Primitives affect on the environment (was: POLITICS - Anger management)

[Guest guest]

> RE: RE: POLITICS - Anger management (Was: and me

>rotting in hell)

>

>

>

>Robin-

>

>>Only the Native peoples (I.E. Native Americans) had true

>>freedom, true autonomy, and worked with the earth not against it.

>

>Actually, it's a romantic myth that native peoples exclusively worked with

>the earth (whatever exactly that means anyway). They radically changed

>their environments too.

>

Just curious...did any of *Price's* groups - our model for *healthy*

primitives - radically change their environments? I'm coming up blank when I

try to think of one his groups that might've drastically altered their

environment, but maybe someone else can come up with one?

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

> >Robin wrote:

> >>Only the Native peoples (I.E. Native Americans) had true

> >>freedom, true autonomy, and worked with the earth not against it.

> >>Actually, it's a romantic myth that native peoples exclusively

> >>worked >with the earth (whatever exactly that means anyway). They

> >>radically changed their environments too.

> > Suze Fisher wrote:

> Just curious...did any of *Price's* groups - our model for *healthy*

> primitives - radically change their environments?

In some ways the " Noble savage " idea didn't travel that well outside

the first world. Instances of some of Price's groups changing their

environment are found in Tim Flannery's " The Future Eaters " which

looks at the impact of humans on Gondwanaland, the ancient giant

landmass. The theory is ( and I am writing from memory here) that

Australian Aborigines came to Austalia in several different waves

around 40,000-60,000 years ago, and are implicated in changing the

changed the flora and fauna of much of the continent from thick forest

to predominately grassland ( " firestick " agriculture) and causing the

extinction of " megafauna " , giant kangaroos, wombats etc. by predating

in an otherwise previously predator free envoronment.

The Maoris of New Zealand came to an uninhabited, totally predator

free land around 800 - 1,000 years ago and in the space of several

hundred years wiped out the major land based food species (which were

so tame they were easy prey). In some instances they then turned to a

sort of institutionalised cannibalism and harvested nearby tribes for

protein.

One way or another both races after destroying the previous natural

order eventually found an equilibrium with the available renewable

resources, something we have yet to do. I would like to think the

Maoris still had a bit of a way to go in the protein replacement area.

I can recommend any of Tim Flannery's books, I believe he wrote one on

N. America, but I haven't read it.

> ----------------------------

[Guest guest]

> Just curious...did any of *Price's* groups - our model

> for *healthy* primitives - radically change their environments?

> I'm coming up blank when I try to think of one his groups

> that might've drastically altered their environment, but maybe

> someone else can come up with one?

Hi Suze:

Since the ability to radically change your environment is dependent

on your having the technology to radically change your environment,

I would say none of the healthy groups Price studied radically

changed their environment. Price does mention, however, that some

African groups tried to minimize erosion around their agricultural

plots.

The North American environment had changed at a rate relative to the

technology available for environmental change. I would expect that

our current technology allows us to make environmental changes

faster than we did, say in the 1950's. This is not for the better.

As Albrecht used to say that we upset the biology but cling to the

technology.

Chi

[Guest guest]

> In some ways the " Noble savage " idea didn't travel that well outside

> the first world. Instances of some of Price's groups changing their

> environment are found in Tim Flannery's " The Future Eaters " which

> looks at the impact of humans on Gondwanaland, the ancient giant

> landmass. The theory is ( and I am writing from memory here) that

> Australian Aborigines came to Austalia in several different waves

> around 40,000-60,000 years ago, and are implicated in changing the

> changed the flora and fauna of much of the continent from thick forest

> to predominately grassland ( " firestick " agriculture) and causing the

> extinction of " megafauna " , giant kangaroos, wombats etc. by predating

> in an otherwise previously predator free envoronment.

>

> The Maoris of New Zealand came to an uninhabited, totally predator

> free land around 800 - 1,000 years ago and in the space of several

> hundred years wiped out the major land based food species (which were

> so tame they were easy prey). In some instances they then turned to a

> sort of institutionalised cannibalism and harvested nearby tribes for

> protein.

>

> One way or another both races after destroying the previous natural

> order eventually found an equilibrium with the available renewable

> resources, something we have yet to do. I would like to think the

> Maoris still had a bit of a way to go in the protein replacement area.

>

>

> I can recommend any of Tim Flannery's books, I believe he wrote one on

> N. America, but I haven't read it.

>

>

Blackfeet herding bison off cliffs is probably the best known North American

environmentally wasteful example. There's the adaptation after destruction

too. Tougher with large animal protein sources. Forest destruction will

copice up different forest without agriculture clearing. Not sure how many

cycles it goes till you get grassland. Add intensive agriculture to dry

climate and eventually you'll get desert. Thanks for the author tip.

Wanita

--

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.

Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.6.2 - Release Date: 3/4/2005

[Guest guest]

> -----Original Message-----

> From: peaberryfarm [mailto:paulmclisky@...]

>

> In some ways the " Noble savage " idea didn't travel that well

> outside the first world. Instances of some of Price's groups

> changing their environment are found in Tim Flannery's " The

> Future Eaters " which looks at the impact of humans on

> Gondwanaland, the ancient giant landmass.

Eh? Gondwanaland is believed to have broken up 200 millions years ago.

[Guest guest]

Peaberryfarm wrote:

> >Instances of some of Price's groups

> > changing their environment are found in Tim Flannery's " The

> > Future Eaters " which looks at the impact of humans on

> > Gondwanaland, the ancient giant landmass.

> Eh? Gondwanaland is believed to have broken up 200 millions years ago.

>

>

Ther tell us that the single land mass of Pangaea split into

Gondwanaland (S Africa, India, A America, Aust, Antarctia) and

sia (N America, Europe, northern Asia etc.) some 200 milliion

years ago. Gondwanaland started to break up around 130 million years

ago, with the parting of S America and Antarctica occuring as recently

as 20 million years ago (these figures rounded off the the nearest few

million years I guess). Australia ended up pretty well isolated from

the rest of the world, but some of its native vegetation is related to

that of S America etc., hinting at their common origin. NZ had a

different and geologically more recent origin altogether, and was

never connected to Gondwanaland. " The Future Eaters " in part traces

changes in the ecology made by human activity, and my reference to

Gondwanaland comes from its discussion and comparison of different

regions that were (as you say many millions of years ago) connected

but are now disconnected.