Fear of Farming

[boatman]

"Ways of life forced on", I wonder, for example, the doom of the those living in the Americas before Europeans came there was sealed when they swapped for a steel hatchet. It was sealed because they did not develop a native manufacturing industry to produce those goods that they desired. Thus they didn't make guns and ammunition but had to trade, be given or steal what they had. The supply was therefore also going to be finite and less than that of the Government and settlers. Of course it is possible that many at the Battle of the Bighorn had better guns than the troopers but that was a blip.
If only they had more leaders of the calibre of Red Cloud maybe they would have done better anyway with better diplomacy and less naivety as well as with fighting. Not saying that the cruelties inflicted on the "Civilised Nations" wouldn't have happened but maybe a New Zealand, Maori and settler type agreement could have been obtained and stuck to.

See the novel The Indians Won by Martin Cruz Smith for one alternative possibility

 

[sandbender]

"...That's why self sufficiency is not possible. No independence, but interdependence. Not solo, but community..."

+1 to this.

 

[Toddy]

Hmmm, tell that to the Maori's though, and they still want their land back.

The big thing missing in all this, is that humans are mobile. It's happening now (let's please not go into it in depth, political no go area) but people move looking for 'more'.
Whether it's more land, more amenities, more potential to thrive, it's all movement, and it's been going on since day1 on some African savannah when a wee monkey took itself a notion to see what was over there. Found something better, or thought it did, came back to the family and said, "Come and have a look at this!"…..and they did.
Now we live on every continent on Earth despite having no claws or teeth worth a button in defence (and talking of buttons, seriously, now that is an inspired piece of basic engineering in practice, really, it is) but a brain and hands and as Kipling himself said it,
"These are the Four that are never content, that have never be filled since the Dews began--
Jacala's mouth, and the glut of the Kite, and the hands of the Ape, and the Eyes of Man. "

Lower the population in a decent area and other folks will just move in. It's a world wide issue, and an awful lot of nations aren't doing their bit to encourage smaller and smaller families.
That brings up a whole other set of issues though; in the most basic societies, they need people simply to work to bring in enough food for everyone.
It took the UK two generations to go from good healthcare, and the expecation that pretty much every child would live, to going from an average of five or six to two children per couple. My great grannies had ten and eight, my grandmothers had five and four, my parents generation had one and two. My generation has an average of 1.5 among my cousins.

Now how do we encourage that world wide ? preferably without war, famine, disease or apocalypse.

M

 

[Toddy]

Specialisation will always happen and always be necessary. That's why self sufficiency is not possible. No independence, but interdependence. Not solo, but community.

+1 to this

M

 

[sandbender]

"...My generation has an average of 1.5 among my cousins.

Now how do we encourage that world wide ? preferably without war, famine, disease or apocalypse..."

Why do people have large families?

Their culture or faith demands it.
Able hands to help with income/food/work.
An expectation that many of their children won't make it past childhood.
Able hands to help with defence/attack.
An expectation that children can be married into other groups to forge alliances.
An expectation that some of your children will look after you in old age.
Because you like the idea of having a big family.

There are probably a few few more reasons.

Chip away at some of the above and maybe folks worldwide might start to have smaller families. However I'm not sure that we (humanity and the world as we know it) have the time.

 

[greencloud]

My two penneth:

We (humans) are 'too big for our boots'. Mother nature / God / Allah / Purple lemonade sky man, or whatever we wish to call 'it' has tried to keep our numbers in check since the beginning, but we've out-smarted 'it'.

Predators - figured out how to deal with or work around
Disease - got that one on the back foot
Natural disasters - works slightly but we're learning to shift out of the way
Even homosexuality (natural disinclination to breed) has been worked around for those who wish.

We win every battle without realising that we'll never win the war. The only way we could continue to permanently expand and consume is to colonise space, but since we haven't found a virgin host planet, we would have to live within a small self contained environment. Since we've made a right old @rse of the mahoosive one we started with, I don't hold much hope for that.

In a nutshell, I reckon the way we're going we'll either kill ourselves off completely or be kicked back to an almost neolithic existence.

 

[boatman]

World population will peak and families world-wide are getting smaller. Maori current demands because some are being irrational, see fears that non-Maoris will be excluded from beaches etc. I expect that the descendants of their eating slaves don't want the old ways back (too non-PC?)

 

[mrcharly]

I expect that the descendants of their eating slaves don't want the old ways back (too non-PC?)

too much ********

 

[boatman]

Fine to slag off settlers anywhere though but not to mention the peccadilloes of any indigenous people?

 

[Toddy]

Very valid point

M

 

[NoName]

A Nice discussion with for instancr some strong points from Ron.

And now the actions !

The bushcraft community could be a nice example for other people.

 

[RonW]

Fine to slag off settlers anywhere though but not to mention the peccadilloes of any indigenous people?

Really Boatman, is that the best you can do?

Yes, one tribe attacked another, pillaged and killed how many? A few dozen maybe? And many a culture did not even kill or wound, but had ritualised "battles".

Than came the European.... It is us who perfected the art of war and killing. It is our kind that made all these wonderful technological breakthroughs, in order to conquer and dominate. It is our kind that gave the world the choice; submit or perish.
Wish to guess how many central Americans got slaughtered by Cortés and the likes? Even deliberately introducing contagious diseases?
Let's see... The glorious British Empire.... How well did they do in India for example? Or South Africa?
Or the Dutch in Indonesia?
The French in their colonies? Or the Portuguese?
Our settling great grandfathers in the US? Might they have had anything to do with the genocide of native Americans? Surely not. But they brought civilisation to those savages, didn't they? With guns and "firewater", not to mention diseases like flew, chickenpox and who knows what else and taking care of that horrendous pest; the bison. We gave them so much civilisation that we had to be extremely generous and give them their own paces to live today, so they could continue living their enhanced life free from work and with plenty of "sauce" to party all day long.

Every race or culture has their black pages or dark sides, but it was the European, that took this whole story to whole new levels. and infected others with those disease of the mind of greed and bloodlust on a massive scale.

Maybe, just maybe those ancient tribes and cultures want back what they've lost or had taken from them, because they realize that our way is not the best way.
And maybe, just maybe it is about time that many of us start to see that too. Because our way has gotten the world into the mess it is today and modern agriculture is a big player in that.

 

[NoName]

Apart from the first sentence...thanks Ronw saves me some typing

Some extra's: Since our riches from the exploited colonies are soon gone, oil is getting more rare and expensive and the rest of the World is also industrialized we Will soon scratch our head...and think...and now ?
So we can be an example...with soms Nice time proven durable ethics...

 

[Tengu]

Oh ho, more anti European talk. I dont like this. We are the people who have imagination. Other cultures dont seem to be so

We have democracy, which is simply not possible in a tribal society. (Look at the Middle East, where chances are its the tribesman who is in charge, dont forget that.)

But of course putting the public in charge is dangerously subversive.

 

[boatman]

Yes, really RonW. It wasn't for want of trying that native peoples didn't do what Europeans did. I did originally type in a long list of bestial actions by native peoples but deleted it because it wasn't needed as you know as well as I do the reality of what people, any people, can do to each other. If you claim not to then in denial or deliberately ignorant?

 

[boatman]

Incidentally, to the question as to what did the British Empire do? See "What did the Romans do for us" and add in railways etc.

 

[Toddy]

Response to Ron and Mors.

Aye, we're all supposed to apologise for the 'colonial' mindset

Given any chance at the developments the 'invaders' brought with them, the indigenous peoples exploited their own and their own environment more than the incomers did.
Native Americans shot indiscriminately once they had weapons and ammunition, so did the Africans and Indians and the Arabs.
Nowt new there.

Horses were once greeted with wonder in the Americas and rapidly became one of the indigenous people's most useful possessions, and gave them even greater access to bison herds, other areas, and material wealth.

It's normal for humanity to move around, it's been going on long before Homo sapiens sapiens even existed. Exploitation of resources is normal, conflict has become normal (at least four thousand years of it that we can prove with no hesitation, and if the interpretation of the marks on the skulls of Neanderthals is to be believed HSS has been at it for well over 30,000 years. We are an aggressive species, even unto our own.
Those assorted tribes you're raising into righteousness happily slaughtered their neighbours, stole from them, interbred with them (look up Sabine women for the theme) right up until the present day in some instances.

The difference now is that we can pass knowledge among all the differing peoples, we can discuss, parlay, trade peacefully (hopefully) and maybe, just maybe, there's a chance the world will know peace, and people can find a way to co-exist within our rapidly proving to be limited biosphere, without obliterating every other species on the planet.

M

 

[Goatboy]

I don't think we're particularly imaginative Tengu. More a lucky coincidence of people, reasources, politics and religion coming together at a point where our ability to kill & outdone each other outstripped our ability to be moraly correct. My father disliked the Japanese due to what he saw in the aftermath of WWII. We eventually came to the compromise that he would accept that they were a medieval society with a modern industrial military complex. They weren't any more evil than we were at that stage. And some of the things we did in the name of god and empire were pretty awful. Aren't we Bits the only ones down on record as successfully completed a complete genocide ? Plus other peoples bar Europeans have supplanted other nations for no other reason bar greed. Not all non Europeans are shiny happy gentle forest people in harmony with nature that many apologists seem to think.

Sent via smoke-signal from a woodland in Scotland.

 

[santaman2000]

"Ways of life forced on", I wonder, for example, the doom of the those living in the Americas before Europeans came there was sealed when they swapped for a steel hatchet. It was sealed because they did not develop a native manufacturing industry to produce those goods that they desired. Thus they didn't make guns and ammunition but had to trade, be given or steal what they had. The supply was therefore also going to be finite and less than that of the Government and settlers. Of course it is possible that many at the Battle of the Bighorn had better guns than the troopers but that was a blip.
If only they had more leaders of the calibre of Red Cloud maybe they would have done better anyway with better diplomacy and less naivety as well as with fighting.....

I don't think it was just the quality of the leaders as such though. The big thing that stands out about Little Bighorn was that it was the only time the nations (in North America) massed as a single force rather than individual bands.

........ Lower the population in a decent area and other folks will just move in. It's a world wide issue, and an awful lot of nations aren't doing their bit to encourage smaller and smaller families......

Why do people have large families? .....

......Able hands to help with defence/attack.......
.......An expectation that some of your children will look after you in old age......

So far China has tried (somewhat successfully) to lower it's population over the past few decade. More recently though, they've begun to realize the two problems that sandbender mentioned above as their population is getting older as a result. Meaning a still large population with fewer of them being of working age to support the needs of the rest.

.....Yes, one tribe attacked another, pillaged and killed how many? A few dozen maybe? And many a culture did not even kill or wound, but had ritualised "battles".

Than came the European.... It is us who perfected the art of war and killing. It is our kind that made all these wonderful technological breakthroughs, in order to conquer and dominate......

Seriously? You ask, "How many? A few dozen?" You say only the Europeans had empires?

In North America the entire native population had displaced another centuries before it. Even more recently the Hopi and Navajo displaced the Anasazi (comparatively small scale) In Mexico the Aztecs and Mayans had vast empires and acquired by large scale conquest and ruled with regular human sacrifice. In South America you can add the Incas to that list.

Yes the Conquistadors (and to a less dramatic extent other European invaders) conquered them and the other native peoples but how does that make it any different from the normal cycle of human conquest that was already going on? We were just better at it.

 

[Goatboy]

Santaman,
I think one of the more worrying things about China and it's population problems was it's bias towards preferring male children. There's a swath of male children at or coming up to marraigable age (we're talking millions here) that in all reality are never going to be able to find a partner. What are they going to do? They could move; but where? There aren't a huge amount of surplus women anywhere. I doubt you'lk talk them all into same sex relationships? Encourage polygamy? Channel their their energies into into something else? Mabey a large army for hire?
Sorry just spitballing as it's upsets in social orders like that that worry me.

Sent via smoke-signal from a woodland in Scotland.