[lonewolf]

What known (alleged) culture/paradigm in 'all of HIStory' was the most "sustainable"?

Why/how were they (was this) "sustainable"?

If they were "sustainable", then where are they now?
Why did they fail to "sustain" themselves ?
How is this "sustainable"?

Failure to sustain one's 'way of life' is not sustainability.
Historical humans (misery monkeys) have never attempted, much less achieved, sustainability.
Never have. Never will.

Humans have always been the penultimate planetary predator - obsessive/obligate/onerous omnipotent omnivores, calloused craven consumers, deliberately delusional destroyers of worlds. Always.

Bye-bye Bipeds.

[Stonemason]

For the most part its not intentional, and where it is, its various evolutionary/cultural psychological defense mechanisms. If you truly want an objective outsiders opinion, you won't be so callous yourself. Its nothing personal. IMVHO. Good day to you sir.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lonewolf', '
')If they were "sustainable", then where are they now?

[lonewolf]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lonewolf', '
')If they were "sustainable", then where are they now?

[Ayame]

The moriori were quite a decent culture. Sadly they all got slaughtered by the moaris because they preferred discussion to violence. The end.

[Novus]

There have been many sustainable cultures over the millenia but they were slaughtered by what Jared Diamond refers to as Guns, Germs, and Steel. There are still a few that exist in the deepest parts of the rain forest. If those tribes can survive another few decades they will likely last many more millenia.

[SeaGypsy]

There were about 500 stable state language groups living in Australia before us 'whitefellas' showed up.
The bugs we brought along killed many (influenza etc.)
The attraction of the path of least resistance was their main undoing. Flour, tea, sugar and tobacco were the only weapons required in most parts.
The amount of work required to achieve sustenance was astronomicly higher than 'earning' it by 'working' for the white man.
Since then welfare addiction has largely taken over, with the aboriginal people continuing down the path of least resistance and the government willing to keep paying them to do exactly nothing.
Paradoxicly, the last strongest stable state populations in the world have been reduced to the weakest and most helpless/ pathetic; in lesss than 2 centuries.

[mike3]

<deleted>

[mike3]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lonewolf', 'W')hat known (alleged) culture/paradigm in 'all of HIStory' was the most "sustainable"?

Why/how were they (was this) "sustainable"?

If they were "sustainable", then where are they now?
Why did they fail to "sustain" themselves ?
How is this "sustainable"?

Failure to sustain one's 'way of life' is not sustainability.
Historical humans (misery monkeys) have never attempted, much less achieved, sustainability.
Never have. Never will.

Humans have always been the penultimate planetary predator - obsessive/obligate/onerous omnipotent omnivores, calloused craven consumers, deliberately delusional destroyers of worlds. Always.

[Narz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '&')quot;sustainability" is an oxymoron

[lonewolf]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mike3', 'S')o basically you're saying it is impossible, as one simply cannot choose otherwise ("Never will" achieve sustainability...). In which case, why bother complaining, when we're all programmed by our genetics/DNA to do this (though I find it interesting you say "deliberately" delusional though when you've already established we have little to no free will in the matter with that we "never will" get it, hinting strongly you believe it is wired into our genetics/DNA), and we have no say in the matter?

[culicomorpha]

It seems to me that there is an inverse relationship between the use of technology and sustainability. That is to say, people who lived within the means available in a given location had their populations constrained in relation to available resources.

The irony in my mind is that of all the animals on the planet, we are the only species that adapts the environment to fit our "needs" rather fitting our needs to the environment. We are the very epitome of hubris.

Even more ironic is that we're probably not the most intelligent species. That would be the whales. Larger brain to mass ratio. You don't see them wrecking the ecosystem. Of course, the fact that we've practically exterminated them doesn't help much.

[mos6507]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('culicomorpha', '
')of all the animals on the planet, we are the only species that adapts the environment to fit our "needs" rather fitting our needs to the environment.

[mcgowanjm]

There is altruism in the Universe:

There’s an allegory about a young kid who lost a coin in a dark place, but went looking frantically for it half a block away under a street light. A passer-by, being a good Samaritan, offered to help.
“What is it you have lost?” he asked.
“My money,” replied the kid with tearful eyes.
The Samaritan joined in the search; however, half an hour and a small crowd later he couldn’t find the coin.
“Where exactly did you lose your Money? He asked the kid exasperatedly.
“About half a block that way,” pointed the kid with a finger.
“Then why are you looking for your money here if you lost it half a block up that way?”
“Because this is the nearest street light, “ replied the kid indignantly.

What if aliens existed in one or more parallel universes? What if you could travel to these universes not by pathetic mechanical means, like rockets and space modules, but through other forms of transportation, in a manner as simple as switching a TV channel on a remote control unit?

Despite some advances in quantum physics, our science still provides for and dwells in an electromechanical world.

http://feww.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/th ... physicist/

Meanwhile, we Americans have entered into the Empire
Killing Debt Destruction Cycle:

We Americans have now entered into this cycle. The deflation and deleveraging can't be stopped. The correction/recession/depression can be postponed but never avoided... and it will be more painful and destructive in direct ratio to the length of postponement. We've been on a credit expansion cycle since the mid 40's. It has ended and is beginning its contraction cycle now.

http://greatdepression2006.blogspot.com/

The change we will have to make to return to 'sustainability'
is mind boggling.

[lonewolf]

"The Myth of Self Reliance" http://www.energybulletin.net/node/51408

brief clip:
"My dictionary says that self sufficient means being “able to maintain oneself without outside aid.” Who lives without outside aid? No one. Let’s unpack that a bit further. The meaning of “self sufficient in food” is something most of us can agree on: supplying 100% of your food needs from your own land and efforts. I have never met anyone who has done this. I’m sure there are a few people doing it, but even subsistence farmers usually raise, alongside their food, a cash crop to buy the foods that are impractical for them to grow.
I hear people say they are growing 30%, 50%, even 70% of their own food. What they usually mean is that they are growing fruits and vegetables that make up some percentage of the total cost or weight—but not calories—of their food. Vegetables are high in wet weight, but low in calories. If you are growing 100% of your own vegetables, they provide about 15-20% of your daily calories, unless you are living mostly on potatoes or other starchy veggies. Most daily calories come from grains, meat, or dairy products. So if you’re not raising large-scale grains or animals, it’s unlikely that you are growing more than one-quarter of your own food, measured honestly by nutritional content. In that case, it’s not accurate to claim you are “70% food self sufficient.” If you are getting most of your calories from your land, you’re almost certainly a full-time farmer, and I salute you for your hard work. Now we begin to see how difficult, and even undesirable, self sufficiency is. You won’t have time for much else if you are truly food self sufficient, even in a permaculture system.

But even if you grow all your own food, can you claim you are self sufficient if you don’t grow all your own seeds? Provide all your fertility? Where do your farm tools and fuel come from? ..."
-----------

Even with ALLthe hundreds, if not thousands of the inputs (even in 'permaculture') sourced from hydrocarbons, and under ideal/stable conditions with much advanced preparation and vast experience, one still cannot 'sustainably' feed ones self. One cannot feed one 'sustainably', two cannot feed two, 100 cannot feed 100 ... X million cannot feed X million ... and 9 billion cannot feed 9 billion without a continuous stream of external energy inputs. Without externalized energy inputs you/we are NOT 'sustainable', period. Never have been. Never will be. To 'think' anything else is willfully delusional. Sure, a few cultures managed to support themselves for awhile on the fertility accumulated/delivered by natural processes until they extracted the nutrient (energy) resource and were forced to abandon exhausted soil for fresh digs to exploit and/or go to war to steal resources from others. The days of exploitation of the Earth's 'virgin' resources is long gone. And the daze (sic) of exploiting 'fossil' resources is soon upon us all. Without 'virgin' and/or 'fossil' energy inputs you/we are ashes and dust.

So sayeth the Reaper.

[Ayame]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lonewolf', 'S')o sayeth the Reaper.

[mike3]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lonewolf', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mike3', 'S')o basically you're saying it is impossible, as one simply cannot choose otherwise ("Never will" achieve sustainability...). In which case, why bother complaining, when we're all programmed by our genetics/DNA to do this (though I find it interesting you say "deliberately" delusional though when you've already established we have little to no free will in the matter with that we "never will" get it, hinting strongly you believe it is wired into our genetics/DNA), and we have no say in the matter?

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mike3', '
')But the reason we "will not" is our genes, so it cannot be changed, right?

[mike3]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mcgowanjm', 'T')here is altruism in the Universe:

There’s an allegory about a young kid who lost a coin in a dark place, but went looking frantically for it half a block away under a street light. A passer-by, being a good Samaritan, offered to help.
“What is it you have lost?” he asked.
“My money,” replied the kid with tearful eyes.
The Samaritan joined in the search; however, half an hour and a small crowd later he couldn’t find the coin.
“Where exactly did you lose your Money? He asked the kid exasperatedly.
“About half a block that way,” pointed the kid with a finger.
“Then why are you looking for your money here if you lost it half a block up that way?”
“Because this is the nearest street light, “ replied the kid indignantly.

What if aliens existed in one or more parallel universes? What if you could travel to these universes not by pathetic mechanical means, like rockets and space modules, but through other forms of transportation, in a manner as simple as switching a TV channel on a remote control unit?

Despite some advances in quantum physics, our science still provides for and dwells in an electromechanical world.

[mos6507]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lonewolf', '
')"The Myth of Self Reliance" http://www.energybulletin.net/node/51408