Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to Guardian author Peter Sutoris, we need to rediscover the environmental connectedness of indigenous peoples, though we might get to keep some of our tech toys.
The climate crisis requires a new culture and politics, not just new tech
Peter Sutoris
Mon 24 May 2021 21.00 AESTThis moment calls for humility – we cannot innovate ourselves out of this mess
We are living through what scientists call the Anthropocene, a new geological age during which humans have become the dominant force shaping the natural environment. Many scientists date this new period to the post-second world war economic boom, the “great acceleration”. This rapid increase in our control over the Earth has brought us to the precipice of catastrophic climate change, triggered a mass extinction, disrupted our planet’s nitrogen cycles and acidified its oceans, among other things.
Our society has come to believe that technology is the solution. Electricity from renewable sources, energy-efficient buildings, electric vehicles and hydrogen fuels are among the many innovations that we hope will play a decisive role in reducing emissions. Most of the mainstream climate-change models now assume some degree of “negative emissions” in the future, relying on large-scale carbon capture technology, despite the fact that it is far from ready to be implemented. And if all else fails, the story goes, we can geoengineer the Earth.
…
Our civilisation is underpinned by extractivism, a belief that the Earth is ours to exploit, and the nonsensical idea of infinite growth within a finite territory. Material possessions as markers of achievement, a drive to consume for the sake of consumption, and blindness to the long-term consequences of our actions, have all become part of the culture of global capitalism. But there is nothing self-evident about these things, as indigenous peoples teach us.
Many indigenous groups got to know their natural environments intimately and sustained themselves over millennia, often despite harsh conditions. They came to understand the limits of what these environments could support, and they grasped that caring for the environment was simultaneously an act of self-care. Pacific islanders would designate no-go areas of the ocean to avoid overfishing, while high-altitude farmers in the Andes would rely on terraces that reduced erosion to grow their crops. It is not a coincidence that as much as 80% of the world’s remaining biodiversityis located within territories inhabited by indigenous peoples.
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/24/climate-change-crisis-culture-politics-technology
Talk of society re-embracing indigenous lifestyles in my opinion is nonsense. People who choose to live this way, I have no problem with that. But most of us enjoy our comforts.
Most people in advanced countries, even people whose ancestors lived indigenous lifestyles, live modern lifestyles of their own free will.
Authors like Peter Sutoris talk the talk, but my guess is he is typing on a computer which contains lots of plastic and refined metal, lives in a warm, waterproof and comfortable house, has a nice place to sleep, and has a freezer stuffed full of food, at least some of which he didn’t have to hunt or grow.
The idea of ending “speciesism”, ending prioritisation of human welfare, might sound nice and fluffy, but a serious attempt to downgrade human welfare as a priority would almost certainly have severe consequences. You don’t have to look far back in history to find periods of horrible suffering, like Mao’s Great Leap Forward, or the periods of severe famine in early Soviet times, all caused by governments which focussed on priorities other than taking care of their people.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Brown shirts with insect armbands are next.
Is this what the marketing and sales model has become for subscriptions in the climate crusades?
When living on Mars, we could bring back all life which has ever existed on Earth and make other kinds of life. Assuming 1/3 earth gravity is not show stopper.
The overly large dinosaurs might like Mars better.
The scale of natural underground caves on Mars could be astonishing- but if not, they could be made.
No magnetic field might be a problem too.
What about COVID or Influenza? How many poor virions have been killed (or failed to find an infectable cell) in the quest for human survival?
Speciesism at its worst, I’d say! We need to cancel our racist white KillerT cells and get woke!
we have morons from PETA wanting aussies to not kill the mice we are having plagues of
they reckon let em eat and trap n release is dandy
wouldnt wanna be a PETA person round a farmer rightnow
Many indigenous groups got to know their natural environments intimately and sustained themselves over millennia, often despite harsh conditions.
Important word there being ‘sustained’.
Not ‘Grew’. They ‘sustained’. Take a look for example at the pre-european human settlement in Australia. They ‘sustained’. They were hunter gatherers who basically moved constantly following the food because if they stopped they all starved to death. Let us take a moment and consider if they actually LIKED moving constantly or ever woke up one morning and thought ‘you know, it would be nice to just sit back and relax for a few days’.
On this note let us also consider the ‘indigenous groups’ that grew up in what is known as ‘The Fertile Crescent’ (aka – ‘The Cradle of Civilization’). These were groups who got to know their natural environment so intimately that they deduced that if that planted all the seeds in one spot they could later harvest them in bulk and would in practical terms end up with more food than if they gathered it from the wild.
Then, since they had spare food and no need to walk around constantly, they could develop settlements. Settlements and not walking allowed a greater birth rate (in nomadic society if you can’t walk you need to be carried, and since the average woman could only carry one non-walking infant at a time the growth rate was limited be the speed at which a child could learn to walk. see also infanticide.)
So static settlements allowed more children both by the fact you could put the infant down while you dealt with your second infant and the fact there was a food surplus and more children allowed growth. Static settlements allowed for specialisation. Static settlements allowed for people to sit down and think and invent.
(static settlements allowed a media class to develop. Ever seen a nomadic hunter gatherer society that was rich enough to allow someone to just sit back and spread gossip each day? Irony Mr Guardian. Successful society MADE YOU.)
So, while people like Mr Guardian might like to say ‘Look at these indigenous groups with their sustainment’, what they are totally ignoring is all the ‘indigenous groups’ who were smart enough to see past sustainment and moved into GROWTH.
Your little favourite indigenous group may have learned how to collect seeds without killing the host plant, but mine worked out how to sail the oceans.
I’ll wager good money that this pillock Sutoris has never even been on a camping trip.
“environmental connectedness of indigenous peoples”
is total bullshit
The sparse trees of the plains were due to indigenous tribes burning the grassland to control the migration of buffalo to locations where they could be driven over cliffs by the thousands. Not really ecologically friendly undertakings by todays standards. Of course later buffalo hunters were successful at restoring the grasslands by ridding the plains of herbiverous buffalo. /s
Romanticising the traditional lives of indigenous people has been a feature of our western societies ever since Jean-Jacques Rousseau came up with the “noble savage” concept. Young Sutoris is treading a very well-worn path.
Working in exploration in Canada, it’s been my privilege to meet and work with quite a number of indigenous folk, both Inuit (used to be called “eskimos”) and First Nation (used to be called “indians”). I’ve learned a few snippets about traditional medicines, and the ways of wild life, but I have yet to meet anyone from either group who has taken up their traditional lifestyle and given up the tools of the Eurocentric colonialist patriarchy. It turns out that – over the long term – living in a house with electricity, plumbing, heating etc. is actually preferable to living in a tent or an igloo. And it also turns out that living off the land is a lot easier with boats, outboard motors, ATVs, snowmobiles, guns and so on – who’d ever have guessed?
“We are living through what scientists call the Anthropocene, “
No one who believes in the above can be called a real scientist. Period.
It is an innuendo that suggests that we have such a huge effect on the planet that it needs to have a geological name. This does not pass the smell test in any way. Complete BS.
Rampant species extinctions, not happening.
Melting ice caps and glaciers, not happening.
Warming by CO2, not happening.
Accelerating sea level rise, not happening
Great Pacific Garbage Patch, not happening.
Crops failing, not happening.
More extreme weather events, not happening.
More forest fires due to global warming, not happening.
Lots of false propaganda and false reports, happening constantly.
Would that be the same indigenous people so living in harmony with nature that they wiped out the megafauna on every continent and oceanic island to which they wandered after leaving Africa, where the big game were hip to our tricks?
Eric,
You wrote: “Talk of society re-embracing indigenous lifestyles in my opinion is nonsense.” while Dr. Sutoris states “Rebuilding our relationship with our planet does not mean abandoning the many achievements of our civilisation. Some of our technological innovations can help us treat the symptoms of the environmental multi-crisis. ” so it seems you two are in complete agreement.
Somehow I doubt his view of “not abandoning the many achievements of our civilisation” matches my vision of which toys I’d like to keep.
Peter Sutoris of The Guardian states: “We are living through what scientists call the Anthropocene, a new geological age during which humans have become the dominant force shaping the natural environment.”
OK, Pete, do you any objective, science-based evidence—just one shred will do—that humans have “become the dominate force shaping the natural environment”? Can you see the outrageous hubris it takes to make such a claim?
Let’s use a little math (maybe horrors for you, but indispensable to put things into proportion).
Most true climate scientists will admit that solar energy input to Earth (and variability in such) is the predominate driver of climate . . . and all of it is “natural”, of course.
The total solar energy absorbed by Earth’s atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules per year (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy ).
Of course, this amount of energy input is also re-radiated to space over the same time span because Earth’s average temperature is very stable.
However, for the entire year of 2019 (the most recent data I could readily find) the total energy consumed by the world’s human population was about 173,300 TWh, or about 624 exajoules (see https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption ), with most of this energy eventually ending up as waste heat energy put into the “natural environment”, where it too is eventually radiated to space.
Therefore, if every single bit of mankind’s use of energy in all forms—coal, oil, gas, traditional biomass, nuclear, hydropower, wind, solar, modern biofuels, geothermal,other incidental sources—was directed solely toward climate change over the course of a year, it would amount to only 624/3,850,000 = 0.016 % of the annual energy input from the Sun.
To make the comparison even more understandable, the Sun’s energy being absorbed into Earth’s total environment in just 1.5 hours is more than the total energy used by the entire population of Earth in the year 2019.
Want to reconsider your statement about humans as the dominant force shaping the natural environment? Heck, humans can’t even muster up a weak tropical storm, an ice storm, or a heat wave.
Thanks Gordon, I’m going to steal that !
Typo alert- should read “Pete, do you ‘have’ any objective,”
Thanks, duly noted!
If this guy got what he wanted, and the global economy collapsed due to human or natural forces, this guy and people like him would be the first to go. The world would not have the luxury of affording people who only leach off of the productivity of others, providing nothing of value to his fellow humans.
I will try to say this gently, so as to promote calm reflection rather than irritation. Of course modern civilization cannot return to primitive lifeways. That would be suicidal. But there are many primitive technologies that have utility to moderns.
One noted above is traditional herbal medicines. The investigation of primitive treatments and/or remedies has been a fertile field for modern pharmacology. For instance, the indigenous use of cinchona bark tea led to quinine and then to hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), which many believe to be an effective treatment for Covid.
Another is the use of fire to manipulate vegetation. Worldwide primitive cultures expertly employed deliberate burning to enhance their survival. Today we have set aside tens of millions of acres with no management, leading to a catastrophic fire crisis that has caused much death and destruction. Restoration of “traditional” burning technologies could (would) prevent much loss. It doesn’t have to be done by naked people with fire sticks, but the general concept of carefully applied fire in sites prepared to receive that fire has much merit.
We don’t need to live in wigwams and grub for roots to appreciate and use certain ancient technologies.
Good points. The mental facilities of primitive societies was/is as good as our own. The difference is that we just know different things. So it isn’t surprising that they were able to learn and understand things about their environment that we can benefit from. They are/were very observant.
But they didn’t live in harmony with their environment. They used (and abused) their environment for their benefit as much as anyone. It’s just that they didn’t have the tools or population to do significant “damage.” They only sustained because it was a tough life. They would have grown their population and created civilizations if the life was easier or had they had better tools.
Good points yourself, Steven F.
Civilizations have all tended to do the best they could with what they have and search for better. Take a look at those impressive piles of stones in Egypt. That lion thingy took a bit of doing, too. Pretty dagone good for that time, eh?
Think of what those piles of stone would have been like if Caterpillar Inc. was up and operating back then.
And don’t believe for a moment that they wouldn’t have taken full advantage of excavators, earthmovers, and bulldozers.
Stone, copper, bronze, iron, steel, titanium, and the search for improved materials has always continued.
How about the Americas? We are just now beginning to pare away the jungle growth that has hidden way more of the fairly advanced civilization’s cities than people suspected or believed was possible. How about Machu Pichu? Amazing! North America and the Mound Builders; Cahokia.
Tell you what, though. I’m beginning to think that, as now, when civilizations become so successful that people have time on their hands to spend all day dreaming up nutty ideas of how the world should be, and then the nutters manage to convince enough people that they MUST pursue those nutty ideas. those civilizations collapse… because the ideas were nutty and wrong.
We currently have a bunch of nutters once again driving civilization over the cliff.
I am ready to sacrifice the Guardian staff if it will save a few cute animals.
I am very happy for the Guardian and all of its journalists and readers to lead by example. Them first. Then the rest of us can get on with perfectly happy productive lives .
Pretty much stop reading after that first lie and will be heading over to the Guardian to complain.
Even Wiki recognises the term “Anthropocene” has been rejected by both the the International Commission on Stratigraphy and the International Union of Geological Sciences
Link
Peter Sutoris is an absurd waste of skin. Dear gawd, I hope he doesn’t really believe any of that nonsense. One has to believe the perks make it possible for him to ignore his education.
Is specie ism something like race ism? And science ism?
https://wp.me/pTN8Y-7fZ
What on earth does he mean by indigenous people? The Celts, Anglo Saxons, Brittans, Normans etc who have inhabited Europe for millenia? These indigenous people have created the western civilization we take for granted.
No, obviously he doesn’t mean “indigenous people” because that doesn’t fit his narrative. Maybe he’s referring to the American First Nations. Well, they did live within the bounds set by nature, but they appear to have led hard brutal lives. I’m not sure we should emulate that.
As everywhere else on Earth at various times, indigenous Americans practiced cannibalism. But, with limited sources of animal protein compared to other continents, it became ,more widespread here. Carib Indians gave us the term cannibal. They came out of South America to eat their way up the Antilles, but were pikers compared to Meso-American cultures.
Does Soapy Pete want us to embrace that environmentally sound cultural practice?
Ah, so no-one is indigenous to anywhere, Vincent. Everyone always came from somewhere else.
Maybe we should replace ‘indigenous’ with ‘long-timers.’
Indigenous peoples…
The old ‘noble savage’ sentiment. Why is this always expressed by people sitting in comfortable well upholstered arm chairs in warm houses with running water, and with medical care, and plentiful cheap food?
All species use the planet to further their genes, it is what life does, it is our goal in life.
Is the grass growing through a crack in the pavement ‘exploiting the earth’?
Of course it is, it is entitled to do so, it is what the earth is for, just as bacteria exploit our digestive tracts, and bats exploit our roof spaces.
The Urban fox population in the UK is now 20 times that of the rural one. Foxes are exploiting man as well.
Man is part of nature, part of life, he lives in it and it lives in and around us. We cant help it.
And what ever we do, life is there right behind us, from oil eating bacteria to black fungus living off radiation in the basement of Chernobyl. There is nothing we do that is ‘unnatural’ because we are in nature, we never left the Garden of Eden.
What is unusual is that man actively cares for other species, tries to preserve them, invites them into his home. That is unique.
Not truly unique. I was raised by wolves, according to my mother. It took her forever to undo the damage to my table manners that those wolves taught me, 😜
So-called indigenous peoples were never in sustainable balance with their environments.
Those environments were always harsh, cruel and implacable such that if one aspect were favourable for a while another aspect would provide an existential threat.
Life was nasty, brutish and short with an expectation that much of that short life would be spent in ever increasing pain until death provided a release.
The natural world is hostile and seeks to kill all living things. It must be opposed with all our might.
White civilisation has had enormous success in saving the lives of all ethnicities yet is denigrated for that achievement.
Hardly anyone on the planet alive today would have lived were it not for the Agrarian and Industrial Revolutions or if they were alive their lives would be so appalling and short compared to what we all now have that they would prefer never to have been born.
Quote: This rapid increase in our control over the Earth has brought us to the precipice of catastrophic climate change, triggered a mass extinction, disrupted our planet’s nitrogen cycles and acidified its oceans, among other things. – article/Sutons
This guy definitely needs to get out more. Needs to be dropped off some place where there are zero resources to turn to, zero electricity available, zero water out of a spigot run by a pump, etc., etc., etc.
I’d bet the cost of a quarter-pounder with cheese & fries and a soda that he’s a closet dweller, one who only goes “outside” if it isn’t wet and gray.
What a sad little noonch he is.
Sorry, misspelled name; should be Sutoris. My bad. Not enough caffeine….
Re: Nessie: I was terrified of spiders most of my childhood – it was all those legs!!! – but grew out of it. Did a lot of reading on spiders. There are FAR more species of spiders on the planet than there are Hoomans, and some are as yet unclassified. They are smart enough to know how to camoflage themselves if need be, and some of the tiniest wolf spiders communicate with each other by waving brightly colored flags on their legs.
Don’t want one as a pet, but I will catch one in the house and put it outside where it belongs. They are far more useful than the Sutorises of the world.
Which comes first, wokeism or rotted brain syndrome (RBS)? It’s a conundrum.
Let the other species go first.
He is nuts if he believes what he writes. And carbon capture is a forest and grass lands and even farming with machinery by the way.
It has taken a very long time for mankind to get to this point of security and comfort. No one with any sense would take this guys advice.