crazy_dave: i.e. that the more primitive the society, the better it is for people.
Demut: You can hardly ignore the fact that the way our modern society is taking will consume itself sooner or later because of its lack of sustainability which on the other hand, hold on to your seat, exists in any primitive society. Living off the fat of the land, y’know?
"Primitive societies" can and have also cause(d) horrible ecological damage just as any invasive species will do. Humans are exactly like any other invasive species in this regard except that we have pretty much been able to invade almost every environment on the planet. That indigenous societies appear to be living in concert with their environment is because those interactions have been (or were for extinct societies) stable for awhile, you didn't see the upheaval caused by the initial invasion of that population. Many of those indigenous societies were also not stable and consumed themselves. Perhaps you misread my earlier post, but I was saying that "primitive societies" were somehow better was a fallacy which I think is what you are agreeing to here but perhaps I am misreading you?
At the moment, if we get our heads out of our asses, we might for the first time in human history be able to dial back our effect on the environment by deliberately making our societies more efficient and limiting ourselves to the carrying capacity that our technology allows. We have the benefit of history of those failed populations to show us what may happen to us if we don't and the knowledge and organization to be able to carry it out. We really do have the resources, organization, and technology right now to feed, shelter, and provide great health care to everyone on the planet while lessening our impact on the planet. We could do it. But whether or not we will ... is another story.
