bushcraft ethics

[Tengu]

Yes, but war is unfortunatley profitable...often to the pacifist who sold the bullet going each way.

Anyway...I have been exploring the Lizard...Now how do I explain Goonhilly Earth Station to my Mesolithic friends?

Every way sounds like Erik von Daniken...I dont want that.

Or do I simply call them ritual objects?

 

[sandbender]

"...Without war, or at least the threat of war, our technological development would slow dramatically..."

That is certainly a very common narrative, one perhaps advance quite forcefully by those with the most to gain from that type of technological development. However there are other views...

“It is a mistake to suppose that science advances rapidly in a war. Certain branches of science may receive a special stimulus, but on the whole the advance of knowledge is slowed”.

Sir Henry Tizard, chief scientific advisor to the Air Ministry and Ministry of Aircraft Production until 1943

“Though war stimulates advances it does so only in restricted fields. In other fields advance is brought almost to a halt not merely ‘for the duration’ but for long afterwards. ...during the war, the thoughts of many brilliant men had to be turned away from the creation of things beneficial to the human race and concentrated upon devising new means of destruction or new means of averting an enemy’s destructive intentions...”

Sir William Stanier, Wartime Engineering Advisory Council.

You can read much more along these lines here in this article hosted by the Imperial College London

 

[Toddy]

I think it's a red herring that the arms industry promotes claiming that it's the driving force behind technological development.
Not naysaying that it has some effect, but it's no where near as much as they claim. Profit drives those b@ggers and if that can be produced at the lowest common denominator, with crap quality, then they'll do it.
There's more profit in war, and it's using up of armaments that then 'need' replaced, than there is in peace for them.
Research, product development and the infrastructure necessary to produce, export and sell the latest technology is an enormous and amorphous endeavour. Copyright is an issue entire of itself too.

M

 

[Toddy]

Yes, but war is unfortunatley profitable...often to the pacifist who sold the bullet going each way.

Anyway...I have been exploring the Lizard...Now how do I explain Goonhilly Earth Station to my Mesolithic friends?

Every way sounds like Erik von Daniken...I dont want that.

Or do I simply call them ritual objects?

It's a 'site of ritual importance' where the elders study the heavens and predict the future of the moon and sun phases. A temple of sorts.



M

 

[dewi]

That is certainly a very common narrative, one perhaps advance quite forcefully by those with the most to gain from that type of technological development. However there are other views...

“It is a mistake to suppose that science advances rapidly in a war. Certain branches of science may receive a special stimulus, but on the whole the advance of knowledge is slowed”.

Sir Henry Tizard, chief scientific advisor to the Air Ministry and Ministry of Aircraft Production until 1943

“Though war stimulates advances it does so only in restricted fields. In other fields advance is brought almost to a halt not merely ‘for the duration’ but for long afterwards. ...during the war, the thoughts of many brilliant men had to be turned away from the creation of things beneficial to the human race and concentrated upon devising new means of destruction or new means of averting an enemy’s destructive intentions...”

Sir William Stanier, Wartime Engineering Advisory Council.

You can read much more along these lines here in this article hosted by the Imperial College London

Its a difficult one because there is no denying that war or the threat of war can have a negative effect on civilian technology... look at thorium reactors for instance... a much more abundantly available and safer method to deliver nuclear power that has been shelved because it doesn't produce weapons grade materials. China looks like they may be taking that crown and running off with it... whether they share their discoveries/findings is another matter.

But the counter argument is that certain inventions may never have been conceived of without war or at the very least, the threat of war. Somewhat ironic that we're discussing this on what is arguably the great grandchild of ARPANET

 

[Tengu]

I was thinking possible lunar worship as they are Sattelite dishes?

But they are named for King Arthur and his knights note...a mythical angle?

 

[dewi]

I think it's a red herring that the arms industry promotes claiming that it's the driving force behind technological development.
Not naysaying that it has some effect, but it's no where near as much as they claim. Profit drives those b@ggers and if that can be produced at the lowest common denominator, with crap quality, then they'll do it.
There's more profit in war, and it's using up of armaments that then 'need' replaced, than there is in peace for them.
Research, product development and the infrastructure necessary to produce, export and sell the latest technology is an enormous and amorphous endeavour. Copyright is an issue entire of itself too.

M

Whilst I agree that its not the driving force, at the same time the old saying of 'necessity being the mother of invention' is certainly true. Without a need, there is nothing to invent... but once invented, that invention may find new needs if that makes sense?

War or the threat of war creates a need, but the inventions developed to fulfill that need are regularly adapted to civilian uses. Would civilians have ever conceived or had a need for those inventions? We'll never really know whether without the need from the war mongers whether inventions like GPS or the Internet would have seen the light of day.

One thing that definitely is holding back technology is the profits from pumping oil out of the ground. The technology held back, even now because of a few people is pretty ridiculous.

 

[sandbender]

"...The technology held back, even now because of a few people is pretty ridiculous..."

Lets try to steer things back towards bushcraft ethics folks.

I'll end my input into this particular conversational fork by saying that this isn't the future I was promised...

 

[rik_uk3]

 

[sandbender]

A timely reminder from rik_uk3 there.

 

[bilmo-p5]

You can read much more along these lines here in this article hosted by the Imperial College London

Good, interesting read. Thank you, Mr Bender.

 

[Tengu]

Well, my generation was promised a nice big nuclear war for our future.

I think we got a different one.

Or maybe it happened and we didnt notice?

 

[sunndog]

Wheres my hover board!

 

[Barney Rubble]

Interesting thread, got me thinking about the kit that I've bought in recent months/years.

Truth of the matter is that I don't have confidence in my own skills to make the kit I want and I can't easily afford the handmade, locally produced kit which is sourced from sustainable sources. I've no beef about that as it's quite rightly priced up high to reflect that effort that goes into making it. At the same time, I can't afford the Cotwsold/Gucci kit either.

The solution....my wild camping/outdoorsy/bushcrafty gear is army surplus (British, Dutch, Swedish, Serbian...) and I love it. Much of my surplus kit had seen over 20 years of service/use before I got my grubby mits on it but it still looks and feels like new - amazing really. And I guess the point here is that it's re-purposing old kit and therefore ticks the ethical box. Granted this is more by accident than design but proves that you don't need to well off or highly skilled to be an ethical outdoorsy type.

 

[Post Tenebras Lux]

A lot of it is because of the cost-restrictive nature of buying things that are natural or hand-tooled by a craftsman.

Many a time those craftsman rely on intermittent custom and have to raise/set their prices accordingly. If they aren't getting regular work that pays comfortably, they need to make sure when they do get work, it pays adequately.

Back in the times where what we desire was common place, there'd probably have been small workshops churning out equipment and fair cheaply too. That isn't the case now. Most people that make knives are probably making one or two at a time. Before they probably worked dozens of items at a time so each process was streamlined in the sense that they're getting more done with their time and cost becomes less of an issue.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's important to go natural where we can, but for a lot of people they simply can't afford someone else's time and skills.

I just bought a beautiful knife for £65. It'll probably last me well over a decade and do all I want it to do. If I was to commission someone here to make me a knife from decent carbon steel and send it with a nice sheath, I'd probably pay £200 at least.

Get on to pouches and you're looking at a lot of money as well.

If anything I'd suggest people learn for themselves. That's what I am doing. It's quite a bit of money upfront to get leatherworking stuff, but I'd rather be self-sufficient and also gain a potential side-earner as well.

 

[boatman]

Perhaps if we dispelled the myths of Tesla' free energy and of thorium reactors along with a lot of other "things that won't work or never happened" human progress could be enhanced.

But, bushcraft ethics- "leave no trace". Finit

 

[sandbender]

"...Perhaps if we dispelled the myths of Tesla' free energy and of thorium reactors along with a lot of other "things that won't work or never happened" human progress could be enhanced..."

It took me nearly thirty seconds to twig that you meant Nicola Tesla and not the car/house battery manufacturer.