NationStates Jolt Archive

Humans are no more important than any living thing on earth.

We have no inherent right to exploit natural resources, no inherent right to own natural resources.

The earth has agency, and there is a relationship of reciprocity between all living things and the earth. Humans are no exception.

Very simplistically, this is the basis of aboriginal philosophy.

I was going to answer this seriously before I saw the LG quote you have. Its a good thing I just gulped my cola, or it would have come out my nose.

One of the biggest differences between Western philosophy (rooted in 19th century individualsim) and aboriginal philosophy is the perception of the earth/environment. In western thought, the earth has no agency...in aboriginal thought, it does.

Now, you can argue that one philosophy is more 'reasonable' than the other, but really it comes down to a subjective belief of humankind's position in relation to the earth. I don't think it needs to be argued which belief is RIGHT, because I don't think that RIGHTNESS can be proven, but the differences most certainly can be discussed.

The reason I bring it up, is because I have spent my whole life considering Western philosophy (no, not in depth as in doing a PhD on it) and finding it simply unable to fit my cultural beliefs. It has brought me considerable discomfort, but it has forced me to really see things from a very different point of view. I would like others to have this experience as well.

Many people simply accept their point of view as the correct one. They may consider other points of view, but quite often those points of view are still rooted in some similar assumptions. So you can study Marxism, compare it to classic liberalism etc...but you haven't really challenged some of the most fundamental assumptions being made.

Comparative philosophy, I suppose it's called.

So go ahead...experiment. Consider how your beliefs and systems might be different were you to take the aboriginal view that the earth has agency...that humans are no more or less important than any other living thing, and that reciprocity is a fundamental necessity. What would be different about how you live, or how your society would be organised?

I was going to answer this seriously before I saw the LG quote you have. Its a good thing I just gulped my cola, or it would have come out my nose.

Please do answer seriously. I'm not joking.

But it IS a fantastic quote, isn't it?

I'd like to see some ants build a sprawling metropolis and skyscrapers. We are infinitely more important than all other animals put together.

I'd like to see some ants build a sprawling metropolis and skyscrapers. We are infinitely more important than all other animals put together.

So you think that scale=importance?

I'd like to see humans build a structure comparible to the complexity and integrity of an ant-hill (http://www.erim.org/~vparunak/gotoant.pdf). That would truly impress me.

I certainly don't mind defending our worldview, but I don't want it to be the bulk of the thread. I'd like you to 'suspend your disbelief' to a certain extent, and work from certain assumptions (very contrary to your own) to imagine how those assumptions would affect the development of a society.

We do not live in a vacuum. Everything we have is taken from the earth in one form or another. Without those resources, we would have nothing, we could not exist. Our worldview takes more than passing notice of what is a simple fact.

Humans are no more important than any living thing on earth. Yes they are.

We have no inherent right to exploit natural resources, no inherent right to own natural resources. Yes we do.

The earth has agency, and there is a relationship of reciprocity between all living things and the earth. Humans are no exception. Human Beings are duty bound to transform their world into a shape more fitting for inhabitation for other humans.

Very simplistically, this is the basis of aboriginal philosophy. Then 'Aboriginal Philosophy' is wrong.

^

Greyenivol Colony...wow, very compelling arguments! I renounce my worldview henceforth, you've convinced me utterly.

to imagine how those assumptions would affect the development of a society.


Society wouldn't develop in any meaningful manner; Native Americans with similar philosophies failed to progress and evolve. They never got past a primitive social model.

So go ahead...experiment. Consider how your beliefs and systems might be different were you to take the aboriginal view that the earth has agency...that humans are no more or less important than any other living thing, and that reciprocity is a fundamental necessity. What would be different about how you live, or how your society would be organised?
Not sure where the 'Earth has agency' thing fits. I believe that all the living things on the planet (an non-living things too) are integral to everythig else. But that doesn't mean inanimate objects, or most other living things, for that matter, have 'agency'. Clearly they do not - you can easily determine that fact by inspection. But the two ideas aren't actually related.

I kind of see it differently. I think that because humans are the most complex and dominant species on Earth, we have a responsibility to keep the planet healthy and supporting the wide diversity of life that is so vital to our own survival and growth. Our dominance on Earth comes with responsibility, just like any leadership position, and we will ultimately lose that responsibility if we mismanage what has been given to us.

But then again, I also tend to see maintaining the health of the Earth as having divine as well as practical importance; given that Earth is the only planet that we know of that supports life, and that the universe is fine-tuned to enable the universe to develop in a way that allowed evolution to evolve sentient human life, I would say there's a pretty strong divine perogative from the God(s) to preserve what has been given to us.

Society wouldn't develop in any meaningful manner; Native Americans with similar philosophies failed to progress and evolve. They never got past a primitive social model.

That's a very linear model of development, entirely based on the belief that there is a sort of ladder leading to the undefined 'top'. It makes the assumption that the pinnacle of development is the total subjection of the environment to the desires of humans. Our pinnacle of development is the harmonious and recipricol blending of human activity with the environment.

So there are definately value judgements being made. You would say we are at a certain level, with which we would not agree, and we would say you are at a certain level, with which you would not agree.

You say society wouldn't develop...if you apply the standards your are implying (development according to technological supremacy) then it may be true...but if you look at societal development as a series of societal norms and beliefs about the relationship between humans and everything NOT human, then you can not claim there has been no development. The systems that have developed are different, but development has certainly occured. 'Primitive' is often taken to mean a very rudimentary societal development of these norms and relationships, but our norms and relationships are just as complex as any other society. What I think you are talking about is not societal development per se, but rather something based on a notion of supremacy.

The roots of western philosophy go back much farther than 19th century. Most of the modern ideas are built of growing foundations from the greeks. Western philosophy has the saying "Everything after Plato was a footnote". Aurelias, Anaximander, and Epicurus are western philosophers too.

On the aboriginal philosophy, I simply dont find it practical, its sort of utopian. The only way to pull it off is if it was universal. Human nature and even nature in general is all about competing for recources. Any people that practises such a philosophy is bound to be mowed over by one that believes that it must secure its resources, and attempts to expand.

Im not sure what you consider the limits of your philosophy, but I would challenge you to see a way humans could not dominate all the others and compete for recources with better results. It is likely best that we have paved the land for crops and bred animals for consumption. If we had not, Humans could not live on the naturally produced resources alone.

Our pinnacle of development is the harmonious and recipricol blending of human activity with the environment.

But that is only your opinion as well. Presuming that you could not force everyone into your philosophy (you could not), You are destined to be dominated by the culture whose focus is expansion and consolidation.

Maybe because it's the day before a major holiday on which I shall be immersed in my in-laws until my head explodes - actually, that starts the minute I step into the house this evening - and I'm tired already, but ...

I'm all in favor of not abusing the Earth and the Environment but I'm also a little tired of worshipping Neolithic peoples because they hadn't advanced far enough to start exploiting the Earth on the same scale we do, and so are enshrined in some Holier-Than-Thou pantheon. I don't know that much about Aboriginal culture, so I shouldn't talk in detail about their relationship to the Earth. I do know they would set fired in the Australian forests in order to clear the underbrush and open things up for hunting. Whether that was ultimately good or bad, I don't know. In North America, the native peoples certainly exploited whatever natural resources they could, they just didn't have machines to help them do it. As soon as European traders and explorers arrived and made contact, the Native Americans were quite eager to acquire manufactured goods, such as metal knives and cooking pots and guns. They often used the guns to inflict defeats on rival tribes who hadn't managed to acquire them.

Anyway, sorry about the rant, but I guess I'm not in the mood to feel guilty about my 21st-century lifestyle. I admire anyone who goes back to the Stone Age, truly. When's the show on TV?

Not sure where the 'Earth has agency' thing fits. I believe that all the living things on the planet (an non-living things too) are integral to everythig else. But that doesn't mean inanimate objects, or most other living things, for that matter, have 'agency'. Clearly they do not - you can easily determine that fact by inspection. But the two ideas aren't actually related.

Inanimacy is an interesting concept, because in Cree in particular, there are two genders in our language...not male and female, but animate and inanimate. Stones are animate. Some berries are inanimate. That does not mean that one has agency and the other does not. The environment is a system. Rocks may not get up and move...but neither can trees. One, according to your worldview is living, and one is not. Both are living in our worldview.

Living/non-living is not an important distinction for us...in the sense that non-living objects do not have less importance than living objects.

You say that you can clearly determine agency upon inspection. I say, it depends on how you define agency. How we look at it: every single object on this planet, living or non-living, has the ability to affect any other object on this planet in one way or another. Recognition of that power is important.

But then again, I also tend to see maintaining the health of the Earth as having divine as well as practical importance; given that Earth is the only planet that we know of that supports life, and that the universe is fine-tuned to enable the universe to develop in a way that allowed evolution to evolve sentient human life, I would say there's a pretty strong divine perogative from the God(s) to preserve what has been given to us.Emphasis added. I doubt that there's anything out there wishing we would be good to our home. If such a being existed, we would either not be doing what we're doing, or we would be taking a much worse beating that we are now for fucking it up.

Anyway-
Many fields, including ecology, confirm extremely complex relationships between living things in all the kingdoms with each other, and with their physical surroundings. That much is clear. Whether this piece of information would succeed in fundamentally changing th core human behaviour of maniulating one's invironment to advantage, i seriously doubt.

The claim the aboriginal people were somehow in touch with mother earth and so forth seems to me entirely incidental. They simply lacked the technology to manipulate their environment in ways other societies were able to, and thus lived in a closer direct relationship to the land. Thus, philosophies of a sentient mother earth were developed to fit the lifestyle. But lets not kid ourselves - Natives manipulated the land to the extent that they were able. For example, I read somewhere that the prairies used to be a forest, which was entirely burned down by native peoples.

Emphasis added. I doubt that there's anything out there wishing we would be good to our home. If such a being existed, we would either not be doing what we're doing, or we would be taking a much worse beating that we are now for fucking it up.

Well, the problem is we're only looking at a lifetime, maybe 70 to 80 years. We have absolutely no idea what the long-term consequences of our actions are, nor do we know if we will even survive long enough in to the future to see those effects. If God's behind this universe, we're talking events that will occur on the scale of millenia, millions, or even billions of years...70 to 80 years, even 1000 year lifespans might not be able to see what the long term is hiding.

But then again, the point is that man is free. He's given this place, and what he makes of it is his own fault; we know that doing what we do has negative consequences, and we choose to do it anyways. The consequences of that is our punishment for doing what we're not supposed to.

I kind of see it differently. I think that because humans are the most complex and dominant species on Earth, we have a responsibility to keep the planet healthy and supporting the wide diversity of life that is so vital to our own survival and growth. Our dominance on Earth comes with responsibility, just like any leadership position, and we will ultimately lose that responsibility if we mismanage what has been given to us.

But then again, I also tend to see maintaining the health of the Earth as having divine as well as practical importance; given that Earth is the only planet that we know of that supports life, and that the universe is fine-tuned to enable the universe to develop in a way that allowed evolution to evolve sentient human life, I would say there's a pretty strong divine perogative from the God(s) to preserve what has been given to us.

Complex and dominant. Alright, let’s look at that objectively. I think again you are talking about scale, and making value judgements based on that. To return to ants…can you really say that ants are less complex that humans? Not to even discuss the fact that we couldn’t possibly understand everything that goes on among ants, we can not determine their thoughts, or do more than simply observe their actions and theorise about what is going on. Ants don’t build cars. They haven’t written sonatas for piano. But we are comparing apples and oranges.

There are unimaginably complexities that exist in living and non-living objects. Consider the life cycle of a fungus. A fungus is not a human being, but an incredible process is involved in that life cycle. What processes the fungus undertakes are unfathomable to us in anything but the most basic ways. That doesn’t mean we can’t eat that fungus, or use it for medicine…but it does mean that we should consider our actions towards that fungus within the totality of the system in which it exists.

Dominancy. We have the ability, with preparation, to kill any living thing. Is that dominancy? We are vulnerable ourselves. We create systems to insulate us from influences that would be harmful to us…but so do other living things, with more or less success as we enjoy. We name ourselves dominant, crown ourselves with this title, but it is really rather empty. The earth, and all that lives upon it, has not subjected itself to us, we have simply claimed the right to do as we please. That we can (in limited ways) do as we please does not create an objective dominancy over the earth, it just creates a belief in dominancy in our minds.

Inanimacy is an interesting concept, because in Cree in particular, there are two genders in our language...not male and female, but animate and inanimate. Stones are animate. Some berries are inanimate. That does not mean that one has agency and the other does not. The environment is a system. Rocks may not get up and move...but neither can trees. One, according to your worldview is living, and one is not. Both are living in our worldview.

Living/non-living is not an important distinction for us...in the sense that non-living objects do not have less importance than living objects.

You say that you can clearly determine agency upon inspection. I say, it depends on how you define agency. How we look at it: every single object on this planet, living or non-living, has the ability to affect any other object on this planet in one way or another. Recognition of that power is important.I recognize that power. Geographical formations arguably have much greater power than living things because they ultimately 'direct' evolution, and are much more pernanent. Bacteria arguably have greater power because they exist in vast numbers and can survive conditions no other living thing can. and so forth.

But working within the bounds of standard English, "living" would be soemthing that has a cell with an intact plasma membrane. "Animate" would be something living.

Complex and dominant. Alright, let’s look at that objectively. I think again you are talking about scale, and making value judgements based on that. To return to ants…can you really say that ants are less complex that humans? Not to even discuss the fact that we couldn’t possibly understand everything that goes on among ants, we can not determine their thoughts, or do more than simply observe their actions and theorise about what is going on. Ants don’t build cars. They haven’t written sonatas for piano. But we are comparing apples and oranges.

Exactly. According to my human perspective, humans are the most advanced species; objectively, you could argue that we are dominant however. The problem is, every species that is capable of considering its own position has that problem of only being able to see through the perspective of a human, or a chimpanzee, or a dolphin. They would have that inherent bias.

There are unimaginably complexities that exist in living and non-living objects. Consider the life cycle of a fungus. A fungus is not a human being, but an incredible process is involved in that life cycle. What processes the fungus undertakes are unfathomable to us in anything but the most basic ways. That doesn’t mean we can’t eat that fungus, or use it for medicine…but it does mean that we should consider our actions towards that fungus within the totality of the system in which it exists.

Well, of course. I would say there is a big difference between using a fungus or plant for medicine and shelter as opposed to using it to turn out some kind of trivial product that doesn't really enhance our lives in any meaningful way. The point is to use those resources responsibly, in the context of the greater ecosystem, and to use it to improve the overall quality of life not just for us but for everything else on Earth.

Dominancy. We have the ability, with preparation, to kill any living thing. Is that dominancy? We are vulnerable ourselves. We create systems to insulate us from influences that would be harmful to us…but so do other living things, with more or less success as we enjoy. We name ourselves dominant, crown ourselves with this title, but it is really rather empty. The earth, and all that lives upon it, has not subjected itself to us, we have simply claimed the right to do as we please. That we can (in limited ways) do as we please does not create an objective dominancy over the earth, it just creates a belief in dominancy in our minds.

Well, I would say it is objective in the sense we have power to seriously cripple or destroy almost all life on Earth. However, at the same time the problem of dominance is that it also implies invulnerability; even though humans are dominant, we are more than capable of making decisions that could destroy us and we will pay the price for hubris. Nature is many, many times more powerful than we will ever be, and any actions we make that harm it will ultimately come back to hurt us.

Ultimately, it boils down to responsibility. We have responsibility to live in a way that maximizes benefit for all humans as well as minimizes the impact that lifestyle has on other species. Humans are part of the ecosystem, and we have to live like it.

Well, the problem is we're only looking at a lifetime, maybe 70 to 80 years. We have absolutely no idea what the long-term consequences of our actions are, nor do we know if we will even survive long enough in to the future to see those effects. If God's behind this universe, we're talking events that will occur on the scale of millenia, millions, or even billions of years...70 to 80 years, even 1000 year lifespans might not be able to see what the long term is hiding.

But then again, the point is that man is free. He's given this place, and what he makes of it is his own fault; we know that doing what we do has negative consequences, and we choose to do it anyways. The consequences of that is our punishment for doing what we're not supposed to. Fine, so you're saying that if there is a deity out there, it has no discernable direct effect on our lives, and we are probably too puny and short-lived to even be that important in the master plan. To me, it would be simpler and less of a stetch to assume that there isn't a deity at all. But that is actually beyond the scope of this thread - so we should pursue it briefly.

The claim the aboriginal people were somehow in touch with mother earth and so forth seems to me entirely incidental. They simply lacked the technology to manipulate their environment in ways other societies were able to, and thus lived in a closer direct relationship to the land. Thus, philosophies of a sentient mother earth were developed to fit the lifestyle.

however, foraging societies that have been in contact with more technological ones (and have managed to avoid being subjugated) have freely adopted the technology they found to be useful within the context of their lifestyle - the san trade for metal pots, the mbuti perioidically work as day laborers on their neighbors' farms in order to get certain items, the plains indians took up domesticated horses the instant they got the chance, etc. but they have often rejected technology that would lead to a fundamental break with how they live and view the world. and this is typically an explicit, conscious decision on their parts.

Fine, so you're saying that if there is a deity out there, it has no discernable direct effect on our lives, and we are probably too puny and short-lived to even be that important in the master plan. To me, it would be simpler and less of a stetch to assume that there isn't a deity at all. But that is actually beyond the scope of this thread - so we should pursue it briefly.

Well, it's not so much that it has no effect, but that its effects are not personal; rather, they're transpersonal and function on the level of our civilization, or our entire species, perhaps even on a higher level than that. I think it would be counteractive for God to intervene at a personal level because it would lead either to a massively unfair distribution of intervention or the abolition of free will, both of which would force God to violate free will and his own just nature.

I think it provides a more cohesive explanation by providing a backbone to our moral and social responsibilities, and also provides an explanation to those questions science can't answer. It works, and makes sense, so it appears to be on the right track to me.

however, foraging societies that have been in contact with more technological ones (and have managed to avoid being subjugated) have freely adopted the technology they found to be useful within the context of their lifestyle - the san trade for metal pots, the mbuti perioidically work as day laborers on their neighbors' farms in order to get certain items, the plains indians took up domesticated horses the instant they got the chance, etc. but they have often rejected technology that would lead to a fundamental break with how they live and view the world. and this is typically an explicit, conscious decision on their parts.

Yes, the Plains Indians have certainly rejected their microwave ovens, pickup trucks, alcohol, electricity, indoor plumbing, etc.

I'll say it again, I'm all in favor of living responsibly and not damaging the planet, but I refuse to adore Stone Age peoples as being somehow better than we are because they never got the chance to exploit the living daylights out of the Earth.

I treat most things in my world with respect and appreciation. I'm not a tremendous consumer of natural resources and I make a conscious effort to lessen my impact on the environment.
I'm raising my kids to be thoughtful about their actions and not gluttonous or wasteful.
I'm not the slightest bit guilty.

Humans can say and do all they want. They can build the longest bridge across the ocean, they can build the tallest skyscraper in the world, and they can make the biggest cities. But they are still affected by the forces of nature. Look at Katrina. Look at the relatively recent tsunamis in the Asia-Pacific. Snowstorms, tornadoes, you name it. And its not just weather, disease, hunger, famine as well.

Sure we're an advanced species, but what makes us anymore important than the other creatures living on this earth? We're animals like the rest of them. When we sense danger, we flee. When something is scarce (food) and we desperately need it, we fight like animals for it.

Humans are inadvertently trying to control the laws of nature when in reality this is entirely impossible. In response to the OP, yes, the earth indeed has agency over us.

There are unimaginably complexities that exist in living and non-living objects. Consider the life cycle of a fungus. A fungus is not a human being, but an incredible process is involved in that life cycle. What processes the fungus undertakes are unfathomable to us in anything but the most basic ways. That doesn’t mean we can’t eat that fungus, or use it for medicine…but it does mean that we should consider our actions towards that fungus within the totality of the system in which it exists.

Dominancy. We have the ability, with preparation, to kill any living thing. Is that dominancy? We are vulnerable ourselves. We create systems to insulate us from influences that would be harmful to us…but so do other living things, with more or less success as we enjoy. We name ourselves dominant, crown ourselves with this title, but it is really rather empty. The earth, and all that lives upon it, has not subjected itself to us, we have simply claimed the right to do as we please. That we can (in limited ways) do as we please does not create an objective dominancy over the earth, it just creates a belief in dominancy in our minds.I think this post highlights the conflict between the philosophy you've postulated and the reality of modern, western, existence. "Dominance" may be an empty title, but it is a practical one in many ways. We do physically dominte environments that we inhabit with our civilization: agriculture and buildings. We dominate otehr living thigs by killing them, domesticating them, and even taking care of them. there are things we have not yet learned to dominate (and by dominate, I supose I mean control, or strongly influence both positievely or negatively) like pathogens, space, weather, some terrains, and so forth. But for practical purposes, humans do dominate much of their environment.

I'm not sure I understand yor example of the fungus - particularly this segment : we should consider our actions towards that fungus within the totality of the system in which it exists. Though we do not understand the total complexity of the fungus's biology, as we learn more about it, we are able to dominate it further. For example, by knowing that the fungus produces a sterol on its membranes called ergosterol, which other cells lack, we can create anti-fungals that target ergosterol synthesis and put tehm in yeadst infection remedies. You speak as if the mystery of the fungal life cycle and its un-knownness makes us somehow interdependent and equalizes us. Yet our knowledge and power change constantly as we learn.

We are irrevocably dependant and tied to our environment Iincluding the fungus). But, there is nothing terribly mysterious about this and we can probably understand the ways in which we are thus tied.

Yes, the Plains Indians have certainly rejected their microwave ovens, pickup trucks, alcohol, electricity, indoor plumbing, etc.

perhaps you missed the part about managing to avoid being subjugated? you can't equivocate between pre- and post- genocide, forced removal, explicit outlawing of culture and langauge, land theft, and generally utter domination.

I think this post highlights the conflict between the philosophy you've postulated and the reality of modern, western, existence. "Dominance" may be an empty title, but it is a practical one in many ways. We do physically dominte environments that we inhabit with our civilization: agriculture and buildings. We dominate otehr living thigs by killing them, domesticating them, and even taking care of them. there are things we have not yet learned to dominate (and by dominate, I supose I mean control, or strongly influence both positievely or negatively) like pathogens, space, weather, some terrains, and so forth. But for practical purposes, humans do dominate much of their environment.

I'm not sure I understand yor example of the fungus - particularly this segment : Though we do not understand the total complexity of the fungus's biology, as we learn more about it, we are able to dominate it further. For example, by knowing that the fungus produces a sterol on its membranes called ergosterol, which other cells lack, we can create anti-fungals that target ergosterol synthesis and put tehm in yeadst infection remedies. You speak as if the mystery of the fungal life cycle and its un-knownness makes us somehow interdependent and equalizes us. Yet our knowledge and power change constantly as we learn.

We are irrevocably dependant and tied to our environment Iincluding the fungus). But, there is nothing terribly mysterious about this and we can probably understand the ways in which we are thus tied.

Now, if a fungus begins analyzing and investigating us, that might be a interesting. Of course, if anyone's ever had athlete's foot, they know how easily a human can be dominated by a fungus.

I don't think everyone in the Developed Countries goes around thinking constantly of new ways to dominate and ravage the planet.

humans are no more or less important than any other living thing, and that reciprocity is a fundamental necessity.
Thie first half of that seems rationally defensible, but I don't see how it requires the second.

but I refuse to adore Stone Age peoples as being somehow better than we are because they never got the chance to exploit the living daylights out of the Earth.

they did have that chance. and most societies that went that route drove themselves to extinction. it's most obvious on a number of island societies, but it happened everywhere. it isn't inherent in having stone and wood based toolkits that one's society treat yourself as but one member of the world moral community, but it does appear to make life work out better for you.

The roots of western philosophy go back much farther than 19th century.
Damn it, the reply I originally crafted was lost, I'll try to reconstruct it :(

I realise that western philosophy is rooted in a much more ancient tradition than the 19th century. Your worldview is based in traditions probably as ancient as ours. There have been changes, some more important than others (the 19th century being of particular importance, but nonetheless rooted in older philosophies)....but nonetheless, the most fundamental beliefs have remained the same, the dominion of man over nature. (The Celts, Picts etc had more of what I would call an aboriginal worldview that was subsumed by this other worldview)


On the aboriginal philosophy, I simply dont find it practical, its sort of utopian.
It isn't utopian. I am not advocating the imposition of one worldview on another...this would of course fail. Nor would abiding by the aboriginal philosophy somehow freeze us in time...no more than you have been. You are not stuck in feudal structures. There have been massive changes in thought, technology and so forth. We do not harken to the past in and wish to recreate it. We kill animals and consume them, we build structures, we exploit resources...but our beliefs affect the way in which we do these things, as they affect your actions.

To give you an example...we do not have private property in the sense that it is used in your philosophy. That does not mean that we had no rights of possession, merely that we regard those rights in fundamentally different ways. A simple (yet complex) example is land ownership. We could claim a territory and make use of the resources within it, we could exclude others from that territory...hallmarks of ownership...but because we believe the earth has agency, and is in fact a living thing, we recognise that our rights are based on use and our relationship to that land, not on some arbitrary notion that the land itself can actually be our possession. You can't own a person, just as you can not own land, in anything other than a legal fiction. When we die, that earth reclaims us, just as it does the trees, the animals, the land formations and so on...yet we do not believe the earth owns US...reciprocity.

The only way to pull it off is if it was universal.Not true. Not everyone has to ascribe to our philosophy for it to 'work'. Else we'd have ceased to exist long ago. We can continue to build our societies, and our philosophies upon our beliefs and assumptions, as you do. Western thought does not need us to cease to exist in order to continue to exist, and the reverse is true. Yes, while conquest may threaten survival, it does not negate the fundamental beliefs on which we have constructed our lives.

Damn, I don't want to write a novel, and I lost so much that I had already talked about, so when I can remember it, I'll post again...please don't think I'm ignoring any of your points.

A society based on our awareness of our ecological interdependence would be very different than the one we currently inhabit.

A good example is garbage. In the forest, there's no garbage, unless humans put it there. There is waste, though. A bear does shit in the woods. But this waste is not really waste. It's actually food for another lifeform. Waste = food. Everything is either biodegradable, or inorganic.

Now look at us. Once a week, I place a small bag of garbage into a bin on the sidewalk and a truck comes and collects it. Now imagine a society that worked like a forest. There would be no garbage, obviously, but the changes would go farther than that. My home would be completely different. It would be made of entirely biodegradable and easily replaceable parts, or would be living, or would be completely inorganic and 100% recyclable. If a truck drove by, it would also be made the same way. It would not burn fossil fuels as waste from fuel burning is not 100% digestible by existing life forms. Same with heating my home, or how I get electricity.

Imagine a world where absolutely nothing is thrown away, nor is anything manufactured unless it can be used as food by some lifeform in your community, or is 100% recyclable. And even the recycling process has to create only comestible waste. As well as every other technological process we use.

And that's only our waste disposal technology. I can't even begin to imagine all the other changes in our society.

Humans are no more important than any living thing on earth.

From my perspective we are! Cuz I am one.

We have no inherent right to exploit natural resources, no inherent right to own natural resources.

I'm not sure that "rights" comes into it. There is no practical way to avoid "exploiting" (using) any natural resource yet, and hasn't been throughout the history of civilization.

The earth has agency, and there is a relationship of reciprocity between all living things and the earth. Humans are no exception.

True there is, but I'm not sure what you mean by "agency."

they did have that chance. and most societies that went that route drove themselves to extinction. it's most obvious on a number of island societies, but it happened everywhere. it isn't inherent in having stone and wood based toolkits that one's society treat yourself as but one member of the world moral community, but it does appear to make life work out better for you.

The only island society I know of where that happened was on Easter Island, and yes, they screwed up. In fact, they'd probably be the first to admit it. Though I did read something recently that suggested that perhaps it wasn't the people per se that ruined the ecology there but the rats they brought. Other than them, where else? And again, we should be good stewards of the planet.

Well, it's not so much that it has no effect, but that its effects are not personal; rather, they're transpersonal and function on the level of our civilization, or our entire species, perhaps even on a higher level than that. I think it would be counteractive for God to intervene at a personal level because it would lead either to a massively unfair distribution of intervention or the abolition of free will, both of which would force God to violate free will and his own just nature.

I think it provides a more cohesive explanation by providing a backbone to our moral and social responsibilities, and also provides an explanation to those questions science can't answer. It works, and makes sense, so it appears to be on the right track to me.Wait, How does a deity with a hugely macro-scale scope beyond our lives, our civilization or even species provide any moral or social backbone whatsoever? I always start looking askance when I see phrases like "just nature". I really find dumb luck and arbitrariness much more realistic, not to mention comfortable.

however, foraging societies that have been in contact with more technological ones (and have managed to avoid being subjugated) have freely adopted the technology they found to be useful within the context of their lifestyle - the san trade for metal pots, the mbuti perioidically work as day laborers on their neighbors' farms in order to get certain items, the plains indians took up domesticated horses the instant they got the chance, etc. but they have often rejected technology that would lead to a fundamental break with how they live and view the world. and this is typically an explicit, conscious decision on their parts.Yes, but cultural traditions, social groups and poilitics play into those decisions. It isn't that we go around wondering "how do I manipulate the environment the most today?" Manipulatiuon is simply one of the tool in our Human toolbox of evolutionary skills, or tricks. Both the foragers and the farmers in your example used their hands and minds to control things around them in different ways, to different ends - but both methods of manipulation (and I say that in a positive way) yielded a means of survival.

But that is only your opinion as well. Presuming that you could not force everyone into your philosophy (you could not), You are destined to be dominated by the culture whose focus is expansion and consolidation.

Of course it is only our opinion...again I reiterate the need to realise that all systems of beliefs are based on assumptions and opinions about the relationship of humans to their environment. However, our philosophy is not threatened by expansion...our lives our, and if we die out and no one else holds this philosophy then there will be no one to live it out...but the philosophy itself does not actually cease to exist (without getting too philosophical about intangibles :D).

We don't need to force our beliefs on anyone. Nonetheless, many of our beliefs are being integrated into western belief systems with very little difficulty, because humans are able to adapt their belief systems. We have not been wiped out, and in fact our worldview continues to influence our lives and structures.

Anyway, sorry about the rant, but I guess I'm not in the mood to feel guilty about my 21st-century lifestyle. I admire anyone who goes back to the Stone Age, truly. When's the show on TV?

Not really the issue, though thanks for bringing up the most common misunderstanding to this. Our worldview, again, does not require us to be frozen in time. But the way in which we interact with one another, and with the earth, will continue to be influenced by that worldview. It is not about glorifying anything...it is about looking at things differently and seeing what that means to our structures. It has a profound impact on the system of laws a society has, on it's family structures and systems of governance. I am not claiming superiority, but I am suggesting that just as our worldview is not "THE TRUTH" that neither is yours. And both (and more) can co-exist and blend.

But in understanding one another, it is really vital to truly understand where our differences are rooted…because I think a lot of people assume that humans in the end are really all the same and are motivated by the same things. This can be true in many ways, but sometimes it makes us blind to fundamental differences in worldview which cause us to misinterpret certain things we see in others.

And Jolt is killing me here…I can’t seem to post half the time!

Humans can say and do all they want. They can build the longest bridge across the ocean, they can build the tallest skyscraper in the world, and they can make the biggest cities. But they are still affected by the forces of nature. Look at Katrina. Look at the relatively recent tsunamis in the Asia-Pacific. Snowstorms, tornadoes, you name it. And its not just weather, disease, hunger, famine as well.

Sure we're an advanced species, but what makes us anymore important than the other creatures living on this earth? We're animals like the rest of them. When we sense danger, we flee. When something is scarce (food) and we desperately need it, we fight like animals for it.

Humans are inadvertently trying to control the laws of nature when in reality this is entirely impossible. In response to the OP, yes, the earth indeed has agency over us.Controlling the physical laws of nature may be imposible. Indeed humans are vulnerable to many things, and we are similar to other animals in fundamental ways. But only a few other animals (beavers come to mind) can change their environments in such a way that creates favorable habitats for themselves as we do. That skill has allowed us to change many things. It hasn't allowed us to somehow transcend our dependence and ties to the earth though - we can just control some of the ways we use and give back.

Controlling the physical laws of nature may be imposible. Indeed humans are vulnerable to many things, and we are similar to other animals in fundamental ways. But only a few other animals (beavers come to mind) can change their environments in such a way that creates favorable habitats for themselves as we do. That skill has allowed us to change many things. It hasn't allowed us to somehow transcend our dependence and ties to the earth though - we can just control some of the ways we use and give back.

It is interesting to compare how beavers build dams and how we do it. Or why. If our society operated at a level where ecological principles dictated technological policy, would we build dams, and if so, how would we do it?

As someone who has taken apart beaver dams, I find they use a remarkably simple and effective use of local materials, and that things like decay of building materials has been accounted for to such an extent that as decay occurs, the structure becomes stronger. Humans are currently incapable of designing at that level.

The claim the aboriginal people were somehow in touch with mother earth and so forth seems to me entirely incidental. They simply lacked the technology to manipulate their environment in ways other societies were able to, and thus lived in a closer direct relationship to the land. You are making some very large assumptions here I'd like to address.

Did we lack technology to alter our environment the way other societies were able to because we were simply too dull to develop that technology? Or did our worldview simply see that development as unecessary? You do what you believe you should...our goals were and are different than yours.

Thus, philosophies of a sentient mother earth were developed to fit the lifestyle.
You've got it backwards. The lifestyle was developed to fit the philosophy, just like yours.

But lets not kid ourselves - Natives manipulated the land to the extent that they were able. For example, I read somewhere that the prairies used to be a forest, which was entirely burned down by native peoples.Again, you are arguing more about some claim (mostly by non-natives who hold a 'noble savage' view of us that is just as offensive as the more antagonistic view) about ecological/moral supremacy. I'm talking about worldviews, don't lose sight of that. It is very difficult to understand how we did things, how we continue to do things when you look at us from your worldview, not really understanding ours. Hence some of the major misunderstandings about how we organise our societies and how we relate to the earth.

And sorry...the prairies were a forest we burned down? Surely you've see the explosion of growth that follows a forest fire? Your theory would have to have us burning down the forests every three to five years :D

I recognize that power. Geographical formations arguably have much greater power than living things because they ultimately 'direct' evolution, and are much more pernanent. Bacteria arguably have greater power because they exist in vast numbers and can survive conditions no other living thing can. and so forth.

But working within the bounds of standard English, "living" would be soemthing that has a cell with an intact plasma membrane. "Animate" would be something living.

Yes, but unless you learn Cree :D, I have to work with English, and you'll have to make allowances for the definitions I am providing in this context in order to communicate with me on this topic.

To give you an example...we do not have private property in the sense that it is used in your philosophy. That does not mean that we had no rights of possession, merely that we regard those rights in fundamentally different ways. A simple (yet complex) example is land ownership. We could claim a territory and make use of the resources within it, we could exclude others from that territory...hallmarks of ownership...but because we believe the earth has agency, and is in fact a living thing, we recognise that our rights are based on use and our relationship to that land, not on some arbitrary notion that the land itself can actually be our possession. You can't own a person, just as you can not own land, in anything other than a legal fiction. When we die, that earth reclaims us, just as it does the trees, the animals, the land formations and so on...yet we do not believe the earth owns US...reciprocity.
Ok, so if you use land's resources, exclude others from it, and maybe fight for it if necessary, I fail to see how it is fundamentally different from practical land ownership. The fact that there are surrounding beliefs about returning to the land when you die, and the land being a complex functional thing with agency of its own isn't much more than recognizing the vastness of life around us and understanding organic decomposition. I think many cultures had similar understandings, which were then replaced with more abstract deities when people realized that with technology, and learning, hey, they *could* dominate (parts of) the environment, and no, it isn't this mysterious total entity.

Not really the issue, though thanks for bringing up the most common misunderstanding to this. Our worldview, again, does not require us to be frozen in time. But the way in which we interact with one another, and with the earth, will continue to be influenced by that worldview. It is not about glorifying anything...it is about looking at things differently and seeing what that means to our structures. It has a profound impact on the system of laws a society has, on it's family structures and systems of governance. I am not claiming superiority, but I am suggesting that just as our worldview is not "THE TRUTH" that neither is yours. And both (and more) can co-exist and blend.

But in understanding one another, it is really vital to truly understand where our differences are rooted…because I think a lot of people assume that humans in the end are really all the same and are motivated by the same things. This can be true in many ways, but sometimes it makes us blind to fundamental differences in worldview which cause us to misinterpret certain things we see in others.

And Jolt is killing me here…I can’t seem to post half the time!

Oh. Okay, never mind. :p

No, really, I didn't think we disagreed, Neesika, it was just that your OP touched something of a nerve, is all. There is a tendency, at least in the US, for all that is not Western and Modern and Industrialized (etcetera) to be glorified and used to beat us oor, benighted planet-exploiters over the head. It's often done, amusingly enough, by rich celebrities who often made their money exploiting something. Being in North America, it's most often the Native Americans who are held up as the paragons of virtue in terms of "living with the land." It gets a trifle tiresome being told you're not worthy all the time.

Yes, the Plains Indians have certainly rejected their microwave ovens, pickup trucks, alcohol, electricity, indoor plumbing, etc. Again, you seem to have some concept of us existing within some frozen period of time, as though our worldview requires such. Does yours?

Not to mention that western philosophy has had a very strong impact on us...many of our people are wholly assimilated into this worldview.

Those of us that are not are nonetheless impacted by that worldview in ways we can not escape. Nonetheless, within the spheres of influence we have maintained and that are growing, we can look back to our original worldview in order to create NEW structures, just as you do. Our relationship with technology will be fundamentally different than yours, but that does not mean such a relationship will not exist.

Let me make it a bit more real, and clear. For many of us, hunting is a central part of our culture. The way in which we hunt is shaped by our worldview. That does not mean that we confine ourselves to spears or bows an arrows. What remains (if one is true to the worldview we hold) is the respect for the animal which is not determined by the tools we use. We can hunt with a gun and retain our ways. We can hunt with guns and NOT retain our ways too...being Indian is no guarantee of worldview :D But at the bottom lies a worldview that shapes all of our relationships, and those relationships don't alter though the technology does. Are there contradictions? Assuredly, as there are in every worldview. We all try our best.

I treat most things in my world with respect and appreciation. I'm not a tremendous consumer of natural resources and I make a conscious effort to lessen my impact on the environment.
I'm raising my kids to be thoughtful about their actions and not gluttonous or wasteful.
I'm not the slightest bit guilty.Why do you all keep bringing up guilt?

Your worldview does not make you a bad person, just as mine does not make me a good person. One’s actions are key. Nonetheless, your worldview includes a hierarchy that has shaped your society and your relationships. This hierarchy manifests itself in your familial structures…a certain hierarchy exists, and can be rejected or reaffirmed, but the basic assumption is still there. Our familial structures are based on other things, which we can reject or reaffirm.

So what? Well it has real world application when dealing with one another to understand the differences. In a basic example, consider a charity that wishes to help families living in poverty. How they approach those families, how they offer their services, how they apply their programs may be affected differently depending on the system of relationships they are working with. Understanding, for example, that though a certain aboriginal family may live in poverty by objective standards, they perhaps have more resources available to them because of kinship systems than are readily apparent….or that dislocation from community may have a much more profound impact on an aboriginal family than it would on a non-aboriginal family. It’s important in education, to understand underlying worldviews and to not make the assumption that everyone knows where you’re coming from on a topic…etc.

Again, you seem to have some concept of us existing within some frozen period of time, as though our worldview requires such. Does yours?

Not to mention that western philosophy has had a very strong impact on us...many of our people are wholly assimilated into this worldview.

Those of us that are not are nonetheless impacted by that worldview in ways we can not escape. Nonetheless, within the spheres of influence we have maintained and that are growing, we can look back to our original worldview in order to create NEW structures, just as you do. Our relationship with technology will be fundamentally different than yours, but that does not mean such a relationship will not exist.

Let me make it a bit more real, and clear. For many of us, hunting is a central part of our culture. The way in which we hunt is shaped by our worldview. That does not mean that we confine ourselves to spears or bows an arrows. What remains (if one is true to the worldview we hold) is the respect for the animal which is not determined by the tools we use. We can hunt with a gun and retain our ways. We can hunt with guns and NOT retain our ways too...being Indian is no guarantee of worldview :D But at the bottom lies a worldview that shapes all of our relationships, and those relationships don't alter though the technology does. Are there contradictions? Assuredly, as there are in every worldview. We all try our best.

That's all we can do. :D

You are making some very large assumptions here I'd like to address.

Did we lack technology to alter our environment the way other societies were able to because we were simply too dull to develop that technology? Or did our worldview simply see that development as unecessary? You do what you believe you should...our goals were and are different than yours.

You've got it backwards. The lifestyle was developed to fit the philosophy, just like yours.Well, here we're playing chicken and egg. I actually think that philosophy comes after fact to justify it, or make sense of it. I think much of our cultural perogatives and religious notions can be accounted for by the physical culture civilizations were able to develope from material (grains, metals, cement, whatever). I don't think civilizations have goals or directionality in the way you imply. I absoloutly object to the suggestion that lifestyle is changed to fit philosophy - the other way around makes alot more sense as we learn and invent more - a thing Humans have always done and will always do. See Guns Germs and Steel.


And sorry...the prairies were a forest we burned down? Surely you've see the explosion of growth that follows a forest fire? Your theory would have to have us burning down the forests every three to five years :DApparently they were - one can find many sources on this. Periodic burns of the prairies were also sparked to encourage germination of food plants - I have to go to school now, but I'll find some sources when I get back.

Well, here we're playing chicken and egg. I actually think that philosophy comes after fact to justify it, or make sense of it. I think much of our cultural perogatives and religious notions can be accounted for by the physical culture civilizations were able to develope from material (grains, metals, cemet, whatever). I don't think civilizations have goals or directionality in the way you impy. I absoloutly object to the suggestion that lifestyle is changed to fit philosophy - the other way around makes alot more sense as we learn and invent more - a thing Humans have always done and will always do. See Guns germs and Steel.

Apparently they were - one can find many sources on this. Periodic burns of the prairies were also sparked to encourage germination of food plants - I have to go to school now, but I'll find some sources when I get back.


Philosophy can be used to make sense of facts but it is not always this way. There are areas of philosophy that have nothing to do with fact and are dealing with imaginary places that do not exist. Also, Philosophy erects abstract structures and what has this go to with facts (although you plug facts into these structures)?
I think that some philosophical outlooks can change lifestyles, but not in an apparent way, perhaps. If a society changes its social practices (say, it becomes liberal) based on a philosophical outlook (and this outlook could be the result of an author's work), then we would expect to see lifestyle changes. These changes go back to the change in ideology or whatever.

I think this post highlights the conflict between the philosophy you've postulated and the reality of modern, western, existence. "Dominance" may be an empty title, but it is a practical one in many ways. We do physically dominte environments that we inhabit with our civilization: agriculture and buildings. We dominate otehr living thigs by killing them, domesticating them, and even taking care of them. there are things we have not yet learned to dominate (and by dominate, I supose I mean control, or strongly influence both positievely or negatively) like pathogens, space, weather, some terrains, and so forth. But for practical purposes, humans do dominate much of their environment. You describe reality as though our philosophy exists only in theory and not in practice. Your reality has you dominating the earth. Ours has us living because of the earth, subject to it despite the fact that we can damage it, fashion tools from it, etc. Your perception of dominance does not exist in our worldview, period. For you, that perception is reality, for us it is a very strange thing :D

I'm not sure I understand yor example of the fungus - particularly this segment : Though we do not understand the total complexity of the fungus's biology, as we learn more about it, we are able to dominate it further. For example, by knowing that the fungus produces a sterol on its membranes called ergosterol, which other cells lack, we can create anti-fungals that target ergosterol synthesis and put tehm in yeadst infection remedies. You speak as if the mystery of the fungal life cycle and its un-knownness makes us somehow interdependent and equalizes us. Yet our knowledge and power change constantly as we learn.

We are irrevocably dependant and tied to our environment Iincluding the fungus). But, there is nothing terribly mysterious about this and we can probably understand the ways in which we are thus tied. What are you talking about here? It has nothing to do with ‘mystery’. We could eventually map out every living system and understand all the interconnections, but that is not going to mean that our worldview must become different because of that knowledge. Our worldview, like yours, is not based on knowledge…our worldviews have not become irrevocably different as we learn more, develop more technology and philosophies etc.

You say that further understanding means more domination. Well, if that’s how you see it, but it is not necessarily so unless domination and ways of increasing it are the basis of your worldview. Becoming more knowledgeable does not mean we are suddenly going to go…”HEY! We figured it out, so now we can OWN this!” :D

The totality of the system can become more clear…and we can consider it better, with more information…that will be the only difference. Our approach will still be the same.

Nor do I necessarily accept that your worldview necessitates domination in action, it simply contemplates the ‘fact’ of domination being an option to a species that is ‘at the top’ of things.

And this: "You speak as if the mystery of the fungal life cycle and its un-knownness makes us somehow interdependent and equalizes us. Yet our knowledge and power change constantly as we learn."

It's not the 'mystery' of anything that makes us interdependent. Interdependence exists, period...that's a basic assumption we are working from, and I don't think it's totally absent from your worldview either, just framed differently.

"humans are no more or less important than any other living thing, and that reciprocity is a fundamental necessity"

Thie first half of that seems rationally defensible, but I don't see how it requires the second.

It simply is. I mean, we all can examine our worldviews and judge them, compare them, rationalise them, but at some point we just have to accept that this is how they are, this is the worldview as it is expressed and lived.

For us, it could perhaps be explained in a very simplistic way (which will not fully describe it, but give you something to work with at least). Nothing on this earth, including the earth, receives but does not give. An ant uses soil to build its home. In return, it provides a variety of 'services' to its environment. Not all of those services are going to be positive, but there is a system of giving and receiving.

What we give back depends, but there is an understanding of a sort of 'debt' when we take, a knowledge that in some way, we need to resolve that debt, and that is founded in the fact that we are not more important than anything else...that we are not absolved of the debt by virture of simply being us.

Sorry...hope that makes even a bit of sense:(

I'd like to see some ants build a sprawling metropolis and skyscrapers.

Yet ants were around long before we were here, and will be here long after we and our skyscrapers are gone.


We are infinitely more important than all other animals put together.

REally? Try surviving without all of the other animals then.

A society based on our awareness of our ecological interdependence would be very different than the one we currently inhabit.

A good example is garbage. In the forest, there's no garbage, unless humans put it there. There is waste, though. A bear does shit in the woods. But this waste is not really waste. It's actually food for another lifeform. Waste = food. Everything is either biodegradable, or inorganic.

Now look at us. Once a week, I place a small bag of garbage into a bin on the sidewalk and a truck comes and collects it. Now imagine a society that worked like a forest. There would be no garbage, obviously, but the changes would go farther than that. My home would be completely different. It would be made of entirely biodegradable and easily replaceable parts, or would be living, or would be completely inorganic and 100% recyclable. If a truck drove by, it would also be made the same way. It would not burn fossil fuels as waste from fuel burning is not 100% digestible by existing life forms. Same with heating my home, or how I get electricity.

Imagine a world where absolutely nothing is thrown away, nor is anything manufactured unless it can be used as food by some lifeform in your community, or is 100% recyclable. And even the recycling process has to create only comestible waste. As well as every other technological process we use.

And that's only our waste disposal technology. I can't even begin to imagine all the other changes in our society.

Thanks Gift-of-God, you've done a great job of imagining, based on a different set of priorities. Now, people can argue that these things are impossible and so forth...but we are a very smart species. That we have not done these things is not because we are incapable, but rather because our focus has been elsewhere. It's not saying that aboriginal people, left alone, would have done all these things, living in an eco-paradise. It is only the contemplation of how a different worldview could shift the focus, and what that could look like.

Our system of laws, of relationships are based on our worldviews (I'm talking about all humans here). And while it might not be readily apparent at all times what that actually translates into in fact, recognising that things are BOUND to be different in some pretty major ways is important...if you don't even know there might be a difference, you will be blind to it.

So things in the West have gone one way because of a worldview and the reaction to that. As paradigms shift, other possibilities become unearthed. I just think it's important for people to contemplate that...you don't have to necessarily betray your worldview, but if you EXPAND it, there can still be some profound repercussions.

One example? The concept of the earth having agency is being contemplated in the law here in Canada, and in some cases in the US...there is a legal reform movement that suggests (and in some cases actually practices to various extents) advocacy FOR the earth...consider what that means...the interests of the earth become a crucial key rather than an ancillary consideration possibly regulated by statute...almost as though the earth were present to speak for itself...this fits in perfectly with our worldview, though it is a bit awkward and hard to understand in the western worldview. Nonetheless, westerners are not incapable of that understanding.

Controlling the physical laws of nature may be imposible. Indeed humans are vulnerable to many things, and we are similar to other animals in fundamental ways. But only a few other animals (beavers come to mind) can change their environments in such a way that creates favorable habitats for themselves as we do.
What kind of scale are you working on here? Going once again to my friends the ants...they have changed their environment to create a favourable habitat for themselves...ALL lifeforms do this. The changes might not be on a grand scale, but on a scale big enough for survival. Beavers do not 'create' habitats in places that they simply can not...I don't see beavers living deep under the ocean for example. We all of us, every lifeform, work with what suits us best. Humans are able to create shelters that protect us and allow for more variation, but we can not do the impossible...we can not live off nothing.


That skill has allowed us to change many things. It hasn't allowed us to somehow transcend our dependence and ties to the earth though - we can just control some of the ways we use and give back.
So can other living things...in other ways as necessary according to their needs.

Ok, so if you use land's resources, exclude others from it, and maybe fight for it if necessary, I fail to see how it is fundamentally different from practical land ownership.
It's how we view our relationship to the land. Certain aspects of that relationship may manifest themselves in ways familiar to you, but other aspects can only be approximately described within your worldview. The reverse is true...I'm afraid that while I can accept your standards for private property, I can't actually understand them. They are truly foreign to me, and I can't exactly explain why. The courts have great difficulty describing aboriginal title, dubbing it 'sui generis' or unique and simply agreeing that it exists, though in what form is in great debate. There aren't the words. Perhaps when I have better analysed and compared your and my system of relationships I'll be able to make it more clear...until then I can just fumble through like this and assert that despite how things appear on the surface, our conception of ownership is very different than yours. (sorry I can't be more clear)


The fact that there are surrounding beliefs about returning to the land when you die, and the land being a complex functional thing with agency of its own isn't much more than recognizing the vastness of life around us and understanding organic decomposition. I think many cultures had similar understandings, which were then replaced with more abstract deities when people realized that with technology, and learning, hey, they *could* dominate (parts of) the environment, and no, it isn't this mysterious total entity.

Our worldview is not totally unique to us...your aboriginal people (again, I'll mention the Celts, though truly I don't know much about them and perhaps I err) likely had a very similar view. However, the western view includes a hierarchy of worldviews, with it on or near the top, and ours near the bottom. I don't accept this. Our worldview is not less developed, less fleshed out, and the natural progression of philosophy will not mean we will end up believing as you do. That this is how your philosophies perhaps developed is not proof that we will end up there. Our worldview can work in an advanced technological society without being lost.

Oh. Okay, never mind. :p

No, really, I didn't think we disagreed, Neesika, it was just that your OP touched something of a nerve, is all. There is a tendency, at least in the US, for all that is not Western and Modern and Industrialized (etcetera) to be glorified and used to beat us oor, benighted planet-exploiters over the head. It's often done, amusingly enough, by rich celebrities who often made their money exploiting something. Being in North America, it's most often the Native Americans who are held up as the paragons of virtue in terms of "living with the land." It gets a trifle tiresome being told you're not worthy all the time.

I agree that this is tiresome, and I totally understand where you (and others) were coming from on this. Understand that this is a MAJOR obstacle for us in terms of a development of our philosophies in terms of sharing those philosophies with others. There are people among us who do exactly what you say...glorify...and there are outsiders who glorify. Then there are those who demonise. We need to get past that, and develop our indigenous beliefs in a way that is more accessible to all (including ourselves), open to evolution, revision, reassessment, etc. A big part of the problem has been the belief, a belief that unfortunately many of us have bought into, that our worldview is not worthy of such examination because it will eventually 'evolve' into a more 'modern and practical' western worldview.

"It gets a trifle tiresome being told you're not worthy all the time."

Precisely.

Apparently they were - one can find many sources on this. Periodic burns of the prairies were also sparked to encourage germination of food plants - I have to go to school now, but I'll find some sources when I get back.

nah, the prairies took over from earlier forests due to climate shifts at the end of the ice age. however, native peoples did periodically set off big fires, but so did lightning. these fires actually maintained and promoted the existence of the prairies.

just because i like it:


...

My own conviction on this score dates from the day I saw a wolf die. We were eating lunch on a high rimrock, at the foot of which a turbulent river elbowed its way. We saw what we thought was a doe fording the torrent, her breast awash in white water. When she climbed the bank toward us and shook out her tail, we realized our error: it was a wolf. A half-dozen others, evidently grown pups, sprang from the willows and all joined in a welcoming melee of wagging tails and playful maulings. What was literally a pile of wolves writhed and tumbled in the center of an open flat at the foot of our rimrock.

In those days we had never heard of passing up a chance to kill a wolf. In a second we were pumping lead into the pack, but with more excitement than accuracy: how to aim a steep downhill shot is always confusing. When our rifles were empty, the old wolf was down, and a pup was dragging a leg into impassable slide-rocks.

We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realized then, and have known ever since, that there was something new to me in those eyes - something known only to her and to the mountain. I was young then, and full of trigger-itch; I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters' paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view.

Since then I have lived to see state after state extirpate its wolves. I have watched the face of many a newly wolfless mountain, and seen the south-facing slopes wrinkle with a maze of new deer trails. I have seen every edible bush and seedling browsed, first to anaemic desuetude, and then to death. I have seen every edible tree defoliated to the height of a saddlehorn. Such a mountain looks as if someone had given God a new pruning shears, and forbidden Him all other exercise. In the end the starved bones of the hoped-for deer herd, dead of its own too-much, bleach with the bones of the dead sage, or molder under the high-lined junipers.

I now suspect that just as a deer herd lives in mortal fear of its wolves, so does a mountain live in mortal fear of its deer. And perhaps with better cause, for while a buck pulled down by wolves can be replaced in two or three years, a range pulled down by too many deer may fail of replacement in as many decades. So also with cows. The cowman who cleans his range of wolves does not realize that he is taking over the wolf's job of trimming the herd to fit the range. He has not learned to think like a mountain. Hence we have dustbowls, and rivers washing the future into the sea.

We all strive for safety, prosperity, comfort, long life, and dullness. The deer strives with his supple legs, the cowman with trap and poison, the statesman with pen, the most of us with machines, votes, and dollars, but it all comes to the same thing: peace in our time. A measure of success in this is all well enough, and perhaps is a requisite to objective thinking, but too much safety seems to yield only danger in the long run. Perhaps this is behind Thoreau's dictum: In wildness is the salvation of the world. Perhaps this is the hidden meaning in the howl of the wolf, long known among mountains, but seldom perceived among men.

In my opinion there is no acceptable morality other than that of the human individual.

The world exists for me to consume and enjoy, for no other reason. Otherwise there is nothing.

In my opinion there is no acceptable morality other than that of the human individual.

The world exists for me to consume and enjoy, for no other reason. Otherwise there is nothing.Yeah. Pity reality is more like The Tragedy of the Commons than the Land of Plenty.

Yeah. Pity reality is more like The Tragedy of the Commons than the Land of Plenty.

No such thing as the commons. Just random crap lying around.

In my opinion there is no acceptable morality other than that of the human individual.

The world exists for me to consume and enjoy, for no other reason. Otherwise there is nothing.

and thus it would be morally right and just for the last human alive to literally destroy the world on his way out.

that's fucking nuts.

and thus it would be morally right and just for the last human alive to literally destroy the world on his way out.

that's fucking nuts.

Morally neutral, actually.

No such thing as the commons. Just random crap lying around.Did you ever read Tragedy of the Commons?

In my opinion there is no acceptable morality other than that of the human individual.

The world exists for me to consume and enjoy, for no other reason. Otherwise there is nothing.

There are few people I think I could not see eye to eye with on some level, even coming from different worldviews. However, were you to unwaveringly stick to this belief, and refuse utterly to consider the possibility of other realities, then you have at least very clearly laid out the foundation of a worldview that is anathema to aboriginal peoples.

Edit: if you are totally unable to consider the proposition laid out in post #3, then I thank you for stating your opinion, but ask that you not hijack this thread by pushing your worldview to the exclusion of the one you've been asked to at least consider. Thanks.

Morally neutral, actually.Amoral is immoral ;)

Morally neutral, actually.

same dif - still insane

any morality that holds that it is morally permissible to destroy the world is a joke, at best.

There are few people I think I could not see eye to eye with on some level, even coming from different worldviews. However, were you to unwaveringly stick to this belief, and refuse utterly to consider the possibility of other realities, then you have at least very clearly laid out the foundation of a worldview that is anathema to aboriginal peoples.

Edit: if you are totally unable to consider the proposition laid out in post #3, then I thank you for stating your opinion, but ask that you not hijack this thread by pushing your worldview to the exclusion of the one you've been asked to at least consider. Thanks.

I did a long time ago, and I considered it fairly seriously, but since then, I've seen only the triumph of westernism and individualism in nearly every corner of the globe.

Evolution, good sir, is the only way to determine anything.

Amoral is immoral ;)

No, it lacks morality, because there is none besides the self.

same dif - still insane

any morality that holds that it is morally permissible to destroy the world is a joke, at best.

It's irrelevant, morality that is, save the morality amongst mankind alone. Without our perception there might as well be nothing.

I did a long time ago, and I considered it fairly seriously, but since then, I've seen only the triumph of westernism and individualism in nearly every corner of the globe.

Evolution, good sir, is the only way to determine anything.

Alright then.

I'm not going to sidetrack this thread by debate about a philosophy that has ample coverage and opportunity to be explored elsewhere, and again, I ask that you avoid this as well.

I also ask those debating your points not to...or to start a separate thread.

Thanks.

Wait, How does a deity with a hugely macro-scale scope beyond our lives, our civilization or even species provide any moral or social backbone whatsoever? I always start looking askance when I see phrases like "just nature". I really find dumb luck and arbitrariness much more realistic, not to mention comfortable.

He sets down the rules, and it's up to us to find them out through reason and experience.

No, it lacks morality, because there is none besides the self.Nope.

And I take it you have no clue what Tragedy of the Commons is, or you might not have made an ass of yourself with such an ignorant statement earlier ;)

Alright then.

I'm not going to sidetrack this thread by debate about a philosophy that has ample coverage and opportunity to be explored elsewhere, and again, I ask that you avoid this as well.

I also ask those debating your points not to...or to start a separate thread.

Thanks.

How can you debate something without having the opposing viewpoint, espescially when expressed by a cantankerous drunk?

Humans aren’t special. That is true, but guess what. I am one. I want us to win.

I see humanity’s position in relation to everything on earth as we should see it, a competition. Every species is out there trying to survive and they don’t give a fuck if they wipe out another species in the process. There’s no reason for us not to do the same.

It’s called natural selection, and we’re part of nature. Everything is. There is no difference between a mountain and a skyscraper.

Humans aren’t special. That is true, but guess what. I am one. I want us to win.

I see humanity’s position in relation to everything on earth as we should see it, a competition. Every species is out there trying to survive and they don’t give a fuck if they wipe out another species in the process. There’s no reason for us not to do the same.

It’s called natural selection, and we’re part of nature.

Heah, heah. Heah, heah.

Humans aren’t special. That is true, but guess what. I am one. I want us to win.

I see humanity’s position in relation to everything on earth as we should see it, a competition. Every species is out there trying to survive and they don’t give a fuck if they wipe out another species in the process. There’s no reason for us not to do the same.

It’s called natural selection, and we’re part of nature.Foolish. Evolution isn't about competition, its about survival, and sometimes it's finding a niche that does it. Symbiosis is the reason for biodiversity, not competition.

Especially with our edge in technology, there's no need for a close-minded "competition" viewpoint.

How can you debate something without having the opposing viewpoint, espescially when expressed by a cantankerous drunk?

*raises eyebrow*

I think in this case, you need to open yourself up to consider the point of view being expressed. You've in essence stated your unwillingness to do so. I am intimately familiar with the point of view you've described, as are most of us, and as I said, there is ample opportunity for that point of view to be discussed elsewhere...not so the point of view I am bringing. So, in the interest of continuing the exposure of a worldview that gets far less attention or discussion that the one you've described, I feel that it is reasonable to limit the discussion somewhat by excluding long philosophical debates based on your worldview alone. You can certainly start another thread.

And I certainly hope you were referring to yourself in the bolded section, else I suspect you'll be flaming your way out of here in no time.

Humans aren’t special. That is true, but guess what. I am one. I want us to win.

win what? is there a trophy or something?

Who's the earth the agent for again?

Honestly, this is no better than that religion stuff.

win what? is there a trophy or something?

This. (http://science.hq.nasa.gov/universe/images/ngc300.jpg)

It beats the hell out of any trophy you can think up.

Humans are no more important than any living thing on earth.

We have no inherent right to exploit natural resources, no inherent right to own natural resources.

The earth has agency, and there is a relationship of reciprocity between all living things and the earth. Humans are no exception.

Very simplistically, this is the basis of aboriginal philosophy.
I don't think that the Earth itself has agency. It is, after all, a large lump of rock and metal. However, all life is obviously interdependent.

I think that humans, as the most advanced species on earth, have a responsibility to guard it from harm and exploitation, but that we also have the right to use it's resources that we require (within reason).

Who's the earth the agent for again?

Honestly, this is no better than that religion stuff.

Agreed.

Who's the earth the agent for again?

Honestly, this is no better than that religion stuff.
Yep. Reverence for the Earth is just another hokey religion.
Foolish. Evolution isn't about competition, its about survival, and sometimes it's finding a niche that does it. Symbiosis is the reason for biodiversity, not competition.
Symbiosis only comes about when two or more species are not competing. The history of the Earth is filled with the better adapted driving the worse adapted to extinction.
Especially with our edge in technology, there's no need for a close-minded "competition" viewpoint.
There's no "need" for any veiw point.
win what? is there a trophy or something?
Surviving well enough to be content is nice.

Symbiosis only comes about when two or more species are not competing. The history of the Earth is filled with the better adapted driving the worse adapted to extinction.When they were vying for the same limited resources, such as nitrogen, water, or habitat space. Thanks to science and engineering, humanity has the means to no longer being limited by those, without having to compete.

When they were vying for the same limited resources, such as nitrogen, water, or habitat space. Thanks to science and engineering, humanity has the means to no longer being limited by those, without having to compete.

Oh trust me, we have to compete. Sure, we've got little threat coming from the large scale predators that were once so pesky, instead we've got other problems: These little fellows, for instance. (http://www.bd.com/immunization/images/smallpox_magnified.jpg)

I doubt that there's anything out there wishing we would be good to our home.
What about God?

Oh trust me, we have to compete. Sure, we've got little threat coming from the large scale predators that were once so pesky, instead we've got other problems: These little fellows, for instance. (http://www.bd.com/immunization/images/smallpox_magnified.jpg)You really are drunk, aren't you? :rolleyes:

You really are drunk, aren't you? :rolleyes:

Absolutely, like I said, the homebrew fest is tonight, and pregaming is a must.

What about God?
lol

Surviving well enough to be content is nice.

we had that down cold 150,000 years ago

What about God?

Does God have a beard, and a flock of little sheep?

we had that down cold 150,000 years ago

No, we didn't. We faced several severe problems in that time frame, and, content is something humanity is no good at being. As such, we must always strive to reach it by changing our situation.

Society wouldn't develop in any meaningful manner; Native Americans with similar philosophies failed to progress and evolve. They never got past a primitive social model.
Mostly because we wiped them all out before they had the chance.

Unlike the smart, strong white men, stealing ideas from the Chinese and the Egyptians.

Humans aren’t special. That is true, but guess what. I am one. I want us to win.

I see humanity’s position in relation to everything on earth as we should see it, a competition. Every species is out there trying to survive and they don’t give a fuck if they wipe out another species in the process. There’s no reason for us not to do the same.

It’s called natural selection, and we’re part of nature. Everything is. There is no difference between a mountain and a skyscraper.

Our worldview doesn't mean that humans are going to lay down and die, and be overrun by more 'competative' animals, human beings included.

You see our relationship to everything on earth as a competition.

We see it as cooperation. We don't dance about with the moose and sing songs with the wolves, but we do respect them, and learn from them. You might think that is silly, but even westerners have done the same, or are beginning to do the same...I linked earlier to an engineering paper on the construction habits of ants, termites etc. Much can be gleaned from nature, and one does not have to prosper only through the concept of competition.

We don't see it as winning or losing, we too have our place...it's about living.

We faced several severe problems in that time frame, and, content is something humanity is no good at being.

false and false

Who's the earth the agent for again?

Honestly, this is no better than that religion stuff.

Funny. The basis for the western worldview is just as predicated on 'here are some things you need to accept in faith as being true' as ours. To pretend otherwise is self-deception.

You have made certain assumptions about the relationship between humans and the earth, probably based on the worldview you were raised with. Everything you have done has been to refine that worldview...but you have not rejected the fundamental underpinnings, those original assumptions...you accept them as true.

We at least have been forced to consider other points of view. I can't speak for your experience, but many within mainstream western society have never had to stray out of their comfort zone in this way.

Yep. Reverence for the Earth is just another hokey religion. So is the glorification of the individual over all else.

Our worldview doesn't mean that humans are going to lay down and die, and be overrun by more 'competative' animals, human beings included.

You see our relationship to everything on earth as a competition.

We see it as cooperation. We don't dance about with the moose and sing songs with the wolves, but we do respect them, and learn from them. You might think that is silly, but even westerners have done the same, or are beginning to do the same...I linked earlier to an engineering paper on the construction habits of ants, termites etc. Much can be gleaned from nature, and one does not have to prosper only through the concept of competition.

We don't see it as winning or losing, we too have our place...it's about living.
Well, just don't force you wacko hippie beliefs on me. I like living in a modern civilized society. Go play Indians on your on time. I'm sure they could use some to bring more tourism to Monument Valley. :p

Humans are no more important than any living thing on earth.

This is undoubtedly true.

We have no inherent right to exploit natural resources, no inherent right to own natural resources.

This is debatable. It can be argued that the simple ability to enforce the right to natural resources could be considered inherent. If you can build and maintain a fence on your own, then it can be argued that you have an inherent right.

Does aboriginal philosophy really hold this idea that there is no inherent right to claim resources, what exactly do you mean by inherent right, and could you provide a source?

The earth has agency, and there is a relationship of reciprocity between all living things and the earth. Humans are no exception.

I agree completely that there is a relationship of reciprocity between all things, as I see that anything that does exist must exhibit an organic nature, in tune with all other things.

But if you are saying that it has agency in that it can act purposefully for its own goals, I would say that you are completely wrong.

So go ahead...experiment. Consider how your beliefs and systems might be different were you to take the aboriginal view that the earth has agency...that humans are no more or less important than any other living thing, and that reciprocity is a fundamental necessity. What would be different about how you live, or how your society would be organised?

This is a little difficult to answer, because I imagine that aboriginal society came about before aboriginal philosophy. I would posit rather assuredly that society was a natural extension of the environment in which the society existed, and then philosophy came about as a result of the form the society took.

For example, the plains people were amply supported by a hunter-gatherer lifestyle and never progressed into a more complex agrarian society, so it would be natural for them to form a philosophy similar to the one you speak of.

So, what I am saying is, if I were to form a society from aboriginal philosophy, I would most likely be simply backtracking to the society from which it sprung. The philosophy would be custom fit to that society.


But to redirect from that lengthy sidetrack, I find that I can actually fit my views of a correct society with aboriginal philosophy.

Society wouldn't develop in any meaningful manner; Native Americans with similar philosophies failed to progress and evolve. They never got past a primitive social model.

The hunter-gatherer society is only primitive in that it proceeds agricultural society in history.

I would also state that similar lifestyles had progressed and evolved for anywhere from 40,000 years to a few million years, depending on how you look at it.

Well, just don't force you wacko hippie beliefs on me. I request the same of you. More and more, that 'request' will be enforced with self-government.

I like living in a modern civilized society. Go play Indians on your on time. I'm sure they could use some to bring more tourism to Monument Valley. :pHave you bothered to read the full thread yet? The concept of living in some state of primitism forever has been addressed, and dismissed many times already. It helps to go into a conversation with some understanding of what has already been discussed.

And I don't 'play' Indian, I actually am one...and I sense a very deep ignorance on your part as to what that means.

Humans are no more important than any living thing on earth.

We have no inherent right to exploit natural resources, no inherent right to own natural resources.

The earth has agency, and there is a relationship of reciprocity between all living things and the earth. Humans are no exception.

Very simplistically, this is the basis of aboriginal philosophy.

Well now, I don't rightly know. It occurs to me that there's such a thing as convergence of thought and deed - I'm less inclined to attribute such a philosophy to any one originator. Though I certainly can't fault it as a philosophy, even if I were so inclined.

I request the same of you. More and more, that 'request' will be enforced with self-government.

Have you bothered to read the full thread yet? The concept of living in some state of primitism forever has been addressed, and dismissed many times already. It helps to go into a conversation with some understanding of what has already been discussed.

And I don't 'play' Indian, I actually am one...and I sense a very deep ignorance on your part as to what that means.
Well, I read the first two pages and the last page...

BTW, what the hell do you sense? *I* sense you should be living in a commune in New Mexico with Luke Askew.

The roots of western philosophy go back much farther than 19th century. Most of the modern ideas are built of growing foundations from the greeks. Western philosophy has the saying "Everything after Plato was a footnote". Aurelias, Anaximander, and Epicurus are western philosophers too.

The roots of aboriginal philosophy can be traced back 40,000 years. How far back were the Greek philosophers again?

Does God have a beard, and a flock of little sheep?

No, I doubt it. I imagine God is either some inconcievably vast deity beyond anymore but the slightest anthromorphic conception or a local God whose domain at best includes the Earth and everything that lives on it.

Why does how old a system of beliefs are have to do with... anything?

The hunter-gatherer society is only primitive in that it proceeds agricultural society in history.

I deal with this before your more lengthly post.

This racist, anthropological assertation has been challenged in many ways, at many times. It assumes that there is a linear model of development, a sort of ladder, and people climb up to reach the current pinacle, which is western society.

The Iroquois were agricultural...oddly enough, they aren't often considered more 'advanced' than the Plains Cree.

The idea that we must develop in the exact fashion western scholars have determined to be 'natural evolution' is distasteful in so many ways, because again, it takes for granted that one particular worldview is correct, and that any variation that would influence a people NOT to follow that particular path is INFERIOR.

That kind of linear, ladder-like thought is also completely contrary to our philosophical beliefs.

And yet, we do not reject it out of hand, we at least attempt to understand your point of view...the reverse is rarely true.

I'm all in favor of not abusing the Earth and the Environment but I'm also a little tired of worshipping Neolithic peoples because they hadn't advanced far enough to start exploiting the Earth on the same scale we do, and so are enshrined in some Holier-Than-Thou pantheon.

The aboriginal people of North America, Australia, and just about anywhere in the world (mainly outside of Africa) can be credited with mass extinctions maybe outpacing those of modern people.

Does aboriginal philosophy really hold this idea that there is no inherent right to claim resources, what exactly do you mean by inherent right, and could you provide a source? Could I provide a source. Hilarious.

Go talk to an elder, bring tobacco, follow the protocols.

What I mean by inherent right, is the concept that human beings by virtue of being superior to all other lifeforms, have power over all those lifeforms, to use at will, and as desired with no consequences beyond perhaps depletion or other ancillary concerns. Inherent right, in this sense, is the firm belief that what is put on this earth was actually meant for us, whether that belief be based in a religious understanding of hierarchies, or in a philosophical belief of the same. Man, at the top, is master of whatever he can conquer.

We believe we are animals, just like any other, with different skills, lacking some, excelling in others. Nature was not put here for us, nature is for nature's sake, and we are simply a part of that. There are consquences to abuse of resources that go far beyond just the inconvenience say of depletion. One commits a crime against the earth when one abuses resources, and the consequences can be dire.

To get more of an insight into aboriginal philosophy, I can direct you to many aboriginal scholars. Sakej Youngblood Henderson, Willie Littlechild, Brian Slattery, John Borrows etc.




I agree completely that there is a relationship of reciprocity between all things, as I see that anything that does exist must exhibit an organic nature, in tune with all other things.

But if you are saying that it has agency in that it can act purposefully for its own goals, I would say that you are completely wrong. Then we have to disagree. When things become very unbalanced, there are repercussions. You might see that as some sort of inanimate shifting within the environment, but we see that as a manifestation of the earth's agency.



This is a little difficult to answer, because I imagine that aboriginal society came about before aboriginal philosophy. Impossible. There might have been a rudimentary society before any sort of development of a worldview, or philosophy, but the ensuing development of relationships is absolutely based on a worldview...the worldview is not just interjected to make sense of things. The way we organise our families, the way we create laws and systems of governance...do you honestly think these things just 'happened' without any prior thought into how they should be shaped. It's like you're saying that we just dumbly came into existance and then slowly started to think and say, 'we do this because we believe this'. No. At one point, perhaps...but you don't develop a system of laws and THEN figure out what they should be based on.

The Iroquois were agricultural...oddly enough, they aren't often considered more 'advanced' than the Plains Cree.


I disagree; great pains were taken to explain to the children of my generation some of the intricacies of Iroquois society, prior to the arrival of Europeans in Quebec - and they were markedly advanced in their internal social structure, apart from being (a partially) agrarian culture. Of course, I am from Quebec originally, so that might tend to skew things somewhat - but I had been led to believe that the Iroquois were, at the time the French first arrived, readying to expand their federation far to the west and further east. The Europeans (inadvertently?) stunted their growth at a critical juncture.

Well now, I don't rightly know. It occurs to me that there's such a thing as convergence of thought and deed - I'm less inclined to attribute such a philosophy to any one originator. Though I certainly can't fault it as a philosophy, even if I were so inclined.

We (aboriginal people) are not one people, and there were many aboriginal peoples who have been assimilated or destroyed even within western traditions pre-Americas contact that likely had a similar view. We are not 'unique' in our thought...strange then that our worldview is so easily dismissed...but I think more and more, competing or different worldviews are being looked at by the west as containing some kernals of insight :D

Firstly, I would very strongly suggest that you read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. I am only a short way into it, but it is already plain that it is a good book.

Considering your interest in this topic, it would be a real page turner for you.

I deal with this before your more lengthly post.

This racist, anthropological assertation has been challenged in many ways, at many times. It assumes that there is a linear model of development, a sort of ladder, and people climb up to reach the current pinacle, which is western society.

The Iroquois were agricultural...oddly enough, they aren't often considered more 'advanced' than the Plains Cree.

The idea that we must develop in the exact fashion western scholars have determined to be 'natural evolution' is distasteful in so many ways, because again, it takes for granted that one particular worldview is correct, and that any variation that would influence a people NOT to follow that particular path is INFERIOR.

That kind of linear, ladder-like thought is also completely contrary to our philosophical beliefs.

And yet, we do not reject it out of hand, we at least attempt to understand your point of view...the reverse is rarely true.

It is the same teleological view that has plague human thinking since its beginning. There is a egocentric sense that we are as good as it gets (not hard to derive this, as agriculturul, sedentary homosapiens sapiens are easily viewed as the most dominant group of organisms on the planet), and when this is combined with the idea that everything has a purpose, the idea that our group is the farthest point down the path to the ultimate goal.

But science has a fantastic way of destroying purpose, and to say that homosapiens are more dominant than far older bacteria is a farce to anyone who actually pays attention.

The aboriginal people of North America, Australia, and just about anywhere in the world (mainly outside of Africa) can be credited with mass extinctions maybe outpacing those of modern people.

Read Vine Deloria for a refutation of this assertation. I suggest "Red Earth, White Lies".

So is the glorification of the individual over all else. [In reference to the reverence of nature being akin to religion]
You are certainly right about that.
we had that down cold 150,000 years ago
Constantly struggling against the elements. Worrying that the fire could go out and doom your whole family. Competing against predators capable of ripping you to shreds for finite game. Nearly every child born dieing in infancy or childhood. Living a short 20 to 30 years with nothing but unexplainable aches and maladies.

Yeah. That’s real content.

I disagree; great pains were taken to explain to the children of my generation some of the intricacies of Iroquois society, prior to the arrival of Europeans in Quebec - and they were markedly advanced in their internal social structure, apart from being (a partially) agrarian culture. Of course, I am from Quebec originally, so that might tend to skew things somewhat - but I had been led to believe that the Iroquois were, at the time the French first arrived, readying to expand their federation far to the west and further east. The Europeans (inadvertently?) stunted their growth at a critical juncture.

I think it's an Eastern thing...we didn't learn much about them, or even about the non-nomadic Salish etc.

What I question is this...how being agrarian suddenly makes one 'more advanced'.

To me, the level of governance, the kind of laws that bind a society, the systems of relationships are a better indicator, and in that sense, aboriginal peoples throughout the Americas were very similarly placed.

Firstly, I would very strongly suggest that you read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. I am only a short way into it, but it is already plain that it is a good book.

Considering your interest in this topic, it would be a real page turner for you. I've read it, but didn't want to suggest it since it's encountered so much backlash. And please understand that this is more than 'interest' it's cultural survival. We are gearing up for self-government, but we have internalised so many stereotypes about ourselves that our negotiations are not premised on the meeting of two world-views anymore, but more often on a compromise based on a single worldview.



It is the same teleological view that has plague human thinking since its beginning. There is a egocentric sense that we are as good as it gets (not hard to derive this, as agriculturul, sedentary homosapiens sapiens are easily viewed as the most dominant group of organisms on the planet), and when this is combined with the idea that everything has a purpose, the idea that our group is the farthest point down the path to the ultimate goal.

But science has a fantastic way of destroying purpose, and to say that homosapiens are more dominant than far older bacteria is a farce to anyone who actually pays attention. I'm sure every group thinks they are 'it'...among us, we have various terms for ourselves, often translating to 'the real people', so we are certainly not free of cultural arrogance. But that doesn't change our belief of humanities place within the world, which is simply not as high as it seems to be in western thought.

My only purpose with all of this is to offer another, living, worldview for a glimpse into something different.

hey go ahead and not claim anything as your own. ill come in and take it from you.

Constantly struggling against the elements. Worrying that the fire could go out and doom your whole family. Competing against predators capable of ripping you to shreds for finite game. Nearly every child born dieing in infancy or childhood. Living a short 20 to 30 years with nothing but unexplainable aches and maladies.

Yeah. That’s real content.

that doesn't appear to be how actual foraging societies felt. unless those that survived the onslaught of agriculturalist warmongering by fleeing to the least hospitable areas left on the planet are somehow better off than our ancestors living in nicer locations. cause all of them that we've ever talked to seem to be getting along quite fine, and say things like "Why should we plant, when there are so many mangongoes in the world?"

and just as a point of fact, infant mortality was lower for foragers than for agriculturalists and life expectancy was higher until something on the order of 100 years ago. and that's for people living in the richest societies on the planet.

I think it's an Eastern thing...we didn't learn much about them, or even about the non-nomadic Salish etc.

What I question is this...how being agrarian suddenly makes one 'more advanced'.

To me, the level of governance, the kind of laws that bind a society, the systems of relationships are a better indicator, and in that sense, aboriginal peoples throughout the Americas were very similarly placed.

The line most people are fed is that to be agrarian is to effectively be technological. In case you hadn't yet guessed, I don't necessarily buy into that argument. And if the people of the plains were as socially well-developed as the Iroquois federation, my apologies - as you say, no doubt it's an eastern thing.

-snip-
If you really are going to claim that you’re life isn’t any better than some naked tribesman in deepest darkest Africa, then I am forced to assume that everything else you say is also tainted by self-delusion.

hey go ahead and not claim anything as your own. ill come in and take it from you.

You don't even know how to take a leak, at least not in the sense that the author of "Slaughterhouse-Five" wrote about - I just can't see you climbing out from your seat before teh internets to follow through on that anytime soon.

If you really are going to claim that you’re life isn’t any better than some naked tribesman in deepest darkest Africa, then I am forced to assume that everything else you say is also tainted by self-delusion.

my life, maybe. my great great grandmothers'? hell no.

and drop your racist stereotypes, please

Could I provide a source. Hilarious.

Go talk to an elder, bring tobacco, follow the protocols.

Well that isn't much of an option, so I was hoping that someone who had done this had documented what the elder said.

What I mean by inherent right, is the concept that human beings by virtue of being superior to all other lifeforms, have power over all those lifeforms, to use at will, and as desired with no consequences beyond perhaps depletion or other ancillary concerns. Inherent right, in this sense, is the firm belief that what is put on this earth was actually meant for us, whether that belief be based in a religious understanding of hierarchies, or in a philosophical belief of the same. Man, at the top, is master of whatever he can conquer.

Ok, I am similar.

I would say that, rather than saying the fruits of the earth were placed here to serve man, we were placed here to eat the fruits of the Earth. We humans, indeed, are only here because the Earth allows it, and I do believe we have an obligation to the Earth, but it is not out of respect for the Earth itself. We are the most powerful and do have whatever right we can hold to the Earth's resources, but we must respect the reciprocal nature of our relationship with the Earth.

We are a product of the Earth, we exist organically with and within the Earth, and therefore in claiming what rights we want, we must respect that our existence is a gift of the Earth and nature in general.

In other words, man has a general obligation to be a responsible master.

To get more of an insight into aboriginal philosophy, I can direct you to many aboriginal scholars. Sakej Youngblood Henderson, Willie Littlechild, Brian Slattery, John Borrows etc.

Thank you.

Then we have to disagree. When things become very unbalanced, there are repercussions. You might see that as some sort of inanimate shifting within the environment, but we see that as a manifestation of the earth's agency.

There is little practical difference in philosophies then.

Impossible. There might have been a rudimentary society before any sort of development of a worldview, or philosophy, but the ensuing development of relationships is absolutely based on a worldview...the worldview is not just interjected to make sense of things. The way we organise our families, the way we create laws and systems of governance...do you honestly think these things just 'happened' without any prior thought into how they should be shaped.

We humans have many ancestors and cousins whose social structures came about without any semblence of conscious shaping. We have many ancestors and cousins who can ably consider their role within society but lack the ability to abstract thought to create a valid "worldview".

It's like you're saying that we just dumbly came into existance and then slowly started to think and say, 'we do this because we believe this'. No. At one point, perhaps...but you don't develop a system of laws and THEN figure out what they should be based on.

Would you say that pods of dolphins consciously formed their complex social structures?

hey go ahead and not claim anything as your own. ill come in and take it from you.

You misunderstand. We definately exercised the right to exclude others from our territories. That didn't mean we claimed ownership.

The line most people are fed is that to be agrarian is to effectively be technological. In case you hadn't yet guessed, I don't necessarily buy into that argument. And if the people of the plains were as socially well-developed as the Iroquois federation, my apologies - as you say, no doubt it's an eastern thing.

Actually, I'm a bit surprised you were taught anything...I say it's an Eastern thing to study the Iroquois if any study is to be done, period, only because they are so proximate. Even still, the curriculum in most provinces is decidedly short on FACTUAL information about aboriginal peoples.

the curriculum in most provinces is decidedly short on FACTUAL information about aboriginal peoples.

No argument from this quarter.

my life, maybe. my great great grandmothers'? hell no.
Even a life of irrelevant servitude is better than one of constant rape.
and drop your racist stereotypes, please
How is that a racist stereotype? Are there an abundance of people on other continents, living like cro magnums? Because if there are, I’d really like to learn about them.
Did I suggest that all Africans live pathetically primitive lives?
Did I even say the name of a race?

Read Vine Deloria for a refutation of this assertation. I suggest "Red Earth, White Lies".

How does Deloria deal with the extinction of every large animal species in Australia roughly 40,000 years ago and the extinction of nearly every large animal species in North America roughly 13,000 years ago? Does he doubt the evidence of extinction or the archaelogical evidence that places the arrival of humans at nearly the exact same time?

Well that isn't much of an option, so I was hoping that someone who had done this had documented what the elder said. The best place to go is the source...then you don't risk reading someone else's misinterpretation of someone else's beliefs :D

Of course, you could probably find interviews, but I suspect mostly in scholarly realms...check at the nearest University. The people I mentioned before (Willie Littlechild etc) have published, but it's not stuff you'll find at Chapters.


Ok, I am similar.

In other words, man has a general obligation to be a responsible master. I was sort of with you until here. There is the assertation of dominion over all once more. The master to the slave.




We humans have many ancestors and cousins whose social structures came about without any semblence of conscious shaping. We have many ancestors and cousins who can ably consider their role within society but lack the ability to abstract thought to create a valid "worldview". So you compare us to chimps, and to people who supposedly existed in the past with no thought beyond 'me hungry'. Thanks. Do you apply this to your own society? When did western thought develop?

Listen, it makes absolutely no sense that you would seriously be suggesting that our complex system of law, of governance, of familial relationships, somehow arose without our conscious knowledge, and we simply fashioned a philosophical framework around it after the fact. Is that how you see the west as having had developed as well?

No.

When a society is formed, there must be a sort of philosophy to tie it together. At first that thought is going to be ill-formed and simplistic, but as it develops, so does the society. You have only to look at the incredible difference between our laws and yours...they are so different because they are founded on two totally different worldviews. Your laws developed according to your sense of place in the world...so did ours. Not the other way around.



Would you say that pods of dolphins consciously formed their complex social structures?I have no idea. I'm not a dolphin. Are you?
These questions suggest you still have a sort of concept of us as less than human, or at least, less mentally and socially developed than you. Perhaps I'm misreading that, but it's coming through very loud.

If you really are going to claim that you’re life isn’t any better than some naked tribesman in deepest darkest Africa, then I am forced to assume that everything else you say is also tainted by self-delusion.

What you think is "better" is a statement about you, not about another person or the comparison between the two.

Even a life of irrelevant servitude is better than one of constant rape. What the fuck are you talking about?

How does Deloria deal with the extinction of every large animal species in Australia roughly 40,000 years ago and the extinction of nearly every large animal species in North America roughly 13,000 years ago? Does he doubt the evidence of extinction or the archaelogical evidence that places the arrival of humans at nearly the exact same time?

He doubts the theories, based on suppositions, factual errors even recognised within the field itself, and the agenda that has driven this particular claim.

Read it. Even if you don't buy it, it will at least give you an interesting view.

Here is a (glowing) outline of the book: http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/deloria/ ... I'm sure you'll be able to find criticisms aplenty, but seriously, it is worth a read.

What the fuck are you talking about?
What occurs in primitive societies. The past and currently waning subjugation of women in Western Civilization is nothing compared to what happens to women in any other environment.

What occurs in primitive societies. The past and currently waning subjugation of women in Western Civilization is nothing compared to what happens to women in any other environment.

Are you evenly remotely aware that aboriginal societies were egalitarian? That many aboriginal societies were matrilineal, and even those that weren't still had female leaders, and greatly respected women for more than their reproductive abilities?

So before you go on a fucking Muslim rant, or something else stupid, understand that just because YOUR society has only recently discovered that women are human, this does not mean we were as backward.

Here, read a little:http://www.canadiana.org/citm/specifique/abwomen_e.html

We are fighting to get rid of Western imposed gender inequality and go back to our own systems, thanks. THAT part of 'civilisation' you can keep...along with your intolerance (still) of two-spirited peoples (gays and transgendered) who had very important roles in our societies.

Are you evenly remotely aware that aboriginal societies were egalitarian? That many aboriginal societies were matrilineal, and even those that weren't still had female leaders, and greatly respected women for more than their reproductive abilities?
I know that that's what they teach kids, and I know that's what I was taught. I came to learn on my own the truth of the matter. Primitive societies had no respect for human life.
So before you go on a fucking Muslim rant, or something else stupid, understand that 'in the past' doesn't mean that just because YOUR society has only recently discovered that women are human, does not mean we were as backward.
I have nothing against Muslims. I don't know what "we" you're from, but the majority of societies, primitive or not, have regarded women as property. The only difference is that in civilized societies they've had the Rule of Law to protect them, albeit not well.

The best place to go is the source...then you don't risk reading someone else's misinterpretation of someone else's beliefs :D

Of course, you could probably find interviews, but I suspect mostly in scholarly realms...check at the nearest University. The people I mentioned before (Willie Littlechild etc) have published, but it's not stuff you'll find at Chapters.

I will see what I can find online.

I was sort of with you until here. There is the assertation of dominion over all once more. The master to the slave.

I cannot think of any reason why we would not have dominion. Have we not proven that we can shape the Earth (in a metaphorical sense, of course)?

Its a naturalistic view.

So you compare us to chimps, and to people who supposedly existed in the past with no thought beyond 'me hungry'. Thanks. Do you apply this to your own society? When did western thought develop?

This is a rather sudden and stark abandonment of principles.

If you will reread that particular quote, you will note that it began with "We humans". I compare all humans to other species, as we are all incredibly genetically similar to other species.

And what is with the "supposedly" thrown in?

Listen, it makes absolutely no sense that you would seriously be suggesting that our complex system of law, of governance, of familial relationships, somehow arose without our conscious knowledge, and we simply fashioned a philosophical framework around it after the fact.

I find it makes no sense to assume the opposite. It is to the point that I don't know where to approach this.

Is that how you see the west as having had developed as well?

Of course. I cannot imagine a society planning out its own laws before it exists. Doesn't a society have to exist before even discussing the establishment of laws?

When a society is formed, there must be a sort of philosophy to tie it together.

What philosophy tied together the first society?

You have only to look at the incredible difference between our laws and yours...they are so different because they are founded on two totally different worldviews.

Or they could be the result of 50,000 years of separate history.

I have no idea. I'm not a dolphin. Are you?

No, but I don't think dolphins have the ability to purposefully contemplate their role in nature.

These questions suggest you still have a sort of concept of us as less than human, or at least, less mentally and socially developed than you. Perhaps I'm misreading that, but it's coming through very loud.

You are way too defensive if you get that from me.

http://www.canadiana.org/citm/specifique/abwomen_e.html

I consider the Iroquois to be among the civilized peoples of the world. They aren't who I'm referring to. I think it's a tragedy what happend to their culture, along with the various tribes sent on the Trail of Tears.
We are fighting to get rid of Western imposed gender inequality and go back to our own systems, thanks. THAT part of 'civilisation' you can keep...along with your intolerance (still) of two-spirited peoples (gays and transgendered) who had very important roles in our societies.
Hey. I've nothing against gays, and I didn't impose anything on you.

that doesn't appear to be how actual foraging societies felt. unless those that survived the onslaught of agriculturalist warmongering by fleeing to the least hospitable areas left on the planet are somehow better off than our ancestors living in nicer locations. cause all of them that we've ever talked to seem to be getting along quite fine, and say things like "Why should we plant, when there are so many mangongoes in the world?"

and just as a point of fact, infant mortality was lower for foragers than for agriculturalists and life expectancy was higher until something on the order of 100 years ago. and that's for people living in the richest societies on the planet.Modern research also says hunter gatherer societies had a lot more leisure time than people up until recent times. Especially the men. Hunting wasn't something that was necessarily done on a daily basis.

I know that that's what they teach kids, and I know that's what I was taught. I came to learn on my own the truth of the matter. Primitive societies had no respect for human life. Then label your society recently emerged from primitism...ours was not, especially if you look at the status of women. You came to learn on your own...seriously, get a grip.

I have nothing against Muslims. I don't know what "we" you're from, but the majority of societies, primitive or not, have regarded women as property. The only difference is that in civilized societies they've had the Rule of Law to protect them, albeit not well.
Well now you can exclude us from your generalisations. The evidence backing up the status of women in our societies is fairly well documented. Go look for it...go 'learn on your own' some more. Clearly, if we can't 'own' the earth, or trees, or a rock...we aren't going to turn around and make an exception so we can 'own' women.

Our laws, which still exist, by the way, are clear on the equality of men and women. Those are ancient laws. Your laws saying much the same thing are incredibly recent. Embarrased?

Then label your society recently emerged from primitism...ours was not, especially if you look at the status of women. You came to learn on your own...seriously, get a grip.
"My" society has contributed more to the technological advancement come of human kind than any other.
Well now you can exclude us from your generalisations. The evidence backing up the status of women in our societies is fairly well documented. Go look for it...go 'learn on your own' some more.
See above.

How does Deloria deal with the extinction of every large animal species in Australia roughly 40,000 years ago and the extinction of nearly every large animal species in North America roughly 13,000 years ago? Does he doubt the evidence of extinction or the archaelogical evidence that places the arrival of humans at nearly the exact same time?The major climate changes that caused man to be on the move weren't always good for the native flora and fauna. The "chill, ill or kill" theories. The idea that man killed of the large species is only one of the three.

I'd like to see some ants build a sprawling metropolis and skyscrapers. We are infinitely more important than all other animals put together.

Agreed. While I do think we should respect nature, use resources wisely, clean up our messes, re-plant trees we chop down, recycle, etc., environmentalism taken too far, or imposed upon people, is wrong. And saying animals are as important as humans is also wrong, IMO.

Our laws, which still exist, by the way, are clear on the equality of men and women. Those are ancient laws. Your laws saying much the same thing are incredibly recent. Embarrased?
Why would I be embarrassed? I wasn’t involved. In truth, I lean more towards the idea that every society sucks, just some more so than others, which is why I feel the need to be a contrarian to your superior attitude.

And saying animals are as important as humans is also wrong, IMO.

Why?

"My" society has contributed more to the technological advancement come of human kind than any other.

It's important to note that technological advancement actually can have a massive beneficial effect on the ecosystem as much as it does on human civilization. I see it as highly beneficial to boost the carrying capacity of our planet through technological advancement.

At the same time, technological advancement slows human population growth, which means our pressure on the environment can fall alongside our advancement. After all, once we develop a sufficient technological base our effects on the rest of the ecosystem will fall to almost nothing.

Agency, in the western philosophical sense that I think you're using it, Sinuhue, is short for "deliberative agency," with that 'deliberative' bit being the important part.

It is the ability to deliberate and the responsibility which that rational deliberative agency entails that gives people their equal dignity with one another.

It defies credulity to suggest that "the earth" has this deliberative agency.

Why?

Well, here's a question: If I go off and kill an innocent person, should I be tried for animal cruelty or murder?

I cannot think of any reason why we would not have dominion. Have we not proven that we can shape the Earth (in a metaphorical sense, of course)?

Its a naturalistic view. But it is not necessarily so. Other forces shape the world, non-metaphorically, as much, or more than we do (though lately we sure are taking the lead on that one). I'll chalk this down to a 'we're never going to agree' point.



This is a rather sudden and stark abandonment of principles.

If you will reread that particular quote, you will note that it began with "We humans". I compare all humans to other species, as we are all incredibly genetically similar to other species.

And what is with the "supposedly" thrown in? The 'supposedly' is related to the question I have that societies could form without any conscious thought.

Is a family a society? Is a band of people a society? We don't generally think of them as such. It's like you're saying something akin to "The Greeks formed a great society, then sat down and thought about how they did it".




I find it makes no sense to assume the opposite. It is to the point that I don't know where to approach this.

Of course. I cannot imagine a society planning out its own laws before it exists. Doesn't a society have to exist before even discussing the establishment of laws? I would argue that a society does not truly form until there are some sort of laws that govern it. Those laws need not be written down, but they nonetheless govern the relationships that form the society. You can have people gathered together, perhaps in great numbers even, but until they enter into some sort of (I shudder to say it) 'contract' with one another, there is no cohesion necessary to form a society. You simply have a group of individuals with no real ties to one another.

The laws the bind a society together will likely be simplistic at first, but no less important.



What philosophy tied together the first society? Who knows? But I suspect the philosophy was, 'in numbers we have a better chance of survival'. The philosophy surrounding the subsequent laws governing that society might be hazy, but the roots should be evident. If survival is predicated on staying in tune with nature, then your laws will reflect that...as the pressure of more people grows, with conflicting interests, the philosophy deepens, and the laws become more complex.



You are way too defensive if you get that from me.
Not from you personally, from the arguments you present...which are not shaped by you alone. But I'm still trying to figure out those arguments, so don't worry...I'm not calling you a racist.

Why?

Animals aren't moral beings. They can't distinguish between right and wrong. Etc. That said, I do think people suck.

"My" society has contributed more to the technological advancement come of human kind than any other.


But it couldn't manage to deal with the status of women until recently. Nice. Point is, you are still wrong about us...at least admit it.

Well, here's a question: If I go off and kill an innocent person, should I be tried for animal cruelty or murder?

So humans are more important to human society.

Whoopty shit.

So humans are more important to human society.

Whoopty shit.

If you're a human, that's what matters. According to human society, humans are most important.

Animals aren't moral beings. They can't distinguish between right and wrong. Etc. That said, I do think people suck.

And morality lends importance how?

Why would I be embarrassed? I wasn’t involved. In truth, I lean more towards the idea that every society sucks, just some more so than others, which is why I feel the need to be a contrarian to your superior attitude.

Sorry...I think you are reading that attitude into it. I'm refusing to allow you to push your sense of superiority in patently false ways. You claimed that aboriginal societies, being 'primitive' in your view, subjugated women. You are wrong.

Every society has their fault...but yours again and again seems to push the notion that your way is best.

We say...hey, our way is good too. And you take that as superiority, ignoring your own arrogance?

I have said from the beginning...there is another truth out there. Our way is not necessarily what is right for you, but it is right for us, maybe you'd like to learn about it.

But people throw in things like, 'you're trying to make us feel guilty' or 'stop being so superior'. I am understandably annoyed when you can't get past your own preconceptions of what I am saying long enough to actually read what I am saying.

But it couldn't manage to deal with the status of women until recently. Nice. Point is, you are still wrong about us...at least admit it.
If you would read what I post, you’d see that I’m not even talking about you, in more than one sense.

If you're a human, that's what matters. According to human society, humans are most important.

We are coming from different angles here. My bad.

Sorry...I think you are reading that attitude into it. I'm refusing to allow you to push your sense of superiority in patently false ways. You claimed that aboriginal societies, being 'primitive' in your view, subjugated women. You are wrong.
When did I say aboriginal? I said primitive and uncivilized. Not all aboriginal societies were those things.

We are coming from different angles here. My bad.

Oh, yeah. I'm speaking in terms of value in the context of human society, not as an objective measure of humanity's value in the Earth's ecosystem.

What occurs in primitive societies. The past and currently waning subjugation of women in Western Civilization is nothing compared to what happens to women in any other environment.
You're so funny.
I'm sure Neesika can correct me or fill in the doubtless large gaps in my knowledge.
Most Native American women had quite a bit more power in their society than did European women until very recent times. The Iroquois only elected men to fill tribal positions, but the women were the ones who did the electing. The women don't like you, you don't get elected.
Perhaps Neesika can give some other examples.

Many women and especially children in colonial days who were kidnapped and lived with the tribes didn't want to be "rescued" and would more often than not run back to the natives. Being a child in colonial times sucked. European ideas about child rearing were brutal.
It's not just that the child was just prefering to stay where ever they'd been. Native American children raised by whites tended to try to go back to their tribes.

As far as finding the info on the childrens preferences, thanks Discovery Channel. Though finding it on a link might be hard.

Agency, in the western philosophical sense that I think you're using it, Sinuhue, is short for "deliberative agency," with that 'deliberative' bit being the important part.

It is the ability to deliberate and the responsibility which that rational deliberative agency entails that gives people their equal dignity with one another.

It defies credulity to suggest that "the earth" has this deliberative agency.

Why would I use a term for our beliefs that is couched in a western philosophical basis that denies them?

I'm sorry, I can only use english with you, but I assure you, agency in the sense I refer to it is not in fact defined that way. I lack the ability at this point to make it more clear using your definitions, simply accept that 'equal dignity with one another' in our worldview applies to the earth.

If you're a human, that's what matters. According to human society, humans are most important.

No...according to YOUR society humans are more important...sheesh...did you miss the first page?:D It's only the ENTIRE basis of the thread!!!!!

If you're a human, that's what matters. According to human society, humans are most important.That should only be to the point that I think my family is more important than yours. Yes, I take care of my family first. But in all, mine has no more right to be than yours. The same with the human family. We have no more right to be than non-humans.

And morality lends importance how?

*shrugs*

No...according to YOUR society humans are more important...sheesh...did you miss the first page?:D It's only the ENTIRE basis of the thread!!!!!

Of course, I'm speaking on the basis of Western civilization, which is what I am a part of and which has by and large shaped my beliefs.

If you would read what I post, you’d see that I’m not even talking about you, in more than one sense.

I can accept that, but you made a generalisation, and I pointed out a very imporant instance of that generalisation being utterly wrong. Considering the topic of this thread, that generalisation needed to be challenged, because by implication, intended by you are not, we were being included as societies that subjugate women. I'll accept that you were not saying this about us, and we can do a little dance of reconciliation.

When did I say aboriginal? I said primitive and uncivilized. Not all aboriginal societies were those things.

I think you could see (considering the context) why I would assume you were applying those terms to us.

Of course, I'm speaking on the basis of Western civilization, which is what I am a part of and which has by and large shaped my beliefs.

Yes, I know that...but I wasn't sure you had that clearly in your mind. You see...there is a tendancy among many to say, 'this is how it is for us, thus this must be how it is for all'.

Hence the constant discussion on the universality of 'human nature' leading to all sorts of suppositions about what humans will do.

That should only be to the point that I think my family is more important than yours. Yes, I take care of my family first. But in all, mine has no more right to be than yours. The same with the human family. We have no more right to be than non-humans.
When you get right down to it, nothing has a right to anything independent of human ideas.

Well, here's a question: If I go off and kill an innocent person, should I be tried for animal cruelty or murder?

Depends...we have a basic law..."YOU EAT WHAT YOU KILL".:D

(of course, we don't actually eat other humans...)

Yes, I know that...but I wasn't sure you had that clearly in your mind. You see...there is a tendancy among many to say, 'this is how it is for us, thus this must be how it is for all'.

Yeah, I like to make sure I admit my bias whenever I'm talking about aspects of my society's human nature.

Hence the constant discussion on the universality of 'human nature' leading to all sorts of suppositions about what humans will do.

That's why I feel reductionist explanations of human nature do not and will not work. I mean, the entire process is biased towards a few specific worldviews and a few specific philosophies that seek to explain everything in their terms.

When you get right down to it, nothing has a right to anything independent of human ideas.

Rights are concepts you apply to yourself or not.

Neither my people, nor yours can really say that certain things like rights actually exist independent of our thoughts.

But I don't really want to get too deep into bong-smoking territory on this one.

Depends...we have a basic law..."YOU EAT WHAT YOU KILL".:D

Well, it makes sense...after all, if you're going to kill something you better have a good reason to do so.

(of course, we don't actually eat other humans...)

No, that's either Soylent Green or propaganda.

But it is not necessarily so. Other forces shape the world, non-metaphorically, as much, or more than we do (though lately we sure are taking the lead on that one). I'll chalk this down to a 'we're never going to agree' point.

Good idea.

The 'supposedly' is related to the question I have that societies could form without any conscious thought.

Is a family a society? Is a band of people a society? We don't generally think of them as such. It's like you're saying something akin to "The Greeks formed a great society, then sat down and thought about how they did it".

We are operating on different definitions of society. I would very much consider a tribe of hunter-gatherers to be a society, largely they were based in family, and they were always a band of people.

I don't think we can distinguish a point where we can say society existed after this point, but did not before this point. But if we accept the idea that societies started to exist at some point in the past, we can assume that there was a society that was not preceded by society. How do you imagine that these people were able to handle discussion of their future society?

I would argue that a society does not truly form until there are some sort of laws that govern it. Those laws need not be written down, but they nonetheless govern the relationships that form the society. You can have people gathered together, perhaps in great numbers even, but until they enter into some sort of (I shudder to say it) 'contract' with one another, there is no cohesion necessary to form a society. You simply have a group of individuals with no real ties to one another.

The laws the bind a society together will likely be simplistic at first, but no less important.

You are addressing civilization more than society here, but regardless there must be values and beliefs that exist for the members of the society to have preferences in setting their laws. So these values must come before law.


Who knows? But I suspect the philosophy was, 'in numbers we have a better chance of survival'.

Evolution set this philosophy, not reason.

Not from you personally, from the arguments you present...which are not shaped by you alone. But I'm still trying to figure out those arguments, so don't worry...I'm not calling you a racist.

I firmly believe that there is no difference between aboriginal peoples and people supplanted them outside of their separated environments.

When you get right down to it, nothing has a right to anything independent of human ideas.I believe differently. I believe that it doesn't take us saying something has value to give it value.

Evolution set this philosophy, not reason.

Well, here's a question: Is individualism a product of evolution or reason?

First off, welcome back Sin, how are you girl?

Next. I have not read the thread through (it is gone midnight and I've had a long day) so what I am about to say may have already been dealt with. (If so just point me to where).

You are arguing that we are not masters of the earth, that we have no more right to control or manage the products of the earth than any other living thing, or even than the earth itself has. I agree with that but the conclusion you draw from it that we are not the masters of the earth is plainly, empirically false.

We are the current dominant species, and as such we can and do do what we want to with the resources that we command. Exactly the same as any other species does. We would not expect a flock of starlings to carefully ration the number of seeds they eat to allow for some to propogate and produce more seeds in the future. The birds will eat what it is in their power to eat.

Now we have the power to do as we wish with the world, and as such we are by natures own rules, the masters of the world. This does not imply any fanciful philosophical invention such as rights. (They don't exist at all outside of human minds) It is a simple fact of the state of affairs.

What we do with this mastership is another matter. There are arguments that can be made that we should temper our power, but that is another issue.

wow. a serious post, followed by an LG quote. oh, the irony.

I firmly believe that there is no difference between aboriginal peoples and people supplanted them outside of their separated environments.

We just happened to develop different ways of conceiving of our place in the world.

There are many other worldviews out there that I am unfamiliar with that I think would bring wonderful perspective as well.

On the whole 'at what point does a group become a society', I don't really know, nor am I that interested...but I know that our laws and yours did not develop in a philosophical vacuum. You have only to look into the development of English jurisprudence to see the philosophical roots, and the development based on those philosophies. At some point in the distant past, perhaps laws 'just were'...but they ceased to 'just be' once people started actively thinking about how they thought they fit into this world. Ditto with us. That, in my mind, is all that is important, not whether the philosophy predated the society or visa versa.

What we do with this mastership is another matter. There are arguments that can be made that we should temper our power, but that is another issue.

What does mastery mean to you? Does it mean ownership, or an ability to DO?

Your philosophy has humans at the top, with the right to do as they please (if I'm wrong on this, please correct me). Ours has us as highly capable beings with a responsibility to all living beings that tempers our ability to do as we please.

You can do as you wish and break no 'laws'.

We can not...and are very clear on what is permitted, and what is not.

It's just a different set of rules, based on how we think we fit into this world.

And I've been great...hope you have time to read the rest of the thread. I suppose this is my 'indigenous rennaissance' in crude form...I've finally tired of trying to fit my beliefs into other people's philosophies, and I've gone back the elders to 'relearn' what I inherently understand, but can not yet fully rationally explain.

Why would I use a term for our beliefs that is couched in a western philosophical basis that denies them?

I'm sorry, I can only use english with you, but I assure you, agency in the sense I refer to it is not in fact defined that way. I lack the ability at this point to make it more clear using your definitions, simply accept that 'equal dignity with one another' in our worldview applies to the earth.



What I'm saying is that there is no rational basis for this in your system, whereas there is one in the western system.

Well, here's a question: Is individualism a product of evolution or reason?

I would imagine that it is a healthy dose of both.

What I'm saying is that there is no rational basis for this in your system, whereas there is one in the western system.Explain this one.

What I'm saying is that there is no rational basis for this in your system, whereas there is one in the western system.

Well, isn't the need for a rational basis a Western view of justification to begin with?

We just happened to develop different ways of conceiving of our place in the world.

Exactly.

And unfortunately for aboriginal people (and maybe all of us), agricultural sedentary tribes (through need of land to support a much greater population density) developed a near monopoly on rapid expansion through violence.

What I'm saying is that there is no rational basis for this in your system, whereas there is one in the western system.

Rational to you, based on your methods of determining what is rational and what is not, based again on your worldview.

You are saying to me that to YOU, our conception of the earth as having agency is not rational. Of course it isn't, because you entire system rejects this notion. It couldn't possibly accept it.

But our system does. And our systems of rationality are fine with it.

I accept on pure faith certain of the premises your society is founded on, because despite your exercises in rationality...rationalising what you believe, justifying it, I find it to be untrue. Why? Because my worldview rejects it. So now you can take a leap of faith and understand that despite the fact you think our beliefs fall short of your standards, they exist, they have power, they have shaped our society, and will continue to do so.

A little less judgement and a bit more understanding is necessary if we are ever (on a wide level) going to learn to live with one another, especially here in North America.

Well, isn't the need for a rational basis a Western view of justification to begin with?

Yep, he is doomed to circular logic on this one.

I believe differently. I believe that it doesn't take us saying something has value to give it value.
Then from where does it derive "value?"

Exactly.

And unfortunately for aboriginal people (and maybe all of us) agricultural, sedentary tribes (through need of land to support a much greater population density) developed a near monopoly on rapid expansion through violence.

But also, western society is developing a level of tolerance that allows it to finally begin to consider other worldviews (hence, I can't be totally hateful towards it, hmmmm?) and I believe that it is entirely possible to blend our worldviews when necessary, or keep them apart when necessary, and continue to develop as societies...

I would imagine that it is a healthy dose of both.

My guess is it has more to do with the Larmarckian tendencies of cultural evolution as opposed to the biological Darwinian method of evolution. It's an important difference because cultural evolution is a combination of inheritance of acquired traits and the "intelligent design" aspect of human involvement in the evolution of ideas.

In this case, human beings can develop or acquire ideas and pass them on to their children within a generation, and those children can develop and refine, or even discard those ideas as they develop new ones or are influenced from other sources. The primary difference between cultural and biological evolution is the objective existence of design, with humans as the designers.

Really, it's the only way to accommodate the fact that cultural evolution appears to be occurring at levels orders of magnitude faster than biological evolution.

Well, I need to spend some time with the kids...but thanks for everyone who is participating...I hope to come back to this thread tomorrow.

Good night!

Explain this one.

It was explained in my post already, but I'll post it again.

Equal rational deliberative agency is what gives humans equal dignity. Each rational person is equally able to deliberate the courses of action before him, and responsible for the courses he picks.

This is the rational basis for equality - it is not a fiat - it is based on a shared feature which is categorically the same in all people and categorically absent from all non-people.

"The earth has 'agency' because thats our traditional religion" is an arbitrary opinion, it isn't based on any rational rigor.

Indian religions aren't any different from middle eastern or European religions, they shouldn't be afforded any special dignity on account of their 'indigenousness' or whatever.

Then from where does it derive "value?"It's value is inherent.

Erg. In the time it took for the reply page to load peopel will have posted another three pages.

"The earth has 'agency' because thats our traditional religion" is an arbitrary opinion, it isn't based on any rational rigor.

But here's the problem. Rationality in and of itself cannot be justified by rational argument; you run in to the fact that a rational basis for things is only valid if you agree to accept without any kind of objective proof that a rational system does provide the strongest justification for a given statement.

Rational argument requires not so much an arbitrary basis but rather an unproven axiomatic basis in order to be valid. So, rational rigor is not in and of itself a satisfactory justification for a given position.

Reason alone is impossible due to the limitations of logic itself.

Rational to you, based on your methods of determining what is rational and what is not, based again on your worldview.

You are saying to me that to YOU, our conception of the earth as having agency is not rational. Of course it isn't, because you entire system rejects this notion. It couldn't possibly accept it.

But our system does. And our systems of rationality are fine with it.

I accept on pure faith certain of the premises your society is founded on, because despite your exercises in rationality...rationalising what you believe, justifying it, I find it to be untrue. Why? Because my worldview rejects it. So now you can take a leap of faith and understand that despite the fact you think our beliefs fall short of your standards, they exist, they have power, they have shaped our society, and will continue to do so.

A little less judgement and a bit more understanding is necessary if we are ever (on a wide level) going to learn to live with one another, especially here in North America.

Indeed, and my worldview happens to be correct :)

I don't fall victim to the rotting cancer of anything-goes postmodernist relativism. Rationality is superior to irrationality. The modernist, rationalist project isn't dead.

All sort of wacky beliefs exist, most of which 'fall short of my standards,' but since I do indeed have standards - and rigorous ones at that - their existence doesn't suggest anything at all about their worth or validity.

All sorts of claptrap 'has power' and has 'shaped our society' - look at communism and racist fascism and every other sort of ghastly exercise in nonsense. Doesn't make it right or valuable or valid. Just an historical curiosity.

Last I checked, we had learned to live with each other extraordinarily well in North America already, so I don't see what you're getting at with the last bit.

But here's the problem. Rationality in and of itself cannot be justified by rational argument; you run in to the fact that a rational basis for things is only valid if you agree to accept without any kind of objective proof that a rational system does provide the strongest justification for a given statement.

Rational argument requires not so much an arbitrary basis but rather an unproven axiomatic basis in order to be valid. So, rational rigor is not in and of itself a satisfactory justification for a given position.

Reason alone is impossible due to the limitations of logic itself.


Rational rigor is a satisfactory approach to justifying a position though - in fact, it is the only satisfactory approach.

Rational rigor proves its worth by its utility - it is the method which best predicts and accounts for phenomena in every field to which it is applied, and it is universalized and liable to be used symbolically, as in math.

Rational rigor is maximally truth-detecting, and if truth is to be preferred over falsehood, which I will go so far as to claim it ought to be, as a matter of intuitive normativity, then rational rigor is instrumentally superior to its alternatives.

Rational rigor is maximally truth-detecting, and if truth is to be preferred over falsehood, which I will go so far as to claim it ought to be, as a matter of intuitive normativity, then rational rigor is instrumentally superior to its alternatives.
Agreed.

What does mastery mean to you? Does it mean ownership, or an ability to DO?

Your philosophy has humans at the top, with the right to do as they please (if I'm wrong on this, please correct me). Ours has us as highly capable beings with a responsibility to all living beings that tempers our ability to do as we please.

You can do as you wish and break no 'laws'.

We can not...and are very clear on what is permitted, and what is not.

It's just a different set of rules, based on how we think we fit into this world.

And I've been great...hope you have time to read the rest of the thread. I suppose this is my 'indigenous rennaissance' in crude form...I've finally tired of trying to fit my beliefs into other people's philosophies, and I've gone back the elders to 'relearn' what I inherently understand, but can not yet fully rationally explain.

Mastery means simply that you can do. There is no ownership involved. Mankind does not own the rest of nature, but he is master of most of it. There are aspects of nature (the weather, geological events, some viruses) over which we are have no mastery, but the majority we can do as we will with.

It is not my philosophy that has humans at the top, it is the empirical evidence that has them at the top in most cases. How I think we should be, and should act would relate to my philosophy, whereas the simple facts that are observable in the world around us are not part of a philosophy as such.

Your laws are imposed on you by the human society that you are part of. That they enshrine the earth with some form of agency, some rights in some way, does not mean that the earth actually has such agency any more than a law can make PI = 3 (as was once tried).

The question I have to ask you is whether these traditional laws, that may well have been highly appropriate in different times under different circumstances, are appropriate for the circumstances in which you and your people currently live? If they are, then fine - keep them and live happily. If they are not, what is it that you should change - the reality or the laws?

Rational rigor is a satisfactory approach to justifying a position though - in fact, it is the only satisfactory approach.

Rational rigor proves its worth by its utility - it is the method which best predicts and accounts for phenomena in every field to which it is applied, and it is universalized and liable to be used symbolically, as in math.

Rational rigor is maximally truth-detecting, and if truth is to be preferred over falsehood, which I will go so far as to claim it ought to be, as a matter of intuitive normativity, then rational rigor is instrumentally superior to its alternatives.

By what standard do you judge the utility? Irrational, emotional behaviour has extreme utility advantages over rational behaviour in most circumstances. (This may be why we act that way)

Rationality is not predictive at all. It can only reveal what is already included in the initial premises. That is unless you wish to include inductive reasoning, and if you do that you have stepped beyond the scope of rationally justifiable methodology.

(Try reading Hume some day, and really think about what he has to teach you about rationality.)

Rational rigor is a satisfactory approach to justifying a position though - in fact, it is the only satisfactory approach.

But you run in to a problem that not all positions can be justified rationally. There are many cases where feelings, qualia, and irrational decisions are all necessary in order to deal with a particular position or situation in the most effective way.

Rational rigor proves its worth by its utility - it is the method which best predicts and accounts for phenomena in every field to which it is applied, and it is universalized and liable to be used symbolically, as in math.

Rational rigor is maximally truth-detecting, and if truth is to be preferred over falsehood, which I will go so far as to claim it ought to be, as a matter of intuitive normativity, then rational rigor is instrumentally superior to its alternatives.[/QUOTE]

AB Again answers this part better than I could.

It's value is inherent.
Nothing has value unless value is assigned to it by a human being or something of equal or greater intelligence. Anything else is irrational.

Humans are no more important than any living thing on earth.

We have no inherent right to exploit natural resources, no inherent right to own natural resources.

The earth has agency, and there is a relationship of reciprocity between all living things and the earth. Humans are no exception.

Very simplistically, this is the basis of aboriginal philosophy.

Yes we do. Because we're smarter and better than every single life form on the planet. We are, if you're willing to trade a human life for the life of an animal or resource then you deserve no better than the blessings we offer pigs. We didnt bust our ass to the top of the world and the food chain to eat grass and live in mud.

Nothing has value unless value is assigned to it by a human being or something of equal or greater intelligence. Anything else is irrational.

So value is an epiphenomenon of human conscious thought? I find that very interesting, because it provides another context for the "consciousness causes collapse" concept in quantum theory. After all, without human perception, the universe as we know it would not exist.

Of course, the real challenge is the question of what a higher intelligence than man would assign value to...and I don't think we'd really like the answer, because it would throw our conception of God as infinitely good in to a whole other light. In this case, God is infinitely good, but infinitely good according to himself or others like him.

Last I checked, we had learned to live with each other extraordinarily well in North America already, so I don't see what you're getting at with the last bit.

Then you are blind. We live 50 nations behind the rest here in Canada, and I'm sorry, but that is not a case of having 'learned to live with each other extraordinarily well'. The Starlight Cruises, police dropping Indians off outside of town in the middle of winter...that is not living with each other extraordinarily well. The government refusing to actually deal with a process of reconciliation, refusing to do what its own Royal Commissions have declared absolutely necessary over and over...nope, that's not it either. The number of aboriginal people in jail, after Commission after Commission, most recently the Federal Justice ombusdsman outright state that there is pervasive racial and cultural discrimination to blame...

No, sorry. Things are not any where as peachy as you pretend they are.

Your laws are imposed on you by the human society that you are part of. That they enshrine the earth with some form of agency, some rights in some way, does not mean that the earth actually has such agency any more than a law can make PI = 3 (as was once tried). The same is true of your laws, which enshrine the concept of ownership and mastery. A bear breaks into your cabin and says, 'Now I own this cabin, and the human sitting there cowering in a corner'. You have no way of defending yourself from that claim...are you possessed? Owned? Mastered?

It's a convenient fiction that puts you on top, ignoring the pesky situations where you can not actually determine your fate (Katrina, the tsunami, etc). It is no more objectively valid that our belief in our relationship to the rest of the world. Can a human see better than an eagle, have a sense of smell more keen than a wolf, build like the ants do? We are good, within our sphere, at what we do...but we are not the best at everything. We take that into account, and rather than spending our time making (to us) useless claims about who OWNS a tree, or an animal or a river...we live, we learn, and we don't let an inflated sense of importance be the base of our philosophy.

Sorry, neither one of us has a monopoly on the truth. I admit that readily...but your side constantly asserts that you are right, and we have erred. Clearly, that need to make such an assertion is also a fundamental part of your worldview. That has serious consequences for us, because it invariably means that we will not be 'permitted' to develop our worldview. Thankfully, there are those born into a western worldview who are able to go beyond that, and we are making strides in regaining our sovereignty, creating 'spheres' where our societies can determine their own fate.

The question I have to ask you is whether these traditional laws, that may well have been highly appropriate in different times under different circumstances, are appropriate for the circumstances in which you and your people currently live? If they are, then fine - keep them and live happily. If they are not, what is it that you should change - the reality or the laws?
They are highly appropriate to all times. Do not confuse ancient practices with a worldview, as though we can not develop into the future and still maintain this worldview. Again...do you live in a feudal system? No. But your fundamental worldview (mastery) has not changed even though your society has progressed. Our worldview is absolutely adaptable to all ages, all levels of technological development....JUST LIKE YOURS.

Do not misunderstand. We have maintained our laws and our systems of governance along with our worldview and connection to the land. It has never been lost, only interfered with. Once we no longer have to fight for our very existence against a people who continue attempts to dominate and assimilate us, we will be able to turn to a philosophical development and really flourish, rather than stagger along in dribs and drabs in between outwardly imposed catastrophes.

That your worldview has done us so much damage does not mean it is superior, or right, or best for us. Of course, those results actually do validate your beliefs, but those are your beliefs, not ours. We don't need to do the reverse to you to 'win'. We just need to survive.

Perhaps I am not making myself clear enough.

Our worldview is right for us.

Your worldview is right for you.

I have spent my entire life learning your worldview, and having mine either totally ignored, or completely mischaracterised. Over and over I have been taught that our way of thinking isn't relevant to modern times, while the fact that your worldview is based on as ancient teachings as ours is ignored completely.

There are things you can learn from our worldview, to incorporate into your own, just as we have done, learning from you. More and more, this is happening. Restorative justice, alternative dispute resolution, fiduciary duty...all these things fit very well into our worldview, and in many cases have been overtly influenced by it. The laws of Canada and the US are evolving, reflecting a shift in values, and our worldview is being included in that...not to the extent we would wish of course...but then again, we don't need to supplant you.

More than any concern over a 'blending' is the assertation that we have a right, as previously existing and self-governing nations, to once again govern ourselves, according to our worldview. Instead, we are given a western framework and told to fit square pegs into round holes. We are rejecting that and saying...we had a good system, one we can adapt to the present, and we'll be using that thanks.

This has enormous impact and potential for impact in North America in particular. The possibilities are extraordinary...nations within nations, blended in some areas, and separate in others. And it can absolutely work.

So I will spend the next three years learning the laws of Canada, so I have a framework with which to understand and categorise our own laws. When we implement those laws, we will do so not THROUGH Canadian law, but rather contained within our own systems.

My guess is it has more to do with the Larmarckian tendencies of cultural evolution as opposed to the biological Darwinian method of evolution. It's an important difference because cultural evolution is a combination of inheritance of acquired traits and the "intelligent design" aspect of human involvement in the evolution of ideas.

In this case, human beings can develop or acquire ideas and pass them on to their children within a generation, and those children can develop and refine, or even discard those ideas as they develop new ones or are influenced from other sources. The primary difference between cultural and biological evolution is the objective existence of design, with humans as the designers.

Really, it's the only way to accommodate the fact that cultural evolution appears to be occurring at levels orders of magnitude faster than biological evolution.

First off, you assume that humans actually develop ideas, rather than ideas manifesting themselves like random mutations. It is hard for me to say that humans have definitive control over their own culture.

To route that back on course, certainly the Lamarckian tendencies of cultural evolution and our ability and desire to produce ideas is completely rooted and bound in our biological evolution. Our nature at least compells us, if not always successful, to fulfill our natural desires, those desires whose fulfillment caused our ancestors to survive when others died. So, I am sure our reason has a purpose in our acceptance and perpetuation of cultural memetics, but they must be driven by our biological natures.

Indeed, and my worldview happens to be correct :)

I don't fall victim to the rotting cancer of anything-goes postmodernist relativism. Rationality is superior to irrationality.

Too bad rationality is utterly useless on its own and all deductions must be based in some subjective set of values. You will resort to circular logic because you will base your deductions in some "good" and then base that "good" in your deductions.

Humans are no more important than any living thing on earth.
We have no inherent right to exploit natural resources, no inherent right to own natural resources.
The earth has agency, and there is a relationship of reciprocity between all living things and the earth. Humans are no exception.
Very simplistically, this is the basis of aboriginal philosophy.

Very simplistically, this is why the lifespan of an Aussie Aboriginal (even before Australia became an english dominion) is shorter than the lifespan of an average European...
"Going back to nature" is an option only if you're ready to accept more than 10% born kids dying before the 6th year of age.
Ask an hungry lion, or an hungry wolf if he thinks that your life is as important as his own. He'll eat you, then maybe he'll answer.
Of course any single human doesn't have the right to do whatever he pleases with natural resources: but that's because every human needs them. And will need them in the future. And because it is plainly silly to waste the precious little resources we have by using them mindlessly. So we have to be careful.
But not because Mommy Earth will feel sick if we mine too much iron out of it (by the way, the Earth is made mostly of iron, so we mined a very small fraction of it, next to nothing).
Sorry for the aboriginals, they have all the right to retain their own cultural heritage and all that, but I don't think we'll go very much further on the road to widespread well-being for the human race with that ideas in mind... we'd still be sitting on a rock waiting for a prey to pass by, instead of trying to grasp the fundamental laws of physics or debating philosophy over the Internet.


almost totally off-topic:
Philosophy was born in Greece. It was spread by the Romans. It was saved by the Arabs. It was rediscovered by the Italians. It was bettered by all Europeans. The ultimate multicultural product!

Very simplistically, this is why the lifespan of an Aussie Aboriginal (even before Australia became an english dominion) is shorter than the lifespan of an average European...
"Going back to nature" is an option only if you're ready to accept more than 10% born kids dying before the 6th year of age. Once again, read the actual thread, at least the first few pages. No one is saying anything about going 'back to nature' as though we are going to revert to pre-contact living. Our worldview does not require us to be frozen in time, any more than yours requires you to live in a hovel, grubbing out an existence in the mud, hoping that some Knight doesn't come and rape your daughters.

Humans are no more important than any living thing on earth.

We have no inherent right to exploit natural resources, no inherent right to own natural resources.

The earth has agency, and there is a relationship of reciprocity between all living things and the earth. Humans are no exception.

Very simplistically, this is the basis of aboriginal philosophy.

Hear, hear!

Your worldview is right for you.

that's overly generous. our worldview is sort of horrific in its effects. but a shift is under way, so we might turn out ok in the end yet.

I must have been sick the day we were all indoctrinated with the 'we are the dominant species on the planet' meme, because I don't see it.

We are not the most prolific species. I am sure an insect, most likely a beetle, has that honour.

We do not live in the most extreme environments. Bacteria win that one.

We are not the longest lived, nor the quickest to evolve, nor the one species that has lived the longest on the planet.

Our technology does not even begin to approach the synergistic efficiency that nature displays to perform the same or similar tasks.

Our ability to control our environment is still in its infancy, and often prone to failure and infestation. Very few human environments do not contain some sort of infestation by some sort of nonhuman life. There are dust mites living in the carpet under your feet.

The bacteria in our intestine share all the comforts of our technology, yet expend only the effort required to eat, mate, and excrete.

Despite all these observations, we maintain the idea that humans are somehow dominant. Why?

Humans are no more important than any living thing on earth.

We have no inherent right to exploit natural resources, no inherent right to own natural resources.

The earth has agency, and there is a relationship of reciprocity between all living things and the earth. Humans are no exception.

Very simplistically, this is the basis of aboriginal philosophy.

I'm serious about this: http://www.sptop.wetpaint.com

that's overly generous. our worldview is sort of horrific in its effects. but a shift is under way, so we might turn out ok in the end yet.
It can be mitigated, if a fiduciary role is taken...especially in terms of the environment. The foundation of 'mastery' can remain, but can be interpreted in many ways.

Despite all these observations, we maintain the idea that humans are somehow dominant. Why?

My question too. I think it just makes people feel better, though I'm not sure why they would have that need.

I'm serious about this: http://www.sptop.wetpaint.com

Ok. Try to integrate it into the topic with a bit of an explanation, thanks!

Humans are no more important than any living thing on earth.

We have no inherent right to exploit natural resources, no inherent right to own natural resources.

The earth has agency, and there is a relationship of reciprocity between all living things and the earth. Humans are no exception.

Very simplistically, this is the basis of aboriginal philosophy.

I was pondering summit along these lines a few days ago. I guess that is why I'm in favour of open borders.

Who owns the country that I live in and who has the right to stop people entering or leaving it?

No one.

First off, you assume that humans actually develop ideas, rather than ideas manifesting themselves like random mutations. It is hard for me to say that humans have definitive control over their own culture.

I think they do. After all, there have been ideas developed by people in comparative isolation from the rest of their culture or of which have developed according to the decisions of an individual. I do believe that some concepts, especially "Eureka" moments that lead to new ideas may have a random basis but their development from their is designed by humans.

To route that back on course, certainly the Lamarckian tendencies of cultural evolution and our ability and desire to produce ideas is completely rooted and bound in our biological evolution. Our nature at least compells us, if not always successful, to fulfill our natural desires, those desires whose fulfillment caused our ancestors to survive when others died. So, I am sure our reason has a purpose in our acceptance and perpetuation of cultural memetics, but they must be driven by our biological natures.

Well, I think you run in to a major problem that cultural evolution occurs at a much faster rate than biological evolution; as a result, you've also got the problem that cultural evolution has had the side effect of greatly slowing or even halting biological evolution due to advances in medicine, cultural conventions, and technology that enable people with genetic disorders to thrive and propagate their disorders to their descendants.

And, speaking in terms of the actual theory, memetics has some problems; we can't really be sure if cultural ideas propagate themselves in that way, especially considering that I or anyone else can make the conscious decision to reject a meme on arbitrary grounds, something impossible with genes. There's a level of human control in memetics, in addition to its Larmarckian tendencies, that really make it distinct from biological evolution.

The main problem is that biological and cultural evolution just don't mix in terms of their methods of propagation, and in many ways cultural evolution greatly outpaces and outperforms biological evolution, with the side effect that human evolution grinds to a near halt. The meaning of this is, of course, something that needs to be studied.

I was pondering summit along these lines a few days ago. I guess that is why I'm in favour of open borders.

Who owns the country that I live in and who has the right to stop people entering or leaving it?

No one.

I often support open borders out of spite :D

But we had the right to exclude people from our territory...rights we gave ourselves of course, much as anyone gives themselves such a right, and I wouldn't support a bunch of people just wandering into our territories and setting up shop without our permission.

It's not necessarily that we own the land, but that it can only support a limited amount of people and we enforce that, and claim that we should be the ones there.

Too bad rationality is utterly useless on its own and all deductions must be based in some subjective set of values. You will resort to circular logic because you will base your deductions in some "good" and then base that "good" in your deductions.

And then you have the problem that "good" can't be defined by appealing to nature...no matter what, any system of justification requires an unproven basis to give it value. And that basis is subjective, although it could be argued that continuous work on values has moved us closer and closer, although never exactly towards, what could be seen as objective value.

It's not arbitrary, because that implies we know the justification and that it is inherently unjustified, but rather unknowable due to the constraints of language and the nature of axioms themselves. Something justifies them, but we have no idea what; we can't try to justify them without either falling in to a regress argument or some kind of self-evident, non-justified (no justification is needed rather than not being justified) basis for that particular value.

I often support open borders out of spite :D

But we had the right to exclude people from our territory...rights we gave ourselves of course, much as anyone gives themselves such a right, and I wouldn't support a bunch of people just wandering into our territories and setting up shop without our permission.

It's not necessarily that we own the land, but that it can only support a limited amount of people and we enforce that, and claim that we should be the ones there.

Naaa I can't agree with that. Why be territorial, why not let in the people that can help the comunity, and let others goe whos skills may be in need elsewhere?
Open borders to me means that the skills travel to where they are needed.

And then you have the problem that "good" can't be defined by appealing to nature...no matter what, any system of justification requires an unproven basis to give it value. And that basis is subjective, although it could be argued that continuous work on values has moved us closer and closer, although never exactly towards, what could be seen as objective value.

It's not arbitrary, because that implies we know the justification and that it is inherently unjustified, but rather unknowable due to the constraints of language and the nature of axioms themselves. Something justifies them, but we have no idea what; we can't try to justify them without either falling in to a regress argument or some kind of self-evident, non-justified (no justification is needed rather than not being justified) basis for that particular value. Which is the reason I don't think it's useful to try to say which belief is CORRECT. You can argue which is better depending on the circumstances and your perceptions, but you can't prove that one is truth and the other false. In the end, all of our philosophies are based on taking something on faith.

Naaa I can't agree with that. Why be territorial, why not let in the people that can help the comunity, and let others goe whos skills may be in need elsewhere?
Open borders to me means that the skills travel to where they are needed.
Why be territorial?

So you don't get forced off your land, or so people don't ruin the land you live on.

That's really the only reason. But that gets extrapolated into all sorts of crazy things. Open borders meant we got overrun...our attempts to regain control over our territories mean that we want to be able to exclude others.

Open borders in a political sense...as in, free flow in or out of a country, fine...but not necessarily in the sense of 'live anywhere'.

Which is the reason I don't think it's useful to try to say which belief is CORRECT. You can argue which is better depending on the circumstances and your perceptions, but you can't prove that one is truth and the other false. In the end, all of our philosophies are based on taking something on faith.

Wow...that is exactly what I have been arguing for during the past couple of weeks. I mean, literally the same argument...it's kind of weird, actually. :eek:

It's a chilling argument for an atheist...but I've just got to deal with it :D

Why take anything on faith? There's far more to be gained through doubt.

Why take anything on faith? There's far more to be gained through doubt.
So, rather than saying our worldview is based on some assumptions we just have to accept in order to go on, we can say, 'wait, we doubt the assumptions this other worldview is based on, therefore we are operating from doubt, not faith'.

I like it!

The same is true of your laws, which enshrine the concept of ownership and mastery. A bear breaks into your cabin and says, 'Now I own this cabin, and the human sitting there cowering in a corner'. You have no way of defending yourself from that claim...are you possessed? Owned? Mastered?
Possessed, owned - no. Mastered - temporarily yes. The cabin may be owned for a time by the bear, but I, as an self motivating individual cannot be owned by anything. I can be subdued, restricted, dominated - yes, but I am always, and at all times answerable in my actions to me and only to me. How I select my actions will depend on my culture, my understanding and my beliefs, but it is I that acts.

It's a convenient fiction that puts you on top, ignoring the pesky situations where you can not actually determine your fate (Katrina, the tsunami, etc). It is no more objectively valid that our belief in our relationship to the rest of the world.
It is a convenient interpretation, but it is no fiction. Remember I am not talking about a philosophy here, and your belief about the relationship of man to the rest of the world is a philosophical belief. I am talking about the current existing state of affairs.

Can a human see better than an eagle, have a sense of smell more keen than a wolf, build like the ants do? We are good, within our sphere, at what we do...but we are not the best at everything. We take that into account, and rather than spending our time making (to us) useless claims about who OWNS a tree, or an animal or a river...we live, we learn, and we don't let an inflated sense of importance be the base of our philosophy.
I have stated clearly that I am not talking about OWNERSHIP, but about mastery. Does mankind have mastery over a tree, clearly he does. What happens to the tree will depend upon what mankind decides. Does this make mankind the owners of the trees - no. To have power over something does not mean that you own that thing.
You are right that we are not the best at everything, nor have I ever claimed that we are. What I have claimed is that what we are best at, (planning, tool use, understanding, amongst other things) has placed us in a position where we control the majority of the circumstances that we find ourselves in. We are masters of our own destiny far more than any other agent can claim to be.

Sorry, neither one of us has a monopoly on the truth. I admit that readily...but your side constantly asserts that you are right, and we have erred.
My side? What bipolar conflict is this? I have not claimed that you have erred in your approach to life.

Clearly, that need to make such an assertion is also a fundamental part of your worldview. That has serious consequences for us, because it invariably means that we will not be 'permitted' to develop our worldview. Thankfully, there are those born into a western worldview who are able to go beyond that, and we are making strides in regaining our sovereignty, creating 'spheres' where our societies can determine their own fate.
I have to assume that the 'you' here is the impersonal and non specific Western European. I, personally have no need to make such an assertion notrhave I ever done so. I do agree though that there is, particularly in the US mentality, an attitude that you are either a winner or a loser. This attitude denies the possibility of peaceful co-existence of worldviews, and is an attitude that I find reprehensible.

They are highly appropriate to all times. Do not confuse ancient practices with a worldview, as though we can not develop into the future and still maintain this worldview. Again...do you live in a feudal system? No. But your fundamental worldview (mastery) has not changed even though your society has progressed. Our worldview is absolutely adaptable to all ages, all levels of technological development....JUST LIKE YOURS.
As I do not know enough about how the indigenous worldview has accomodated the changes that have occurred, I asked a question. I did not assume that it could not or had not adapted.
Unfortunately yes. I do live in a feudal system, as do/did you (I no longer know where and under what circumstances you are living). We have dressed this system with a gloss of democracy and equality, but it is just that, a gloss. Underneath there are a small group that decide how we should live our lives, reward us for doing it their way, and punish us if we refuse to toe the line.
The feudal system though is one that is thoroughly in tune with the way that other agents and cultures (including your own to some degree) organise their societies. It appears to be almost a natural power structure.

Nothing on this earth, including the earth, receives but does not give. An ant uses soil to build its home. In return, it provides a variety of 'services' to its environment. Not all of those services are going to be positive, but there is a system of giving and receiving.
But that still doesn't explain why we should - just that everything else does.

Remember Hume: "No is implies an ought."

What we give back depends, but there is an understanding of a sort of 'debt' when we take, a knowledge that in some way, we need to resolve that debt, and that is founded in the fact that we are not more important than anything else...that we are not absolved of the debt by virture of simply being us.
And you're right that we have no reason to believe that we're somehow special, but we also have no reason to believe that this "debt" even exists.

You've constructed a question beggng argument, and then done a very good job of defending it against attacks. But you haven't explained how you got there in the first place.

I have stated clearly that I am not talking about OWNERSHIP, but about mastery. Does mankind have mastery over a tree, clearly he does. What happens to the tree will depend upon what mankind decides. Does this make mankind the owners of the trees - no. To have power over something does not mean that you own that thing. Nonetheless, English law in particular seems to assert this very thing. Surely this is more than a fiction people are willing to go along with, knowing the truth of things all the while...you may say that you do not believe that having power over something means you own it...but you CAN own trees, and animals, and water, and soil and air (up to a certain height) in English-based property law. Our laws do not allow this.



I have to assume that the 'you' here is the impersonal and non specific Western European. 'Tis indeed...I am assigning you the role as agent for a worldview, and myself for agent of another, for a short time.

I, personally have no need to make such an assertion notrhave I ever done so. I do agree though that there is, particularly in the US mentality, an attitude that you are either a winner or a loser. This attitude denies the possibility of peaceful co-existence of worldviews, and is an attitude that I find reprehensible. Agreed. Unfortunately, Canada is heavily influenced by such philosophies, more so as our government slips into conservative insanity.


As I do not know enough about how the indigenous worldview has accomodated the changes that have occurred, I asked a question. I did not assume that it could not or had not adapted. An approach to life is absolutely able to accomodate changes...unless that approach happens to be predicated on NOT accomodating to change :D




Unfortunately yes. I do live in a feudal system, as do/did you (I no longer know where and under what circumstances you are living).
Good point...but I was thinking less of the system I suppose, and more of the historical context of the 'feudal age'. Of course that system still resonates through the laws and governance of my country, and most countries founded on English common law...but things have managed to progress technologically, socially, philosophically since then despite maintaining these ties to the past. I'm just annoyed with all the people who seem to think that an aboriginal philosophy means only one thing: destroying 'civilisation' and running around in breech clothes.


We have dressed this system with a gloss of democracy and equality, but it is just that, a gloss. Underneath there are a small group that decide how we should live our lives, reward us for doing it their way, and punish us if we refuse to toe the line.

The feudal system though is one that is thoroughly in tune with the way that other agents and cultures (including your own to some degree) organise their societies. It appears to be almost a natural power structure.Sure. Factor in the earth as part of that power structure and the similarities will be striking.

But that still doesn't explain why we should - just that everything else does.

Remember Hume: "No is implies an ought."


And you're right that we have no reason to believe that we're somehow special, but we also have no reason to believe that this "debt" even exists.

You've constructed a question beggng argument, and then done a very good job of defending it against attacks. But you haven't explained how you got there in the first place.

It just is, frankly. Could you explain to me where the original conception of the western worldview came from? If you are religious, that's easy enough, though not convincing to an atheist. If not, you could point to some key moments in history that has helped to shape it, but not necessarily when the first 'this is how it is' thought was formed.

I don't necessarily think that I am able, or that it is even necessary, to explain how this first came about in our cultures. We have to start somewhere. I can't really argue with the belief that man has mastery over the world and the freedom to do with it as he pleases...not because I agree, or because it has somehow been proven to me as true, but rather because I need some starting point to work with if I'm going to deal with the issues arising from that worldview.

I'm not trying to convert anyone. I'm not of the belief that you are necessarily stuck with a worldview and unable to escape it...only that it is very difficult, and a long process to do so....and it isn't absolutley necessary if you can reconcile your worldview with other values. So I can go on knowing that my place in this earth is as one among 'all my relations', and you can go on knowing your place is on some invisible top rung of a ladder...but we can both come to some sort of united aim.

The need to really understand the underpinnings of our differences comes when there are problems between us that need fixing. But even then, you don't need to know 'how' the worldview came about, only what it is and why it is impacting our relationships.

It just is, frankly. Could you explain to me where the original conception of the western worldview came from? If you are religious, that's easy enough, though not convincing to an atheist. If not, you could point to some key moments in history that has helped to shape it, but not necessarily when the first 'this is how it is' thought was formed.

I don't necessarily think that I am able, or that it is even necessary, to explain how this first came about in our cultures. We have to start somewhere. I can't really argue with the belief that man has mastery over the world and the freedom to do with it as he pleases...not because I agree, or because it has somehow been proven to me as true, but rather because I need some starting point to work with if I'm going to deal with the issues arising from that worldview.

I'm not trying to convert anyone. I'm not of the belief that you are necessarily stuck with a worldview and unable to escape it...only that it is very difficult, and a long process to do so....and it isn't absolutley necessary if you can reconcile your worldview with other values. So I can go on knowing that my place in this earth is as one among 'all my relations', and you can go on knowing your place is on some invisible top rung of a ladder...but we can both come to some sort of united aim.

The need to really understand the underpinnings of our differences comes when there are problems between us that need fixing. But even then, you don't need to know 'how' the worldview came about, only what it is and why it is impacting our relationships.

But the 'how' is what matters. I'm not claiming that man has mastery over the world and freedom to do with it as he pleases, I'm just insisting that you have no basis to insist that he does not.

If I know how you came to hold this conclusion, I can more easily demonstrate that you shouldn't. Because, you see, I'm always trying to convert people - except I convert them to uncertainty. I would rather they hold no relevant opinion on the subject at all.

Humans are the only species that works to protect other species out of compassion. Humans are the only species that I know of where individuals will give their lives to protect strangers. Humans are the only species that commits itself to higher ideals.

This, in my opinion, is what makes us superior. However, with our power to alter the environment on a massive scale, humans also have a responsibility to protect other creatures - a kind of noblesse oblige.

Humans are the only species that works to protect other species out of compassion. Humans are the only species that I know of where individuals will give their lives to protect strangers. Humans are the only species that commits itself to higher ideals.

Actually, altruistic behavior similar to humans has been observed in numerous species of mammal - among elephants and other kinds of great apes, for instance.

And then there is also the evidence that more than any other species (making the assumption that there might be ONE out there that acts as we do), humans are capable of torturing for pleasure, and harming one another in ways that have nothing to do with survival. How 'noble' is that...and is that the sound of a toilet flushing on the idea that our nobility makes us superior?

You don't even know how to take a leak, at least not in the sense that the author of "Slaughterhouse-Five" wrote about - I just can't see you climbing out from your seat before teh internets to follow through on that anytime soon.


yes to use a name of a book that was chosen at random it must be my bible.:rolleyes:

i thought the book was hilarious. it was a very funny read, so are comedians. that doesnt mean i follow what they say.