Cotton is just about the least sustainable fiber there is. Look at Lake Aral.
How much impact is acceptable?
- Thread starter Wayland
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
It's a nice thought but no 'indigenous' peoples have had to share 250,000 square km with 66 million other people. This tiny island is not big enough for everyone to enjoy the little bit of 'country' we have even if we could rely on everyone taking care (which we can't). The more I see how once remote and beautiful places are trashed the more insular I am becoming.
If Scandinavian countries had population densities of 280 people per sq km they wouldn't be able to have the roaming and camping rights they have (Sweden 23, Norway 16.5, Finland 16 people per sq km).
My point being, there are not enough twigs on the floor for 66 million people to burn them; so we all have to make sure that when we do we are not taking it for granted that we can.
Another way to look at it is that rather than “impacting” the environment, we are “part of” the environment. After all we did evolve in it and our footprint is only part of the evolution of the environment itself.
Yes, that's essentially how I see it.
However, I also acknowledge this position comes with a phenomenal amount of responsibilities - it would otherwise be an excuse for any action with the defence, 'well, I'm just a part of the environment myself, so how can what I do be destructive?'
Humans are blessed and cursed with the ability of reason. Unfortunately, as others have highlighted above, we do not always use it equitably and fairly.
That's precisely it.
Regrettably, I find myself feeling that way as well. More and more of late.
I think that hits the nail on the head for me.
I often camp on a scout camp in the Midlands. Lovely wood, managed of course but very little deadwood to be found because it gets picked clean by group after group of scouts.
Quite, it is somewhat doubtful if the British Isles could support all those people as hunter gatherers.
I think that Wifey warms water at the sauna half the summer with twigs gathered within 15 meters. That is 60 liters, Those twigs are brought down by the winter.
I don't like the term "indigeneous", certainly there are regions where that can be properly applied but for example here it is very unclear who actually was first, there is little indication that 'ordinary' Finns came later than the Sami.
I am also not so sure that "indigenous" people think always of there surroundings, in most cases they just did not have the means to destructive activity (as we do). It is still being debated how much humans were part of the disappearance of the mega fauna some tens of thousands of years ago. When let go free most humans are not very good at taking care of their surroundings. It takes some thought (not all that common) and some practise.
I have a recollection of a study of hunter gatherers where the result was that most of them are not living at the edge of existence. Depends of course of a lot of things. On ocean shore the sea offers a continuous source of food. On the northern part of Am. west coast it was shown how important the sea was for survival when deer were hiding and salmon runs late.
Recent evidence suggests that Hunter Gatherers (Mesolithic) had a longer life expectancy than the early farmers (Late Neolithic) - the reduction in food choice etc. is thought to be the reason.
I'll try and find the source but I've been studying the Mesolithic and Neolithic for some time and I've used a wide range of sources and not been very 'academical' about recording them
Wife stealing has been popular in many cultures.
It probably helped to increase the gene pool although I doubt if people thought much a bout that back then.
But as you say, we digress.
It probably helped to increase the gene pool although I doubt if people thought much a bout that back then.
But as you say, we digress.
And the women bought into the system...
Talking about combat deaths, would it show if someone got a flesh wound and died of infection?
I imagine that happened a lot. I once saw someone with bad septcemia after a splinter which they did not treat. Ended up in A&E, pus everywhere!
They got better after antibiotics but what would have happened if they had not been able to get treatment? (and their mulockyness over the affair ended them up in that sorry state)
However people in the past were probably tougher
Talking about combat deaths, would it show if someone got a flesh wound and died of infection?
I imagine that happened a lot. I once saw someone with bad septcemia after a splinter which they did not treat. Ended up in A&E, pus everywhere!
They got better after antibiotics but what would have happened if they had not been able to get treatment? (and their mulockyness over the affair ended them up in that sorry state)
However people in the past were probably tougher
