TBH I think the real fallacy comes in the idea that it is the nature of the "management" activity that makes the difference.
John,
The entirety of this post of yours is so 180° off what I am saying that I think I can be most helpful by addressing it sentence by sentence.
Before we get down to the level of
"the nature of the 'management' activity" , the fundamental difference comes from the philosophy or values of the culture. It is a worldview. The difference is between one that respects the earth as 'Mother' and 'Father' - the source of creation, and one that sees environments as something to exploit.
Its not. Its the number of people drawing on the resources.
I will agree that sheer numbers compound the problem - especially with the exploitative mindset that has prevailed in the majority of the world up to this point
That comes, ultimately, from Nature, not science, maintaining the low numbers of people: so famine results in deaths, absence of modern medicine results in deaths, enlargement of one tribe results in conflict and direct reduction in numbers by war, etc.
That is not a statement I would agree with. Whilst there may have been some 'short term' effects (such as the ~30 year drought in Australia - and corresponding floods in Central America ~ 600 years ago from memory) , the overriding 'balance' comes back to the core philosophy embodied in the people's.
Indigenous people have their own medicines, and I would argue that the Aborigines present upon first contact with the outside world were the picture of health. Thriving. Strong, beautiful people.
I'm not a Lore(man) , but in 'Australia' there was something like ~250 to ~900 Aboriginal 'Nations' all living peacefully under an advanced system of governance and Law for thousands upon thousands of years. As the oldest living culture on earth, Aboriginies simply couldn't have thrived if they lived competitively as much of the rest of the world does. Yours is a view I would not subscribe to in this instance.
Even then the role of e.g. the Australian indigenous population in the extinction of large Australian animals suggests that actually, the intervention of modern humans in any ecosystem will be deleterious at some level.
This is not my area of study, but even in the last decade the accepted paradigms have been turned on their heads. I would say the science is by no means settled. It is entirely likely that Aboriginals and 'Megafauna' coexisted for 10's and 10's of 1000's of years if not more. The exact cause of their disappearance is not yet proven to my mind. I do note from readings that beasts such as the 'Marsupial Lion' were highly specialized for taking larger prey.
It is also absurd to advocate the example and suggest the rest of the world (which has followed a path not of mindlessly remaining at the survival level but enlightenment and the pros and cons that flow from that, including the current world human population) should adopt it, ...
I disagree, and I also would not term things the way you have.
I am advocating the 'philosophy' as the ONLY hope this world has got, because quite honestly, non-indigenous peoples have made a right mess of it, and despite the hippy movement, despite the green movement, what's left is headed over a cliff at a rapid rate of knots if our eyes and the scientific community are to be believed.
Again, rather than
"mindlessly" existing, I would say that the complete opposite is indeed the reality. ie. MINDFUL existence.
I take it that by 'enlightenment' you mean the 'Age of Reason' and even by extension the 'Scientific Method'. Unfortunately in the absence of 'true' 'enlightenment' (ie. The 'Light' , Buddha, the unbroken lineage of Tibetan Buddhism, Sufism, Merlin - Excalibur, Jesus Christ, and of course earlier, and other 'native' examples throughout history, as well as the 'Dreamtime' of Aboriginals) , this is merely an incomplete subset. Combined with the spiritual and wisdom immaturity of the world it has lobbed the world precisely where we are right now.
without also suggesting the essential corollary which has to be that the current world population must be reduced to a sustainable level (under the model you promote). This is a simple advocation of human massacre in every area not currently individually sustainable under the model. I question the ethicality of that.
John
I am not suggesting that at all. Solving rampant population growth will not solve the corrupt governance (and outright criminality in large parts) of the world.
* I do advocate a 'fair dinkum' paradigm shift to a sustainable philosophy of life as embodied by Aboriginals.
* I do think it would be prudent to focus on population growth amelioration through education, equitable opportunity for females, empowerment, family planning access, etc
* We need effective peaceful truly democratic (or its equivalent where appropriate) governance worldwide.
* We also need to set about a concerted program of accelerated environmental repair and transition - I would suggest this involves (largely) moving from islands of nature in a sea of humanity to:- islands of humanity in amongst a sea of nature.
** Can folks even imagine the funds and resources that would be freed up to achieve these agendas /improved ways of life if all the world's military expense was devoted to the task ?
** I would also suggest that our space exploration/settlement be done along these principles too, because so far we've often treated what we've accessed as a junkyard.
Chosun :gh: