilst supporting h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder. Have humans managed as a collective to do anything responsibly in their entire history?
Lumber is currently close and I bet could potentially totally be if you reverted to wood burning energy sources. That said, I’m unsure if having more trees is actually responsible given the fire risk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regarding deforestation, prebrov, that didn't happen in the way that, for example, the Amazon was deforested in 20th century South America by clear felling old growth forests to produce coffee and soy mono-cultures. Australian aborigines used fire to cultivate the land in mosaic patterns of cleared grasslands forested conserves. The result was an altered landscape which retained natural ecosystems whilst supporting h…
One big difference, I imagine, is the population that forest is being extracted for. The Amazon isn't only being extracted while sustaining 100s of millions of South Americans (prior to colonization AUS had fewer than a million inhabitants), but also serving the world's demands. So I think it's different although in balance both unsustainably.