NationStates Jolt Archive

This is madness. These Inuits are simply hicks, native-rednecks, if you will. I don't see why wilfull ignorance of science leading to the destruction of a species is ok simply because of some backwards tradition.

I mean this is ridiculous:

Treaties between Nunavut and the federal government make clear that science should not influence decision-making more than “traditional knowledge”, known as Inuit Qaujimaningit, or IQ. Scientists offer statistical projections and computer models; native hunters prefer IQ, which tells them that polar bears are everywhere. For its part, Greenland has been almost completely silent, refusing to release the most basic information about their hunters or their wildlife.

And this makes me wish that we could the polar bears hunt him instead. Maybe he should be sent to Soviet Russia:

Mr Qillaq, who chairs the Kanngiqtugaapik Hunters and Trappers Organisation, laughs at the notion that hunting will harm the polar bear population. “Numbers are just numbers,” he says. “We live here, so we know what’s really going on in the north. We can hunt anytime we want, anywhere we want, no matter what anybody says.”

Simply being a "tribel elder" shouldn't hold any weight in a discussion between what the tribel elders 'feel' and what science statistically shows. And to be honest, I have a feeling that if these people were not minorities, there would not be a single person who wouldn't oppose their ignorant detrimental attack on global health.

I am shocked, shocked that TAI would criticize a non-white culture.

I am shocked, shocked that TAI would oversimplify a complex matter of jurisdiction and causation by villifying natives.

Of course, making sweeping charges of ignorance and stupidity are a better way to resolve this conflict than, say, actual science or treating sovereign nations like they matter:

A Canadian expert on wildlife co-management systems says a joint survey of polar bear populations in Nunavut's Baffin Bay region could resolve disagreements between biologists and Inuit hunters over how many polar bears are there.

A joint research project, done sooner rather than later, would be the best way to bridge the two sides, said Martha Dowsley, an assistant professor of geography and anthropology at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, Ont.

Dowsley, who has studied Nunavut's co-management system in Baffin Bay — and its efforts to combine Inuit traditional knowledge and western science — told CBC News that "there's no way to resolve [the] conflict right now.

"Scientists are worried that if you just ask for traditional knowledge and rely on that for your information, it's kind of like leaving the fox to guard the hen house; the idea that, of course, hunters are motivated to have a higher quota to catch more bears," Dowsley told CBC News.

"But in talking to hunters, I haven't really found that to be the case," she added. "Usually they want to harvest at sustainable levels and ensure there's bears in the future

link (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2008/11/14/pbear-survey.html?ref=rss)

This is retarded. The natives should have autonomy (and independence if they want, just like Québécois, IMO) and protect their culture but all that is irrelevant when an endangered species is concerned. So they can stick their traditional knowledge/Inuit Qaujimaningit up their ass.

Should the U.S. and Canada also have their sovereignty overturned whenever a group of scientists think something they are doing will hurt an endangered species?

Normally I'd say let the Inuit be, but polar bears are about to go extinct. There will soon be none left.

Oh yeah, has nothing to do with a history of dumping radioactive tailings into nearby water sources (like the Great Bear Lake), causing an astronomical rate of cancers among aboriginal people.
What do you base this on? I recall something from high school physics about radioactive tailings getting into the environment being a risk of uranium mining, but I don't know much about the details; wouldn't the better approach be to instead focus on how to mine the uranium WITHOUT dumping the radioactive tailings into nearby water source?

That descent offers sovereignty, and that's frankly all you need to know about the situation. It is THEIR land.
Well, trouble is, what's done in one place affects the environment elsewhere. As such, the notion that we somehow ought to respect sovereignty based on circumstance is somewhat questionable.

Well, trouble is, what's done in one place affects the environment elsewhere. As such, the notion that we somehow ought to respect sovereignty based on circumstance is somewhat questionable.

Under what circumstances does sovereignty become forfeit? Under whose authority?

Think hard about how those two questions interact.

Sorry, I see it about as practical as shipping polar bears to the moon at this point unless the technology catches up fast enough.

no additional technology is needed. it would be useful, but conservation genetics is already full of important information for dealing with these sorts of issues

'Ecologically viable' in the sense of 'not destroying the environment', as opposed to 'able to survive in the environment'.

Yes. Their society didn't destroy their environment. Industrial society is destroying everyone's environment.

How about this: Let them wipe out the Baffin Island population.

The two groups have been given custody over the area, and wish to do this. So let them. And in a few years, when there are no Polar Bears there, publish the hell out of it and use the situation to force government oversight on ALL animal species populations, regardless of location.

It will serve as a salutary example to the Inuit to LISTEN when they get advice on such things, and hopefully kill this myth that native peoples have some sort of "special wisdom" about their environment.

Fucking. Hilarious.

"Myth"? On what are you basing that claim? Aboriginal people absolutely have 'special wisdom' when it comes to their environment...because they continue to rely on that environment for their livelihood, and cultural continuity. I truly am sorry that you were not raised in such a culture, and that you have absolutely no understanding of what it means...that you have lived separated from your surroundings, and food sources, and that you lack what we consider to be even the most basic knowledge about the interrelated nature of the immediate ecosystem that you are a part of. That sort of fundamental ignorance is absolutely staggering, and hard to comprehend, but it's not really your fault...it's just how you were raised.

Scientists here are making a claim. Aboriginal people are disputing the claim. As Cat-Tribes pointed out, there IS a way to resolve the issue, and that is by working together to determine exactly what is truth, and what is spin.

Instead, we have people like you, working from a position of absolute ignorance, declaring one system of knowledge 'a myth' and accepting without question, another system of knowledge. In doing so, you once again support an ideology that is fine with sovereignty as long as it's in the hands of non-aboriginal peoples who share your particular values and systems of thought.

What do you base this on? I recall something from high school physics about radioactive tailings getting into the environment being a risk of uranium mining, but I don't know much about the details; wouldn't the better approach be to instead focus on how to mine the uranium WITHOUT dumping the radioactive tailings into nearby water source?
Link.
(http://explorenorth.com/library/mining/nwt-contaminated_sites.html)

Suuure. Let's focus on the wonderful possibility (not yet realised anywhere) or a mine that wouldn't cause massive pollution and environmental degredation in the north! Let's prance around, tra-la-la and just believe in how it COULD be one day!

OR we could recognise that these mines continue to operate in ways that severely compromise the environmental integrity of the surroundings, and directly endanger aboriginal people's health...and we could...you know...try to stop these fucking places from being built until such time as the aboriginal nations themselves have the power to make fucking SURE that the environment is being respected.

Well, trouble is, what's done in one place affects the environment elsewhere. As such, the notion that we somehow ought to respect sovereignty based on circumstance is somewhat questionable.
I'd have some respect for your stance if I for a moment believed that you'd be willing to interfere with the sovereignty of any other nation aside from this aboriginal one based on environmental concerns. As in, considering the absolutely staggering environmental damage being done by the US both on its home soil and abroad...in what ways can other nations infringe on the US's sovereignty because of the fact that what is done in one place affects the environment elsewhere?

Fucking. Hilarious.

"Myth"? On what are you basing that claim? Aboriginal people absolutely have 'special wisdom' when it comes to their environment...because they continue to rely on that environment for their livelihood, and cultural continuity. I truly am sorry that you were not raised in such a culture, and that you have absolutely no understanding of what it means...that you have lived separated from your surroundings, and food sources, and that you lack what we consider to be even the most basic knowledge about the interrelated nature of the immediate ecosystem that you are a part of. That sort of fundamental ignorance is absolutely staggering, and hard to comprehend, but it's not really your fault...it's just how you were raised.

Scientists here are making a claim. Aboriginal people are disputing the claim. As Cat-Tribes pointed out, there IS a way to resolve the issue, and that is by working together to determine exactly what is truth, and what is spin.

Instead, we have people like you, working from a position of absolute ignorance, declaring one system of knowledge 'a myth' and accepting without question, another system of knowledge. In doing so, you once again support an ideology that is fine with sovereignty as long as it's in the hands of non-aboriginal peoples who share your particular values and systems of thought.

I'm calling it a myth - because that's just exactly what it is.

Note that I'm NOT saying native peoples don't love the land, care for it and want it to prosper. With some exceptions (indidviduals are individuals, after all) I'm quite certain that's true.

And I'm equally certain that anyone who lives on and with the land, among the wildlife and the changing seasons, is considerably more in touch with how things work than a city dweller like myself.

But if you try and tell me that a bunch of people who live in an area know more about it's ecosystem and problems then a field scientist who's spent twenty years researching exactly that - then frankly, you're talking out of your ass.

As regards sovereignty, you might actually note that I was perfectly willing to completely respect that in this case. Right up to the point that the people involved f***** it up royally - because once you do that, you're affecting a lot more than is protected by sovereignty. Your right to throw a punch ends at my personal space.

Should the U.S. and Canada also have their sovereignty overturned whenever a group of scientists think something they are doing will hurt an endangered species?

Fuck, yes, if the case is so demonstrably true that to deny it is at the point of the absurd. Not saying that such is the case here, but state sovereignty should not trump ecological issues since they are, by nature, global in effect.

Let the Inuits do what they want.

If they're right and the polar bears are doing great, no loss there.

If they're wrong and polar bears go extinct, the world can hang that over their heads for as long as the tribe exists and use it to support future arguments as to how animal conservation should be applied.

Human beings only learn when a grave and often fatal loss is dealt to them.

Why exactly are we protecting polar bears? They're the modern equivalent of the t-rex.

Why exactly are we protecting polar bears? They're the modern equivalent of the t-rex.

It's called ecology Potato Boy.

Polar bears hunt seals and other mammals. If polar bears went extinct, without them reducing the number of seals and other mammals to manageable levels their population would then explode and deplete their primary food source, which will then trigger an interesting shitload of ecological dilemmas.

The Inuit can hunt, kill, and feed on Environmentalists! That way everyone can be happy, the Polar Bears are protected and the Inuit are fed.

But if you try and tell me that a bunch of people who live in an area...

This...

...know more about it's ecosystem and problems then a field scientist who's spent twenty years researching exactly that - then frankly, you're talking out of your ass.


trumps this.

If you're unwilling to admit that people you may feel are less intelligent than either yourself or a scientist are actually far more intelligent than you think, that's one thing. But to say that research makes one more intelligent than people who have lived in harmony with the land for generations, then "that's just straight ignant."

But if you try and tell me that a bunch of people who live in an area know more about it's ecosystem and problems then a field scientist who's spent twenty years researching exactly that - then frankly, you're talking out of your ass.
Lame.

20 years of 'research' versus tens of thousands of years of knowledge?

Sorry, you don't seem to understand the systems you're comparing. Not even a little bit. I'm a almost embarrased for you, except you seem to embrace your ignorance wholeheartedly.

This...

trumps this.

certainly not of necessity. there is a stronger claim for those whose culture is deeply connected to the place, but i'd trust the scientists over, for example, cattle ranchers out west on issues related to wolf reintroduction. without a fucking doubt.

certainly not of necessity. there is a stronger claim for those whose culture is deeply connected to the place, but i'd trust the scientists over, for example, cattle ranchers out west on issues related to wolf reintroduction. without a fucking doubt.

These aren't cattle ranchers.

These aren't cattle ranchers.

i know. i was just demonstrating the conceptual break between mere living in an area and being a good source of information about the ecosystem there.

certainly not of necessity. there is a stronger claim for those whose culture is deeply connected to the place, but i'd trust the scientists over, for example, cattle ranchers out west on issues related to wolf reintroduction. without a fucking doubt.

And farmers who've been living on their land by their own wits for generations? After what approximate time period does folk knowledge become superior to data and logical analysis by default?

certainly not of necessity. there is a stronger claim for those whose culture is deeply connected to the place, but i'd trust the scientists over, for example, cattle ranchers out west on issues related to wolf reintroduction. without a fucking doubt.

Cattle ranchers are to Inuits as America is to Iran.

i know. i was just demonstrating the conceptual break between mere living in an area and being a good source of information about the ecosystem there.

Cattle ranchers make a living in their area. Inuits survive in theirs. Big fucking difference.

Cattle ranchers make a living in their area. Inuits survive in theirs. Big fucking difference.

so what are we to make of the indigenous reindeer herding peoples of the north in asia and europe? were cattle ranchers in the usian west back when it was the frontier surviving in their area or making a living in it?

This...



trumps this.

If you're unwilling to admit that people you may feel are less intelligent than either yourself or a scientist are actually far more intelligent than you think, that's one thing. But to say that research makes one more intelligent than people who have lived in harmony with the land for generations, then "that's just straight ignant."

I'm assuming you meant "more knowledgable about a subject" rather than "more intelligent." And YES, actually researching a subject REALLY DOES make a person more knowledgable about a subject.

Lame.

20 years of 'research' versus tens of thousands of years of knowledge?

Sorry, you don't seem to understand the systems you're comparing. Not even a little bit. I'm a almost embarrased for you, except you seem to embrace your ignorance wholeheartedly.

Yours is the racist ignorance I'm trying to oppose.

Yes, I said "racist", and I meant it. You're assuming some special status, some superpower available solely for indigenous peoples, unavailable to us poor, benighted non-indigenous. Welcome to pure, straight-up racism.

"Thousands of years of knowledge"? BULLSHIT. Five generations of knowledge, at best. Why? Because the people we're talking about had no written language. Everything was passed down orally - and ethnologists and anthropologists have shown that oral traditions start to deviate and become unreliable past the third generation. Histories devolve into myth and legend - sometimes useful myth and legend, but still less than the reality.

Can an Inuit live in that environment? Yes, and pretty much no one else can, a great acheivement. Can that same Inuit explain his environment? Probably not. Not because he has any less intellect or wisdom than the researcher - for all I know, he may well have more - but because living in something is NOT the same as studying it, learning to hunt a Polar Bear is NOT the same as tracking one for two years across the ice, learning the fickleness of the weather is NOT the same as a degree in meteorology.

I'll take the 20 years of research every time, thanks. And I'll be right.

I'm assuming you meant "more knowledgable about a subject" rather than "more intelligent." And YES, actually researching a subject REALLY DOES make a person more knowledgable about a subject.

Assuming one has done more research.

The core of science is the extrapolation, recording and analysis of data. It's an arrogance to assume that formal institutionalized training in science trumps the observations of untrained but intelligent people with a vast pool of data, numerous generations of analysis and a deep experience of the subject matter.

I'm not saying either side is correct, but I find the assumption that formal science automatically trumps informal science without regard for the size and quality of the information or the skill at putting that information into practice to be very arrogant.

Assuming one has done more research.

The core of science is the extrapolation, recording and analysis of data. It's an arrogance to assume that formal institutionalized training in science trumps the observations of untrained but intelligent people with a vast pool of data, numerous generations of analysis and a deep experience of the subject matter.

I'm not saying either side is correct, but I find the assumption that formal science automatically trumps informal science without regard for the size and quality of the information or the skill at putting that information into practice to be very arrogant.

That is an entirely fair caveat, LG. However, my initial post spoke of a "field scientist who had been studying the area for twenty years", so I think I covered it.

That is an entirely fair caveat, LG. However, my initial post spoke of a "field scientist who had been studying the area for twenty years", so I think I covered it.

'studying the area for 20 years' leaves a lot of room for interpreting his level of involvement and pool of data.

I couldn't find that post in a quick sweep, do you happen to have the name of that scientist? If so, I could look up some of his research and publications and determine how complete his research is. It's not exactly my field of expertise, but I've taken a shine to environmental sciences in the last few years.

'studying the area for 20 years' leaves a lot of room for interpreting his level of involvement and pool of data.

I couldn't find that post in a quick sweep, do you happen to have the name of that scientist? If so, I could look up some of his research and publications and determine how complete his research is. It's not exactly my field of expertise, but I've taken a shine to environmental sciences in the last few years.

We were speaking hypothetically, LG. The question was over which one actually has more knowledge of what's going on.

And yes, reviewing the capabilities of any particular researcher is usually a good idea - and something not possible to do with the average "person who lives there."

We were speaking hypothetically, LG. The question was over which one actually has more knowledge of what's going on.

And yes, reviewing the capabilities of any particular researcher is usually a good idea - and something not possible to do with the average "person who lives there."

Except by studying them.

Except by studying them.

A point.

A point.

Part of the reason why I'm torn as to who is right is because the local climate and the impact on polar bears and in turn on the Inuit is also dependent on conditions outside their locality. Do their traditional histories stretch back far enough to factor in global climate variation? Are they working from a flawed assumption that the prevalence of polar bears in the area is due to a commonly occurring event(like overpopulation or a lower than normal supply of their foodsource) rather than a very rare occurrence like the melting of polar ice? I don't know enough about their pool of information.

On the other hand, this is their culture. This is what they do, and they have subsisted for a very long time doing it. I have more confidence in their ability to adapt to ecological changes than in the track record of environmental sciences when it comes to micromanaging local habitats.

Part of the reason why I'm torn as to who is right is because the local climate and the impact on polar bears and in turn on the Inuit is also dependent on conditions outside their locality. Do their traditional histories stretch back far enough to factor in global climate variation? Are they working from a flawed assumption that the prevalence of polar bears in the area is due to a commonly occurring event(like overpopulation or a lower than normal supply of their foodsource) rather than a very rare occurrence like the melting of polar ice? I don't know enough about their pool of information.

On the other hand, this is their culture. This is what they do, and they have subsisted for a very long time doing it. I have more confidence in their ability to adapt to ecological changes than in the track record of environmental sciences when it comes to micromanaging local habitats.

I...don't. In my experience, sudden changes of environment bollix people up very badly; while some individuals adapt and overcome, societies shatter and have to reform. Which some do much better than others. I have no idea what the factors are that control that.

It might not be fair, but at this point we have to act based on the situation we have. I'm sure the government can recompense these people in some way, and when the numbers go up maybe they can hunt again in limited numbers if they need to.I'm sort of in agreement. Usually when people want to protect the environment in these places, it becomes a necessity to provide people with some other means of sustenance, usually money. And it would be a case of the government putting its money where its mouth is.
On the other hand, it's presumptuous to assume the Inuit want anything else.

It's not important to me if you understand, to be honest, and again, I'm not going to violate protocols even though I support 'he who asserts must prove'.

The biggest problem is that I really could not explain this to you without you having a more extensive background...and the bulk of learning in the traditional sense needs to be on the land. The comparison of paradigms is the work of a lifetime, and unfortunately this internet debate can barely touch the edges of that work.

You've spent a lifetime learning one paradigm...I have no idea how indepth your learning is in the western tradition, but you've had consant exposure over the years. I have had consant exposure to both paradigms...but summing up the differences more than I already have is frankly beyond the scope of our discussion, sorry.Is there some source you could link to that you're aware of that explains it well that wouldn't violate traditional protocol?

Yeah thats a bunch of crap...

Those guys have no more right to do what theyre doing than those Japanese Whalers...Japanese whalers don't just harvest whales in Japanese coastal waters...

Problem is Neeskia, you seem to be working from the assumption that 'traditional knowledge' trumps any other knowledge-base, and should not be interfered with or complimented in any way.Perhaps the Inuit were planning on hunting more bears but revised their numbers downward after receiving this information?

Yours is the racist ignorance I'm trying to oppose.

Yes, I said "racist", and I meant it. You're assuming some special status, some superpower available solely for indigenous peoples, unavailable to us poor, benighted non-indigenous. Welcome to pure, straight-up racism.

"Thousands of years of knowledge"? BULLSHIT. Five generations of knowledge, at best. Why? Because the people we're talking about had no written language. Everything was passed down orally - and ethnologists and anthropologists have shown that oral traditions start to deviate and become unreliable past the third generation. Histories devolve into myth and legend - sometimes useful myth and legend, but still less than the reality.

Can an Inuit live in that environment? Yes, and pretty much no one else can, a great acheivement. Can that same Inuit explain his environment? Probably not. Not because he has any less intellect or wisdom than the researcher - for all I know, he may well have more - but because living in something is NOT the same as studying it, learning to hunt a Polar Bear is NOT the same as tracking one for two years across the ice, learning the fickleness of the weather is NOT the same as a degree in meteorology.

I'll take the 20 years of research every time, thanks. And I'll be right.Quoting awesome post.

Funny how according to some people, apparently tribal societies are inevitably 'One' with their environment - it's not like tribal societies have caused plenty of extinctions themselves. Just the other day, I came across a Moa - told me how awesome the Maori managed to keep the population stable. Apparently the Polynesian introduction of swine and rats never had any negative repercussions on the pacific island's bird fauna, either.

(Early) Holocene extinctions? Never happened. The australian megafauna pre-aboriginies? Goin' strong. Extirpation of - for example - elephants in southern China? Historical inaccuracy.

Collapse of the Easter Isl- Sorry, Rapa Nui - people's due to excessive deforestation? Lies.

And - going away from the environment as such - clearly tribal societies were incredibly wise in eating the brains of their deceased, contracting kuru. Clearly (Female) genital mutilation as practiced in parts of eastern Africa has substantial health benefits. Their thousands of years of experience and traditions say so!

Frankly, there is no more reasons for extant tribal societies to follow their traditional way of life than there is for me to run around with an auroch skull on my head and shouting angrily at Roman legionaries. And there is no more reason for them to hold their experience and one-ness with nature over science than there is for me to believe that my experience with the setting Sun means the Sun orbits the Earth.

Welcome to the 21st century.

Lame.

Yes, your post is very lame.

20 years of 'research' versus tens of thousands of years of knowledge?

I love how you put quotes around research as if to suggest that its fake or invalid in some way, as if its not real reaserch those scientists are working their asses off to conduct, while taking the native Inuit's "knowledge" at face value.:D

See what I did? I put quotes around knowledge! That means its not real!:D

On the other hand, this is their culture. This is what they do, and they have subsisted for a very long time doing it. I have more confidence in their ability to adapt to ecological changes than in the track record of environmental sciences when it comes to micromanaging local habitats.Traditionally, a people adapt to ecological changes by Dramatic population decline
Substantial reduction of living standards
(Optional) Moving elsewhere, displacing another people
Slowly adapting and beginning anewExamples would be, lets say, the collapse of the Missippian culture(s) (Mount Builders) when temperatures fell (In the later stages aided by the introduction of european diseases), turning an in-parts semi-urbanised and almost exclusively agricultural people back into nomads/ small-scale agriculture; The collapse of the pre-columbian pueblo-civs due to increasing desertification; the collapse of the classical Maya when temperatures rose (Draughts, combined with their already excessive deforestation, basically finished them off for a considerable while), the end of the Magdalenian in Europe (When retreating glaciers and the consequent vanishment of cold-adapted large animals ended the height of paleolithic civilisation, turning them into remarkably poor fishermen suffering substantial technological stagnation/ regression)...

Well, as a people they survive. But it's not really a fun time to experience.

I...don't. In my experience, sudden changes of environment bollix people up very badly; while some individuals adapt and overcome, societies shatter and have to reform. Which some do much better than others. I have no idea what the factors are that control that.

Do you have any evidence that IQ is incapable of dealing with rapid changes?

Quoting awesome post.

Funny how according to some people, apparently tribal societies are inevitably 'One' with their environment - it's not like tribal societies have caused plenty of extinctions themselves. Just the other day, I came across a Moa - told me how awesome the Maori managed to keep the population stable. Apparently the Polynesian introduction of swine and rats never had any negative repercussions on the pacific island's bird fauna, either.

(Early) Holocene extinctions? Never happened. The australian megafauna pre-aboriginies? Goin' strong. Extirpation of - for example - elephants in southern China? Historical inaccuracy.

Collapse of the Easter Isl- Sorry, Rapa Nui - people's due to excessive deforestation? Lies.

And - going away from the environment as such - clearly tribal societies were incredibly wise in eating the brains of their deceased, contracting kuru. Clearly (Female) genital mutilation as practiced in parts of eastern Africa has substantial health benefits. Their thousands of years of experience and traditions say so!

Frankly, there is no more reasons for extant tribal societies to follow their traditional way of life than there is for me to run around with an auroch skull on my head and shouting angrily at Roman legionaries. And there is no more reason for them to hold their experience and one-ness with nature over science than there is for me to believe that my experience with the setting Sun means the Sun orbits the Earth.

Welcome to the 21st century.

Wow. Way to miss the point. There is no mythical oneness with the environment. That's not the claim.

And your examples suck based on one simple reason: they are examples of unsustainable practices. IQ has shown itself to be sustainable.

IQ has shown itself to be sustainable.

within a particular context, at least.

Yours is the racist ignorance I'm trying to oppose.

Yes, I said "racist", and I meant it. You're assuming some special status, some superpower available solely for indigenous peoples, unavailable to us poor, benighted non-indigenous. Welcome to pure, straight-up racism.
False. Aboriginal people just happen to the be the ones who have not severed their relationship with their surroundings, particularly in the North. The special status I'm referring to is not based on race, or even culture, it's based on the fact that these people have lived in that particular area for tens of thousands of years, and the entirety of their development has been based on this.

That sort of knowledge is available to anyone who wishes to access it...properly. You want to pick up a book? A little 'how to live in the Arctic'? Sorry...you want to access a form of knowledge, you access it in the manner that the knowledge itself is passed on...in this case, according to traditional Inuit methods.

Aboriginal people by and large do not 'lock' others out of our knowledge base...'others', like yourself, are simply too caught up in their own arrogance and sense of entitlement to access us in a culturally appropriate manner. Then, when you aren't spoon-fed our knowledge, you throw a hissy fit and talk about how those grapes were sour anyway.

"Thousands of years of knowledge"? BULLSHIT. Five generations of knowledge, at best. Why? Because the people we're talking about had no written language. Everything was passed down orally - and ethnologists and anthropologists have shown that oral traditions start to deviate and become unreliable past the third generation. Histories devolve into myth and legend - sometimes useful myth and legend, but still less than the reality. We're not talking about oral history, we're talking about IQ. Clearly, the fact that wolverine fur is the best to use around the hood and hands because it does not frost up is not something that has been last or become unreliable 'past the third generation'. You are conflating the issues. IQ is a skill set that is reliably passed down, generation to generation...reliable because in the main, things haven't changed all that much. Migratory patterns shift, population ebbs and flows, but the essential elements remain the same. Could you learn to live in that environment? Of course you could...but you'd have to put in the effort.

Can an Inuit live in that environment? Yes, and pretty much no one else can, a great acheivement. Can that same Inuit explain his environment? Probably not. Not because he has any less intellect or wisdom than the researcher - for all I know, he may well have more - but because living in something is NOT the same as studying it, learning to hunt a Polar Bear is NOT the same as tracking one for two years across the ice, learning the fickleness of the weather is NOT the same as a degree in meteorology.

I'll take the 20 years of research every time, thanks. And I'll be right.
Declare yourself right all you want...you've already admitted you don't actually understand the system of knowledge you've arbitrarily dismissed.

within a particular context, at least.

Definitely.

Imagine the Sahara...

Imagine an expensive restaurant in Paris...

I giggled too.

And your examples suck based on one simple reason: they are examples of unsustainable practices. IQ has shown itself to be sustainable.During a period involving remarkably stable environmental conditions - which are allegedly changing. Meaning that IQ would have to deal with something it has absolutely no experience with.

I kind of doubt that you can have traditional knowledge about something that hasn't happened before.

Actually, the article says as much - the inuit see more bears than ever. The conclusion they make is that they can hunt more without having a detrimental effect on the bear population.

The scientists are saying that there are more bears than ever in their area, because their marine habitat is increasing substantially, leading to a bear-migration - the inuit not being able to observe the collapse of the bears' marine habitat, nor being able to tell where the bears come from.

A background-knowledge problem similar to, say, cargo cults.

'course, the bears losing substantial amounts of their habitat, not hunting the excess population down could lead to increasingly unfortunate encounters as bears and humans encroach on each other's habitats, so there can, in fact, be good reason for increased hunting activity. But it'd not be an argument lying in 'IQ'. Quite the opposite.

Scientists need to be working with the elders on this, not fucking dictating to them and completely ignoring IQ.

Scientists need to be working with the elders on this, not fucking dictating to them and completely ignoring IQ.But you said earlier that the scientist have no clue, implying that their 'Research' is really just a joke.

Why should the elder work with the scientists when the latter are clearly incompetent?

But you said earlier that the scientist have no clue, implying that their 'Research' is really just a joke.

Why should the elder work with the scientists when the latter are clearly incompetent?

Actually I was mocking the assumptions being made by you and others that it's okay to dismiss IQ...welcome to satire.

You'll note I've already in this thread expressed my desire of cooperation, and my belief that the two systems work well together.

Why don't you try reading before you post? It would be refreshing.

During a period involving remarkably stable environmental conditions - which are allegedly changing. Meaning that IQ would have to deal with something it has absolutely no experience with.

Please show me your evidence for your belief that the tundra ecology has been static throughout the existence of the Inuit in the region.

I kind of doubt that you can have traditional knowledge about something that hasn't happened before.

I'm not really interested in what you doubt or not. All you are doing here is admitting that you don't have the knowledge required to speak intelligently about IQ. Considering that you are making the inherent assumption that other forms of knowledge make you capable of knowing something that hasn't happended before (which I am not sure is possible), you may even be admitting your ignorance about basic epistemology.

Actually, the article says as much - the inuit see more bears than ever. The conclusion they make is that they can hunt more without having a detrimental effect on the bear population.

The scientists are saying that there are more bears than ever in their area, because their marine habitat is increasing substantially, leading to a bear-migration - the inuit not being able to observe the collapse of the bears' marine habitat, nor being able to tell where the bears come from.

A background-knowledge problem similar to, say, cargo cults.

You will note that it gives the reasons for the scientist's claim, but it does not give the reasons for the Inuit claim. So you can't actually compare the methodologies. It's not comparing apples to oranges. It's comparing apples to absolutely nothing.

'course, the bears losing substantial amounts of their habitat, not hunting the excess population down could lead to increasingly unfortunate encounters as bears and humans encroach on each other's habitats, so there can, in fact, be good reason for increased hunting activity. But it'd not be an argument lying in 'IQ'. Quite the opposite.

Oh. I see. An alternative hypothesis. Do you have any evidence?

Why don't you try reading before you post? It would be refreshing.300 posts... I went with page one, saw you going off like a volcano, worshipping the much-venerated paths of the elder and crying foul at science...

First impresisons. They matter :)Please show me your evidence for your belief that the tundra ecology has been static throughout the existence of the Inuit in the region.Compared to the present?

Sure thing. (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/air/climate/indicat/images/appendnhtemp.gif)

... If (Relatively) stable temperatures aren't good enough for you, we can certainly go into relative biodiversity in the area, local extinctions, the like... But I'm kind of hoping that you're willing to allow the conclusion of 'Stable climate implies stable habitat'.

If not... Well, I suppose you can go and look for proof that there were substantial changes to the Inuit' habitat throughout their (Short) history. Personally, I'm inclined to view the remarkably stable biosphere in the area as fairly good proof, though.I'm not really interested in what you doubt or not. All you are doing here is admitting that you don't have the knowledge required to speak intelligently about IQ. Considering that you are making the inherent assumption that other forms of knowledge make you capable of knowing something that hasn't happended before (which I am not sure is possible), you may even be admitting your ignorance about basic epistemology.Well. Educate me. How is traditional knowledge going to help coping with an unprecedented change in environmental conditions? I mean, sure - historically, traditional knowledge has failed to do just that in virtually all cases, despite the environmental changes usually (That is, with the exception of the end of the last ice age) being considerably slower, and less massive tha what we're experiencing right now. Not to mention that the Inuit failed comprehensively to migrate to more southern latitudes, once again suggesting that their traditional knowledge was not, in fact, capable of dealing with those changed conditions (Though there were of course civilisations that did so comparatively well, the indo-european complex comes to mind).

But hey. historical precedent. Whatever. Means nothing, right?You will note that it gives the reasons for the scientist's claim, but it does not give the reasons for the Inuit claim. So you can't actually compare the methodologies. It's not comparing apples to oranges. It's comparing apples to absolutely nothing.Actually, it does. It kind of, ya'know... Quotes them.Oh. I see. An alternative hypothesis. Do you have any evidence? Wut? It's only tangentially related. You may want to look up 'Polar bear intrusion into human settlements' or some such thing. But it doesn't really have any bearing on the issue at hand. At least, I don't see how. You missread it, I suppose.

300 posts... I went with page one, saw you going off like a volcano, worshipping the much-venerated paths of the elder and crying foul at science...

First impresisons. They matter They do. You apparently are someone who likes to comment on issues they know nothing about, without even the barest amount of preparation (you know, like reading the thread first).

Yeah.

Compared to the present?

Sure thing. (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/air/climate/indicat/images/appendnhtemp.gif)

... If (Relatively) stable temperatures aren't good enough for you, we can certainly go into relative biodiversity in the area, local extinctions, the like... But I'm kind of hoping that you're willing to allow the conclusion of 'Stable climate implies stable habitat'.

Wow. A single image with no accompanying text showing one variable. No. That is not nearly good enough. Even if we accpet a stable temperature, climate is far more complex than one variable, and ecology is far more complex than simply climate.

Well. Educate me. How is traditional knowledge going to help coping with an unprecedented change in environmental conditions? I mean, sure - historically, traditional knowledge has failed to do just that in virtually all cases, despite the environmental changes usually (That is, with the exception of the end of the last ice age) being considerably slower, and less massive tha what we're experiencing right now.

But hey. historical precedent. Whatever. Means nothing, right?

You seem to know an awful lot about the histories of different traditional methodologies and their ecological success. I am sure that you have a link at your fingertips that would show that these historical precedents are exactly what you claim them to be.

Until then!

Actually, it does. It kind of, ya'know... Quotes them.

None of the quotes from the Inuit in the article describe their methodology at all.

Wut? It's only tangentially related. You may want to look up 'Polar bear intrusion into human settlements' or some such thing. But it doesn't really have any bearing on the issue at hand. At least, I don't see how. You missread it, I suppose.

Yes. I misread it. That must be it. :rolleyes:

Let's simplify the discussion. What do you know about traditional Inuit knowledge? Unless you know something about it, you can't intelligently compare it to science. Or even cargo cults.

300 posts... I went with page one, saw you going off like a volcano, worshipping the much-venerated paths of the elder and crying foul at science...

First impresisons. They matter :)Compared to the present?

You do know Neesika is part of the Canadian First Nations, since you seem to be following her tracks through NSG to make this statement? That this is a topic of great interest and importance to her, as a First Nations' member?

This thread is just one gigantic appeal to authority.

This thread is just one gigantic appeal to authority.

Ayup.

It's really not something we can even discuss effectively...so really what I've been opposing is some of the ethnocentric rhetoric in regards to aboriginal people and our particular paradigms of traditional knowledge.

Ayup.

It's really not something we can even discuss effectively...so really what I've been opposing is some of the ethnocentric rhetoric in regards to aboriginal people and our particular paradigms of traditional knowledge.

Well, you're the most egregious offender, with this "you're wrong, but I can't tell you why because you don't know the secret handsake" line of defense, but your opposition is almost just as guilty.

"Stupid Eskimos killing the polar bears. They should listen to what the scientists have to say or the bears will all go extinct!"

"Why are the scientists' conclusions more valid than the Inuit's conclusions?"

"Because they're SCIENTISTS!"

It's like a race to see which side can NOT support their argument more.

It's really not something we can even discuss effectively...so really what I've been opposing is some of the ethnocentric rhetoric in regards to aboriginal people and our particular paradigms of traditional knowledge.

But declaring "we've been able to survive for thousands of years in this environment, so we know best" is also at the same level of completely meaningless rhetoric that doesn't mean anything and does not prove anything in the slightest. The environment you've been able to adapt to very well for thousands of years is changing rapidly now thanks to climate change, what you've been able to do in the past is completely irrelevant. And why do you keep declaring that they are not working with the Inuit? I really don't see how the fuck that is the case. Have you got any evidence that the scientists feel that the Inuit could actually kill more bears than the number they suggested whilst keeping the harvest sustainable? The most the scientists can do is suggest to them the absolute maximum amount they can kill without ruining the harvest, if they suggest a number any higher, they can't go higher without throwing all scientific research out the window.

"Because they're SCIENTISTS!"


No it's more like "they're expert scientists in their field, who have done extensive empirical research in the area", how is that no support for an argument?

No it's more like "they're expert scientists in their field, who have done extensive empirical research in the area", how is that no support for an argument?

Because you're not presenting their actual findings or their actual conclusions as evidence. You're merely presenting the fact that they are expert scientists.

Because you're not presenting their actual findings or their actual conclusions as evidence.

Their actual conclusions and findings is that the current level of hunting by the Inuit is now unsustainable, due to the change in climate. That was presented, right at the beginning.

Well, you're the most egregious offender, with this "you're wrong, but I can't tell you why because you don't know the secret handsake" line of defense, but your opposition is almost just as guilty. I've at least admitted that this can't be an actual discussion on the merits of the two systems. I'm quite clear on that fact. What I have been opposing is the idea that traditional knowledge is inherently inferior to science. You'll note I have not claimed that science is bunk and should be dismissed completely.

So take your egregiousness and shinshi shinshi with it.

Their actual conclusions and findings is that the current level of hunting by the Inuit is now unsustainable, due to the change in climate. That was presented, right at the beginning.

Why? They said it was so, but it hasn't been demonstrated why the scientists' conclusions regarding what the sustainable harvest is are any more correct than the Inuit's conclusions about what the sustainable harvest is. Both sides have said, "Our conclusions are the correct conclusions because...." then left everything after 'because' blank and instead went on to attack the other side's simplicity/naivette/inexperience/detachment/etc.

Their actual conclusions and findings is that the current level of hunting by the Inuit is now unsustainable, due to the change in climate. That was presented, right at the beginning.

Great. Now we just have to wait and find out if they're right.

Why? They said it was so, but it hasn't been demonstrated why the scientists' conclusions regarding what the sustainable harvest is are any more correct than the Inuit's conclusions about what the sustainable harvest is. Both sides have said, "Our conclusions are the correct conclusions because...." then left everything after 'because' blank and instead went on to attack the other side's simplicity/naivette/inexperience/detachment/etc.

It's very rare on NSG that you present a source, then explain the methodology the experts used to come up with these conclusions. Regardless, if you think there is a problem, I'd say the burden of proof is more on you (or whoever) to show it.

It's very rare on NSG that you present a source, then explain the methodology the experts used to come up with these conclusions. Regardless, if you think there is a problem, I'd say the burden of proof is more on you (or whoever) to show it.

Are you new to NSG or something, Hydesland?

There's no burden of proof on me because I haven't argued one way or another. But, if you want to argue (and you have argued) that the conclusions derived from modern science are more correct than the conclusions drawn from traditional methodology, then you need to explain WHY they are more correct. Both sides have made their opposing claims as to just what constitutes a sustainable harvest for the polar bear, but neither side has demonstrated why they are right and the other side is wrong. And, aside from Sin and GoG, I'd say most people are operating under the assumption that science is right and tradition is wrong. I'd just like to see that demonstrated, rather than relying on the assumption that because science is newer that it is right-er.

I've at least admitted that this can't be an actual discussion on the merits of the two systems. I'm quite clear on that fact. What I have been opposing is the idea that traditional knowledge is inherently inferior to science. You'll note I have not claimed that science is bunk and should be dismissed completely.

So take your egregiousness and shinshi shinshi with it.

Right. I know that somewhere in that mess of bile and vitrol aimed at anyone who would dare disagree with you, is an admission that you have a completely unsupported argument that you nevertheless mock people for disagreeing with. I know that you mentioned somewhere along the line that normally you're the first to cry "Source!", but in this case, you are making an exception. And I know that you're not actually claiming science is bunk and should be dismissed completely, but you are saying that IQ should be considered ultimately correct, regardless of where it disagrees with modern conclusions

It's sort of like the argument between a pregnant woman who wants an abortion and the impregnating man who wants her to keep it. They're both entitled to their opinions, and neither is more or less correct than the other, but in the end, the man's opinion means exactly dick. Science and IQ are both entitled to opposing conclusions, and we're not saying science is wrong, but we ARE saying that IQ is right.

Are you new to NSG or something, Hydesland?

There's no burden of proof on me because I haven't argued one way or another.

Didn't say there was.


But, if you want to argue (and you have argued) that the conclusions derived from modern science are more correct than the conclusions drawn from traditional methodology, then you need to explain WHY they are more correct.

I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that they are more likely to be correct, BECAUSE of the source they are coming from.

I think the acid test for the competing paradigms is reality itself.

Didn't say there was.



I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that they are more likely to be correct, BECAUSE of the source they are coming from.

Why are they more likely to be correct simply because of the source? Why are they more likely than the native population to be correct just because they are scientists? That's not how an argument works. A scientist does not get to be more right about his discipline by virtue of being a scientists. How would you measure differing opinions within the scientific community otherwise? A scientist gets to be more correct based of his findings, not based off of his job.

Right. I know that somewhere in that mess of bile and vitrol aimed at anyone who would dare disagree with you,

Lick my ass.

Sorry, didn't want you to feel left out.

is an admission that you have a completely unsupported argument that you nevertheless mock people for disagreeing with. I know that you mentioned somewhere along the line that normally you're the first to cry "Source!", but in this case, you are making an exception. And I know that you're not actually claiming science is bunk and should be dismissed completely, but you are saying that IQ should be considered ultimately correct, regardless of where it disagrees with modern conclusions
False. I'm saying that I'm willing to side with IQ for reasons I already gave. I also stated that cooperation between the two systems would be preferable, because ultimately both sides need to be convinced. My main gist has been that no one here has the expertise or experience to say SHIT about IQ, and I've given many examples of how it would be impossible to present IQ to you within the scope of this discussion because of the lack of intellectual infrastructure (unlike Western paradigms, which we have been exposed to since infancy).

It's sort of like the argument between a pregnant woman who wants an abortion and the impregnating man who wants her to keep it. They're both entitled to their opinions, and neither is more or less correct than the other, but in the end, the man's opinion means exactly dick. Science and IQ are both entitled to opposing conclusions, and we're not saying science is wrong, but we ARE saying that IQ is right.
All I've been trying to do is point out the massive flaws in declaring IQ to be wrong, full stop, without any understanding of what IQ is. My position isn't predicated on polar bears, it's couched in a wider ideological framework that applies to all clashes between aboriginal and non-aboriginal paradigms. You can stand there on the outside, taking no position other than 'you're not playing nice'...you're welcome to it. But frankly, this thread would have just been a 'giggle, look at how dumb those eskimos are' if some of us hadn't decided to challenge the basic assumption that traditional knowledge is primitive and wrong.

And seriously, fuck off with the whole 'you're so mean Sinuhue'. It's tiring. Yes. I am. We all know it. Move on.

I think the acid test for the competing paradigms is reality itself.
me too!

and since one of the features of reality is that the inuit can decide how many polar bears to take it is the scientists responsibility to work with them to set that number at a sustainable level.

if they cant convince the locals that they are right, maybe they arent as right as they thought they were.

Why are they more likely to be correct simply because of the source? Why are they more likely than the native population to be correct just because they are scientists? That's not how an argument works. A scientist does not get to be more right about his discipline by virtue of being a scientists. How would you measure differing opinions within the scientific community otherwise? A scientist gets to be more correct based of his findings, not based off of his job.

That's what this whole thread has been about! That isn't 'my argument'. Read the thread.

me too!

and since one of the features of reality is that the inuit can decide how many polar bears to take it is the scientists responsibility to work with them to set that number at a sustainable level.

if they cant convince the locals that they are right, maybe they arent as right as they thought they were.

I say let the Inuits do what they want. If the polar bears go extinct, the whole world can hang that over their heads for the rest of the existence.

I say let the Inuits do what they want. If the polar bears go extinct, the whole world can hang that over their heads for the rest of the existence.
i dont think that the can single handedly kill off all polar bears--the bears exist outside the inuit controlled areas.

That's what this whole thread has been about! That isn't 'my argument'. Read the thread.

So, you're not actually saying anything at all. Got it.

i dont think that the can single handedly kill off all polar bears--the bears exist outside the inuit controlled areas.

This particular population of 1500 can be, however. If they continue to hunt them at a rate that is unsustainable, which according to the scientists they are doing, then they will eventually hunt them out. The 'polar bear' as a species will not go extinct, but this particular population can, and will, if the scientists are right.

This particular population of 1500 can be, however. If they continue to hunt them at a rate that is unsustainable, which according to the scientists they are doing, then they will eventually hunt them out. The 'polar bear' as a species will not go extinct, but this particular population can, and will, if the scientists are right.
then the scientists are wrong.

because they have not figured in the change of mind of the inuit when the loss of bear population is more obvious.

Lick my ass.

Sorry, didn't want you to feel left out.

Right. You demonstrate the maturity of a pre-born once again.


False. I'm saying that I'm willing to side with IQ for reasons I already gave. I also stated that cooperation between the two systems would be preferable, because ultimately both sides need to be convinced. My main gist has been that no one here has the expertise or experience to say SHIT about IQ, and I've given many examples of how it would be impossible to present IQ to you within the scope of this discussion because of the lack of intellectual infrastructure (unlike Western paradigms, which we have been exposed to since infancy).

Frankly, you come off as a huge hypocrite. Normally, you are a massive proponent of "Source!", yet, when the topic comes close to home, you are fully willing to rely on anecdotes and appeals to authority.

The argument boils down to this: Science has presented its evidence. Now it is IQ's turn. But, since we're not capable of understanding IQ, IQ cannot provide its evidence.


All I've been trying to do is point out the massive flaws in declaring IQ to be wrong, full stop, without any understanding of what IQ is. My position isn't predicated on polar bears, it's couched in a wider ideological framework that applies to all clashes between aboriginal and non-aboriginal paradigms. You can stand there on the outside, taking no position other than 'you're not playing nice'...you're welcome to it. But frankly, this thread would have just been a 'giggle, look at how dumb those eskimos are' if some of us hadn't decided to challenge the basic assumption that traditional knowledge is primitive and wrong.

Wrong. You can delude yourself into thinking you were being a noble proponent for IQ, but you were actually deriding anyone who believes that science is more right than IQ because they understand it more, all while refusing to explain IQ to us ignorant Westerners.

If you're going to present an argument based around evidence that you cannot or will not produce, then expect that people are going to call bullshit.


And seriously, fuck off with the whole 'you're so mean Sinuhue'. It's tiring. Yes. I am. We all know it. Move on.

It's more than "you're so mean Sinuhue," and you know it. There's a reason you're not Sinuhue anymore.

then the scientists are wrong.

because they have not figured in the change of mind of the inuit when the loss of bear population is more obvious.

So, who has to come in and tell her she doesn't know enough to "say SHIT"?

You'd think there'd be trees on Easter Island too, no?

then the scientists are wrong.

because they have not figured in the change of mind of the inuit when the loss of bear population is more obvious.

That's semantics. The scientists are arguing that, at present hunting rates, the polar bear population is unsustainable. If everything stays the way it is right now, the polar bear population will eventually be hunted out. Of course, if the Inuit change their hunting rates, that will no longer be the case. Science will then re-evaluate the position.

Right. You demonstrate the maturity of a pre-born once again. That's an odd thing to say. So odd, I can't really react to it.


Frankly, you come off as a huge hypocrite. Normally, you are a massive proponent of "Source!", yet, when the topic comes close to home, you are fully willing to rely on anecdotes and appeals to authority.

The argument boils down to this: Science has presented its evidence. Now it is IQ's turn. But, since we're not capable of understanding IQ, IQ cannot provide its evidence. False again. You're capable of understanding IQ, it simply cannot be presented to you in the scope of this thread...something I've pointed out a number of times.

We can't compare the two systems...you simply lack the background to do so. Once again, a comparison of these systems is the work of a lifetime, not a single thread on NSG.

I'm quite aware of the problem of being unable to 'source', which is why I brought it up. You can call that hypocrisy, that's fine, I recognise it, and the practical limitations of an argument from either side.



Wrong. You can delude yourself into thinking you were being a noble proponent for IQ, but you were actually deriding anyone who believes that science is more right than IQ because they understand it more, all while refusing to explain IQ to us ignorant Westerners. It's not up to me to explain it to you ignorant Westerners. Of course I deride people who think science is more right than IQ because they understand it more. Actually...that's not true...I deride people who think science is more right than IQ because they no ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about IQ. It's a position rooted in ignorance in the truest sense of the word.


If you're going to present an argument based around evidence that you cannot or will not produce, then expect that people are going to call bullshit. My argument is that no one here can say shit about IQ because they know nothing about it. I think that's a pretty rock solid position, frankly...sorry if you got confused.


It's more than "you're so mean Sinuhue," and you know it. There's a reason you're not Sinuhue anymore.
Yeah, I suicided by mod...I'm sorry, are you suggesting that my participation in this thread is suicide by mod? You are a very strange man.

This is madness. These Inuits are simply hicks, native-rednecks, if you will. I don't see why wilfull ignorance of science leading to the destruction of a species is ok simply because of some backwards tradition.


Simply being a "tribel elder" shouldn't hold any weight in a discussion between what the tribel elders 'feel' and what science statistically shows. And to be honest, I have a feeling that if these people were not minorities, there would not be a single person who wouldn't oppose their ignorant detrimental attack on global health.

Just to point out the troll-baiting, 'vitrolic' OP...and the underlying assumptions I've been challenging throughout this thread. I don't actually know enough about the situation to say which side is 'right' or if there is a 'right side'...I haven't made a single statement about how many polar bears there are, or what's happening to them. But I do know that TAI, along with many others in this thread, don't have any knowledge to base these pejorative claims upon.

The way I see it, these are the limits of our knowledge:

While we can see that IQ has allowed the Inuit to continue in that environment for at least a thousand years, we do not know how IQ will cope with radical climate change.

While we understand how the scientific method can cope with change, the scientific paradigm has almost no history in sustainable practices. Ecology as a science is barely 100 years old. I can,t imagine that worthwhile research in the tundra was conducted before the 1950s, when commercial exploitation of the region began.

I love how many of you are willing to write-off the polar bear estimates of the ignorant savages and assume the unnamed scientists are right based on unnamed data.

I also love how this ignores the fact that no actual survey of the relevant bear population appears to have been done in the last decade by the "scientists."

But what I love more is the ignoring of the question of jurisdiction and sovereignty and who and when gets to decide when sovereignty is to be overcome due to "science."

EDIT: In other words, global climate change is doing more harm to the polar bear population than the natives are. Scientists agree that things the U.S., Canada, and other nations are doing are going to harm the polar bear population. How many of you advocate overriding the sovereignty of every nation contributing to global climate change with whatever measures "scientists" think best?

The way I see it, these are the limits of our knowledge:

While we can see that IQ has allowed the Inuit to continue in that environment for at least a thousand years, we do not know how IQ will cope with radical climate change. I agree with that. Rapid changes, such as melting of the permafrost, have been regarded with great alarm in northern communities, and very accurate descriptions of these events and how they impact things like migratory patterns and shifts in calving grounds have been immediately tabled in order to get the scientific community to pay attention. IQ has not, to my knowledge, posited solutions to these changes, it has simply provided the 'long view'.


While we understand how the scientific method can cope with change, the scientific paradigm has almost no history in sustainable practices. Ecology as a science is barely 100 years old. I can,t imagine that worthwhile research in the tundra was conducted before the 1950s, when commercial exploitation of the region began. Ayup.

There are many scientists who are integrating traditional knowledge into their research. These people (http://www.carc.org/pubs/v20no1/inuit.htm) would be excellent 'bridges' and consultation with the communities, allowing for a meeting of the two perspectives, would be much preferable to top-down demands.

I love how many of you are willing to write-off the polar bear estimates of the ignorant savages and assume the unnamed scientists are right based on unnamed data.

I also love how this ignores the fact that no actual survey of the relevant bear population appears to have been done in the last decade by the "scientists."

But what I love more is the ignoring of the question of jurisdiction and sovereignty and who and when gets to decide when sovereignty is to be overcome due to "science."

I don't think more than a select few are actually saying their sovereignty could be legitimately infringed upon for this, but most seem to be saying that disregarding science for IQ out of hand is silly.

Also, at least in my mind, implicit in this discussion is the hypothetical that the OP article is 100% accurate which I have no illusions is only a hypothetical. Honestly, I don't care enough about Polar Bears, Canadians or Inuit to look into it anymore than through the convenience of vague armchair debate of abstracts over the internet. At the very least, it's a welcome diversion from reading more of this fucking medieval philosophy that seems to be an endless task.

I will say that Neesika seems to be presenting herself, intentionally or not, as the mouthpiece for all things aboriginal on NSG, which is absolute nonsense, and I do take issue with. Though, I think this is more the fault of her active posting history and status as an old-timer on this board combined with other old-timers' tendencies than anything that be blamed strictly on a single person. *shrug*

False. Aboriginal people just happen to the be the ones who have not severed their relationship with their surroundings, particularly in the North. The special status I'm referring to is not based on race, or even culture, it's based on the fact that these people have lived in that particular area for tens of thousands of years, and the entirety of their development has been based on this.

That sort of knowledge is available to anyone who wishes to access it...properly. You want to pick up a book? A little 'how to live in the Arctic'? Sorry...you want to access a form of knowledge, you access it in the manner that the knowledge itself is passed on...in this case, according to traditional Inuit methods.

Aboriginal people by and large do not 'lock' others out of our knowledge base...'others', like yourself, are simply too caught up in their own arrogance and sense of entitlement to access us in a culturally appropriate manner. Then, when you aren't spoon-fed our knowledge, you throw a hissy fit and talk about how those grapes were sour anyway.

Yes, I am quite aware that I could, if I chose, learn the Inuit ways to survive and even thrive in arctic conditions. And that wouldn't tell me, just as it doesn't tell them, about the biology behind seal behaviour, or the physics of ice-cap melting, or the migratory habits of Polar Bears beyond "they turn up around March".

If I wanted THAT information, I'd look to a Field Scientist, who would actually know. Rather than relying on the entirely mythical "knowledge of the land" that the Inuit do NOT have.

We're not talking about oral history, we're talking about IQ. Clearly, the fact that wolverine fur is the best to use around the hood and hands because it does not frost up is not something that has been last or become unreliable 'past the third generation'. You are conflating the issues. IQ is a skill set that is reliably passed down, generation to generation...reliable because in the main, things haven't changed all that much. Migratory patterns shift, population ebbs and flows, but the essential elements remain the same. Could you learn to live in that environment? Of course you could...but you'd have to put in the effort.

Ah, so now it's a "skill set". Well, at least that's more accurate than the "thousands of years of knowledge" BS you were claiming.

Newsflash: Skillsets DON'T give you the background knowledge to understand changes in climate or sudden alterations of habitat. THAT requires organized research - which the Inuit could not pass on to their descendents.

Declare yourself right all you want...you've already admitted you don't actually understand the system of knowledge you've arbitrarily dismissed.

Way to dodge the issue without having an actual answer. And I've admitted no such thing - I just don't accept that your "system of knowledge" has any value in the making of a decision of this nature, since it lacks the broader input of data needed to make a rational choice.

I love how many of you are willing to write-off the polar bear estimates of the ignorant savages and assume the unnamed scientists are right based on unnamed data.

I also love how this ignores the fact that no actual survey of the relevant bear population appears to have been done in the last decade by the "scientists."

But what I love more is the ignoring of the question of jurisdiction and sovereignty and who and when gets to decide when sovereignty is to be overcome due to "science."

We love you too, Cat-Tribe.

EDIT: In other words, global climate change is doing more harm to the polar bear population than the natives are. Scientists agree that things the U.S., Canada, and other nations are doing are going to harm the polar bear population. How many of you advocate overriding the sovereignty of every nation contributing to global climate change with whatever measures "scientists" think best?

I would think that most of us here would like to limit the the polluting activities of every nation contributing to global climate change regardless of the nation's "sovereignty." Now that doesn't mean we want to invade every last country, but claiming that one can pollute and harm those outside of one's jurisdiction(or even within one's jurisdiction) because of sovereignty is silly.

I don't think more than a select few are actually saying their sovereignty could be legitimately infringed upon for this, but most seem to be saying that disregarding science for IQ out of hand is silly.

Also, at least in my mind, implicit in this discussion is the hypothetical that the OP article is 100% accurate which I have no illusions is only a hypothetical.

And, who, pray tell is saying that science should be disregarded out of hand because of IQ? It seems to me the argument is that native knowledge should be disregarded out of hand because of some amorphous god of "science."

You are right to be skeptical of the OP article's characterizations - let alone the OP's spin on that article. I've already linked and quoted at least one article (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2008/11/14/pbear-survey.html?ref=rss) with more information.

All you really know from the OP article is that some Candadian scientists recommended that this winter's hunt be limited to 64 polar bears, but the governing bodies of both the Inuit-control Nunavut Wildlife Managment Board and Greenland didn't accept that idea. The NWMB decision was based at least in part on local knowledge of the polar bear population.

Somehow this has gotten mischaracterized as complete ignorance on the part of a few savages against unquestionable science.

Yes, I am quite aware that I could, if I chose, learn the Inuit ways to survive and even thrive in arctic conditions. And that wouldn't tell me, just as it doesn't tell them, about the biology behind seal behaviour, or the physics of ice-cap melting, or the migratory habits of Polar Bears beyond "they turn up around March".

If I wanted THAT information, I'd look to a Field Scientist, who would actually know. Rather than relying on the entirely mythical "knowledge of the land" that the Inuit do NOT have.

Oh. I see. You are comparing them in terms of how well they can produce quantifiable data. Science wins hands down in that respect. Unfortunately, I believe the debate is about sustainable practices allowing for the continued survival of polar bears. In that comparison, science is not automatically the winner.

Ah, so now it's a "skill set". Well, at least that's more accurate than the "thousands of years of knowledge" BS you were claiming.

Newsflash: Skillsets DON'T give you the background knowledge to understand changes in climate or sudden alterations of habitat. THAT requires organized research - which the Inuit could not pass on to their descendents.

You don,t know anything about the skill set, therefore it is impossible for you to claim that the skill set being discussed does not provide certain background knowledge.

You also make the assumption that Inuit can not pass organised research onto their descendants. Not very scientific.

Way to dodge the issue without having an actual answer. And I've admitted no such thing - I just don't accept that your "system of knowledge" has any value in the making of a decision of this nature, since it lacks the broader input of data needed to make a rational choice.

Now you are making claims about the breadth of data available to IQ. Again, I must remind you that you don't actually have this information.

I would think that most of us here would like to limit the the polluting activities of every nation contributing to global climate change regardless of the nation's "sovereignty." Now that doesn't mean we want to invade every last country, but claiming that one can pollute and harm those outside of one's jurisdiction(or even within one's jurisdiction) because of sovereignty is silly.

So, screw the sovereignty of any nation if some scientists think the nation is harming the environment. Who decides? When?

And where are the Inuit claiming a right to pollute or harm those outside of one's jurisdiction?

I will say that Neesika seems to be presenting herself, intentionally or not, as the mouthpiece for all things aboriginal on NSG, which is absolute nonsense, Show me another aboriginal person on this board, thanks (one who has also actually lived in the North would be nice as well). I'm a little tired of being the only one here who is actually from an aboriginal community and seems to understand any of the issues. I mean, I love the issues and all but my patience with the constant paternalistic racism spouted by people like TIA et al. is thin.

Yes, I am quite aware that I could, if I chose, learn the Inuit ways to survive and even thrive in arctic conditions. And that wouldn't tell me, just as it doesn't tell them, about the biology behind seal behaviour, or the physics of ice-cap melting, or the migratory habits of Polar Bears beyond "they turn up around March".

If I wanted THAT information, I'd look to a Field Scientist, who would actually know. Rather than relying on the entirely mythical "knowledge of the land" that the Inuit do NOT have.



Ah, so now it's a "skill set". Well, at least that's more accurate than the "thousands of years of knowledge" BS you were claiming.

Newsflash: Skillsets DON'T give you the background knowledge to understand changes in climate or sudden alterations of habitat. THAT requires organized research - which the Inuit could not pass on to their descendents.



Way to dodge the issue without having an actual answer. And I've admitted no such thing - I just don't accept that your "system of knowledge" has any value in the making of a decision of this nature, since it lacks the broader input of data needed to make a rational choice.

Um. The dispute is over the number of polar bears. It is a legitimate dispute. See, e.g., pdf (http://www.researchandpractice.com/articles/2-2/dowsley-1.pdf), pdf (http://www.nwmb.com/english/events/ae/3c947bc2f7ff007b86a9428b74654de5/NWMBmeeting_BB_2008_DOE%20submission_eng%20(2).pdf), link (http://www.nwmb.com/english/events/ae/3c947bc2f7ff007b86a9428b74654de5/submission_en.php?partner_id=1&folder_id=1863). And you really have no basis for supposing one side is wholly wrong when you have no idea where the data is coming from for the side with which you agree.

Science is always questionable, because questioning it is what advances the science.

However, questioning the assertions of a Scientist doesn't advance either his grant status, nor his backers' interests, SO....

It's important to examine the methodology of the study being used by the Aforementioned Scientists, and look at what the natives (who are "on the ground" with the subject animal), and examine the raw data before making a decision that might further someone's career at the expense of a bunch of people who don't necessarily have millions to spend in court.

Show me another aboriginal person on this board

Being the only one means you're the Representative Of All Things Aboriginal on NSG? No it doesn't. 'e's got a point.

I'm a little tired of being the only one here who is actually from an aboriginal community and seems to understand any of the issues.

Confident as you are, you're not. Also you're not the savior of mankind and you can climb down from that cross already.

So, screw the sovereignty of any nation if some scientists think the nation is harming the environment. Who decides? When?

Screw the sovereignty of any nation that follows poor policies. Policies that are wrong are always wrong and one doesn't get a get out of jail free card for sovereignty.

As to who decides and when those are trickier prospects, just as anything that is supposed to transcends national sovereignty(such as basic human rights), though consensus among the scientific community and most nations, such as in the UN, would come in handy.


And where are the Intuits claiming a right to pollute or harm those outside of one's jurisdiction?

I'm not, but your claim made it sound like one can not criticize the actions of any sovereign entity.

Being the only one means you're the Representative Of All Things Aboriginal on NSG? No it doesn't. 'e's got a point.Oh please. I've never presented myself as 'representative of all things aboriginal on NSG'...I just happen to be the ONLY one who can speak concretetely about aboriginal issues from the perspective of an aboriginal person. It'd be great to get more of us here, so a wider ranges of aboriginal perspectives could be represented, but that's not the case, so suck it up. I'm not going to shut up just because some of you are all scared that I'm going to take over as resident Queen Aboriginal.


Confident as you are, you're not. Also you're not the savior of mankind and you can climb down from that cross already.
Again, show me another person on this forum who has experience with aboriginal communities...I'm not even saying that a person has to be aboriginal to understand our perspectives...but I've been here for years now, and I've only met a handful of posters who have had ANY contact with aboriginal people or aboriginal issues...much less someone who I would say understands the issues related to aboriginal people here.

Your other claims are ridiculous.

I've already linked and quoted at least one article (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2008/11/14/pbear-survey.html?ref=rss) with more information.

I read that article as well and I agree that scientists should be more open to using IQ as a viable source of information, but the Inuit need to be open to scientific findings. Inuit should not throw out scientific research and demand that they make their own quotas, that is not going to solve anything.

There are apparently quite a few differing perspectives (http://www.researchandpractice.com/articles/2-2/dowsley-1.pdf) even among Baffin Island communities, so until a compromise can be reached that all communities agree with I don't see any population studies being done.

I don't know much about the Inuit people, but I assume they love their land and want what is best for it. If they over hunt they will also face the consequences of a decrease in polar bear populations, so perhaps "joining forces" with environmentalists is not such a bad idea. At least for the time being they can get an even more accurate count of the Baffin polar bear population, that will only help both sides.

So, you're not actually saying anything at all. Got it.

Not saying what you think I'm saying =/= not saying anything at all.

*pained*

Inuit. It's singular and plural.

Again, show me another person on this forum who has experience with aboriginal communities...I'm not even saying that a person has to be aboriginal to understand our perspectives...but I've been here for years now, and I've only met a handful of posters who have had ANY contact with aboriginal people or aboriginal issues...much less someone who I would say understands the issues related to aboriginal people here.

Your other claims are ridiculous.

But you can't just claim "I understand the issues of the aboriginals, you're wrong", and then not actually tell us anything, anything at all about how they've come to their conclusions, only vague references to their track record. It's an irritating thing to do in a thread, it's essentially an appeal to your own authority.

I read that article as well and I agree that scientists should be more open to using IQ as a viable source of information, but the Inuit need to be open to scientific findings. Inuit should not throw out scientific research and demand that they make their own quotas, that is not going to solve anything.

There are apparently quite a few differing perspectives (http://www.researchandpractice.com/articles/2-2/dowsley-1.pdf) even among Baffin Island communities, so until a compromise can be reached that all communities agree with I don't see any population studies being done.

I don't know much about the Inuit people, but I assume they love their land and want what is best for it. If they over hunt they will also face the consequences of a decrease in polar bear populations, so perhaps "joining forces" with environmentalists is not such a bad idea. At least for the time being they can get an even more accurate count of the Baffin polar bear population, that will only help both sides.

After going through the article and the assorted and 'colorful' posts, I think this whole issue boils down to respect. Science should respect the Inuit and the Inuit should respect science. Both can benefit, greatly, from each other and benefit the continued existence of the polar bear.

*pained*

Inuit. It's singular and plural.

Corrected (I think). My bad.

Oh please. I've never presented myself as 'representative of all things aboriginal on NSG'

Well yes you just did, when the guy made the statement "I will say that Neesika seems to be presenting herself, intentionally or not, as the mouthpiece for all things aboriginal on NSG," and you replied with "show me another aboriginal on this board, thanks." Essentially saying "Yes because I AM the representative of all things aboriginal!"

Which remains nonsense.

...I just happen to be the ONLY one who can speak concretetely about aboriginal issues from the perspective of an aboriginal person.

You actually didn't qualify "from the perspective of" before, you just made the blanket statement that you know more.

It'd be great to get more of us here, so a wider ranges of aboriginal perspectives could be represented, but that's not the case, so suck it up.

How the fuck do you know, anyway?

Just happened to have performed a background check on the ethnicity of every poster on NSG, ever?

Maybe there are others, they just don't happen to read the threads you do or try to use their ethnicity as a bludgeon or in fact, don't advertise their ethnicity to everyone. You presume not only that your "only aboriginal on these forums" status is a fact, but that it makes you right. Hence you're the "only one who seems to understand the issues." We're all just ignorant white men, I guess.

Again, show me another person on this forum who has experience with aboriginal communities...

I really don't need to.

I'm not even saying that a person has to be aboriginal to understand our perspectives...

Seems like that's exactly what you said.

but I've been here for years now, and I've only met a handful of posters who have had ANY contact with aboriginal people or aboriginal issues...much less someone who I would say understands the issues related to aboriginal people here.

That still doesn't make you any kind of 'representative' of 'aboriginals.'

Your other claims are ridiculous.

What other claims did I make? I had 4 sentences.

But you can't just claim "I understand the issues of the aboriginals, you're wrong", and then not actually tell us anything, anything at all about how they've come to their conclusions, only vague references to their track record. It's an irritating thing to do in a thread, it's essentially an appeal to your own authority.

Agreed. Almost as annoying as appealing to the authority of unnamed scientists based on unnamed data -- even in the face of evidence that such data is disputed.

I made the mistake too. Though I did put in the disclaimer that I don't know much about the Inuit people. :D

After going through the article and the assorted and 'colorful' posts, I think this whole issue boils down to respect. Science should respect the Inuit and the Inuit should respect science. Both can benefit, greatly, from each other and benefit the continued existence of the polar bear.

I've still yet to see any evidence that these mean old scientists are completely ignoring everything the Inuit are saying, disregarding their views and not trying to communicate and work with them. I think this whole idea is just a knee jerk assumption.

I read that article as well and I agree that scientists should be more open to using IQ as a viable source of information, but the Inuit need to be open to scientific findings. Inuit should not throw out scientific research and demand that they make their own quotas, that is not going to solve anything.

There are apparently quite a few differing perspectives (http://www.researchandpractice.com/articles/2-2/dowsley-1.pdf) even among Baffin Island communities, so until a compromise can be reached that all communities agree with I don't see any population studies being done.

I don't know much about the Inuit people, but I assume they love their land and want what is best for it. If they over hunt they will also face the consequences of a decrease in polar bear populations, so perhaps "joining forces" with environmentalists is not such a bad idea. At least for the time being they can get an even more accurate count of the Baffin polar bear population, that will only help both sides.

There’s a very political aspect to this whole discussion, that should it be removed, would greatly help the issue. The Federal government originally tried to bypass (http://www.nunatsiaq.com/news/nunavut/81128_1745.html) the Inuit on the issue of quotas...something that simply isn’t constitutional (division of power issues, but more importantly, the duty to consult with aboriginal people when it comes to resource management).

It was a stupid move, and got people’s backs up. Prentice (who used to be Minister of the Department of Indian and Northern Development and doesn’t have a great reputation as a bridge-builder between government and aboriginal communities), the now Minister of the Environment says now that he wants a more coordinated approach, and plans a roundtable. With the current political upheaval in Canada, the set date for Jan. 16 2009 simply won’t happen, and I couldn’t predict when it’ll be rescheduled, but hopefully it won’t be completely abandoned.

So while yes, there is a definite dispute among the Inuit about real numbers etc...a lot of what you're hearing in the OP and other current news sources is tinged with the need to assert sovereignty, and outrage at the way the Feds have once again tried to ignore aboriginal peoples' concerns.

I've still yet to see any evidence that these mean old scientists are completely ignoring everything the Inuit are saying, disregarding their views and not trying to communicate and work with them. I think this whole idea is just a knee jerk assumption.

Are you referring to the article or my post?

I've still yet to see any evidence that these mean old scientists are completely ignoring everything the Inuit are saying, disregarding their views and not trying to communicate and work with them. I think this whole idea is just a knee jerk assumption.

And where is the evidence that the ignorant savage Inuit are completely ignoring what the scientists (what scientist, btw?) are saying, disregarding their views, and not trying to communicate and work with them?

Just because a decision was made by an Inuit-controlled body doesn't mean science was ignored. The evidence is to the contrary. See, e.g., link (http://www.nwmb.com/english/events/ae/3c947bc2f7ff007b86a9428b74654de5/submission_en.php?partner_id=1&folder_id=1863).

Oh. I see. You are comparing them in terms of how well they can produce quantifiable data. Science wins hands down in that respect. Unfortunately, I believe the debate is about sustainable practices allowing for the continued survival of polar bears. In that comparison, science is not automatically the winner.

I'm willing to entertain that possibility. In fact, my initial post suggested (somewhat in jest) that we take a hands-off approach to the situation. My belief is that such an approach would result in the extinction of the Baffin Island bear population - but I'm willing to be proved wrong.



You don,t know anything about the skill set, therefore it is impossible for you to claim that the skill set being discussed does not provide certain background knowledge.

Now, I keep getting this repeated at me - "you don't know what these people know, so how can you judge?"

The fact is, I actually have a pretty good idea of what's in the Inuit skillset. I passed my cross-training in the army's Arctic Survival Course, which, at the time I went through it, was being taught by a Captain of Inuit extraction. I don't try to fool myself that I know even a fraction as much as he did - I know enough to survive and try to get rescued, that's about it - but I was sufficiently intrigued to make a study of Inuit culture and practices for years aterwards.

Among other things, I learned I'd make a bad Inuit (I enjoy my creature comforts far too much, and there's a reason I choose to live in a Mediterranean climate). I've a tremendous respect for a people who live and thrive in an area as hostile as any on earth - but I also understand the limits of what they know, or can know, through traditional practices.

You also make the assumption that Inuit can not pass organised research onto their descendants. Not very scientific.

Yes, I do, but I have good reason for that.

The Inuit, in common with many (though by no means all) indigenous peoples of North America, had no written language before outsiders arrived. This is a tremendous restriction; knowledge is confined to what can be passed down orally or through the survival skill-set. And Oral records become unreliable very quickly - anthropological research on the subject indicates major deviation to be likely in as few as five generations.

Organised research was certainly not beyond the Inuit. The transfer of it to future generations, however, was severely limited.

Now you are making claims about the breadth of data available to IQ. Again, I must remind you that you don't actually have this information.

Here, I can use logic as a guide. I know the Inuit did not follow the Bears onto the high ice in midwinter - even they couldn't survive that. They didn't have the tools or the background to conduct accurate headcounts over large areas beyond their own territories.

*snip*
Whatever GT. I represent a perspective you don't have. I'm not the only person who can do that, but as far as I'm aware, I'm the only one who is doing that here on NSG. You can read that to mean 'oh Sin thinks she's the mouthpiece for all things aboriginal' but it's not the case. Sorry. I'm not going to get into a Jocabian dissection of all my posts with you so that you can blather on in an effort to make a point I really don't care about.

Agreed. Almost as annoying as appealing to the authority of unnamed scientists based on unnamed data -- even in the face of evidence that such data is disputed.

A simple google search can reveal research on the area. If you want to argue that they're wrong, use the data to show that. Don't just use crap arguments about how the Inuit have better knowledge and understanding than science in general about the area, but not tell us about their understanding in the slightest.

Are you referring to the article or my post?

The general tone of this thread.

And where is the evidence that the ignorant savage Inuit are completely ignoring what the scientists (what scientist, btw?) are saying, disregarding their views, and not trying to communicate and work with them?


Huuuuuuuuuuuge strawman.

There’s a very political aspect to this whole discussion, that should it be removed, would greatly help the issue. The Federal government originally tried to bypass (http://www.nunatsiaq.com/news/nunavut/81128_1745.html) the Inuit on the issue of quotas...something that simply isn’t constitutional (division of power issues, but more importantly, the duty to consult with aboriginal people when it comes to resource management).

It was a stupid move, and got people’s backs up. Prentice (who used to be Minister of the Department of Indian and Northern Development and doesn’t have a great reputation as a bridge-builder between government and aboriginal communities), the now Minister of the Environment says now that he wants a more coordinated approach, and plans a roundtable. With the current political upheaval in Canada, the set date for Jan. 16 2009 simply won’t happen, and I couldn’t predict when it’ll be rescheduled, but hopefully it won’t be completely abandoned.

So while yes, there is a definite dispute among the Inuit about real numbers etc...a lot of what you're hearing in the OP and other current news sources is tinged with the need to assert sovereignty, and outrage at the way the Feds have once again tried to ignore aboriginal peoples' concerns.

Well the "differing perspectives" study was done by interviewing members of different Inuit communites on Baffin Island, so I'm assuming that the study has some background in IQ.

I also read here (http://www.nwmb.com/english/events/ae/3c947bc2f7ff007b86a9428b74654de5/NTI%20submission%20-eng.pdf) about the dispute between the NWMB (?) and the Baffin communities regarding the GHR. Again, though, I don't have much background in it (I mean, its not about brain surgery so I can't understand it :P ).

I just think that both sides need to come together. If the Inuit continue to go over the quota, the environmentalists will continue to decry them. If the environmentalists keep lowering the quota, then the Inuit are hurt (http://old.nrf.is/Publications/The%20Resilient%20North/Plenary%202/3rd%20NRF_plenary%202_Dowsley_YR_paper.pdf). They just need to come to some sort of compromise. Both
sides need to respect the other.

EDIT: Also, what about Greenland? This thread seems to be focusing on the Canadian side of things, but Greenland is causing the problems as well.

A simple google search can reveal research on the area. If you want to argue that they're wrong, use the data to show that. Don't just use crap arguments about how the Inuit have better knowledge and understanding than science in general about the area, but not tell us about their understanding in the slightest.

And I've done some of that googling and linked some of the relevant information. Including experts that say the Inuit have a point.

In contrast, you seem to be worshipping a glittering god of "science" without the slightest clue as to what that "science" is, where it comes from, what it is based on, etc.

I know not who is correct about the polar bear population, but the question is in the hands of several different sovereign bodies that do actually seem to be working towards some cooperation. Denigrating the dirty savages doesn't help either the cooperation or the polar bears.

Huuuuuuuuuuuge strawman.

LOL

As opposed to your insightful comment?

Now, I keep getting this repeated at me - "you don't know what these people know, so how can you judge?"

The fact is, I actually have a pretty good idea of what's in the Inuit skillset. I passed my cross-training in the army's Arctic Survival Course, which, at the time I went through it, was being taught by a Captain of Inuit extraction. I don't try to fool myself that I know even a fraction as much as he did - I know enough to survive and try to get rescued, that's about it - but I was sufficiently intrigued to make a study of Inuit culture and practices for years aterwards.

Among other things, I learned I'd make a bad Inuit (I enjoy my creature comforts far too much, and there's a reason I choose to live in a Mediterranean climate). I've a tremendous respect for a people who live and thrive in an area as hostile as any on earth - but I also understand the limits of what they know, or can know, through traditional practices.

So you don't know very much about the subject. Okay.

How do you know that you can know the limits of IQ?

Yes, I do, but I have good reason for that.

The Inuit, in common with many (though by no means all) indigenous peoples of North America, had no written language before outsiders arrived. This is a tremendous restriction; knowledge is confined to what can be passed down orally or through the survival skill-set. And Oral records become unreliable very quickly - anthropological research on the subject indicates major deviation to be likely in as few as five generations.

Organised research was certainly not beyond the Inuit. The transfer of it to future generations, however, was severely limited.

As long as we're clear that you're making an assumption.

It is a logical one if we also assume that the organised research of which you speak is not part of the survival skill set. This, of course, is something neither of us knows.

Here, I can use logic as a guide. I know the Inuit did not follow the Bears onto the high ice in midwinter - even they couldn't survive that. They didn't have the tools or the background to conduct accurate headcounts over large areas beyond their own territories.

You don't know if they have the tools and the background.

You assume that they have to climb the high ice.

Whatever GT. I represent a perspective you don't have.

Ah yes, because you're the only one with any knowledge of issues about aboriginals.

Because only you are aboriginal or have ever seen one.

And because just as only the white man can understand the white man's burden, only the aboriginal can understand that of the aboriginal.

Whatever, indeed.


You can read that to mean 'oh Sin thinks she's the mouthpiece for all things aboriginal' but it's not the case.

That is pretty much what you said. But I hate this thing where I have to constantly remind people of their own posts every single time because they conveniently forget it. It seems to happen a disturbing amount of time. It's like everyone's getting Alzheimer's and can't forget something that happened all of 3 minutes ago, and I'm the bad guy for not just going along with it and pretending nothing exists except the last 120 seconds.

Sorry. I'm not going to get into a Jocabian dissection of all my posts with you so that you can blather on in an effort to make a point I really don't care about.

Yeah you conveniently stop caring right at the point where a more reasonable person might concede.

EDIT: Also, what about Greenland? This thread seems to be focusing on the Canadian side of things, but Greenland is causing the problems as well.

Greenlanders (?) aren't brown, so what they do is OK.

In contrast, you seem to be worshipping a glittering god of "science"

Have you actually read the thread? I'm defending science against these bullshit attacks, I said that scientific research is more compelling than anecdotes from the Inuit, or more precisely that I have yet to see any reason to find what the Inuit say more compelling (probing neesika to reveal some of the info, which she didn't), I didn't say it was definitive or absolute.


without the slightest clue as to what that "science" is, where it comes from, what it is based on, etc.


Uhuh, because you know exactly everything I've read about the issue, right?


Denigrating the dirty savages doesn't help either the cooperation or the polar bears.

Sure but I'm not doing that. Nothing you said in that post wasn't a strawman, that's interesting.

As opposed to your insightful comment?

Yes, because asking for evidence for some, from my perspective, ludicrous assertions regarding what the scientists, is completely unhelpful.

Greenlanders (?) aren't brown, so what they do is OK.

But...but....they're increasing their quotas too!

I bring this up only to show that its not solely Canadian Inuit communites, but also Greenland...ers as well that are hunting this particular population of polar bears.

Uhuh, because you know exactly everything I've read about the issue, right?

Appealing to secret knowledge not linked in the thread. How persuasive. :rolleyes:

A simple google search can reveal research on the area. If you want to argue that they're wrong, use the data to show that. Don't just use crap arguments about how the Inuit have better knowledge and understanding than science in general about the area, but not tell us about their understanding in the slightest.
Begin your studies (http://www.gov.nu.ca/hr/site/beliefsystem.htm).

Understand that to understand IQ, you first have to understand the theoretical and cultural underpinnings though which it is expressed. The link I gave you is the barest, briefest description of that. A sort of 'IQ for babies'.

You're complaining that you cannot access IQ via google. You completely ignore the fact that IQ is not disseminated in the Western way. You need to access elders they way WE access them, in the proper fashion and with the proper protocols.

There are projects underway to record IQ in the Western fashion, but since IQ has only recently been granted 'legitimacy', you're going to have to wait a while so that the necessary 'translations' (from one paradigm to another) can be made. Complaining that they haven't spoon fed you this information in the manner YOU demand (predicated entirely on your culturally based preference, one that is artificial and alien to IQ) is disingenuous at best. I certainly don't see you rushing out to translate Western models into an IQ paradigm.

Appealing to secret knowledge not linked in the thread. How persuasive. :rolleyes:

What? Look, what I'm arguing against is the principle anyway, they would still be saying the same thing, regardless of whether the scientific research came from a trustworthy source or not.

Yes, because asking for evidence for some, from my perspective, ludicrous assertions regarding what the scientists, is completely unhelpful.

So because the OP article labels one group "scientists" and the other group "Inuit," the presumption is that the first group must be right, listening to all sources, and cooperating with the second group. While the opposite must be presumed of the second group.

How convenient.

Have you actually read the thread? I'm defending science against these bullshit attacks,

I don't remember anyone attacking science.

I said that scientific research is more compelling than anecdotes from the Inuit

Yes. This is what the debate is about. Now do you have any evidence for this claim?

or more precisely that I have yet to see any reason to find what the Inuit say more compelling (probing neesika to reveal some of the info, which she didn't),

The fact that IQ has allowed them to survive in one of the harshest climates known to humanity and to do so in a sustainable manner, while science has not. That seems like a reason.

What? Look, what I'm arguing against is the principle anyway, they would still be saying the same thing, regardless of whether the scientific research came from a trustworthy source or not.

And you base this on .....

So because the OP article labels one group "scientists" and the other group "Inuit," the presumption is that the first group must be right, listening to all sources, and cooperating with the second group. While the opposite must be presumed of the second group.

How convenient.

Interesting how you replace one huge strawman, with an even bigger, humongous monumental strawman. I'm going to have to start calling you cpt Strawman. I have made no definitive assumptions, THEY'RE asserting that they're completely disregarding everything the Inuit are saying, nothing in the article shows that, it's an assertion they have to back up.

And you base this on .....

Everything they've been saying in the whole thread. I'm not going to start quoting everything for you again, now I know I'm being annoying in a muryavyets way but, read the thread!

Well the "differing perspectives" study was done by interviewing members of different Inuit communites on Baffin Island, so I'm assuming that the study has some background in IQ.

I also read here (http://www.nwmb.com/english/events/ae/3c947bc2f7ff007b86a9428b74654de5/NTI%20submission%20-eng.pdf) about the dispute between the NWMB (?) and the Baffin communities regarding the GHR. Again, though, I don't have much background in it (I mean, its not about brain surgery so I can't understand it :P ).

I just think that both sides need to come together. If the Inuit continue to go over the quota, the environmentalists will continue to decry them. If the environmentalists keep lowering the quota, then the Inuit are hurt (http://old.nrf.is/Publications/The%20Resilient%20North/Plenary%202/3rd%20NRF_plenary%202_Dowsley_YR_paper.pdf). They just need to come to some sort of compromise. Both
sides need to respect the other.

I agree for the need for compromise...but I challenge the assumption that the Inuit are 'equally as guilty', though I realise you aren't saying that, it's just the suggestion. The practical reality is that the Feds have a bad track record when it comes to the (relatively new) self-governing territories. Part of that is because government changes every couple of years, and no new government can be held to old agreements made in regards to a consultation process.

What that means is that consultation is a CONSTANT pain in the ass...aboriginal communities enter into negotiations/consultations with the Feds, continue on for years, jump through the hoops, spend enormous time and funds on coming up with research, plans, and so on...drag the elders in for interviews again and again...and then the whole thing gets scrapped when the Ministry is shuffled, and it begins again. People start wondering why the fuck they should bother...and it's intensely disrespectful.

Frankly, aboriginal communities don't have the resources, or the faith in the government to keep doing this. There needs to be a REAL commitment on the part of the Feds to pursue consultation, without all the bullshit finger pointing about how aboriginal people aren't cooperating.

Such is politics in Canada when it comes to aboriginal people. We get called out a lot for digging our heels in, but few people understand how hard we lobby, and go out of our way to engage in meaningful dialogue with the government...who often only comes to the table when we've forced them to via the courts (and just to give slight perspective on that, we're talking cases that take decades to work through the system).

At this point, Prentice needs to follow through, make a commitment to REALLY consult aboriginal people, and prove to the Inuit that he's not just going to shut the whole process down and ride roughshod over aboriginal rights anyway.

EDIT: Also, what about Greenland? This thread seems to be focusing on the Canadian side of things, but Greenland is causing the problems as well.Yeah, I honestly got nothing there. Greenland is an enigma to me.

Begin your studies (http://www.gov.nu.ca/hr/site/beliefsystem.htm).

Understand that to understand IQ, you first have to understand the theoretical and cultural underpinnings though which it is expressed. The link I gave you is the barest, briefest description of that. A sort of 'IQ for babies'.

You're complaining that you cannot access IQ via google. You completely ignore the fact that IQ is not disseminated in the Western way. You need to access elders they way WE access them, in the proper fashion and with the proper protocols.

There are projects underway to record IQ in the Western fashion, but since IQ has only recently been granted 'legitimacy', you're going to have to wait a while so that the necessary 'translations' (from one paradigm to another) can be made. Complaining that they haven't spoon fed you this information in the manner YOU demand (predicated entirely on your culturally based preference, one that is artificial and alien to IQ) is disingenuous at best. I certainly don't see you rushing out to translate Western models into an IQ paradigm.

I'm not complaining about that. I don't expect them to have to do that. I'm complaining about you using arguments that are completely unfalsifiable, since there are no translated sources you can present to us.

Everything they've been saying in the whole thread. I'm not going to start quoting everything for you again, now I know I'm being annoying in a muryavyets way but, read the thread!

Why don't you state your opinion on the thread, instead of hiding behind "they"s and "them"s.

I'm not complaining about that. I don't expect them to have to do that. I'm complaining about you using arguments that are completely unfalsifiable, since there are no translated sources you can present to us.

I haven't been MAKING any arguments other than you don't have the background to dismiss IQ.

Jesus. Are we all in crazy land today?

I agree for the need for compromise...but I challenge the assumption that the Inuit are 'equally as guilty', though I realise you aren't saying that, it's just the suggestion. The practical reality is that the Feds have a bad track record when it comes to the (relatively new) self-governing territories. Part of that is because government changes every couple of years, and no new government can be held to old agreements made in regards to a consultation process.

What that means is that consultation is a CONSTANT pain in the ass...aboriginal communities enter into negotiations/consultations with the Feds, continue on for years, jump through the hoops, spend enormous time and funds on coming up with research, plans, and so on...drag the elders in for interviews again and again...and then the whole thing gets scrapped when the Ministry is shuffled, and it begins again. People start wondering why the fuck they should bother...and it's intensely disrespectful.

Frankly, aboriginal communities don't have the resources, or the faith in the government to keep doing this. There needs to be a REAL commitment on the part of the Feds to pursue consultation, without all the bullshit finger pointing about how aboriginal people aren't cooperating.

Such is politics in Canada when it comes to aboriginal people. We get called out a lot for digging our heels in, but few people understand how hard we lobby, and go out of our way to engage in meaningful dialogue with the government...who often only comes to the table when we've forced them to via the courts (and just to give slight perspective on that, we're talking cases that take decades to work through the system).

At this point, Prentice needs to follow through, make a commitment to REALLY consult aboriginal people, and prove to the Inuit that he's not just going to shut the whole process down and ride roughshod over aboriginal rights anyway.

Yeah, I honestly got nothing there. Greenland is an enigma to me.

I understand. I just know that neither side is going to be happy if things continue in the direction they are currently headed. The government needs to realize that the Inuit are an integral part of Canadian culture and they need to start treating them as such. The Inuit, on the other hand, have to realize that this isn't the case (yet) and keep striving towards a compromise. It is important that both sides understand and respect each other, if not the polar bears will suffer, then the Inuit and then Canadian culture will be lessened because of it.

Oh yea, someone needs to come at this from a Greenland perspective.....

Why don't you state your opinion on the thread, instead of hiding behind "they"s and "them"s.

My opinion is that anecdotes from the Inuit are not a compelling enough reason to side with their judgement, their ability to adapt well to their environment for last few thousand years, is not in itself an argument to show that they're more likely to be correct as has been explained in the thread. Also, making arguments based on sources you cannot present is bad form and unfalsifiable, especially when attacking science.

I haven't been MAKING any arguments other than you don't have the background to dismiss IQ.

Jesus. Are we all in crazy land today?

I haven't dismissed them, they could be right, I just have no reason to side with them over the scientists.

My opinion is that anecdotes from the Inuit are not a compelling enough reason to side with their judgement, their ability to adapt well to their environment for last few thousand years, is not in itself an argument to show that they're more likely to be correct as has been explained in the thread. Also, making arguments based on sources you cannot present is bad form and unfalsifiable, especially when attacking science.

What makes the bear population estimates of the Inuit mere anecdotes and the opinions of unknown sources using unknown data "science"?

I haven't dismissed them, they could be right, I just have no reason to side with them over the scientists.

Over what "scientists" and what "science"?

Ah yes, because you're the only one with any knowledge of issues about aboriginals.

Because only you are aboriginal or have ever seen one.:rolleyes:

You don't seem to know jack about aboriginal issues. If you did, you'd present what you know. I therefore assume you lack any such understanding, as it's an area that is extremely specialised.

What I said is that I'm, to my knowledge, the only aboriginal person on this forum, and I've only yet met a handful of (non-aboriginal) people here who have expressed any understanding at all about aboriginal issues. Like Cat-Tribes, who has a good constitutional understanding of the status of the Tribes in the US.

If all you are arguing is that maybe some people out there might have some clue when it comes to aboriginal people and our issues, then I don't see why you continue to blather on. Let THEM speak. You certainly remain clueless. I'm not going to defer to expertise that has yet to materialise.

Nor did I ever say you CAN'T understand aboriginal issues. I said you don't.

Screw the sovereignty of any nation that follows poor policies. Policies that are wrong are always wrong and one doesn't get a get out of jail free card for sovereignty.How do we objectively determine when a policy is wrong, and/or how wrong it is?

I understand. I just know that neither side is going to be happy if things continue in the direction they are currently headed. The government needs to realize that the Inuit are an integral part of Canadian culture and they need to start treating them as such. The Inuit, on the other hand, have to realize that this isn't the case (yet) and keep striving towards a compromise. It is important that both sides understand and respect each other, if not the polar bears will suffer, then the Inuit and then Canadian culture will be lessened because of it.

Oh yea, someone needs to come at this from a Greenland perspective.....Well I can't argue with the desire expressed in this...I agree with it. But from a practical perspective, going by how the Feds have historically dealt with the Inuit, I'm not all that hopeful...and now that the Inuit have a degree of sovereignty that the Feds can't mess with, I can understand their desire to just 'get on with things' rather than continuing to act like supplicants on their own land.

Things move very slowly here. Hell, we didn't even have constitutionally guaranteed human rights until 1982. Issues of aboriginal self-determination have only recently been given any sort of attention from the Feds. This is bigger than polar bears, even if we stick to the environment. Massive projects like the oilsands in Alberta, the various mines peppered throughout the North and so on are being carried out with minimal consultation with aboriginal people despite protest and constitutional requirements...so if the Inuit in this case seem a bit unwilling to bend, keep in mind that there is a national context within which the Feds have shown that they could give a fuck about the environment and aboriginal people when profits are concerned...but love 'feel good' things like polar bears and seal cubs.

I haven't dismissed them, they could be right, I just have no reason to side with them over the scientists.

Then we have nothing more to argue about.

What makes the bear population estimates of the Inuit mere anecdotes and the opinions of unknown sources using unknown data "science"?


Because this is what the Inuit have to say - "We live here, so we know what’s really going on in the north." Without basing it on anything other than what they immediately see around them, it's an anecdote. Anecdotes are not inherently wrong, and they may have good knowledge etc... (which we don't have much access too), but without any info to present, it remains an anecdote. Also, as I said, if they are scientists using reliable sources, they would still be saying the same thing, they have consistently been talking about how science in general is not better than the methods of the Inuit, they haven't been using terms like "this specific study" etc...


Over what "scientists" and what "science"?

You know the answers yourself, you've googled.

Well I can't argue with the desire expressed in this...I agree with it. But from a practical perspective, going by how the Feds have historically dealt with the Inuit, I'm not all that hopeful...and now that the Inuit have a degree of sovereignty that the Feds can't mess with, I can understand their desire to just 'get on with things' rather than continuing to act like supplicants on their own land.

Things move very slowly here. Hell, we didn't even have constitutionally guaranteed human rights until 1982. Issues of aboriginal self-determination have only recently been given any sort of attention from the Feds. This is bigger than polar bears, even if we stick to the environment. Massive projects like the oilsands in Alberta, the various mines peppered throughout the North and so on are being carried out with minimal consultation with aboriginal people despite protest and constitutional requirements...so if the Inuit in this case seem a bit unwilling to bend, keep in mind that there is a national context within which the Feds have shown that they could give a fuck about the environment and aboriginal people when profits are concerned...but love 'feel good' things like polar bears and seal cubs.

Perhaps I'm just a perpetual optimist, but I would like to think that at some point a compromise will be reached and both sides will be happy.

I know its "bigger than bears," but this thread is about the Baffin polar bears, so I was using them as the example.

Perhaps I'm just a perpetual optimist, but I would like to think that at some point a compromise will be reached and both sides will be happy. I'm a cynical optimist :D

I know its "bigger than bears," but this thread is about the Baffin polar bears, so I was using them as the example.
Understood, I just wanted to provide some context that might help explain why there is reluctance on the part of the Inuit.

Because this is what the Inuit have to say - "We live here, so we know what’s really going on in the north." Without basing it on anything other than what they immediately see around them, it's an anecdote.
Ok, now you're contradicting yourself.

You have admitted you don't know anything about IQ, right?

But right here...you're making claims about what IQ is about.

I thought you were at the point where you were willing to accept that there could be more to IQ than this...and that perhaps you'd leave it be since you don't really know either way...but you are making factual statements based on a lack of facts. I'm unsure why.

Ok, now you're contradicting yourself.

You have admitted you don't know anything about IQ, right?

But right here...you're making claims about what IQ is about.

I thought you were at the point where you were willing to accept that there could be more to IQ than this...and that perhaps you'd leave it be since you don't really know either way...but you are making factual statements based on a lack of facts. I'm unsure why.

Erm.. read the rest of that post.

:rolleyes:

You don't seem to know jack about aboriginal issues.

You base this ad hominem conclusion on what exactly?

I therefore assume you lack any such understanding, as it's an area that is extremely specialised.

Right, well if I began by assuming everyone else is an ignorant fucktard I might indeed conclude that everyone else is an ignorant fucktard.

What I said is that I'm, to my knowledge, the only aboriginal person on this forum

Your knowledge is almost certainly wrong by statistics alone. And the fact that you're going off on this premise as an excuse to trumpet how you and only you understand 'aboriginal issues' and how everyone else doesn't "know jack."

Like me. You went ahead and assume I know nothing about the issue and I haven't even DISCUSSED the fucking issue! But shit, I guess you're just telepathic and know what people think and know, telepathically.

If all you are arguing is that maybe some people out there might have some clue when it comes to aboriginal people and our issues, then I don't see why you continue to blather on. Let THEM speak.

I don't need to wait for someone else to pick apart your stupid statements. I can do it myself. I'm awesome like that.

You certainly remain clueless. I'm not going to defer to expertise that has yet to materialise.

Ad hominem. Strawman.

Nor did I ever say you CAN'T understand aboriginal issues. I said you don't.

Another ad hominem. Yeah I get it, if I criticize you I must be ignorant.

Erm.. read the rest of that post.

I did. It still makes no sense.

Cat asked what made the bear population estimates of the Inuit mere anecdotes and the opinions of unknown sources using unknown data "science"....and you said "cuz they're just anecdotes". But you don't actually know that.

Sure you sort of qualify it by going 'maybe something else is going on we don't know about it', but I'm not buying it...still sounds like you're working from the 'anecdote' assumption.

*snip*


I'm not going to waste my time working from the belief that you might be an expert on aboriginal issues (or Canadian politics, or Clamato juice for that matter). I'll assume otherwise, until you present me with some evidence that I'm wrong. You can change my mind any time. If it makes you feel bad that I believe you to be wholly ignorant, I'm sorry, that's awfully mean of me.

You can 'show me' if you'd like. I'll wait.

I did. It still makes no sense.

Cat asked what made the bear population estimates of the Inuit mere anecdotes and the opinions of unknown sources using unknown data "science"....and you said "cuz they're just anecdotes". But you don't actually know that.

Sure you sort of qualify it by going 'maybe something else is going on we don't know about it', but I'm not buying it...still sounds like you're working from the 'anecdote' assumption.

Look, what I mean by anecdote is that they're making all these nice assertions about how they know what's really going on there. This may or may not be true and they may have good knowledge, but simply stating this without any real information or findings, is, at least to me, an anecdote.

Look, what I mean by anecdote is that they're making all these nice assertions about how they know what's really going on there. This may or may not be true and they may have good knowledge, but simply stating this without any real information or findings, is, at least to me, an anecdote.

*le sigh*

"unknown sources using unknown data"

So you'll be calling both 'anecdotes' now? I think that's all Cat was asking for.

You can 'show me' if you'd like. I'll wait.

I'm the one from Missouri, I thought we were the only ones allowed to use that phase!

*le sigh*

"unknown sources using unknown data"

So you'll be calling both 'anecdotes' now? I think that's all Cat was asking for.

If you read the rest of my post, you'll specifically see that whether the other sources can be equally called anecdotes (they can't anyway, research on the area is accessible) is irrelevant, since the attacks and comparisons have been consistently against science in general, rather than this specific study.

I'm the one from Missouri, I thought we were the only ones allowed to use that phrase!

Ha, totally not familiar with it in that context:) Have I said something scandalous by accident?

I'd have some respect for your stance if I for a moment believed that you'd be willing to interfere with the sovereignty of any other nation aside from this aboriginal one based on environmental concerns.
Oh really? And on what basis (if any) do you assume that I WOULDN'T want to interfere with the sovereignty of any other "nation" (something I happen to believe is somewhat arbitrary anyway) to protect the environment? I would actually prefer a world government, one that meets economic globalization with global regulation, I just don't know how feasible that is.

Way to jump to conclusions about my beliefs.

I know its "bigger than bears," but this thread is about the Baffin polar bears, so I was using them as the example.

Fuck, I'm in the wrong thread! Maybe I should have taken a left at the anime harem...

*Leaves*

Ha, totally not familiar with it in that context:) Have I said something scandalous by accident?

I'm from Missouri, you will have to 'show-me.' (http://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/history/slogan.asp)

Oh really? And on what basis (if any) do you assume that I WOULDN'T want to interfere with the sovereignty of any other "nation" (something I happen to believe is somewhat arbitrary anyway) to protect the environment? I would actually prefer a world government, one that meets economic globalization with global regulation, I just don't know how feasible that is.

Way to jump to conclusions about my beliefs.

You and GT should go cuddle angrily to cope with how mean I am for making assumptions about you.

There, I now have more respect for your argument, since now you'd at least be somewhat consistant.

Wasn't so hard to influence my opinion, was it?

I'm from Missouri, you will have to 'show-me.' (http://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/history/slogan.asp)

Ahhh! Thanks, interesting, and yeah, pretty much where I'm coming from on that.

Claiming 'possible' knowledge as a counter to me assuming someone probably doesn't have it (I mean hey, do you go around assuming people are brain surgeons?) doesn't really sway me.

This...



trumps this.

If you're unwilling to admit that people you may feel are less intelligent than either yourself or a scientist are actually far more intelligent than you think, that's one thing. But to say that research makes one more intelligent than people who have lived in harmony with the land for generations, then "that's just straight ignant."
I think you've got that backwards.

Personal experience can distort someone's understanding of an issue; science on the other hand is about forming your conclusions based on the facts, rather than on personal experience. Research may not make one more intelligent, but it does give someone more meaningful knowledge than living somewhere would, and just because something worked so far, doesn't mean it's true, let alone that it will continue to work.

For example, time dilation is something we don't personally experience, since we move at speeds so slow that its effects are negligible, but it exists. If we were to judge based on personal experience, we would be unaware of it, (though granted, if I hadn't done modern physics, I might have been unaware of it myself) and nowadays, some modern technology requires taking such counterintuitive concepts into account. Now, most of what doesn't take such things into account has worked for most of human history, but as technology becomes more complicated, it will probably need more things taken into account to work; just because it's worked so far, doesn't mean it always will.

Ahhh! Thanks, interesting, and yeah, pretty much where I'm coming from on that.

Claiming 'possible' knowledge as a counter to me assuming someone probably doesn't have it (I mean hey, do you go around assuming people are brain surgeons?) doesn't really sway me.

Its the first question I ask anyone new.

"Do you happen to be a neurosurgeon?" and then when they say no, I change the way I speak to them ;).

Show me another aboriginal person on this board, thanks (one who has also actually lived in the North would be nice as well). I'm a little tired of being the only one here who is actually from an aboriginal community and seems to understand any of the issues. I mean, I love the issues and all but my patience with the constant paternalistic racism spouted by people like TIA et al. is thin.
Like I said, I don't think you woke up one day and said to yourself, "Self, I am going to be the spokesperson for all North American aboriginals on a message board, that sounds super-great." But, (1) I think it often gets lost, because you are, at the core of things, expressing your own view and opinion, that there is no First Nation or Native American or aboriginal or whatever hivemind and that among these varied peoples there is a lot of debate, politics and controversy and (2) the illusion is easily created that there is even consolidated concern among each tribe/nation/ethnicity/group/whatever. I can only guess that those in California have a myriad different issues to worry about, and probably disagree with certain positions, than the northern Inuit; I can also safely say that even the tribes in Northern Wisconsin have and do worry about more important issues (in the context of their own lives) than traditional hunting in favor of things such as devastating poverty, horrible racism and increasing drug addiction rates compounded with poor levels of education.

What happens, though, when these disparate things are allowed to funnel through a single authority is that it all gets homogenized and mischaracterized. Like I said, I don't think it's intentional on anyone's part, hell I don't even really know a way for it not to occur, but it's unfortunate and I felt like pointing it out. *shrug*
After going through the article and the assorted and 'colorful' posts, I think this whole issue boils down to respect. Science should respect the Inuit and the Inuit should respect science. Both can benefit, greatly, from each other and benefit the continued existence of the polar bear.
Agreed, though I think much of the debate at this point is centered on which deserves greater weight. Many are siding with scientific research, others with IQ. *shrug*
Greenlanders (?) aren't brown, so what they do is OK.

I thought the Greenlanders in question were the Greenland counterpart to Canada's Inuit (are they still Inuit? I know there are "Inuit" in Russia, too, but does the term identify all of them or is Inuit strictly in regards to those who live in Canada?).

You and GT should go cuddle angrily to cope with how mean I am for making assumptions about you.
The point isn't that it's "mean" but that it's ridiculous.

And who the hell is GT?

I'm not going to waste my time working from the belief that you might be an expert on aboriginal issues

And hey guess what, I'm not going to waste my time working from the belief that you know more than AAAAAAAAAAAAANYONE else (even people you don't know, or who haven't SAID ANYTHING on the subject AT ALL). Nope, I'm just going to point out that said belief is irrational and offensive, and you can continue making silly ad hominems (as if they were some kind of rebuttal).

I'll assume otherwise, until you present me with some evidence that I'm wrong. You can change my mind any time.

The fact that you're demanding evidence for your own non-omniscience really just proves my point.

If it makes you feel bad that I believe you to be wholly ignorant, I'm sorry, that's awfully mean of me.

You can 'show me' if you'd like. I'll wait.

The fact that you're still harping on this irrelevant ad hominem argument also proves my point.

Don't worry GT, I won't ignore you completely...I'll keep mocking you on UMP. But I'm not going to engage your lameness here.

Its the first question I ask anyone new.

"Do you happen to be a neurosurgeon?" and then when they say no, I change the way I speak to them ;).

Omg, okay I'm totally going to adopt that. Except I'll forget, so I'll just put it in my sig. Thanks for the advice!

Don't worry GT, I won't ignore you completely...I'll keep mocking you on UMP. But I'm not going to engage your lameness here.

Concession accepted.

The point isn't that it's "mean" but that it's ridiculous. I stopped assuming people on this forum were intelligent, consistent, or sincere a long time ago. I lose less spleen that way, because instead of being constantly disappointed, I'm sometimes pleasantly surprised.

I'm sure you'll survive the blow to your ego.

Omg, okay I'm totally going to adopt that. Except I'll forget, so I'll just put it in my sig. Thanks for the advice!

Indeed. I give them crayons and tell them to draw how they're feeling at the moment.

Indeed. I give them crayons and tell them to draw how they're feeling at the moment.

:eek:




Where are my crayons? I want to draw me feeling amused!

:eek:
Where are my crayons? I want to draw me feeling amused!

*hands you crayons (http://www.kiddonet.com/kiddonet/anfypaint/)*

I'm from Missouri, you will have to 'show-me.' (http://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/history/slogan.asp)

Have I ever mentioned how much I loathe that nickname? Because I do. I really, really, really do. I mean, seriously, other states get to be "the Sunshine State" or "the Golden State" or "the Treasure State," and we're the freaking SHOW ME STATE? Gah.

On the bright side, at least we probably don't hear as many stupid dirty jokes as Oregon, the Beaver State. :tongue:

Have I ever mentioned how much I loathe that nickname? Because I do. I really, really, really do. I mean, seriously, other states get to be "the Sunshine State" or "the Golden State" or "the Treasure State," and we're the freaking SHOW ME STATE? Gah.

On the bright side, at least we probably don't hear as many stupid dirty jokes as Oregon, the Beaver State. :tongue:

I'm indifferent to it. Most people, outside of Missouri, don't know it anyway.

I stopped assuming people on this forum were intelligent, consistent, or sincere a long time ago. I lose less spleen that way, because instead of being constantly disappointed, I'm sometimes pleasantly surprised.

I'm sure you'll survive the blow to your ego.
And what if anything do you base the assumption that it's about egotism on? The assumption that my views must be inconsistent because I'm expressing them on this site is even more ridiculous, if only because it includes the generalization "people on this forum" on top of that. So if something that seemed to be rather insightful was posted on a youtube comments section, would you assume it couldn't possibly be intelligent simply because of where it was posted?

And what if anything do you base the assumption that it's about egotism on? Oh gods would you people please get over yourselves. I don't actually think about you enough to bother making more than the most basic, unimportant assumptions.

Stop boring me. Aerou gave me crayons.

Now draw how you feel.

How do we objectively determine when a policy is wrong, and/or how wrong it is?

The scientific method is a good place to start.

Now draw how you feel.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v711/sinuhue/how_feeling.jpg

That's me, mayor of Crazy Town!

I don't actually think about you

awwww

The scientific method is a good place to start.
Agreed. As I said before, at least science is about forming your conclusions based on the facts...

The scientific method is a good place to start.The scientific method can tell us when something is (morally) wrong?

Agreed. As I said before, at least science is about forming your conclusions based on the facts...Are you suggesting the Inuit form their conclusions from a Magic 8-Ball?

This doesn't discredit folk practice. In fact, folk practice remains, and will likely always be, fairly important in our day to day lives (I mean, my family has traditions and folk cures that aren't scientifically validated, it's just things we know work because they work and we've done them for generations).

The placebo effect also applied there.

*Goes back to reading the thread*

i question this is actually about tradition, but i'm not on the ground there so i won't attempt to judge that. there IS a problem with 'environmental protection' by remote control, dictated by city dwellers with good intentions, who arn't on the ground in the places they wish to 'protect' and are unfamiliar with actual 'on the ground' conditions in those places.

i'm not saying indiginous traditions are infallable either, not by any means, but people who have been living in a place for thousands of years are somewhat likely to have some kind of understanding of what is involved (though again, perhapse, difficulty adopting that to the chainging conditions global climate chainge is bringing abouit? for one thing, outboard motors and skeedoos did not exist for all those thousands of years either)

This was a tough poll for me but I eventually came down on the side of the villages. Echoing the previous poster, it's inexcusable for people to legislate starvation and prosperity from afar. Maybe if they were offered a reasonable alternative, such as an emergency airlift of food?

I stopped assuming people on this forum were intelligent, consistent, or sincere a long time ago. I lose less spleen that way, because instead of being constantly disappointed, I'm sometimes pleasantly surprised.

I'm sure you'll survive the blow to your ego.
I tend to assume that people will at least try to explain their situation (and hopefully the specifics), other than to rely on 'you just don't know what it's like for them' then not describe the major issues of why the Inuit don't trust the conclusions from these studies until much, much later on (when you started to describe the conflict of autonomy rights with the federal Canadian government).

The scientific method can tell us when something is (morally) wrong?

Are you suggesting the Inuit form their conclusions from a Magic 8-Ball?

What does morality have to do with this? The scientific method is about showing what is wrong and developing theories based on the facts at hand.

Anyway, anthropologists could try to explain what a specific culture thought of as morally wrong. ;)

The Inuit (used to) base their conclusions from oral history, of which population trends tend to be passed down, rather than specific details. Even with the divergence caused by oral histories being passed on with mistakes there exists a kernel of truth, especially if you compared the oral history of all the groups and search for patterns within.

Now if they took up tea reading for developing information on previous conditions I'd disregard their opinions, but as they are now they're a valuable source, especially for the population levels in their local area. The only problem with Inuit oral history on population levels and climate conditions is the limited scope. It deals adequately with their immediate habitat, but no more. At least modern surveys, studies and population models can possibly (depending of the available facts and sources) be expanded to cover new areas or be focussed to important ones, to cover areas so the entire picture is revealed, rather than relying on only one set of local conditions.

That doesn't mean you disregard the local inhabitants' opinions/history, by all means intergrate their accumulated viable knowledge into the models. Just remember that it doens't necessarily cover the entire issue, same as some ecological studies only cover one specific area.

This was a tough poll for me but I eventually came down on the side of the villages. Echoing the previous poster, it's inexcusable for people to legislate starvation and prosperity from afar. Maybe if they were offered a reasonable alternative, such as an emergency airlift of food?

I seriously doubt they'd be in danger of starvation, and any kind of serious reduction in hunting (which the Inuit have control over) would probably have some kind of economic carrots attatched.

the scientist have lab coats. the Inuit have snow mobiles and guns. I have my money on the Inuit in this fight.

Look, what I mean by anecdote is that they're making all these nice assertions about how they know what's really going on there. This may or may not be true and they may have good knowledge, but simply stating this without any real information or findings, is, at least to me, an anecdote.

But that's a limitation of the Economist article for not showing the IQ methodology. It doesn't mean that the Inuit have no methodology other than anecdotes. For all you know, they did present information and findings, but the Economist simply didn't mention it.

the scientist have lab coats. the Inuit have snow mobiles and guns. I have my money on the Inuit in this fight.
Errr... If there were any battles they would be lawyer vs lawyer ones...

What does morality have to do with this? The scientific method is about showing what is wrong and developing theories based on the facts at hand.
If one feels that nonhuman animals, entire species and/or ecologies are morally considerable, then morality plays a big part.

And the scientific method can inform upon the above.

EDIT: I mean, the scientific method can inform upon whether damage is being done to the above, not whether any action is morally right or wrong.

What does morality have to do with this? The scientific method is about showing what is wrong and developing theories based on the facts at hand. The scientific method itself does not show what is wrong.
Perhaps after the scientific method is applied some other consideration is also applied to show what is wrong.

It's possible that Tech-gnosis and I were talking past each other, though.

Anyway, anthropologists could try to explain what a specific culture thought of as morally wrong. ;)I suppose that's true, yes.

If one feels that nonhuman animals, entire species and/or ecologies are morally considerable, then morality plays a big part.

And the scientific method can inform upon the above.

EDIT: I mean, the scientific method can inform upon whether damage is being done to the above, not whether any action is morally right or wrong.

I agree with the edit, the data (and the theories based on it) can inform, but it can't make a moral statement by itself (theories shouldn't either), that requires others to do so.

The scientific method itself does not show what is wrong.
Perhaps after the scientific method is applied some other consideration is also applied to show what is wrong.

Fine, the scientific method is used to compile or generate viable, verifiable data that can be utilised to form theories or disregard theories.

Are both of you happy? :p

I tend to assume that people will at least try to explain their situation (and hopefully the specifics), other than to rely on 'you just don't know what it's like for them' then not describe the major issues of why the Inuit don't trust the conclusions from these studies until much, much later on (when you started to describe the conflict of autonomy rights with the federal Canadian government). I definitely came at this backwards...mostly because I was trying to avoid this thread. I know, I failed, miserably. It was clearly troll-baiting on the part of TAI, so I had told myself that it was probably not worth getting involved in. Even moreso because there wasn't much to discuss...we don't have the necessary information on both sides to really address the actual polar bear issue.

But I was weak! I couldn't help myself! So I'd peek in, and comment, and then run off again, trying in vain to ignore the things being said! I kept coming back! Aaaaargh!

Then this thread turned very, very strange, and people who normally don't behave like this began going off the rails, and doooooooooooooown it went.

Not sure there's much more to say on the issues raised now.

the scientist have lab coats. the Inuit have snow mobiles and guns. I have my money on the Inuit in this fight.

Actually, if they're studying polar bears in the field, the scientists probably have coats, snowmobiles, and tranquilizer guns.;)

Even moreso because there wasn't much to discuss...we don't have the necessary information on both sides to really address the actual polar bear issue.
This is NSG! Since when have we been bound by information, topics or polls, we just go onto a different topic in-thread (which is basically what happened here)!

Then this thread turned very, very strange, and people who normally don't behave like this began going off the rails, and doooooooooooooown it went.
Personally I'm surprised at everyone (or should I not be?), though at least a viable discussion is developing that needs no head-to-wall action.

If only I had a 4-9 year old children, that would give me experience on how to sound patronising...

Not sure there's much more to say on the issues raised now.
Sure there is, here is a few:
-Relationship between northern province and federal Canadian government.
-Relationship between northern province and researchers, mainly the ones who utilise Inuit as a source (minor or otherwise).
-Misconceptions on how ecological science is performed.
-Potential effects of no more Baffin bears.
-Potential effects of declining fish stocks or seals.
-How much relaxation time people here need. :p

The scientific method can tell us when something is (morally) wrong?

It can not. But with a little morality we can use science to help us find the correct policy. Take the premise that causing the extinction of the polar bear is morally wrong. Add the situation where the current hunting policies of the Inuit, for the sake of argument, would cause the the extinction of the polar bear given all the (large amounts of unambiguous) scientific data and theories that we posses, and it doesn't take a genius to see that the current policies are wrong.*

*note that this is not the actual case with current Inuit policies. It was just used as a handy hypothetical.