Waste

[Hoodoo]

It's an example of the false harmony we insist on giving everything.

Define harmony. :wave:

I think there is a good case to be made that nature lives in harmony, but I would want to redefine the term from its usually understood meaning where everyone and everything are just one big happy family. Except for plants (and that's most plants, not all plants) most everything else on the planet is heterotrophic, meaning they eat or consume things, either things that are already dead, things they have killed, or things that are still living. Plants as well are at war with each other and the things that eat them. Tall plants and vines choke the light off from the understory so other, shorter plants can't compete with them. Many plants secrete toxic chemicals into the soil around them so other plants can't live near them. And lot's of plants are toxic or have some kind of "barb wire defense" to deter feeding. This is not the kind of harmony you might see in a Disney movie.

Yet in the grand scheme of things, we have fairly long periods of evolutionary stasis where organisms over time become supremely (but never perfectly) adapted to their niches, making it very difficult for mutant species to outcompete them. However, throw in an asteroid or volcanic eruption or flood or some other major disturbance and sometimes the playing field changes. Humans, with their incredible ability to affect the planet over vast landscapes, may in fact be destroying our current "harmony." We have had at least 5 major extinctions in the history of our planet and we now appear to be undergoing a 6th major extinction of species. The current rate of species extinction is exponential and therefore warrants our investigation.

 

[Squidders]

I don't think I can define harmony in that context... but you know what I mean, people have an overly romantic outlook on what is a completely harsh planet to live on.

If the world wasn't that harsh would we have bothered getting out of the caves/trees?... Why is it that Gary asks all the really thought provoking questions?!?

What's your answer to your own question Gary?

 

[Stuart]

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.

western culture does tend to have this romantic view that animals and native peoples live in total harmony with nature because they are enlightened.

given the technology to kill entire herds with ease i am sure the lions and wolves would, their drive is to kill when the opportunity presents itself for an easy meal.

they don’t because they cant, the effort involved to make a single kill is huge, they could never kill them all

if they could they would wipe out there food source very quickly, whilst becoming fat and unable to hunt. ultimately self destructive.

the same goes for humans. (I'll use the penan again since I’m here) the penan live a nomadic life in small family groups obtaining food by hunting with blowpipes and gathering edible plants. there life is hard (though they seem very comfortable) and they can be expected to live till there late 40s.

they simply cannot kill enough animals to make an impact on there environment, and there life is such that they don’t live long enough to have any increase in population.

given the technology we have though they would quickly rise in population and kill much more efficiently wiping out there environment whilst forgetting the skills they had for living in it. they would become fat and ultimately self destructive.

bit like us westerners really.

lets not get Disney about it, nature keeps the balance though disease, death and famine, living a life by natures rules is not all fun and games.

native peoples do not live in harmony with nature because they are enlightened, our ancestors did not live in harmony with nature because they were enlightened.

if the penan had the choice to live an extra 30 years, stop there family dieing of disease and provide food for there children when they were hungry.... they would in a heart beat.

just as our ancestors did.

Until science finds a magical answer to our problems, we will have to accept that unless we are happy to live with famine, disease and hardship keeping our population down we cannot live in natures balance.

 

[Gary]

I don't think I can define harmony in that context... but you know what I mean, people have an overly romantic outlook on what is a completely harsh planet to live on.

If the world wasn't that harsh would we have bothered getting out of the caves/trees?... Why is it that Gary asks all the really thought provoking questions?!?

What's your answer to your own question Gary?

I am fascinated by the way our ancestors did things almost as much as I am by the thought patterns of the members here.

One thing for sure is that on BCUK you will get a view of all sides of an argument, and every time someone brings up something I hadn't considered.

My thoughts on the subject - animal husbandry by our nomadic ancestors was an insurance policy against hunger. Lacking the tools to deep freeze food they drove their prey off cliffs ect in the autumn when they were storing food for the winter (remember even in the dark ages people were afraid to leave there settlments in winter, as much because of evil spirits as because of the cold) they did this knowing it would give them food for the whole winter and they also did it because in that manner they risked the least danger to themselves. The rest of the time they probably only hunted what they could kill and easily carry back to their camp. maybe not intentational husbandry but it was so nine the less.

Mass extinction of mammoths was a combination of the global warming at the end of the ice age and predation although I am sure our ancestors (being small in number) hardly made a dent. I AM SURE OUR ANCESTORS WERE JUST AS WORRIED ABOUT THE DWINDLING NUMBERS OF THE MAMMOTH - but possibly lacking global tracking initially they probably thought the migration routes had changed or some such either way it was something beyond their control and had they stopped hunting the mammoth that did remain eventually it would still have died out.

Mass extinction (or the near) of the plains buffalo was the us governments idea to starve out the indians!

And while I agree with Stuart, any body who could improve their life would - I still am curious as to what malfunction happened in our brains that we suddenly (if at all) lost the ability to interact with nature. Farming = lose of habitat and less game for all other animals and while we could still feed ourselves all our fellow creatures suffer because we farm (to a lesser or greater extent) and I think this is really the fault, we suddenly switched priorities, that and the later arrival of non nature based religion, after all if god made man in his image surely that means man is a god unto himself and beyond the laws that govern the beast and bird!!?

I am glad some of you find these little debates thought provoking.

 

[Keith_Beef]

..snip..
I saw many years ago a program about an island that contained millions of crabs... that periodically spawned all over the sea rocks of the island. ..snip..
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. There’s a good chance that it or one of its cousins would have made it there sooner or later anyway.

There's a "super-colony" of ants, effectively a conurbation made up of a large number of interconnected nests, that stretches all along the French Mediterranean coast, from the Spanish border to the Italian border. Or thereabouts... I don't seriously think the super-colony stops dead at the borders

This is an aggressive ant, that arrived from Argentina in cargo ships.

Now, in South America, there is rivalry between ants of the same species, but different nests. Call them "tribes", if you like. They are in constant competition, and will carry out destructive raids againt each other's nests. This limits the growth of individual nests, and no single "tribe" gains absolute dominance of the territory.

But when a fertile (princess or queen, I don't know) arrived in Europe, she founded a tribe which wasn't faced with this competition, and so proliferated to fill the whole of the territory, at the detriment of indigenous species.

A similar thing may have happened with your pink crabs and the ants, Squidders. The ants, in their original location, might not have been particularly "aggressive", because their numbers couldn't boom (through local constraints). Arrived on an island where these constraints are not present, the ants proliferate; so without increased aggression, simply increasing their numbers increases their impact. Or then again, maybe the ants, faced with a seemingly inexhaustible source of crab meat, got the "kid in a sweet shop" syndrome

Keith.

 

[Mr Cissey]

Not Bob
The book I presume you're thinking of is 'The Mountain People' by Colin Turnbull. It's about the Ik of northern Uganda and I'd recommend it though it can be a bit heavy going at times. Very moving book!

 

[arctic hobo]

Now, in South America, there is rivalry between ants of the same species, but different nests. Call them "tribes", if you like. They are in constant competition, and will carry out destructive raids againt each other's nests. This limits the growth of individual nests, and no single "tribe" gains absolute dominance of the territory.

I never knew ants could be so interesting! :super:

 

[ZDP-189]

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?

Predators aren't forward thinkers, but the co-evolution of predator and prey has struck a natural balance between predator and prey. One factor is that the availability of prey controls the population of the predator.

This balance does not apply to us because, the extinction of a given food species will not result in a decline in our population and because we have the ability to cause mass extinction in the absence of self control.

So my question is what changed us and why? We still know its wrong, we still know the wisdom of the ancient ones so why do we ignore it?

Returning to your original question, civilisation has changed us. Our prehistoric ancestors may have had the same intelligence as us, but not the structure of civilisation.

Through civilisation humans can work together in large numbers and using incremental technology to do things on a scale that affects entire species or ecologies.

But why do we individually and collectively act in ways that are detrimental in the long-run? Because our base decision processes are stronger than our intellect. We may worry about the future, but that mahogany furniture feels good today ... and I'll have another helping of that cheap chicken, too.

And why do most people find pictures of game with their innards hanging out so repulsive? Because it speaks directly to our deepest-rooted fears and reminds us of our own mortality.

 

[Keith_Beef]

I never knew ants could be so interesting! :super:

I can't edit my own post about the super-colony, so I'll post a reply to correct a few errors and omissions (I was posting from memory, that most fallible of faculties).

The ant species (Linepithema humile) arrived around 80 years ago from Argentina, and the supercolony stretches 3,700 miles (6,000 km) all round the Portuguese, Spanish Med, French Med, to Northern Italy.
Ants from one end of the colony recognise members from the other end, by smell, and so do not attack and fight to the death, as they would when encountering an ant from a different colony.

Here's the article that I first read in April, 2002:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1932509.stm


Keith.

 

[Gary]

Good words ZDP-189.

 

[greg2935]

To throw my 2 pennies worth in, Elephants tend to expand in population and destroy large areas of bush until the point where they starve to death, this used to be okay as there were always other populations who would replace them over time, however, most large elephant populations now live in closed areas (national parks etc,) and it is not possible for new populations to come in from outside because in general there are none, the same goes for hippos. Additionally all game is affected equally which cannot be allowed if you are relying of rich brits and americans to give you money. Consequently this is why the populations in both Botswana, Zimbabwe and South Africa are controlled by culling. As an aside, other methods were looked at but deemed too expensive. The bushmen I knew, all use modern materials, it makes their life easier. The reason these tribes are decreasing is complicated but major factors are governments do not like nomads (you cannot control them, they do not pay tax etc), and it is easier to not be a nomad.

Greg

 

[bambodoggy]

Just been buzzing around on google looking for foraging tips to help Andy on the 2006 trip to Scandinavia as he's worried about carrying veggie food and came across this page.....thought it might be interesting to a few on this thread.

http://voyager.dvc.edu/~frickenbach/classes/anthro130-f04/unit2/B.html

Wasn't any use for foraging tips though! lol ):

Just found another one too:

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/prehistoric/reviews/03_02_stafford.html