Sigh. The Noble Savage rears his ugly head again. How far back do you propose to wind back the clock, Sicarius? Human societies have always had some ugliness to them.

its not secret knowledge it's pretty obvious.

The noble savage? haha not me, I'm quite aware that there are social problems in any society.

as I have said before, the stone age is really the only sustainable level of technology

Advanced technology is not sustainable only when it is static. As technology advances new resources become available, and old resources are used more effectively. For example, flint to bronze to iron than aluminium. Slag from old Roman iron smelters has been used as ore. Usable land is also increased, humans are a tropical animals, built to live mostly in areas with plenty of fresh water. Now we have technology that not only lets us live most any place on the planet but in space, where a whole new set of resources will soon be available for use. Instead of proclaiming doom and gloom why do you not seek ways to improve are chances. We cannot turn back now, the gates to the garden are locked. The only way now is forward and upward.

Why is it if the animals do it, it's nature, but if homosapiens does it, it's man-made and nature=order while man-made=chaos. We are animals the same as a termite or a beaver (get your mind out of the gutter). If a beaver makes a dam and it breaks and floods something, we just view it as nature at work, yet if Hoover Dam were to fail and destroy everything in its wake, we'd be up in arms and talking about how man is destroying the planet/nature. We are part of nature and part of the planet. If we destor it, then it destroyed itself by allowin us to evolve.

humans are animals and thus part of nature.
but we ARE destroying the planet.
and we cant live without the planet.
its that simple.
change or die

warsprite
so we're destroying the planet because of our technology. your suggestion is more technology?
ok that makes perfect sense.
like just the other day I caught myself on fire a little bit, I was going to go for water but I went for gas instead. I thought "ok the problem is I'm on fire, the solution must be, of course, more fire"

You are so out of touch with reality it's pitiful, Sicarius. Do you honestly expect everyone to go back to a primitive way of life voluntarily? That's beyond social engineering. That's stark raving lunacy. We are not destroying the planet. The hubris some people have to say that mankind is mighty enough to destroy the Earth is astounding. The world's been here long before us, and it will be here long after no matter what we do.

To solve the relatively little problems like pollution and such of course the answer is technology. Look at catalytic converters in cars and all the other new ways to make things more efficient.

What you really are against is progress. What you really need is a lobotomy.

do I expect everyone to turn to a primitive way of life voluntarily?
no. I really dont expect john q public to want to give up his tivo and fridge. but we do it voluntarily and the damage will be lessened quite a bit.

we're not destroying the planet?
tell that to the passenger pigeon, or the yangtze river dolphin, or the Western Black Rhinoceros, or the Pyrenean Ibex.
why is no river (or breastmilk) safe to drink from? can you not see how our world is being poisoned and destroyed? deforested and trawled and drilled.

hubris? no, its rage.
I think we can destroy earth, because we're doing it right now. earth is on the fast track to being uninhabitable.

oh yeah, the cause of our [little] problems is also the answer to our [little] problems
run a car with a converter in a garage you'll still die. it's not like its clean. it's poison.
if this is so simple, if it's "of course" the answer then tell me why. I'm sure it will be easy to explain, something so obvious. tell me please.

progress is relative.
we've progressed only if you think tivo is more important than the rainforest.

if we're so advanced, why cant we acheice sustainibility? something all primitive societies had.
whos really smarter I wonder

Well in fairness, I think the phrase "Destroying the planet" is not meant to be taken literally. Man is certainly capable of completely deforresting the planet, and while that wouldn't "destroy" the planet, it would certainly have some fairly far-reaching consequenses for those of us who inhabit it.

But I think that a responsible society should see the effects they're having, and stop it. This has happened to a large extent in the US, but that's not where all of the rainforrests are.

Your analogy only makes sense if you assume that technology is the cause, and I did not say technology was the cause. If we are destroying are selves it is not because of technology, but with poor use and missuse. Like I said it is to late to go back now, unless you propose killing 99.9999% of the people alive that would make Hitler's millions look like small potatoes. The only way out is to improve are technology to the point that we can sustain are selves on earth, that is a form of change. This also includes going to space. Many futurist and scientist have long been saying that for the ultimate survival of the human race we must learn to live in and use the resouces there.

last comment was for Invictus

@Sicarius - your notion of sustainability I think is a bit skewed. You claim that "all" primitive societies were sustainable. While I don't agree that that's accurate, let's just imagine one that is. If you live solely off the land, then obviously you can't take any more than the land has to give. Sure that's sustainable, but at what cost to the society? Possibly at the cost of a few of it's members in hard times, maybe a couple babies don't make it through their first Winter. Point is, from a strictly rational point of view, yeah that's forced sustainability, you simply can't take more than there is.

Life like this sucked though, and people learned that they could actually have a little more control over nature and over their own destinies, if they just planted and cared for the crops themselves, and start breeding animals for food, rather than let nature be in total control. Once you do that, you are limiting your range to somewhere near the corn fields, but you also have enough time to build more permanent shelters - gotta cut a few trees down for that ... And the path to progress begins.

again that word 'progress'

I dont know about you but I dont think toasters or american idol are really that great.

god this is so frustrating. I cant even tell you why you're wrong because you just accept so many things without question.

by the way phil, it's snowy as fuck in flagstaff

Sustainability came naturally for primitive societies - after all, they couldn't/can't destroy the environment. We, on the other hand, need to learn restraint - we need to set up social systems that reward behaviors that help the ecosystem and punish those that are destructive... so that we don't suffer the "tragedy of the commons". Technology is merely a physical expression of our imagination - our creative attempts to improve the environment around us. We are not going to stop technology any more than we are going to stop having sex. Sicarius is proposing an abstinence-only approach to technology... and it is doomed to failure. What we need are educated populaces and educated leadership... and a cultural wisdom to act responsibly based on our expanded knowledge of how we are affecting the world's future. These are not easy things - but to ask us, as Sicarius is, to give up technology in its entirety is to require the same sort of understanding of the problem and to additionally ask people to accept the harshest solution. If people and their leaders have that level of understanding, the need to be so severe - to take power away from people for their own good - is no longer there.

Yeah I saw that on the news, and more coming - that kicks ass! I'll be making my first of many trips there the weekend of the 11th.

I'll be in Payson this weekend, they've gotten quite a bit of snow too from the sound of it.

I didnt suggest, explicitly anyway, that we rid ourselves of all technology.

if we can be sustainable and have xbox then I'm all for it.
but I dont really see that happening.

Sicarius - how do you propose we back off to that point of sustainability? Is there a place for technology to help rather than hurt? If as each person understands the problem they then give up their car and their phone and their computer don't they actually handicap their ability to help since they are now less able to have an influence on others? (Example: Should Al Gore stop flying around the world giving lectures and meeting with leaders because of his large carbon footprint?)

I really think out of control population (one result of progress and technology) is at the heart of sustainability or the lack of it. That's why countries have to cut down their rain forests.

: Sicarius (422 ) Sent: 02:31 AM
...we ARE destroying the planet...
====================================================
We are destroying ourselves. We are too small fry to destroy the planet.

True but by increasing the living standard you decrease the desire and need for large families, and you need some increase in the tech level of the region to do that.

Why is it when you take a stand against modern society, you automatically rule out luxury goods? Frankly, the stone age lacked plenty of things that made life suck - medicine, police, fire, the rule of law, art, literature, philosophy, religion, the clothes on your back, shoes, eyeglasses, charities - the fact that you can even articulate this argument because of an educational system! Please think of something realistic to argue about. Your argument that we return to a state of nature is vapid and pedantic. No one will follow you there and I wish you well your first winter - I hope you will at least allow yourself to discover fire.

vapid and pedantic in the same post? Excellent!!!

Chickpea +1

Fire, by the way, was the beginning of the end. DAMN FIRE!!!!

I thought it was the stone hammer

Eh, technology isn't the culprit. We are. Technology is the tool, which is bent to our will. Your pessimism shows your lack of faith in humanity. =)

It's true that as our capabilities increase we must exercise more discretion, restraint, and good judgement, but we have the power to bring great good to the world. Hey, maybe we'll be the architects of life on other planets, maybe we'll transcend humanity into some transhuman consciousness, hell, anything could happen, but only with technological growth. You're so quick to point out the frivolous things we own such as TiVo's, Ipods, and McDonald's as if they are the ultimate symbols of civilization but you completely overlook the amazing things we have now, from electricity to advanced medicine to incredibly diverse cuisine to the exploration of space.

Also, global warming isn't destroying the Earth... it's definitely a serious problem that must be addressed and can have serious ecological ramifications but I assure you, we will still be here, and so will life on Earth. We're not making it uninhabitable, we're just making it less hospitable to organisms that have adapted to current conditions and aren't necessarily adapted to newer conditions... Far more serious challenges to life on Earth have been met and overcome, and it's continued to increase in complexity and wonder. Check out the IPCC report... it's grim, but it isn't nearly as sensational as your claims.

Hey, here's some ecological damage brought on by hunter-gatherers. Notice how major extinctions of many large creatures outside of Africa seem to coincide with the arrival of hunter gatherer's? It's because while animals in Africa had the benefit of evolving alongside humans, when humans took their hunting techniques outside of Africa they were quick to wipe out most of the larger animals in the area... Yeah... population boomed then busted... talk about sustainability. The difference might just be scale, but you're making a rather arbitrary distinction here by saying pre-agricultural stone age technology is the only sustainable level of technology. I would argue that humans are far too successful and selfish to be sustainable without conscious effort... and hey, it's with our scientific method, educational systems, and advanced research techniques that allow us to understand the forces that shape our world and allow us to make the decisions that will promote sustainability. It's not like hunter gatherer's had any idea they would have such a large ecological effect...

Progress isn't relative... there are many ways you can measure progress... though this is a tautological argument. For example, you can measure progress by the amount of energy that humanity is able to harness, which is quite useful in that it may measure our capabilities and much of the definition of life is based on the use of energy to maintain homeostasis, and we're certainly better at that nowadays... consider air conditioning, medicine, well formulated diets, etc. Early on, we could harness only the energy of our own labour... agriculture and domestication vastly increased populations and subsequently the total energy of our labour as well as giving us access to domesticated animals which could contribute their energy. We've had labour, fire, electricity... we've had hydro power (mills, dams), wind power (sails, wind turbines), fossil fuels, etc. It's been exponentially increasing... tell me that's relative.

I just find it funny that your justification of primitive life being superior to civilized life has changed since you've come here... Is this the last thing to refute? Or will you back into another corner? Or will you simply ignore what we've said, maintaining that you're better informed without giving us your sources so that we might be just as informed?

Chris, I salute your patience.

Nice summation.

technology isn't the culprit. We are. Technology is the tool

not arguing there chris. we could talk forever about if only we were responsible with our tools there would be no problem. but we are extremley irresponsible with them and we are destroying the planet, (and by destroying the planet, mapleleaf, I mean making it uninhabitable for human and non human life) And we cannot go on living like this.

yes we have tivos and ipods, which are wholly unimportant. but you are right, civilization has created some 'good' things. Modern medicine, which has lowered infant death rates and allowed us to sustain greater damage than ever before and recover. it has created the internet and the printing press which gives wonderful educational opportunities (which most squander) , and allowed us to explore space and see distant galaxies and map the structure of atoms and listen to any kind of music almost anytime, and a shitload of other stuff. I acknowledge completely that civilization has done some good things.
I like to watch the tv shows lost and jericho on the computer. I like to play rts video games. I greatly greatly enjoy all the music made available to me because of civilization. I like toasted bagels. I like hot showers (however infrequently ;] ) I like movies and the fact I can get around the country so fast. I like carpeted houses, and anti-biotics, and vast libraries bursting with books. I enjoy these things greatly, and if they were ever gone I would miss them alot.
but the choice is really simple, we scale ourselves back down, or we dont get anything.

oh and chickpea, primitive societies were rich in music and art, and they most certainly had fire and shoes and order and religion
to suggest otherwise is ignorance. unless the 12,000 year old man found wearing high quality shoes was put there by god to test our faith or some other such bullshit. fire was discovered, I would theorize hundreds of thousands of years ago, and I dont think any of us will forget soon. religion is one of the oldest human creations, to suggest primitive societies did not have this is plain silly. give me one example of a primitive society with no religion to speak of.

chris, I havnt looked into global warming enough to conclude whether it exists.
the earth goes through periods of warm and cold, and we could be experiencing one of those periods now with little to do with it. but we're also pumping out millions upon millions of pounds of greenhouse gas a year, so us being at least partly at fault seems plausible too.

I disagree on your 3rd point. I'm sure primitive societies understood their landbase much better than we do today (can you name 10 edible plants within half mile of your home?) and I'm sure they were acutely aware that if they took too much, there would be less later. it's common sense, though I'm equally sure some had to learn the hard way. look at easter island, its a perfect analogy for the earth. the people who lived there kept taking and taking, and eventually they ran out of resources and descended into canibalism and ultimatley all died. that is why there is not a tree on easter island to this day, they were all cut down by the islanders and they completely fucked themselves over. thats us, earth is an island in a sea of black, and when we fuck it up bad enough we wont last long.

It absolutely is relative. You may be harnessing more energy but at what cost? a terrible one too be sure.
primitive society is superior to this one, because they never destroyed their landbases, they were never a fraction as destructive as we are today. I dont know if was a respect for the land, or just the simple inability to wreak as much havok as we do today (I suspect a little of both) but it really doesnt matter. the point is that they didnt.

"I just find it funny that your justification of primitive life being superior to civilized life has changed since you've come here" in what way?

@Sic: "can you name 10 edible plants within half mile of your home? "

Let's see:
1) Letuce
2) Carrots
3) Apples
4) Oranges
5) Grapefruits
6) kiwi
7) spinach
8) cabage
9) green beans
10) corn

One of the benefits of society and civilization is grocery stores. They have hundreds of edible plants and some tasty dead animals as well.

ok - only half joking there. I think you actually made many very good points with that last post, and I have to say I agree with just about all of it. I grew up in AZ and have therefore studied native cultures and their beliefs more than most states (OK and NM probably being about equal). And the respect for the land is definitely core in their belief system. "Mother Earth" to them is not just a saying, it is reality, and I have always respected that.

But I don't think that all primitive cultures held the same view as many native american cultures, hell you even gave one example - Easter Island.

what I meant was can you name 10 edible plants that grow within half mile of your home?

I'll give you a better example, mesopotamians sp

you know how the native feel about their land, now do you see why the snowbowl is wrong?

look not all primitive cultures were great people. I dont think they were much better than us at all.
but they didnt poison all the rivers or cut down all the forests or trawl all the ocean fish or put dioxin and flurocarbons in your wifes breastmilk or open a hole in the ozone or extirpate a significant portion of earths biodiversity. whether because they couldnt or didnt want to , is really irrelevant. but I suspect that the vast majority of cultures did not because they understood sustainibility, they understood the importance of protecting their landbases. at least this is how the 27 north american indigenous cultures and austrailian aborigines and several other indigenous cultures that I've talked at length with feel.

I knew what you meant, I was just jokingly trying to tie it into what I like about civilization (the topic of the thread). Truth is, the only edible plants that grow within a half mile of my house are the fruit trees that people plant. I live in a suburban neighborhood. In my back yard, I can get peaches, Oranges and Mangos. My neighbors have lemons and grapefruits. But I understand you're talking about indigenous plants. I'd have to get a book on that if I planned on surviving off the land.

I always understood the issue with Snowbowl as it pertains to their religion and the fact that they feel that the SF peaks are sacred, but that's a bit different than destroying their land base by cutting down all the trees. In fact, I think that encouraging city dwelers like myself to get out and do outdoor activities, like skiing / snowboarding, wakeboarding, hiking, rock climbing, and mountainbiking and the like - actually do a lot to give us a better appreciation of nature and I would guess that a lot more people like me who enjoy getting out to do things like that are supportive of maintaining natural habitats than are people who don't. So I think the snowmaking issue is not a black and white one. The water is sanitary - they probably won't even need it this year, extending the season provides jobs and an economic boost to the town. The downside is that for religious reasons they are against it. I just think the good outweighs the bad.

Have you heard whether they used the snowmakers? With all that snow, I would hope they wouldn't have needed to this year.