41–50 of 54 posts
I was hoping the title would refer to, you know, our tacit "God": our unrelenting faith in gratification through material consumption; essentially unbounded and ever-accelerating growth; and the idea that we can safely ignore any non-human impact this pursuit of "happiness" may have (or for that matter, to future human generations).
I highly doubt that the Yup’ik fishermen are even contributors to global climate change, but we expect them to then completely stop fishing the waters they have fished for decades because of change we're largely to blame for? From forced settlements to fishing bans, we're still forcing our will on indigenous people. Edit: the religious argument does seem a stretch to me, and wouldn't be necessary if common sense was…
"We're largely to blame for.." Are we? If humans cause climate change and industrialization began around 1850, then logically, there'd be an exponential and consistent increase of global temperatures. Al Gore himself said that, in five years, the polar ice cap would be ice-free.. and he said that 7 years ago. There hasn't been warming for almost 18 years, yet CO2 emissions (especially from China are still increasing.…
Aw, I was going to upvote you for provoking interesting discussion, but then you had to go and say that, and now I have to downvote you on principle.
If global warming is killing your god, it may be time to find a new god. After reading the description of Yup’ik religion in the article, all I can say is that their perception of what is necessary to do is not the only possible response to the situation that faces Yup’ik people in that place. The environment has been changing throughout the existence of human beings (we know from archaeology that humankind has lived…
If global warming is killing your god, it may be time to find a new god. After reading the description of Yup’ik religion in the article, all I can say is that their perception of what is necessary to do is not the only possible response to the situation that faces Yup’ik people in that place. The environment has been changing throughout the existence of human beings (we know from archaeology that humankind has lived…
Many people are so far removed from the subsistence approach, that they can't relate to what these people are going through. Asking these people to stop fishing and move to a place where they can find other work is the cultural equivalent to telling everyone on HN to stop working in tech-related fields, and go find something else to do. Sure you could do it, but it would take part of your identity away. When your two-year old kid looks up and asks why you're not doing something your people have done for thousands of years, that's a hard question to answer. The Yup'ik people, and all other people who lived subsistence-based lifestyles responded to previous environmental change by finding a different area to live their subsistence lifestyle. That is not really an option. The move away from subsistence is much more drastic than many people can fully understand.
My perspective on this is shaped by having moved to Alaska 12 years ago, and knowing many people who live a subsistence lifestyle to varying degrees.
I highly doubt that the Yup’ik fishermen are even contributors to global climate change, but we expect them to then completely stop fishing the waters they have fished for decades because of change we're largely to blame for? From forced settlements to fishing bans, we're still forcing our will on indigenous people. Edit: the religious argument does seem a stretch to me, and wouldn't be necessary if common sense was…
They've been fishing those waters for thousands of years.
the religious argument does seem a stretch to me, and wouldn't be necessary if common sense was used.
Their religious argument is actually an expression of common sense, and has more to do with the scientific method than it seems. Indigenous people hunted, fished, and gathered every year for generations. Through direct observation, they noticed many patterns. When you hunted the same area too consistently, fewer animals came back in the following seasons. So they came up with a belief system along the lines of, "If you hunt too much, you have offended the animals, and you must stop hunting for several seasons until they return."
The scientific approach makes the same observation, and the same recommendations, from a different explanation. Dismissing the religious approach is easy when people don't understand how it was developed, and what role it has in guiding people's interaction with their entire environment.
I highly doubt that the Yup’ik fishermen are even contributors to global climate change, but we expect them to then completely stop fishing the waters they have fished for decades because of change we're largely to blame for? From forced settlements to fishing bans, we're still forcing our will on indigenous people. Edit: the religious argument does seem a stretch to me, and wouldn't be necessary if common sense was…
they have fished for decades They've been fishing those waters for thousands of years. the religious argument does seem a stretch to me, and wouldn't be necessary if common sense was used. Their religious argument is actually an expression of common sense, and has more to do with the scientific method than it seems. Indigenous people hunted, fished, and gathered every year for generations. Through direct observation,…
I was hoping the title would refer to, you know, our tacit "God": our unrelenting faith in gratification through material consumption; essentially unbounded and ever-accelerating growth; and the idea that we can safely ignore any non-human impact this pursuit of "happiness" may have (or for that matter, to future human generations).
What does consumerism have to do with religion and spirituality? Seriously, what's the non-hyperbolic connection?
And that's a fairly non-controversial statement to make; no hyperbole, there.
I highly doubt that the Yup’ik fishermen are even contributors to global climate change, but we expect them to then completely stop fishing the waters they have fished for decades because of change we're largely to blame for? From forced settlements to fishing bans, we're still forcing our will on indigenous people. Edit: the religious argument does seem a stretch to me, and wouldn't be necessary if common sense was…
"We're largely to blame for.." Are we? If humans cause climate change and industrialization began around 1850, then logically, there'd be an exponential and consistent increase of global temperatures. Al Gore himself said that, in five years, the polar ice cap would be ice-free.. and he said that 7 years ago. There hasn't been warming for almost 18 years, yet CO2 emissions (especially from China are still increasing.…
There are so many obviously illogical statements in the first few lines of that rant (at which point I stopped reading) that it's hard to imagine you could actually be meaning any of it seriously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indigenous cultures are kind of a special case because of the whole conquest and genocide thing. You can't say "if you don't like it go back to your home country" when it was taken from them. THe idea is that indigenous groups are supposed to self-govern as much as possible... but there's no way these tiny middle-of-nowhere towns can build up enough infrastructure to run their own federal government.
Indigenous cultures are kind of a special case because of the whole conquest and genocide thing There isn't a homosapien alive whose ancestors' people weren't subjected to some sort of brutality. Either the rules should apply to everyone or they should apply to no one. Carving up perpetual special classes in any society will always serve to divide that society and promote dysfunction.
The fact is that it is disingenuous to pretend to have a nation governed by the rule of law while ignoring the rights of older sovereign nations which exist within your borders. Not all tribes have the same rights and status, but how we treat them is the best indicator of how legitimate our own legal structure can claim to be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"We're largely to blame for.." Are we? If humans cause climate change and industrialization began around 1850, then logically, there'd be an exponential and consistent increase of global temperatures. Al Gore himself said that, in five years, the polar ice cap would be ice-free.. and he said that 7 years ago. There hasn't been warming for almost 18 years, yet CO2 emissions (especially from China are still increasing.…
I couldn't have said it better my self. Global Warming is the biggest scientific fraud since Galileo got into trouble with the Catholic church over the idea that the earth is not the center of the Universe.