This reeks of the “noble savage” stereotype. I would be willing to bet 80% of biodiversity being in native lands has more to do with how brutally they’ve been repressed than how “in tune” with the environment they are.

They’re people too, and I see little reason to believe they wouldn’t fall to the same human flaws as the rest of us if given the chance.

[–] dumples@piefed.social 22 points 3 days ago (4 children)

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

[–] 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 3 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

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (9 replies)