Waste
- Thread starter Gary
- Start date
Because it's hard to own a small holding outright until you've been paying for it for a lot of years.
tomtom said:Sounds like a great idea to me... why wait till you retire?
it's todo with super anuation pension thing that my dads got. He pays more in so can take retirement at 60. He then wait a while (ok think it's about 3weeks) and does the odd bit of part time to pay the bills you can't get around. It's also to do with ben near my their parents.
I was never hidden from the source of meet and we used to get eggs from a little small holding (now get them from someone my folks know) I ended up collecting them a few times. Always had home grown food. I guess I was lucky. Very little food gets wasted back home
While not wishing to take issue with the concepts of not being selfish or that we should take responsibility for our actions or indeed unnecessarily produce waste I do feel that hunter-gatherers weren't so eco-friendly as we moderns like to believe.
When early man was stampeding herd animals off cliffs for food I doubt he discriminated much in what went over that drop. Similarly there are accounts by anthropologists of modern hunter-gatherers torturing animals for amusement.
And whilst hunter gatherers may indeed collect for the tribe they can be incredibly heartless with regards to each other when for some reason it's impossible for them to provide sufficient food for themselves. A particularly harrowing account can be read in 'The Bone People' (I think that's what the book is called). What makes the events of that particularly cruel is that these people were unable to use their hunting grounds due to the actions of their so-called civilised government.
What I'm trying to say is that we shouldn't see hunter gatherers as plaster saints; seeing them only in relation to our feelings of guilt as to what we 'moderns' have done to the Earth. They were and are complicated human beings, as capable of cruelty and kindness as any human is.
When early man was stampeding herd animals off cliffs for food I doubt he discriminated much in what went over that drop. Similarly there are accounts by anthropologists of modern hunter-gatherers torturing animals for amusement.
And whilst hunter gatherers may indeed collect for the tribe they can be incredibly heartless with regards to each other when for some reason it's impossible for them to provide sufficient food for themselves. A particularly harrowing account can be read in 'The Bone People' (I think that's what the book is called). What makes the events of that particularly cruel is that these people were unable to use their hunting grounds due to the actions of their so-called civilised government.
What I'm trying to say is that we shouldn't see hunter gatherers as plaster saints; seeing them only in relation to our feelings of guilt as to what we 'moderns' have done to the Earth. They were and are complicated human beings, as capable of cruelty and kindness as any human is.
Good point Notbob, like most generations we tend to idealize what has gone before...all Native Americans were/are 'in touch' with themselves and the environment, and it was always better in the good old days! Well, maybe it wasn't always so good. Jut like in today's society there are many great things about the way some areas of agriculture are developing and some very worrying ones. No one generation has been perfect and we all have our own wisdom that can be used to make our lives richer.
"The Bone People" is a novel by Keri Hulme.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...9779/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_11_1/026-0943958-3992401
Much has been written on "the myth of the Noble Savage".
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=+myth+noble+savage&btnG=Search&meta=
There certainly seems to be a tendancy to idealise indigenous people living in a hunter-gatherer society, and to overlook those societies which managed to drive a population to extinction (as the mammoth was supposedly hunted) or destroy a resource by over-use (such as Easter Islanders supposedly did).
"Don't measure another's corn by your own bushel."
Keith.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...9779/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_11_1/026-0943958-3992401
Much has been written on "the myth of the Noble Savage".
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=+myth+noble+savage&btnG=Search&meta=
There certainly seems to be a tendancy to idealise indigenous people living in a hunter-gatherer society, and to overlook those societies which managed to drive a population to extinction (as the mammoth was supposedly hunted) or destroy a resource by over-use (such as Easter Islanders supposedly did).
"Don't measure another's corn by your own bushel."
Keith.
bambodoggy
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Wow...you're all over and around how I feel about this question but there's so many variables that I can't give more than a few of my ideas to Gary's original questions.
I think the Roving Archers is fairly spot on with his "Greed" theories....I tend to agree with most of what he said.
I also agree with our wearing of the old rose tinted glasses when looking at primative peoples....but if we're honest they simply weren't as bad for the enviroment as we are now....that's not to say they were saints either, they just didn't have the methods available that we do now! (daft example: they were capable of firing arrows that might hit another man, we are capable of firing nuclear weapons that will destroy whole countries - both the person holding the bow and the person pushing the botton are both killers, are they really that different if you take away the technology).
I also agree 100% with Kim's coments about her lifestyle and I'd like to think I try to do my bit too.....however, I have a good job now...so good that I have money left over each month to buy bushcrafti bits and bobs to play with, so I can afford to buy organic produce.....when I was a kid my parents weren't that well off and while we never ever went hungry, there was a lot of beejams own produce in our freezer because it was all my parents could afford, and beans on toast was a meal, not just a snack....I'm sure the same is true today, while I can afford to do my bit I'll bet there's plenty of people that can't and still use the Tesco blue and white stripe stuff.....is factory farming their fault for being poor? No, of course not but we have to be careful in how we frase the above or that is basically what we're saying..... "Look at me, I eat Organic stuff, do I not do well for the enviroment"...."poor you the poor person having to eat that processed stuff"....or worse yet "Don't you know that processed stuff is bad for you and the enviroment?"....until the reply comes back "maybe it is but marginally better than starving to death because I can't afford the nice stuff".
Back to Gary's question:
As humans we have the ability to think about things and observe things...we must have watched the wild plants growing and thought "I can control that by doing X, Y and Z" and then tried it....when it worked we thought great...I've created farming. Our hunters might have been out one day hunting when some bright spark saw a animal cornered (by a cliff maybe) and thought...mmmmm, "the little blighter can't run away, wouldn't hunting be easier if they always couldn't run away.....hey, hang on, if I catch a few and put them in pens, they can still live and breed and I can "hunt" them much easier as they can't run away".....bingo...livestock were created.
And my reason for the above....and subtle mixture of Greed and Laziness, if we're honest most of us have a little too much of both, myself included.
Oh, also...somebody mentioned animals storing food.....whoever it was you're quite right. Bobcats and Lynx are often known to try to bury the remains of their meal in the frozen snow/soil in the hope of it still being there for a second meal later....although often another preditor/scavenger has sniffed it out by then.....I'm also told Croc's like to store their food a little while before they eat it..... and on a simpler note, all animals that hibernate build up stock piles of food for the winter whether as the food itself or as a fat layer on themselves.
I think the Roving Archers is fairly spot on with his "Greed" theories....I tend to agree with most of what he said.
I also agree with our wearing of the old rose tinted glasses when looking at primative peoples....but if we're honest they simply weren't as bad for the enviroment as we are now....that's not to say they were saints either, they just didn't have the methods available that we do now! (daft example: they were capable of firing arrows that might hit another man, we are capable of firing nuclear weapons that will destroy whole countries - both the person holding the bow and the person pushing the botton are both killers, are they really that different if you take away the technology).
I also agree 100% with Kim's coments about her lifestyle and I'd like to think I try to do my bit too.....however, I have a good job now...so good that I have money left over each month to buy bushcrafti bits and bobs to play with, so I can afford to buy organic produce.....when I was a kid my parents weren't that well off and while we never ever went hungry, there was a lot of beejams own produce in our freezer because it was all my parents could afford, and beans on toast was a meal, not just a snack....I'm sure the same is true today, while I can afford to do my bit I'll bet there's plenty of people that can't and still use the Tesco blue and white stripe stuff.....is factory farming their fault for being poor? No, of course not but we have to be careful in how we frase the above or that is basically what we're saying..... "Look at me, I eat Organic stuff, do I not do well for the enviroment"...."poor you the poor person having to eat that processed stuff"....or worse yet "Don't you know that processed stuff is bad for you and the enviroment?"....until the reply comes back "maybe it is but marginally better than starving to death because I can't afford the nice stuff".
Back to Gary's question:
As humans we have the ability to think about things and observe things...we must have watched the wild plants growing and thought "I can control that by doing X, Y and Z" and then tried it....when it worked we thought great...I've created farming. Our hunters might have been out one day hunting when some bright spark saw a animal cornered (by a cliff maybe) and thought...mmmmm, "the little blighter can't run away, wouldn't hunting be easier if they always couldn't run away.....hey, hang on, if I catch a few and put them in pens, they can still live and breed and I can "hunt" them much easier as they can't run away".....bingo...livestock were created.
And my reason for the above....and subtle mixture of Greed and Laziness, if we're honest most of us have a little too much of both, myself included.
Oh, also...somebody mentioned animals storing food.....whoever it was you're quite right. Bobcats and Lynx are often known to try to bury the remains of their meal in the frozen snow/soil in the hope of it still being there for a second meal later....although often another preditor/scavenger has sniffed it out by then.....I'm also told Croc's like to store their food a little while before they eat it..... and on a simpler note, all animals that hibernate build up stock piles of food for the winter whether as the food itself or as a fat layer on themselves.
Very good points guys, maybe this is a case of us (me) over laying my own ideas onto the subject, selective hunting may or may not have taken place.
Maybe selective killing is a moden thing and not a characterisitic of our ancestors at all.
Maybe by have huge herds to choose from they did carry out whole sale slaughter if so, Why did they slaughter 'en masse' when other animals hunt the weak or the old (remember I am talking paleo people here) ?
Maybe selective killing is a moden thing and not a characterisitic of our ancestors at all.
Maybe by have huge herds to choose from they did carry out whole sale slaughter if so, Why did they slaughter 'en masse' when other animals hunt the weak or the old (remember I am talking paleo people here) ?
Gary said:
I'd have thought they hunted in the easiest safest way they could. For animals that are running away you take the weak ones at the back that fall behind. YOu only take what you need. If there's a cliff to drive them off they'd have done that.
Historically we all trace our roots to hunter gatherers. Evolutionarily, I don't think we have changed much. What has changed though, is our culture. Civilization began with intensive agriculture, which created surplus food stores. This allowed some members of the tribe to "do other things." Now days, most people "do other things" and only a small percentage of people provide food through agriculture. Hunting and fishing have become a "sport," no doubt satisfying some genetic drive that is still part of our gene pool, but the process is filtered through 10,000 years of cultural drift.
remember that weather out ancestors were eco-friendly or not the human population is now, 10times greater.. or more, so the point is how can we afford to be less eco friendly them? we cant!!
and with regards to the method of driving buffalo(or bison as we also learned from QI this week) over a cliff as a hunting method.. the the buffalo heards were such that a single heard could cover the land as far as the eye could see a few hundred over a cliff had significantly less effect on the buffalo population than it would do today!
so you see we can only look at the situation as it stands with us now.. and act accordingly!
and with regards to the method of driving buffalo(or bison as we also learned from QI this week) over a cliff as a hunting method.. the the buffalo heards were such that a single heard could cover the land as far as the eye could see a few hundred over a cliff had significantly less effect on the buffalo population than it would do today!
so you see we can only look at the situation as it stands with us now.. and act accordingly!
Gary said:
Maybe there's something in the "famine and feast" system.
:ramble:
Our bodies seem to have evolved to work on this system. Food is available in large quantities at particular times, and then becomes scarce for a while. When a population has a wide range of food resources, and the availability is staggered, this is a very good situation. Imagine having fruit and nuts in profusion in autumn, then hunting birds and big mammals as they migrate south through your territory, sitting out the winter with maybe a bit of fishing, then along comes springtime and the game migrates north. By following the game, the society can lengthen the huting season.
:ramble:
Further management of the livestock, and a bit of farming leads to a more sedentary society.
:ramble:
But still, there is not much possibility of storage, unless you can salt or dry some of the produce. So individuals will tend to overeat whenever possible, in the anticipation and fear of a probable forthcoming shortage. Every now and again, a herd will be wiped out by disease, or will change migration routes, or a winter will be too harsh or too mild, and there will be dire famine. This will tend to strengthen the "eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we will diet" approach.
:ramble:
Sacrifices to propitiate the primitive gods (manifestations of seasons, elements) will be offered, and the cycle continue, so long as there is balance.
:ramble:
But a surplus for several years, leading to a complacent "golden age" myth and population explosion will lead to a population crash at the first return to the "boom and bust" cycle.
:ramble:
Our modern industrial and post-industrial society is going through the same cycles, but has subsituted the hunter-gatherer a more abstracted system based on fiduciary economy (arbitrary values attached to objects of no intrinsic worth) and hyperspecialisation; the division of labour leading to individuals capable of a limited range of specialist tasks and yet without the knowledge necessary to grow or catch food.
:still rambling:
Our bodies are still craving energy-rich, sporadically-available foods like honey (and other sugars) and oils and fats; this explains why so many people eat sugary, starchy, fatty foods. McDo type burgers are the exemplar:
- animal fats and proteins in the burger,
- sweet, soft bread,
- sweetened sauces containing corn oil
:still rambling:
We are reaching the end of the boom years that really began with the first industrial revolution, accelerated with the second industrial revolution, increased in pace exonentially with the development of the oil economy, and has reached a critical level.
:still rambling:
Our society is reacting to consumer goods (once called "consumer durables"
) in the same way as the McDo Glutton; gimme gimme gimme.:still rambling:
People still seem to have faith in the notion that "science will find a fix for [pollution, water and food shortages, whetever]".
:still rambling:
But we need to address the question of "how can we make less waste", rather than "what should we do with the waste".
:enough rambling:
What was the question, again?
Keith.
bambodoggy
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
This is a link to the River Cottage website, Mr Fernly-whittonwhatsitthingy seems to have what I'd call the right idea (isn't that bad for human laziness...I'm going to post a link to his site but can't even be bothered to look up his real name!!!!! that's how factory farming started you know).
This is how I look at killing for the pot....that's not to say I am able to do it like he does...I live in Surrey not Dorset and in a town (albeit a small one) and not in the middle of knowhere.....but I do shoot the odd bunnie from time to time and I only do it if I know I'll use the body and the skin etc.... I'm a very good shot, I used to shoot for my entire cadet corp against the other two services and in the TA I specialised in Long range fire interdiction BUT....when out with mates shooting if I know I have no need of the bounty at that time, you wouldn't believe how badly my shots are off that day....I just can't seem to hit a thing Doesn't stopping me having fun, I just don't have to kill anything...I still stalk and set up the same. The rest of my mates....they just kill it and leave it for the fox... who's the more right, me or them? answer: I don't give a damn, I can only justify myself to myself and that's enough for me.
Anyway, here's the link....take the time to read it...he may have a double barrelled name but he talks a lot of sense:
http://www.rivercottage.net/foodmatters/article.jsp?ref=foodmatters.200304111830
What's odd about the above is that in a micro-climate sort of way...Hugh has done exactly what Gary is asking why we've done....he likes hunting and gettign his own food BUT he still keeps livestock and grows stuff....because: It's easier! Which, brutally put = lazy/greedy.
This is how I look at killing for the pot....that's not to say I am able to do it like he does...I live in Surrey not Dorset and in a town (albeit a small one) and not in the middle of knowhere.....but I do shoot the odd bunnie from time to time and I only do it if I know I'll use the body and the skin etc.... I'm a very good shot, I used to shoot for my entire cadet corp against the other two services and in the TA I specialised in Long range fire interdiction BUT....when out with mates shooting if I know I have no need of the bounty at that time, you wouldn't believe how badly my shots are off that day....I just can't seem to hit a thing
Doesn't stopping me having fun, I just don't have to kill anything...I still stalk and set up the same. The rest of my mates....they just kill it and leave it for the fox... who's the more right, me or them? answer: I don't give a damn, I can only justify myself to myself and that's enough for me.Anyway, here's the link....take the time to read it...he may have a double barrelled name but he talks a lot of sense:
http://www.rivercottage.net/foodmatters/article.jsp?ref=foodmatters.200304111830
What's odd about the above is that in a micro-climate sort of way...Hugh has done exactly what Gary is asking why we've done....he likes hunting and gettign his own food BUT he still keeps livestock and grows stuff....because: It's easier! Which, brutally put = lazy/greedy.
I think one of our evolutionary legacies is that selection has never put a premium on long-term thinking. We are basically short term thinkers as a species, designed to deal with the here and now. Thus it is very easy for us to want to satisfy ourselves and survive the moment without thinking about ultimate consequences. This is exemplified in what is called the "tragedy of the commons."
A good example of this phenomenon is in the story of Easter Island.
A good example of this phenomenon is in the story of Easter Island.
Maybe, ok another thought/question is a wolf or lion a long term thinker? Do they kill whole herds?
What is wrong with our psyhicy that we do when they dont?
Being devils advocate here bte - I find these 'debates' interesting.
What is wrong with our psyhicy that we do when they dont?
Being devils advocate here bte - I find these 'debates' interesting.
It seems to me that it's just a nasty imbalance in nature. You watch food chains and ecosystems that do not include humans and there's a beautiful balance that means everyone just keeps going.
Whereas we have got too clever. Rather than fight every year for survival, we are very good at it. This means that over time we become incredibly good at surviving, with the result that we survive too much, ie very few people die and we can expect to survive on very little effort at all. And we have no conception, as Hoodoo suggests, of our long term happiness. Having studied evolutionary sociology for three years I have found that the further we are removed from our "intended" state the less and less happy we have become. I mean western society by the way. People now would rather have cars than children, which to me is the final straw to break the race's back. What happens if we all end up wanting big houses more than children? Psychology tells us that (it's true I swear) women are much more attracted to men who act normally than men who try to impress them. They are also more attracted to men with fame and money - which in neolithic times, would be a good reason - but today? It's warped beyond all recognition.
We've gone far far beyond surviving, and we've lost our impetus. We waste a huge amount, just because we can.
My take :?:
Rant over
Whereas we have got too clever. Rather than fight every year for survival, we are very good at it. This means that over time we become incredibly good at surviving, with the result that we survive too much, ie very few people die and we can expect to survive on very little effort at all. And we have no conception, as Hoodoo suggests, of our long term happiness. Having studied evolutionary sociology for three years I have found that the further we are removed from our "intended" state the less and less happy we have become. I mean western society by the way. People now would rather have cars than children, which to me is the final straw to break the race's back. What happens if we all end up wanting big houses more than children? Psychology tells us that (it's true I swear) women are much more attracted to men who act normally than men who try to impress them. They are also more attracted to men with fame and money - which in neolithic times, would be a good reason - but today? It's warped beyond all recognition.
We've gone far far beyond surviving, and we've lost our impetus. We waste a huge amount, just because we can.
My take :?:
Rant over
Gary said:
Maybe they would if they could. We couldn't either prior to major technological innovations.
There are some ecosystems that are controlled from the "top down" which means that predators limit population growth in the prey population. This is found more commonly in aquatic ecosystems than terrestrial, imo. At any rate, there are certain situations when the predator population becomes so dense that prey populations are driven down to extremely low densities. Of course, after this occurs, then the predator population crashes as well or migrates.
I don't think that our brains are much different than hunter-gatherers who lived 20,000 years ago. However, our culture is much different and we are all raised within a cultural filter and it affects the way we think with our brains. What our brain thinks is determined not only by our genetic predisposition but our cultural heritage as well. Mostly our culture has told us that the wilderness stretches before us as a vast unending resource that we can exploit. Only recently in our post hunter-gatherer history have we thought about how our profligate consumption might affect our children's children.
When we became dependent on agricultural technology to feed us, we began to grow exponentially which has put a huge demand on the environment for resources. However, technology has been able to meet those demands in most industrialized nations--for the time being. In essence one might argue that we exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet a long time ago via the utilization of technology. If there is ultimately a breakdown in technology, then it is likely that human populations will decline or go extinct. Whatever... :wave:
I agree with Hoodoo... I think that wolves given the chance would decimate a given population, not Lions because they're lazy and actually hate getting out from the shade of a good tree.
I have no exact recollection of place names or species but I saw many years ago a program about an island that contained millions of crabs, pink ones that periodically spawned all over the sea rocks of the island. Perfectly balanced and at one with everything that hadn't died off there or been killed by harmony over the last few hundred thousand years. However, a fairly mean species of ant has found its way there and is eating everything including the crabs that are now nearly gone... or were when I saw the program.
I'm not sure the ant was introduced by man or not and it's not the point, if the ant was introduced by man it wouldn't make the ant meaner somehow. Theres a good chance that it or one of its cousins would have made it there sooner or later anyway.
It's an example of the false harmony we insist on giving everything. In truth, everything is out to get everything else! Were just the only ones with the means to make it hurt well, until the planet decides to wipe a load of stuff out with another harmonising dose of ice age.
I have no exact recollection of place names or species but I saw many years ago a program about an island that contained millions of crabs, pink ones that periodically spawned all over the sea rocks of the island. Perfectly balanced and at one with everything that hadn't died off there or been killed by harmony over the last few hundred thousand years. However, a fairly mean species of ant has found its way there and is eating everything including the crabs that are now nearly gone... or were when I saw the program.
I'm not sure the ant was introduced by man or not and it's not the point, if the ant was introduced by man it wouldn't make the ant meaner somehow. Theres a good chance that it or one of its cousins would have made it there sooner or later anyway.
It's an example of the false harmony we insist on giving everything. In truth, everything is out to get everything else! Were just the only ones with the means to make it hurt well, until the planet decides to wipe a load of stuff out with another harmonising dose of ice age.
Similar threads
