[btu2012]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BO', 'W')hat I find to be really funny though is the trotting out of the old dead horse, Papau New Guinea. I can't tell you how many arguments I have had with academics, etc. who always bring that up. Somehow, because tribes on Papau New Guinea practiced cannibalism, the other millions of tribes did too, how absolutely naive and simplistic.

[threadbear]

From Jane's original post. This is the attitude I've been responding to, that I've been asked to reference. Tribal life, as BTU and Yesplease and others describe, isn't all Care Bears and rainbows. There is a world of difference between simple living and primitive tribal life where people bash each others heads in for sport. Why put them on pedestals. They're people. Nuts, just like us.

"I am spiritual, however, and do respect others religious views.
My view of a natural lifestyle also coincided with my love for all tribal cultures and their respect for nature and understanding of the world around them, how they live in harmony on earth and with themselves. When I first thought about it I thought to myself, “that is the real way we should be living in life, like the tribal cultures.” Every aspect of their cultures describe a harmony with nature and because we are from nature I saw this as the best way to live."

[btu2012]

Yup.

Regarding mass extinction, many scientists agree that the great mammals (a long series including the mammoth and many other) met their ends as species at the hand of tribal human hunters.

Fifty thousand years ago, continents were populated with more than 150 genera of megafauna (animals weighing more than 44 kg) [1-4]. By 10,000 years ago, at least 97 of those genera were gone . Prevailing explanations include human impacts, environmental changes, and a combination of both. If humans caused the extinctions, it will profoundly influence our thinking about what is "natural", how ecosystems respond to different scales and kinds of environmental change, how long extinctions take, and conservation of species and ecosystems.


Anthropogenic extinction models, including overkill, blitzkrieg (rapid overkill), and sitzkrieg (fire, habitat fragmentation, and the introduction of exotic species and diseases), have been considered plausible because large animals were preferentially affected. Species with low reproductive rates, with which large body size correlates, were hit hardest. Almost all of the slow-breeding survivors in Australia, Eurasia, the Americas, and Madagascar are nocturnal, arboreal, alpine, and/or deep-forest dwellers, which is consistent with overkill models of extinction but hard to explain by environmental change alone. Survival of large, open-country, slow-breeding animals in Africa is an exception to this pattern that must be factored into extinction explanations.

On islands, humans cause extinctions through multiple, synergistic effects, including predation and sitzkrieg. Only rarely have island megafauna been demonstrated to go extinct because of environmental change without human involvement. Incontrovertible impacts of humans on islands have been cited as a potent argument that prehistoric humans also caused extinctions on continents, but extrapolation of extinction mechanisms from islands to continents is often disputed.

In summary: One of the great debates about extinction is whether humans or climatic change caused the demise of the Pleistocene megafauna. Evidence from paleontology, climatology, archaeology, and ecology now supports the idea that humans contributed to extinction on some continents, but human hunting was not solely responsible for the pattern of extinction everywhere. Instead, evidence suggests that the intersection of human impacts with pronounced climatic change drove the precise timing and geography of extinction in the Northern Hemisphere. The story from the Southern Hemisphere is still unfolding. New evidence from Australia supports the view that humans helped cause extinctions there, but the correlation with climate is weak or contested. Firmer chronologies, more realistic ecological models, and regional paleoecological insights still are needed to understand details of the worldwide extinction pattern and the population dynamics of the species involved.

[btu2012]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jane', ' ')And in OUR culture cannibalism is "bad" as are many aspects of tribal cultures, so does that mean:
a) we have to do that too?
b) its wrong because we say its wrong?

[Elias]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')aybe some of them would have done it if they only could. Wait, some of them did it in e.g. Easter Island, New Zealand etc

[btu2012]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Elias', ' ')cannibalism - but it's now coming back to bite you on the arse.

[btu2012]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou indicate (more) primitive cultures could/would have caused mass extinctions had they had the chance.

[btu2012]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Elias', 'I')n your posts following the one I've quoted, you sunk to all-out racism in your assessment of other cultures...

[Elias]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat a great way to equivocate about the obvious. Eat any fresh human arse recently ?

[btu2012]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Elias', 'I') referred to cannibalism as a cultural norm - therefore culturally accepted as "good". I don't know of any primitive cultures which would accept genocide as "good" - whatever you decide to propagate. Civilized cultures however ...

[yeahbut]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Elias', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat a great way to equivocate about the obvious. Eat any fresh human arse recently ?

[btu2012]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yeahbut', 'B')tw, I think this is an interesting thread and I'm glad the level of debate has risen back up from that string of unpleasant, mocking posts a while back there. They added nothing and seem to have scared a few people off, which we certainly don't want(come back you lot!). I'm sure we can cope with other people having different opinions without resorting to that nonsense

[yeahbut]

Ah, straight to the heart of my post...oh no, just to the bit about you ... and you talk about ego Anything on topic?

[btu2012]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yeahbut', 'A')h, straight to the heart of my post...oh no, just to the bit about you ... and you talk about ego Anything on topic?

[btu2012]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jdumars', 'C')ivilization is unsustainable. Prove to me otherwise. Explain how we can continue consuming more resources than are renewed. Explain to me how we can continue paving over farm land, cutting down forests, acidifying the oceans, extirpating species, degrading top soil, polluting everything. What does any of this have to do with philosophy?

[pUnk]

Whoa.

look at all the cherry picking going on. ( by the way- "essentially" doesn't mean universally for who ever cherry picked that quote of mine as proof that I somehow said WTF-ever.)
Look at all the double and triple and more posts.
Look at all the back slapping in defense of some argument that proves what again? That civilization is the best?
Ohhh. Look at all the scary photographs! That's proof enough for me that those are badd badd men! (Although having a camera present kinda negates primitivism I'd hafta say)

look folks. These are all the usual arguments I was referring to - Mega fauna, easer island, papau, mastodons. Blah, blah, blah. Yeah. We've heard this before. Actually I'd heard that shit and believed it way before ever even considering a different option. Remember- I was raised in this culture and have had to unlearn quite a few propaganda myths, some of which I still have relapses with because the indoctrination is that strong. Please don't tell me that y'all haven't considered the idea that scientists are propagandists as well. Science = monotheism.

Of course if you have something you wish to believe, you will find arguments to support it. But once that has been done, Look no further! Go no deeper! Besides, if this is about winning an argument, whats the point? Personal growth? Learning?

This is an agenda that is being pushed and has been pushed since well before the genocide of native american peoples to say the least. This is the argument that allowed civilization to commit that genocide- they were evil, inferior, cannibalistic savages , our way of life is best. Obviously, or they'de have survived. Jaysis. Keep drinking the cool-aid.

So hey! You win. Kill 'em all. And you're justified in so doing obviously by the lock tight proof that you have presented.

And while you're winning the argument, how's this way of life workin' out for ya? How's it workin' out for the planet?

If however, one wishes to learn, they will be open to new experience. If one is not, they will be immovable, stubborn, unreasonable, and defensive of their position. Thing is, almost none of us were born into believing that primitivism is good. We've changed our views. We already tried that civilized story and it's a killer. So we're looking for something that seems to have withstood the test of time to work well for not only our species but for so many others.

So. When the oil is gone, the power is off, if you're still alive, perhaps those primitive skills you could have been learning, instead of arguing the merits of tired old debunked "scientific" studies, will sound more desirable.

Thanks.
-pUnk

[btu2012]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pUnk', 'S')cience = monotheism

[Elias]

btu,

You keep ignoring what I believe are the strongest points people put to you.

You keep cutting out tiny sections of their responses and replying with an insult or condescending statement.

So what's the point?

You're obviosuly trying to score points, and "win".

This doesn't seem to be about learning or clarifying thoughts (of which any opposed to yours are called "ideologies").

It looks like a personal one-uppance.

Which I can't be arsed with.

[pUnk]

Hi folks-

You know, I have only been a member of this forum for about a week. But. It really appears that people like to fight here. Is this true? It reallyseems trollish in that people don't wanna lose face so they just keep pushing rather than consider. They seem to be trying for a reaction. It's appears somewhat juvenile. There is a lot of name calling (which I might add is a luxury due to anonymity and/or distance). There appears to be little drive for dialogue. More like monologue. This looks like people just kinda taking shots at each other, talking at, or over each other. If I wanted that, I'd just get cable and watch Jerry Springer. Is this really why folks are here, to bicker, insult, try and get the last word, be clever, and witty(which admittedly I have regressed into but it leaves me feeling queasy)? So it seems that the point of discussion is nil. There is almost no courtesy or respect. The usual culprits of cheating at discourse are rampant.

I came here to participate in discussion, particularly on or about peak oil, and the effects it likely will have on all of us, and how we might deal better with it, especially after a collapse type situation. But there appears to be little to no basic foundation for actual discussion here at all. This is too bad, for these are important discussion to be having.

-punk

[btu2012]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Elias', 'Y')ou keep ignoring what I believe are the strongest points people put to you.