Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Forest People

stoneageherbalist.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 25 posts

Re: The Forest People

#11

Post by DFHippie »

blix wrote: post #10
DFHippie wrote: post #4

The kicker is at the bottom: > The expansion of the ‘Green New Deal’ and the rise of ‘renewable’ industrial technologies may be the death knell for these archaic and peaceful people. Make no mistake, these green initiatives – electric vehicles, wind turbines, solar batteries – these are actively destroying the last remaining strongholds of biodiversity on the planet. This reads like so much contrarian trollery since…

The point of the article is that the philosophy underpinning eco-conscious modernity, specificially the fundemental separation between "humanity" and "nature," leaves no place for humans who live as a part of nature. In the modern world this concept is almost entirely taken for granted, as most of us spend the vast majority of their lives in artificially constructed environments designed specifically to insulate us t…

I'm fine with pointing out the negative consequences of environmental actions. It's absurd to think any sincere, and representative, member of the environmental movement is unfamiliar with this (are there nuts and poseurs? sure, but you don't choose the outliers to characterize a group). They fret about this stuff all the time. But it's a completely mundane observation that an action may have undesirable consequences and that not all people will feel the same costs and benefits. This goes under the heading of "externalized costs", which environmentalists talk about All. The. Time.

But this isn't the issue. The issue is this:

> The expansion of the ‘Green New Deal’ and the rise of ‘renewable’ industrial technologies may be the death knell for these archaic and peaceful people.

This is pinning all the woes of a particular marginalized group on the environmental movement. In fact, I think this is inverting responsibility. It's the environmentalists, or the same people under a different label, who are fighting for the Mbuti and the Yanomami and so forth and the anti-environmentalists, or the same people under a different label, who are machine gunning them and stealing their land and resources.

ETA "archaic and peaceful" sounds a bit off if you're writing in 2021 and you actually have the interests of these people at heart. "Archaic" sounds like you're a white savior from 1890 and "peaceful" makes it sound like you're writing for the postcard vendor at a Carnival Cruise port of call. "Look at their quaint grass skirts! Maybe they'll show some of their colorful folkways."

Re: The Forest People

#12

Post by dillondoyle »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #7
pphysch wrote: post #6

> In particular the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has been lobbying to convert the Messok Dja, a particularly biodiverse area of rainforest in the Republic of Congo, in a National Park, devoid of human presence. This aggressive act of clearance is rooted in the idea that a ‘wilderness’ area should not contain any people, thus rendering the original inhabitants of the forests as intruders, invaders and despoilers of ‘Natu…

> the "Half Earth" proposal wherein half the Earth's landmass should be dedicated to human-free "nature". Of course, no one will willingly give up their home, so this is tantamount to ethnically cleansing those regions--Africa and the Global South--that are geopolitically weak so that the wealthy Western nations can maintain their decadent quality of life. Not quite. Western quality of life can't be improved by banni…

Why can't our lives/the world be improved by banning the exploitation of natural resources in Africa?

i'm constantly reading news of horrible spills from corruption and lack or regulation in the region. Plus all the carbon that contributes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANssSLjSXN0

https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/nigerias-aiteo-reports-...

Re: The Forest People

#13

Post by georgeoliver »

I can't say I have the knowledge to argue the points of this article either way, but it sadly reinforces in my mind the idea that the arc of the technological universe is long, and it bends toward destruction.

Re: The Forest People

#14

Post by bjelkeman-again »

dillondoyle wrote: post #12
thaumasiotes wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the "Half Earth" proposal wherein half the Earth's landmass should be dedicated to human-free "nature". Of course, no one will willingly give up their home, so this is tantamount to ethnically cleansing those regions--Africa and the Global South--that are geopolitically weak so that the wealthy Western nations can maintain their decadent quality of life. Not quite. Western quality of life can't be improved by banni…

Why can't our lives/the world be improved by banning the exploitation of natural resources in Africa? i'm constantly reading news of horrible spills from corruption and lack or regulation in the region. Plus all the carbon that contributes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANssSLjSXN0 https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/nigerias-aiteo-reports-...

Maybe we start by banning harmful exploitation where we are first, not somewhere else?

Re: The Forest People

#15

Post by DFHippie »

AlbertCory wrote: post #9
DFHippie wrote: post #4

The kicker is at the bottom: > The expansion of the ‘Green New Deal’ and the rise of ‘renewable’ industrial technologies may be the death knell for these archaic and peaceful people. Make no mistake, these green initiatives – electric vehicles, wind turbines, solar batteries – these are actively destroying the last remaining strongholds of biodiversity on the planet. This reads like so much contrarian trollery since…

The "kicker": your "doubts" don't get any more credible when you say "I sincerely doubt" and "I cannot believe." So you don't like his conclusion that "green" technologies may be harmful? Thus you "doubt" the whole piece. Smart! Also you get to compare it to other things you don't like. Motte-bailey much?

You think my doubts aren't credible? What does that mean? You think I'm lying about my own doubts?

I'm not at all troubled by the thought that green technologies might be harmful (well, I'd rather they weren't, but it seems obvious that they are, though also obviously good in other ways). I'm "troubled" by his pinning all the troubles of the Mbuti and so forth on green technology.

Re: The Forest People

#16

Post by DFHippie »

bjelkeman-again wrote: post #14
dillondoyle wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't our lives/the world be improved by banning the exploitation of natural resources in Africa? i'm constantly reading news of horrible spills from corruption and lack or regulation in the region. Plus all the carbon that contributes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANssSLjSXN0 https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/nigerias-aiteo-reports-...

Maybe we start by banning harmful exploitation where we are first, not somewhere else?

We're trying to do both at the same time. And there's no reason not to do both at the same time. a) We are all pissing in the same bed, and b) if we truly believe the Mbuti and Twa are people just like we are and, ipso facto, deserve the same protections, then we must fight for both. We can't carve out an "exploit pygmies" exception and be consistent.

Re: The Forest People

#17

Post by blix »

DFHippie wrote: post #11
blix wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of the article is that the philosophy underpinning eco-conscious modernity, specificially the fundemental separation between "humanity" and "nature," leaves no place for humans who live as a part of nature. In the modern world this concept is almost entirely taken for granted, as most of us spend the vast majority of their lives in artificially constructed environments designed specifically to insulate us t…

I'm fine with pointing out the negative consequences of environmental actions. It's absurd to think any sincere, and representative , member of the environmental movement is unfamiliar with this (are there nuts and poseurs? sure, but you don't choose the outliers to characterize a group). They fret about this stuff all the time. But it's a completely mundane observation that an action may have undesirable consequence…

> It's absurd to think any sincere, and representative, member of the environmental movement

This is a powerful no-true-scotsman here. In my experience, the vast majority of people espousing technical solutions to climate change are barely aware of trade-offs if they've considered them at all. Externalized costs are primarily talked about as those imposed by fossil fuels etc. The costs imposed by environmental action itself are not so commonly considered.

> This is pinning all the woes of a particular marginalized group on the environmental movement...

The article simply pointing out that environmentalists aren't really helping here. Increased demand for cobalt and coltan is extremely harmful to certain groups of people who don't have a particularly loud voice in any segment of the environmental movement or the renewable energy industry. No one kills over rocks that have no value. By driving the demand for these minerals, unrest is increased in this region.

It's kinda silly to assume ~all~ environmentalists are fighting for these groups of people when the interests of many segments of the environmental movement are directly opposed to them and the article itself provides examples of environmental groups attacking them. The world is not black-and-white. People with good intentions can harm others.

I don't particularly like language criticisms, but word for word I think there is a lot more meat in your original comment than in this article.

Re: The Forest People

#18

Post by [deleted] »

gh0std3v wrote: post #3

> The expansion of the ‘Green New Deal’ and the rise of ‘renewable’ industrial technologies may be the death knell for these archaic and peaceful people. Make no mistake, these green initiatives – electric vehicles, wind turbines, solar batteries – these are actively destroying the last remaining strongholds of biodiversity on the planet. The future designs on the DRC include vast hydroelectric dams and intensive agr…

[deleted]

Re: The Forest People

#19

Post by DFHippie »

blix wrote: post #17
DFHippie wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fine with pointing out the negative consequences of environmental actions. It's absurd to think any sincere, and representative , member of the environmental movement is unfamiliar with this (are there nuts and poseurs? sure, but you don't choose the outliers to characterize a group). They fret about this stuff all the time. But it's a completely mundane observation that an action may have undesirable consequence…

> It's absurd to think any sincere, and representative, member of the environmental movement This is a powerful no-true-scotsman here. In my experience, the vast majority of people espousing technical solutions to climate change are barely aware of trade-offs if they've considered them at all. Externalized costs are primarily talked about as those imposed by fossil fuels etc. The costs imposed by environmental action…

> This is a powerful no-true-scotsman here.

The no-true-scotsman fallacy only applies when an existence proof is sufficient to falsify a statement, not when the question is the central tendency of some group. If you claim "no X is Y", it is sufficient to find an X which is Y, and special pleading when you say the X isn't a true X, implicitly acknowledging your interlocutor has found a counterexample. But when you are make a statement regarding a central tendency -- within Z standard deviations of the mean or some other definition of outlier there are no X which are Y -- then you can't claim the existence of a counterexample is proof of the falsity of the claim. Simply pulling the phrase "no true scotsman" out of your hat isn't a magical incantation that will win the day for you. And adding "powerful" to it doesn't improve its mojo.

As for the rest of it, I'm done.

Re: The Forest People

#20

Post by FooBarBizBazz »

webwielder2 wrote: post #5
DFHippie wrote: post #4

The kicker is at the bottom: > The expansion of the ‘Green New Deal’ and the rise of ‘renewable’ industrial technologies may be the death knell for these archaic and peaceful people. Make no mistake, these green initiatives – electric vehicles, wind turbines, solar batteries – these are actively destroying the last remaining strongholds of biodiversity on the planet. This reads like so much contrarian trollery since…

Yeah, completely bizarre conclusion with no substantiation. What is the agenda there?

The Right, playing at going green.

Honestly, I sort of appreciate it. I wish they would.

But it looks disingenuous. A narrow partisan attack on the Green New Deal.

Which is a shame, because green traditionalism could absolutely work, and the whole spectrum needs to go green -- left, right, and center.

Post reply on HN