> Jared Diamond has a chapter called *The Golden Age That Never Was*
> in his book "The 3rd Chimpanzee". In it he highlights one HG society
> after another that hunted their land to the extinction of large prey. He also
> gives details on numerous HG and Agricultural societies that drove the
> land to absolute annihilation (taking the society down with it). However,
> he goes on to state that he thinks that the majority of destructive practices
> occur with cultures that newly colonize an environment. If they are there
> long enough (meaning the society and environment both survive it), they
> eventually tend to reach a sustainable equilibrium.
Yes, a friend of mine read this book and I've been meaning to check out a copy of it,especially after reading Ishmael; while it had many very strong points which paralleled what I know of The Third Chimpanazee, it continually set off my "bullshit sense." It postulated that all hunter-gatherer societies live/d leisurely, lavish lives in which eating was merely a part of the background, that they only worked two hours a day, et cetera et cetera; Evidence shown in general skeletal wear and tear tells otherwise.
I should specify that I was orignally speaking of two ways of thinking among peoples who both respect their surroundings and attempt conservation and equilibrium -- that of indigenous "conservationists" and of their western, "objective" counterparts -- and how those ways of thinking relate to the hemispheres of our brains. It's not uncommon for me to leave out details like this.
> I would agree that this would lead to certain types of knowledge and
> understanding. However, there are strong arguments that could be made
> for the scientific method.
Just as there are arguements to be made against its cold, detatched objectivism.
> If MY forest was dieing I would go to an ecologist before I went to a local
> hunter gatherer. Better yet, why not go to a scientifically trained
> indigenous person?
I think the ecologically knowledgeable indigenous person, who works both intuitively and methodically, is a good example of the harmony between left and right hemispheric ways of thinking. I agree with your statement entirely.
> I agree their are innate differences between the ways men and women think.
> Together we get the total package.
And then there are men like me who are often accused (and usually accruately so) of being rather effeminate, both physically and psychologically; me and mine don't quite fit into that observation (though, on a whole, I'd agree with you). I actually used to get hit on by the occasional drunk frat boy when I had longer hair, but that's a whole other tangent.
> N:
> Do I sense a condescending tone?
>
> R:
> I am bad. Very very bad.
Hahaha ... I don't even know how to respond.
Be good,
--Nate
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:35 BST