Comments on: Dispelling the myth? http://www.kiwanja.net/blog/2009/01/dispelling-the-myth/ Where technology meets anthropology, conservation and development Thu, 09 Feb 2012 22:29:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Leah J Prout http://www.kiwanja.net/blog/2009/01/dispelling-the-myth/comment-page-1/#comment-1807 Leah J Prout Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:18:21 +0000 http://www.kiwanja.net/blog/?p=670#comment-1807 Wallace's argument is deeply flawed. Hunter gatherers were nomadic and used only simple tools that they could carry with them. Development and advancement of agriculture created the possibility of sedentary lifestyles and excess food production. Here we see the first technological and cultural booms. ie Mesopotamia, Yucatan Peninsula. I recommend the movie "The Gods Must Be Crazy" Wallace’s argument is deeply flawed. Hunter gatherers were nomadic and used only simple tools that they could carry with them. Development and advancement of agriculture created the possibility of sedentary lifestyles and excess food production. Here we see the first technological and cultural booms. ie Mesopotamia, Yucatan Peninsula.
I recommend the movie “The Gods Must Be Crazy”

]]> By: Innolurry http://www.kiwanja.net/blog/2009/01/dispelling-the-myth/comment-page-1/#comment-213 Innolurry Fri, 30 Jan 2009 08:21:28 +0000 http://www.kiwanja.net/blog/?p=670#comment-213 www.kiwanja.net - now in my rss reader))) http://www.kiwanja.net – now in my rss reader)))

]]> By: dan mcquillan http://www.kiwanja.net/blog/2009/01/dispelling-the-myth/comment-page-1/#comment-109 dan mcquillan Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:39:27 +0000 http://www.kiwanja.net/blog/?p=670#comment-109 Did you ever read any John Zerzan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zerzan)? He used to be a touch-point for activist anarcho-primitivism. On the other hand, Murray Bookchin's stuff had the merit of connecting environmental struggle to the history of social movements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Bookchin). I guess the 'technology question' relates to the kinds of relationships mediated by particular technologies, both relationships between people and between people and the wider ecology. dan Did you ever read any John Zerzan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zerzan)? He used to be a touch-point for activist anarcho-primitivism.

On the other hand, Murray Bookchin’s stuff had the merit of connecting environmental struggle to the history of social movements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Bookchin).

I guess the ‘technology question’ relates to the kinds of relationships mediated by particular technologies, both relationships between people and between people and the wider ecology.

dan

]]> By: Taylor http://www.kiwanja.net/blog/2009/01/dispelling-the-myth/comment-page-1/#comment-104 Taylor Sat, 03 Jan 2009 16:17:26 +0000 http://www.kiwanja.net/blog/?p=670#comment-104 Whether or not I agree with the fact that humans tend to destroy nature, I still don't understand why this fact removes us from nature. In order to eat meat, I have to destroy a cow. In order for a lion to eat, it kills a zebra. Let's go with the idea that humans destroy nature. We destroy each other through war (macro) and murder (micro). So can't the argument be made that nature is destroying itself. If we are apart from nature, are we alien to Earth? For me, the big idea is still... why is the litmus test for whether or not humanity is a part of nature simply whether or not we destroy the rest of it. A new thought... if we are destroying nature, is it really by choice or not. There are specific things anyone can point to that show us doing bad things to nature, but even if we were as conservative as possible, could we be at equilibrium with earth? What about when we reach 10 or 20 billion people? Is it even possible? Is it a choice or necessary to have a negative impact on nature. I do not necessarily disagree that humanity is separate from the rest of nature (I have a big God reason for that) just trying to understand how an anthropologist would answer and more importantly, why. Whether or not I agree with the fact that humans tend to destroy nature, I still don’t understand why this fact removes us from nature. In order to eat meat, I have to destroy a cow. In order for a lion to eat, it kills a zebra.

Let’s go with the idea that humans destroy nature. We destroy each other through war (macro) and murder (micro). So can’t the argument be made that nature is destroying itself. If we are apart from nature, are we alien to Earth?

For me, the big idea is still… why is the litmus test for whether or not humanity is a part of nature simply whether or not we destroy the rest of it.

A new thought… if we are destroying nature, is it really by choice or not. There are specific things anyone can point to that show us doing bad things to nature, but even if we were as conservative as possible, could we be at equilibrium with earth? What about when we reach 10 or 20 billion people? Is it even possible? Is it a choice or necessary to have a negative impact on nature.

I do not necessarily disagree that humanity is separate from the rest of nature (I have a big God reason for that) just trying to understand how an anthropologist would answer and more importantly, why.

]]> By: afromusing http://www.kiwanja.net/blog/2009/01/dispelling-the-myth/comment-page-1/#comment-102 afromusing Fri, 02 Jan 2009 10:48:10 +0000 http://www.kiwanja.net/blog/?p=670#comment-102 Hey Ken! Been nodding along with this post :-) I am of the opinion that indigenous people were living in balance with Nature (maybe not all the time, but all in all - some type of balance) I am bummed that we did not watch Milking The Rhino together when you were in Kenya...but it touches on the break in perception that occurred in indigenous peoples' minds after colonialists suddenly told them that they are poachers and cannot hunt in certain areas. A friend told me of an early African conservationist by the name of Cheruiyot - I am digging up the info, it seems interesting in terms of illustrating that conservation and environmentalism is indeed part of African culture and history (in Cheruiyot's case - Nandi culture and history). I know it is, its just that I do not feel like there is an environmental activist base made up of Africans...well there is East African Wildlife Society and other orgs, but as a current movement, i do not think there is such a thing. This is where technology comes in....bringing all conservationists together to use new media, old media, mobile phones etc to deal with the environmental issues of the day, myths that still linger from old days and chart the way forward. I came back from rural parts of western Kenya and rift valley...so much deforestation - I am hoping something can be done soon to reverse this. (for now the site to bring the enviro folks together is Ecokenya.org - will work on it more and give you an update as to progress later in the year) Happy new year to you and your family, Hugs from Kenya! Hey Ken! Been nodding along with this post :-)
I am of the opinion that indigenous people were living in balance with Nature (maybe not all the time, but all in all – some type of balance) I am bummed that we did not watch Milking The Rhino together when you were in Kenya…but it touches on the break in perception that occurred in indigenous peoples’ minds after colonialists suddenly told them that they are poachers and cannot hunt in certain areas.
A friend told me of an early African conservationist by the name of Cheruiyot – I am digging up the info, it seems interesting in terms of illustrating that conservation and environmentalism is indeed part of African culture and history (in Cheruiyot’s case – Nandi culture and history). I know it is, its just that I do not feel like there is an environmental activist base made up of Africans…well there is East African Wildlife Society and other orgs, but as a current movement, i do not think there is such a thing. This is where technology comes in….bringing all conservationists together to use new media, old media, mobile phones etc to deal with the environmental issues of the day, myths that still linger from old days and chart the way forward. I came back from rural parts of western Kenya and rift valley…so much deforestation – I am hoping something can be done soon to reverse this. (for now the site to bring the enviro folks together is Ecokenya.org – will work on it more and give you an update as to progress later in the year)
Happy new year to you and your family,
Hugs from Kenya!

]]> By: kiwanja http://www.kiwanja.net/blog/2009/01/dispelling-the-myth/comment-page-1/#comment-101 kiwanja Thu, 01 Jan 2009 20:04:23 +0000 http://www.kiwanja.net/blog/?p=670#comment-101 @Taylor Thanks for your thoughts! A brief response to a much longer conversation over a Tusker some day... The history of national parks and protected areas is littered with the eviction of indigenous populations. For some time humans were not viewed as 'part of nature' (depending on how you define it, I guess) and were victimised and disenfranchised as a result. Much of the thinking behind the evictions was that human populations ultimately destroyed and depleted their environments and any areas with humans were not 'pristine'. My early anthropology focus was on the role of anthropologists in trying to prove this was not the case. The technology angle comes in because history argues that that's what gave humans the ultimate ability to alter their landscapes in ways never before seen. You could argue that much of what has happened has been destructive and put us on the rocky path we're on today. Other natural phenomenons such as tornadoes aren't deliberate acts, so don't qualify in the same way. When you bring religion into the equation, things get even more complicated. Darwin's theories put man very much "in" nature biologically. I'll see if I can dig out any papers or research when I get home @Taylor Thanks for your thoughts! A brief response to a much longer conversation over a Tusker some day… The history of national parks and protected areas is littered with the eviction of indigenous populations. For some time humans were not viewed as ‘part of nature’ (depending on how you define it, I guess) and were victimised and disenfranchised as a result. Much of the thinking behind the evictions was that human populations ultimately destroyed and depleted their environments and any areas with humans were not ‘pristine’. My early anthropology focus was on the role of anthropologists in trying to prove this was not the case.

The technology angle comes in because history argues that that’s what gave humans the ultimate ability to alter their landscapes in ways never before seen. You could argue that much of what has happened has been destructive and put us on the rocky path we’re on today. Other natural phenomenons such as tornadoes aren’t deliberate acts, so don’t qualify in the same way.

When you bring religion into the equation, things get even more complicated. Darwin’s theories put man very much “in” nature biologically. I’ll see if I can dig out any papers or research when I get home

]]> By: Taylor http://www.kiwanja.net/blog/2009/01/dispelling-the-myth/comment-page-1/#comment-100 Taylor Thu, 01 Jan 2009 17:22:25 +0000 http://www.kiwanja.net/blog/?p=670#comment-100 Purely working off your post, my first thought is, why use the assertion that 'humanity destroys parts of nature (sometimes via 'tech') therefore it is separate from nature.'? Using this premise, tornadoes, floods, forest fires and hurricanes are not a part of nature, if the distinction is that simple. To me the discussion at this point is nothing to do with whether or not humanity has an effect on the 'rest' of nature (good or bad) but by what measurement are we using to decided WHAT makes us different. This must first be decided. Perhaps there is some VERY well researched and defended understanding in anthropology that makes this distinction already that I am unaware of. I'd be very curious to read about it if it's in some journal 'Nature' or the like. Purely working off your post, my first thought is, why use the assertion that ‘humanity destroys parts of nature (sometimes via ‘tech’) therefore it is separate from nature.’? Using this premise, tornadoes, floods, forest fires and hurricanes are not a part of nature, if the distinction is that simple. To me the discussion at this point is nothing to do with whether or not humanity has an effect on the ‘rest’ of nature (good or bad) but by what measurement are we using to decided WHAT makes us different. This must first be decided. Perhaps there is some VERY well researched and defended understanding in anthropology that makes this distinction already that I am unaware of. I’d be very curious to read about it if it’s in some journal ‘Nature’ or the like.

]]> By: changefeed http://www.kiwanja.net/blog/2009/01/dispelling-the-myth/comment-page-1/#comment-2477 changefeed Thu, 01 Jan 2009 16:11:17 +0000 http://www.kiwanja.net/blog/?p=670#comment-2477 <span class="topsy_trackback_comment"><span class="topsy_twitter_username"><span class="topsy_trackback_content">-><a href="http://topsy.com/twitter/kiwanja">@kiwanja</a>: Dispelling the myth? http://tinyurl.com/9yhwab</span> <div class="topsy_trackback_links">[<a href="http://twitter.com/changefeed/status/1090075749">Original tweet</a>, <a href="http://topsy.com/tb/www.kiwanja.net/blog/2009/01/dispelling-the-myth/">Topsy page</a>]</div></span> ->@kiwanja: Dispelling the myth? http://tinyurl.com/9yhwab

[Original tweet, Topsy page]

]]>