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.
If you want an unmitigated stream of mindless and ill-informed “opinion” , you can not do better than the Guardian’s “comment is free” articles.
Also, there is no editorial control over the accuracy of articles so no point in complaining and demanding corrections. They’ll just say : hey, it commentary, not journalism.
Totally failing to recognise that their once illustrious title has become nothing but a politically motivated comment platform.
There is really no point in even writing a WUWT post criticising or correcting such garbage, it’s like arguing against Twitter content.
I am sure this was an introduction to another episode of the Twilight Zone.
Luddites may not like it, anti-humanists may cringe, but Mother Earth has put all her eggs in one basket managed by humans. Humans are the only species (not counting our evolved descendants) potentially capable and likely to ever be capable of spreading earth life to other worlds, and hopefully worlds around other stars eventually.
Humans are special, the egg-makers and egg carriers. We are the Earth’s reproductive organs. And that means we need to take our role very seriously. Ultimately, on the scale of billions of years, humans don’t matter specifically as a species. But what we do can launch other species into trajectories of great opportunity for new development not possible on Earth. The simplest organisms have the greatest chance of making new and wonderful things perhaps a billion years from now. Things we will never see. The potential interactions between Earth life and native life on other worlds could result in symbiotic relationships providing capabilities neither form of life alone could manage. Symbiosis transformed Earth. It gave us an oxygen atmosphere and photosynthesis as used in green plants (not archaea).
If we do nothing, Earth will become more difficult to live on in 100 million years, and most life will be gone in 1 billion years. By 500 million years or so, the oceans will start evaporating under a hotter Sun. Earth itself will be swallowed by the Sun in 5 billion years.
The Left can whine and gripe about the “wasted” energy due to human activity. However, consider the energy most plants devote to reproduction. We are learning to do better. And it takes quite a bit of energy to clean up what we do. That’s one reason why developing countries pollute so much; they can’t afford to spend as much as we do on cleanup.
What better legacy to leave? Humans saving Earth life from complete extinction and planting new seeds of Earth life on other worlds..
I’ve had a lot to do with indigenous communities over the years; in Australia and in South America. Clearly the author of this article lives in a city and has never visited an indigenous community. Sure there are great stories of how they respect the earth and nature in general. But in practical terms this respect doesn’t exist. That’s why in camps/towns the accumulation of rubbish has got to be seen to be believed. I guess 100 years ago they could throw their rubbish on the ground and it would rot, being bones, food scraps, etc. Today the rubbish is thrown on the ground and its plastic or glass bottles. Not so biodegradable. Years ago I went for a drive with a local indigenous elder checking out his country in FNQ. He had such amazing eyesight and a knowledge of all the trees and birds. Imagine my horror when he finished drinking a bottle of water, wound his window down and tossed the empty bottle out of the car! In South America there is a wonderful concept called the “Pachamama” or the “Earth Mother.” She is the spirit of the land and is “revered”, except to the point that rubbish generation is at extraordinary levels. I hate to think of the poor tourists visiting and looking for signs of the Pachamama; because as they drive or cycle along the Altiplano all they will see is piles of rubbish dumped on the side of the highway. In Bolivia right now there is a young French tourist who has seen the rubbish problem and actually done something about it. He has mobilised hundreds of people to clean up the woke coke bottles from lakes and rivers. One lake, Lago Uru Uru, a declared RAMSAR wetland, had been declared dead due to the pollution in it. The Uru Uru people have been complaining about the state of their lake for years. But did they do anything practical to fix it? No, of course not, they just complained to a government that praises the Pachamama and then does nothing to help her. This wonderful young bloke cares far more for the Pachamama than any indigenous in Bolivia. But at least he has woken a few people up.
“Many indigenous groups got to know their natural environments intimately and sustained themselves over millennia, often despite harsh conditions.”
These loons have absolutely no clue how “harsh” that lifestyle actually was. I would bet most of them wouldn’t last a week.
“intimately” knowing their natural environment included a lot of being killed, maimed and poisoned. Can’t get much more intimate than that.
David good whose mother is Yanomami amazon Indian woman and father is American anthropologist likes visiting the amazon and living in NJ . interesting YouTube story .
In the not too distant past the village idiots were just ignored. Now they get their rantings published in newspapers.
Amusingly, he is right, but not in the way he intended. All the money men suddenly have solutions to the climate problems. Too much CO2 ? Don’t worry, we can suck it up and lock it away. A replacement for fossil fuels needed? Don’t worry try our hydrogen, it will go with a bang. Geo-engineering? We can spray the atmosphere with Bull****, that should do the trick.
All of these solutions will work well at subsidy harvesting then they and the money men will melt away long before delivery time arrives.
It is almost funny. The Guardian helped to fuel the climate scam. Now scammers are cashing in on governments desperate to find solutions. The Guardian is now worried that the scam solutions are reducing the alarmist fear factor with the promise of (fake) solutions.
So the scammers are being out-scammed. It couldn’t happen to nicer people. But it is not all funny. The losers in every case are the consumers and taxpayers who have to foot the bill for gullible politicians who have no grasp of the flawed science.
Blah, Blah, Blah. They never volunteer to move to the Congo and live with the truly poor people. Do they?
Since Peter dislikes the human race so much he is entirely welcome to commit suicide and end his dreadful existence. There have been more than a few cute suggestions as to how he could be useful as food for other animal species.
‘Specist’ – it’s the new racism.
Y’know – you’re kinda ‘sposed to put your own species first.
Progressives have actually managed to turn opposing putting the benefit of the human race first into a virtual signal.
Is this evil yet?
“The Noble Savage”. How 17th Century!