Except the fact we have lots of evidence that native population (which also includes pre-industrial European culture) built sustainable systems which includes altering the environment. Throughout North America there tons of evidence of the use of fire was used. The classic prairie environment of the Oak Savana is only possible through burns and supports a large buffalo population. There's tons of evidence of strategic cultivation of trees and other plants within the Amazon rainforest that allow people to get food and medicine close by that to the untrained eye looks identical to the rest of the forest.

That being said some of those same people them destroy the same forest via slash and burn agriculture in order to earn a living for cash crops and more traditional agriculture. So profits is a main driver

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 21 points 3 days ago (1 children)

So profits is a main driver

This is exactly what I’m getting at. If these groups of humans were placed in the same scenarios that Europeans or other westerners were placed in, would they not be susceptible to the same greed that motivated them?

I do not deny that many native societies appear to live in more harmony with the environment than your average westerner. There is certainly a lot to learn there, and I believe we would do better if we emulated some of those characteristics. However, I think that we’re all susceptible to the same flaws, as we are all human.

Ultimately what I’m saying is I don’t think that natives have some superpower where they have figured out how to escape the flaws that have plagued humanity for thousands of years.

[–] dumples@piefed.social 3 points 2 days ago

While I agree that people are fundamentally the same the cultural values can alter their behavior. A culture that says Human are separate and above nature who should submit to it's will acts differently than one who thinks humans are the youngest sibling to plants and animals who have lots to teach us. So by understanding cultural values, mindsets and techniques we can alter how we interact with the rest of the world.

[–] bobzer@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

What do you consider pre-industrial?

Agriculture directly led to the destruction of native biomes in any country that practiced it.

More people = more agriculture = more land cleared.

So long as most people who live die from avoidable famines, war and disease, then yes, it's sustainable. But "in check" is probably the better term.

[–] dumples@piefed.social 3 points 2 days ago

Altered doesn't have to mean destruction. A human touched ecosystem can be different but doesn't have to be a monoculture. There are a huge number of human specific plants, most of which we call weeds now, that only exist around people that can provide food and medicine to us. Looking at how modern permaculture farming works there's a huge amount of diversity within their food forests which are directly human touched while leaving more wild sections. These wild sections are more native specific and their value is acknowledged instead of called wasted space. Humans are part of an ecosystem so we alter it but don't have to destroy it