OT: Bear safety--what's the REAL deal?

Originally posted by munk
Yvsa, I gave up the idea most indians have an insight into the 'balance'. Perhaps I need to meet different indians. I find some people have the idea of balance, an intuition, or if it pleases some of you, a scientific approach, that finds this. Some people have this.

Many many more do not. Lots pay lip service. It is sold in movies and books. It kinda reminds me of what my dear old ma used to say, "there have always been real human beings."

respectfully,
munk

I second Munk in on that one.

I have done a course in animal terrestrial geography and I learned there that the extinction of the ancient megafauna (mammoths and sabre toothed cats and so on) was caused partly by people living in "harmony with nature". The extinction of the megafauna happened both in Eurasia and America.

The same thing happened on isolated tropical islands where so called indigneous people arrived on the scene as the first human beings there.

I remember a list of something like at least 10-15 communities of indigneous people all over the world (and one of them were North American Indians) living in "harmony with nature" who had to abandon their settlements because they stripped the land of vegetation, over used the water resources and hunted out all the prey. And this was before White men came to the scene introducing their technology and foreign species.

But from my very personal point of view, the myth that indigneous people lived in harmony with nature can indeed bear a truth. It seems some of them did indeed develop a mythology that praised the their ecosystem, and some species were even protected from hunting by religious taboos. So what I see this as is that some individuals in those tribes were wise, they understood. It must have been the shamans, and perhaps their subconsciousness understood these things and told them in their trances and visions that the bear was their brother to not kill, or the brother bever or whatever. And further from the reading I have done it seems that there was some times a conflict between the shamans and their people and taboos would be broken.

I dare say we are just the same today as 10 000 years ago. We are still tribal. So I draw a parallell from that society into society of today. Today we have our shamans, in the form of scientists who tell people how this world was created and how we must live to protect it. And I see the same problems as in tribal times, people don't listen and we strip the hillsides of vegetation, we kill brother endangered species into extinction. Society is still pretty tribal to me, it is just on a bigger scale and has increased complexity in societal structure.

The reason why ancient indigenous people have managed to live in "harmony with nature" many places was that they extinguished some native species on their first arrival. And those remaining were fit enough in a Darwinian sense to survive the primitive technologies of indigenous societies. So we are still the same fools today, only with much more devastating technologies and an improvement in medicine so that we get this population explotion that we have today.

Ok, my 0,2 cents. :rolleyes:
 
We are all a lost people. We are always being found.


...but if Yvsa had said those nice things about me I'd of been pleased. So is that because he's a wise warm old man, a wise old ndn, or a wise old ndn man?


munk
 
Originally posted by munk

...but if Yvsa had said those nice things about me I'd of been pleased. So is that because he's a wise warm old man, a wise old ndn, or a wise old ndn man?
munk

All of the above! :)
 
What is the "balance"?

Going to great effort to approximate the condition of the absence of people?

Adapting to support the most people while consuming the least resources?

Is it balanced to expect an chunk of wilderness to remain in a primeval state when surrounded by human development? Is it more "natural" to intercede and try of impose some idea of what it must have been like as part of a huge wilderness, or should it be allowed to adapt to the current circumstances?

I think that there have always been human populations that used resources in a way that eventually allowed replenishment, and populations that didn't. When the latter were big enough, serious changes occurred, like de-forrestation of Easter Island, or the abandonment of huge cities in the jungles of S. America. And I think that current thinking is that the extinction of huge flightless birds in New Zealand was hastened or brought about by the first humans to settle the island.

Daily contact with a relatively small area that must be hunted or harvested to meet all one's needs to survive should lead to better treatment of the land, and re-enforce the notion of one's ultimate dependence upon it, but it does seem that plenty of native or indigenous societies got "out of balance". Maybe it was always so, modern man is just so much more abundant, and able to change things much quicker, that the effects are more evident and widspread.

At what point in human history did humans "leave" nature, as some seem to believe? Seems kinda silly to me to think this way...Where else is there to live anyway?

OT to P.G.

Zappa albums are so numerous that there's always another one to buy...almost as bad the multitude of khuks that tempts us. The Yellow Shark album is quite impressive, performed by a classical ensemble. The guy's rock and roll and bawdy lyrics were enough for many to make a career from, but he did so much more.
 
Originally posted by munk
Yvsa, I gave up the idea most indians have an insight into the 'balance'. Perhaps I need to meet different indians.
I find some people have the idea of balance, an intuition, or if it pleases some of you, a scientific approach, that finds this. Some people have this.

Many many more do not. Lots pay lip service. It is sold in movies and books. It kinda reminds me of what my dear old ma used to say, "there have always been real human beings."

respectfully,
munk

Munk regretfully there are many of the First Peoples who have forgotten their ways but the ones like me are growing slowly in population and aren't necessarily ndn but people from the yellow, white and black races as well.
The true story is much more than what Black Elk revealed, but the whole story must also come about very slowly so as people to not lose their way.

Eikerværing:
Regretfully there are those who portray a different history than what was really so.
Had there of been enough indigneous people to exterminate the Mammoth
then there would have been too many to survive on what was left.
This great land of North America has many histories and not all are true.
Don't believe everything you're taught as the subject has been taught by others that didn't truly think things through.
There are many who subscribe to the thought that the ndn came across the Bering Strait way back when, but according to everyone's tribal lore we came from this area since the beginning of time.
Not a lot of confidence is shown in the old tribal oral traditions, but many are much more accurate than the professors would have us believe.
The problem is that these things can't be proven quanitively or qualitively to anyone's satisfaction, meaning those who would and do teach us otherwise.:(

philthygeezer wrote:
Yvsa, you made me feel really good. Thanks!

Geezer I do my best to speak only the truth always. I'm glad what I said made you feel good as it was truly a heartfelt compliment.:)
There has been much ado made about non-ndns dancing in the Sundance with some of the Oglala Lakota being the ones speaking against it the most while others encourage the non-ndns who are truly sincere to continue to dance.
Some of the dayumed Oglala Lakota think they're the only ones who're real ndn.:rolleyes:
I think those are still mad because the Cherokee kicked their collective asses out of the Carolinas way back when the Eurpeans were demanding more and more land in the beginning.:p
We need all races of Man to come together for certain things to be healed, but I'm speaking dangerously close to something I don't believe in speaking of on a public forum so I will hush.:)
Some things can only be shared in person.
 
With all respect for people's culture, history, myths and religions, I just wish to comment on one little thing.

Originally posted by Yvsa

Had there of been enough indigneous people to exterminate the Mammoth
then there would have been too many to survive on what was left.
The mammoths were incredibly voulnerable because they had a slower reproduction than the smaller herbivores (large things reproduce slower). And a change of climate occuring at the same time as the arrival of Clovis culture helped schrink their habitats so they became even more voulnerable. Enormously high numbers of human hunters were not needed for causing their extinction. And in the Darwinian history of life it is not a new thing that a predator (in this case the human) extinguishes one easy target prey species and then later survives off other hard target prey species. Maybe it causes a population crash among the predators but they do survive that chrash.

But by all means, this little hypothesis of megafauna extinction is not a dogma and anyone are free to form their own opinion. All in all in the end it is just a matter what we choose to believe in.

I just have to comment on this one too:
Originally posted by Yvsa

Don't believe everything you're taught as the subject has been taught by others that didn't truly think things through.
I thank you very much for this advice.
I must say that there hasn't been so much teaching going on in this case, luckily. I have just seen a discussion on the subject by people of various opinions.

Anyway, here is a link with a discussion long enough to kill a reader. I just read the first half of it but it shows some points and debating. Who knows, maybe one day the scientifics will discover something that will support the Indians' claims.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s356397.htm

Originally posted by firkin

What is the "balance"?

Going to great effort to approximate the condition of the absence of people?

Adapting to support the most people while consuming the least resources?

Is it balanced to expect an chunk of wilderness to remain in a primeval state when surrounded by human development? Is it more "natural" to intercede and try of impose some idea of what it must have been like as part of a huge wilderness, or should it be allowed to adapt to the current circumstances?

Balance would mean having an impact on the ecosystem, but not at that magnitude that we have today. To exersize care so that other species could survive in our vicinity.

Even if we somehow learned to consume less resources, we would still have a problem of overpopulation by habitat destruction and occupation. So reducing the world population is the key.

Some people would call me a fanatic for that I guess. But I say, a fanatic is an idealist whom you disagree with, an idealist is a fanatic whom you agree with.

Originally posted by firkin

At what point in human history did humans "leave" nature, as some seem to believe? Seems kinda silly to me to think this way...Where else is there to live anyway?
Not even an urban New Yorker lives isolated from the web of life.
 
Hunter gatherers can take what they want. Their numbers are usually insufficient to deplete most resources. If they make a mistake they can see the results and do different next time. The earth cannot support billions of hunter gatherers.

One of these days, Firkin, many animal rights and plant worship people are going to have to decide if they would prefer having a baby or an endangered snail.

Men always take the easiest path first, the next most difficult second. So do deer, just check out their trails in the hills.
Will we ever become stewards of anything? I don't know.
To me, being a steward of the land does not mean allowing a grizzly to rip your family apart because you are unarmed.

All these questions are academic if you've read any of the line charts of species extinction in the next 500 years, regardless of what path we take. They are especially academic if a big rock from space hits us, a mega volcano goes off, or enough terrorist nukes are lobbed around to send us back to hunter gatherer.

That used to be a theme with many ndns; wait for the white man to kill himself off. Now we all know we are in this together.

munk
 
Originally posted by munk
Hunter gatherers can take what they want. Their numbers are usually insufficient to deplete most resources. If they make a mistake they can see the results and do different next time.
This is the optimum solution for those tribes and peoples still living naturally. The problem is that they are being made members of the world wide capitalist system when they are offered a job. This is the reason for a lot of the poverty in this world. This makes them slaves living in poverty belonging to international capitalism in their own lands were they earlier were free.

Originally posted by munk

One of these days, Firkin, many animal rights and plant worship people are going to have to decide if they would prefer having a baby or an endangered snail.
Excuse me for dropping in on that one.
I have met some who have decided to not have a baby because they don't wish to harm this planet any more than it is aleady being harmed. So far I have succeeded in talking one of them back into having a baby some time in life. I tell them that they of all people should give birth to a baby. Simply because when they teach that baby to let this planet have benefited from his/her existence then his/her existence has a purpose and is worth 10 times more than any other people around.

Originally posted by munk

To me, being a steward of the land does not mean allowing a grizzly to rip your family apart because you are unarmed.
You have some weird environmentalists in America who allow themselves to die like that. Doesn't sound like you have to worry about them since they must be on the brink of extinction by that very side of their behaviour.

Originally posted by munk

All these questions are academic if you've read any of the line charts of species extinction in the next 500 years, regardless of what path we take. They are especially academic if a big rock from space hits us, a mega volcano goes off, or enough terrorist nukes are lobbed around to send us back to hunter gatherer.
Those line charts should be the all the inspiration we need to work hard for turning things around. After all that would be the only opportunity for allowing ourselves to call ourselves decent human beings in times such as these.

Volcanoes and asteroids are the very reason we need healthy ecosystems since that would serve as a safety net for our survival in such diseasters. As it has done on earlier recorded occations of astronomical mass extinctions.
 
I am a little befuddled at the discussion at this point. Please forgive the subject header, as it is only meant to portray my confusion. I didn't foresee this discussion turning to global ecology and its uncertain future.:confused:

For me, I'd quit worrying about the planet and just try to understand my own back yard. Literally. Sit in a lawn chair and watch for awhile, you'll see! When you learn something, tell a friend. If everyone sat down and just watched for a week, they would get an idea of what is important...

It's not about laying down for grizzlies and killer snails, or worshipping broccoli. I think it's about making them a part of the plan. Or, conversely, figuring out how we could fit into the plan a bit better.

Ever thought about how much cow, chicken and wheat we eat all week? Maybe something else should get a chance to be food! Economics and market forces currently determine what we eat, not nutrition. Maybe changing personal food choices will change how North America gets used. McDonalds just made a Veggie Burger... Holy Cow! People took a long look at their very own philosophical back yards and changed them as individuals: McDonald's was forced to follow suit.

Science Rant on::mad:
Might be dangerous to predicate our destinies with scientific conjecture over what happened 3-15000 years before now. Science and archaeology have become matters of faith as much as any other religion, and the only truth in the past is what we see now: Any story that comes up with our current product could be true.

Scant evidence often breeds sweeping generalizations in popular science and archeaology (geology too). Because of a guy and two mathematicians at MIT, we now have an asteroid belt named the Oort Cloud and a sun named Nemesis, neither of which anyone has ever seen, to explain the extinction of the dinosaurs at the Cretaceous/Triassic unconformity. Not bad for a few days work, eh? And now this is accepted fact?

I also think native North Americans are getting a bad rap, because there are so few left to defend themselves while others rewrite history for research grants. A few people go about claiming to understand the native mind when they haven't bothered asking one what he thought (might ruin their objectivity?).

It is arrogant to destroy a culture and then claim to understand it by what remains. If you want a small sample of the native knowledge/wisdom lost to everyone over the past hundred years, look up a white guy named Tom Brown and read a few books. Chances are that Stalking Wolf, the man he learned his skills from, was not unique in North America at one point.
Rant off.:D

All the best,
Phil
 
agreed. The Ancients observed the world around them, and did not say "How can I make this place do what I want," but rather "how do I fit into this place."

Sadly, some urbanites don't even know that cow is where burgers come from, and think that the city is the ecosystem...

"predicate our destinies with scientific conjecture"--Phil
Yeah, in the 1940's they thought we'd have hover cars and stuff by now, and just watch reruns of "Space 1999" and laugh...It is all too easy to stand on a rock in the river and look up and downstream and make judgement calls on what lies in those directions without being there.

The rest of the thread hurts my head. I think mankind is getting stupider as a general rule. For instance, the ignorant seem to breed like mad, while the enlightened sometimes do not breed at all.

What if our brains are so big as a result of past stimulation and growth, and the reason we don't use as much of it is because we forgot how to use it to its full capacity? Is your brain so big so it can sit parked in front of a television? Or is it so you can use a dish washer? It certainly doesn't deserve that.

Have humankinds tools evolved past what is really useful to humankind? Seems like 90% of the people I meet are here doing nothing more that logging time, passing the days til they get a dirtnap. And someone taught them that this was living? I'm surrounded by the freakin walking dead!

Please, if you must have an afterlife, focus on that AFTER your life. Keep your mind on the here and now. Live for the now, not for past or future. The Australian Aborigines, in their wisdom of natural observance, likened the past and future to a dream. These dreamtimes took place on either side of the here and now, and have the same substance of a dream.

Keith
 
Dear Phil the Geezer, I don't claim to understand ndns. But like all the other people I don't understand, some of them are my friends.


take care,

munk
 
Originally posted by philthygeezer
I am a little befuddled at the discussion at this point. Please forgive the subject header, as it is only meant to portray my confusion. I didn't foresee this discussion turning to global ecology and its uncertain future.:confused:
I would say it would be strange if this conversation did not take this turn. Actually it would be deeply worrysome.

Those dangerous furballs are the tip of the spear in the struggle for the environment, because that struggle is a mental struggle. With a change of mindset when it comes to large predators half the battle for this planet will already be won.

Originally posted by philthygeezer

Science Rant on::mad:
Might be dangerous to predicate our destinies with scientific conjecture over what happened 3-15000 years before now. Science and archaeology have become matters of faith as much as any other religion, and the only truth in the past is what we see now: Any story that comes up with our current product could be true.
For me it is not a matter of absolute prediction. It is a matter of planning for the future and learning how we can turn things around.

Originally posted by philthygeezer

I also think native North Americans are getting a bad rap, because there are so few left to defend themselves while others rewrite history for research grants. A few people go about claiming to understand the native mind when they haven't bothered asking one what he thought (might ruin their objectivity?).
If Indians really did live in harmony with nature, how did they acquire the insight to live like that? Wouldn't it be natural that they made some mistakes first which they learned from? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Ferrous Wheel

The rest of the thread hurts my head. I think mankind is getting stupider as a general rule. For instance, the ignorant seem to breed like mad, while the enlightened sometimes do not breed at all.
I'll limit myself to say: Yeah, major observation.

Originally posted by Ferrous Wheel

What if our brains are so big as a result of past stimulation and growth, and the reason we don't use as much of it is because we forgot how to use it to its full capacity? Is your brain so big so it can sit parked in front of a television? Or is it so you can use a dish washer? It certainly doesn't deserve that.
My TV broke down in 1998. Best thing that ever happened to me. I still haven't fixed it or bought a new one.

Originally posted by Ferrous Wheel

Have humankinds tools evolved past what is really useful to humankind? Seems like 90% of the people I meet are here doing nothing more that logging time, passing the days til they get a dirtnap. And someone taught them that this was living? I'm surrounded by the freakin walking dead!
I love reading stuff like this. :D Finally someone with my kind of thoughts.

Originally posted by Ferrous Wheel

Please, if you must have an afterlife, focus on that AFTER your life. Keep your mind on the here and now. Live for the now, not for past or future. The Australian Aborigines, in their wisdom of natural observance, likened the past and future to a dream. These dreamtimes took place on either side of the here and now, and have the same substance of a dream.
You are not today, and you are not tomorrow. You are a thousand years before you, and a thousand years after you.

Can I send you an e-mail with a couple of links Ferrous? Just a couple of links that I would not like to post here.
 
Ever thought about how much cow, chicken and wheat we eat all week? Maybe something else should get a chance to be food! posted by Philthygeezer



Ever read "A Modest Proposal" by Johnathan Swift. 1729?



Kis
:rolleyes:
 
Please feel free to send the links.

soylent green, Swift -- good stuff.
---------
Swift has been labelled as a hater of mankind. "Principally I hate and detest that animal called man; although I heartily love John, Peter, Thomas, and so forth, " Swift wrote in a letter to Alexander Pope.
---------
Swift certainly had a way w/ satire.

Keith
 
Originally posted by Eikerværing
If Indians really did live in harmony with nature, how did they acquire the insight to live like that? Wouldn't it be natural that they made some mistakes first which they learned from? :rolleyes:

The answer is simple.

The solution is not.:(

Long ago all of us ndns, go back far enough and it was everyone, recognized every living thing from the smallest bug to the largest animal as our living relatives. Such beliefs were from the beginning of time, or of man when man became sentient. Trouble started when man became sentient and put themselves above all other living creatures.
The Cherokee has stories about how the animal people got tired of man decimateing them for no purpose and put a curse on man with diseases of all kinds.
The plant people felt sorry for us and consented to help us overcome the diseases with their help.
Life has never been less than complicated and is even more so now that only a few remain that believe in the old ways.

When Christianity came along it worsened the condition with telling that man had dominion over every living thing (and to go and replenish the earth (What's up with replenish anyway?) instead of saying that man was kin to every living thing.
That domination of the Grandmother is what has brought us to the conditions of today.

In the end I and we that are working to save what was rightfully our's can only pray that we are successful.
All things work in balance and to be successful doesn't mean the end of technology as we know it.
 
Back
Top