[HN Gopher] The Forest People
___________________________________________________________________
The Forest People
Author : rsj_hn
Score : 49 points
Date : 2021-11-27 16:17 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (stoneageherbalist.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (stoneageherbalist.substack.com)
| gh0std3v wrote:
| > The expansion of the 'Green New Deal' and the rise of
| 'renewable' industrial technologies may be the death knell for
| these archaic and peaceful people. Make no mistake, these green
| initiatives - electric vehicles, wind turbines, solar batteries -
| these are actively destroying the last remaining strongholds of
| biodiversity on the planet. The future designs on the DRC include
| vast hydroelectric dams and intensive agriculture, stripping away
| the final refuges of the world. Now, more than ever, the Mbuti
| and other Pygmy peoples need our solidarity, an act which can be
| as simple as not buying that next iPhone
|
| This seems like a vast oversimplification by the author.
| Kurzgesagt made a video explaining how climate change is a
| multifaceted problem; that no solution will make everyone happy.
| I'm not trying to undermine the plight of the Mbuti people, but
| "not buying that next iPhone" is not going to solve the
| political, economic, and social strife that is present in the
| DRC. Also, the claim that green initiatives are "destroying the
| last remaining strongholds of biodiversity on the planet"
| overlooks the tradeoff in using green energy sources over fossil
| fuels.
|
| Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiw6_JakZFc
| DFHippie wrote:
| The kicker is at the bottom:
|
| > The expansion of the 'Green New Deal' and the rise of
| 'renewable' industrial technologies may be the death knell for
| these archaic and peaceful people. Make no mistake, these green
| initiatives - electric vehicles, wind turbines, solar batteries -
| these are actively destroying the last remaining strongholds of
| biodiversity on the planet.
|
| This reads like so much contrarian trollery since time
| immemorial. Jonas Salk is exploiting children! The abolitionists
| are actually harming slaves! The vaccines are actually a
| nefarious controlling plot and the pandemic is a sham!
|
| Basically, the trick is to say people who claim to care about the
| problem are actually the source of the problem. This isn't to say
| that cobalt extraction is harmless or that this harm is
| disconnected from the global desire to use low-carbon mechanisms
| to power the economy, but I sincerely doubt this citation-free
| article portrays the situation accurately. For one thing, the
| Green New Deal is a purely US thing, and it isn't a particular
| piece of legislation that has stood any chance of being enacted
| under that name since the Democratic primaries (and not even
| then, though at least then it had proponents who stood some
| chance of gaining significant political power), so singling this
| out as the demon to fear is to single our environmental action in
| general. Insulating your home!? What about the pigmies! Buying
| milk in returnable glass bottles!? Oppressor! Going vegetarian to
| reduce your carbon footprint!? You cannibalistic monster!
|
| I sincerely doubt the WWF is the sole funder of park rangers, or
| that a desire they might have expressed to remove people from
| areas of biological diversity is targeted at pigmies rather than,
| say, illegal logging or mining operations. I cannot believe that
| "addressing climate change and working to preserve the rain
| forest are the chief threats to pigmies" is an argument offered
| in good faith. I'm pretty sure the pigmies would suffer more and
| faster if the loggers, miners, bushmeat trade, and climate change
| are allowed to roll along unstopped.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| The "kicker": your "doubts" don't get any more credible when
| you say "I _sincerely_ doubt " and "I cannot believe."
|
| So you don't like his conclusion that "green" technologies may
| be harmful? Thus you "doubt" the whole piece. Smart! Also you
| get to compare it to other things you don't like. Motte-bailey
| much?
| DFHippie wrote:
| You think my doubts aren't credible? What does that mean? You
| think I'm lying about my own doubts?
|
| I'm not at all troubled by the thought that green
| technologies might be harmful (well, I'd rather they weren't,
| but it seems obvious that they are, though also obviously
| good in other ways). I'm "troubled" by his pinning all the
| troubles of the Mbuti and so forth on green technology.
| webwielder2 wrote:
| Yeah, completely bizarre conclusion with no substantiation.
| What is the agenda there?
| bserge wrote:
| Remind people that life is not fair, if you don't progress
| you'll be ran over, and that you should stick with your
| neighbours instead of betraying them - depending on which
| side you're on.
|
| These forest people are as good as dead. Their neighbors are
| murdering them just so they can sell natural resources at
| bottom prices.
|
| Those who turn the resources into much more valuable stuff
| couldn't give a flying fuck, but they tell their own
| countrymen that they do.
|
| It's all rather funny. But such is life.
| blix wrote:
| The point of the article is that the philosophy underpinning
| eco-conscious modernity, specificially the fundemental
| separation between "humanity" and "nature," leaves no place for
| humans who live as a part of nature. In the modern world this
| concept is almost entirely taken for granted, as most of us
| spend the vast majority of their lives in artificially
| constructed environments designed specifically to insulate us
| to the greatest extent possible from the pulse of nature. This
| is baked in to both our interpretation of the challenges we
| face and our proposed solution to these challenges, sometimes
| with unintended consequences.
|
| This article is an invitation to more closely consider this
| underpinning philosophy. The tone of your response indicates
| this maybe isn't so easy and also why it is so important.
| DFHippie wrote:
| I'm fine with pointing out the negative consequences of
| environmental actions. It's absurd to think any sincere, and
| _representative_ , member of the environmental movement is
| unfamiliar with this (are there nuts and poseurs? sure, but
| you don't choose the outliers to characterize a group). They
| fret about this stuff all the time. But it's a completely
| mundane observation that an action may have undesirable
| consequences and that not all people will feel the same costs
| and benefits. This goes under the heading of "externalized
| costs", which environmentalists talk about All. The. Time.
|
| But this isn't the issue. The issue is this:
|
| > The expansion of the 'Green New Deal' and the rise of
| 'renewable' industrial technologies may be the death knell
| for these archaic and peaceful people.
|
| This is pinning all the woes of a particular marginalized
| group on the environmental movement. In fact, I think this is
| inverting responsibility. It's the environmentalists, or the
| same people under a different label, who are fighting _for_
| the Mbuti and the Yanomami and so forth and the anti-
| environmentalists, or the same people under a different
| label, who are machine gunning them and stealing their land
| and resources.
|
| ETA "archaic and peaceful" sounds a bit off if you're writing
| in 2021 and you actually have the interests of these people
| at heart. "Archaic" sounds like you're a white savior from
| 1890 and "peaceful" makes it sound like you're writing for
| the postcard vendor at a Carnival Cruise port of call. "Look
| at their quaint grass skirts! Maybe they'll show some of
| their colorful folkways."
| blix wrote:
| > It's absurd to think any sincere, and representative,
| member of the environmental movement
|
| This is a powerful no-true-scotsman here. In my experience,
| the vast majority of people espousing technical solutions
| to climate change are barely aware of trade-offs if they've
| considered them at all. Externalized costs are primarily
| talked about as those imposed by fossil fuels etc. The
| costs imposed by environmental action itself are not so
| commonly considered.
|
| > This is pinning all the woes of a particular marginalized
| group on the environmental movement...
|
| The article simply pointing out that environmentalists
| aren't really helping here. Increased demand for cobalt and
| coltan is extremely harmful to certain groups of people who
| don't have a particularly loud voice in any segment of the
| environmental movement or the renewable energy industry. No
| one kills over rocks that have no value. By driving the
| demand for these minerals, unrest is increased in this
| region.
|
| It's kinda silly to assume ~all~ environmentalists are
| fighting for these groups of people when the interests of
| many segments of the environmental movement are directly
| opposed to them and the article itself provides examples of
| environmental groups attacking them. The world is not
| black-and-white. People with good intentions can harm
| others.
|
| I don't particularly like language criticisms, but word for
| word I think there is a lot more meat in your original
| comment than in this article.
| georgeoliver wrote:
| I can't say I have the knowledge to argue the points of this
| article either way, but it sadly reinforces in my mind the idea
| that the arc of the technological universe is long, and it bends
| toward destruction.
| pphysch wrote:
| > In particular the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has been lobbying
| to convert the Messok Dja, a particularly biodiverse area of
| rainforest in the Republic of Congo, in a National Park, devoid
| of human presence. This aggressive act of clearance is rooted in
| the idea that a 'wilderness' area should not contain any people,
| thus rendering the original inhabitants of the forests as
| intruders, invaders and despoilers of 'Nature'.
|
| There are other examples of this sort of "ecofascism", namely the
| "Half Earth" proposal wherein half the Earth's landmass should be
| dedicated to human-free "nature". Of course, no one will
| willingly give up their home, so this is tantamount to ethnically
| cleansing those regions--Africa and the Global South--that are
| geopolitically weak so that the wealthy Western nations can
| maintain their decadent quality of life.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > the "Half Earth" proposal wherein half the Earth's landmass
| should be dedicated to human-free "nature". Of course, no one
| will willingly give up their home, so this is tantamount to
| ethnically cleansing those regions--Africa and the Global South
| --that are geopolitically weak so that the wealthy Western
| nations can maintain their decadent quality of life.
|
| Not quite. Western quality of life can't be improved by banning
| the exploitation of natural resources in Africa. Rather, what's
| proposed is to ethnically cleanse the reserved regions so that
| Western nations can advance an ideological goal that _lowers_
| their own quality of life.
| dillondoyle wrote:
| Why can't our lives/the world be improved by banning the
| exploitation of natural resources in Africa?
|
| i'm constantly reading news of horrible spills from
| corruption and lack or regulation in the region. Plus all the
| carbon that contributes.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANssSLjSXN0
|
| https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/nigerias-aiteo-
| reports-...
| bjelkeman-again wrote:
| Maybe we start by banning harmful exploitation where we are
| first, not somewhere else?
| DFHippie wrote:
| We're trying to do both at the same time. And there's no
| reason not to do both at the same time. a) We are all
| pissing in the same bed, and b) if we truly believe the
| Mbuti and Twa are people just like we are and, ipso
| facto, deserve the same protections, then we must fight
| for both. We can't carve out an "exploit pygmies"
| exception and be consistent.
| ericffr wrote:
| Fascinating article, on a part of the world that gets largely
| ignored
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-27 23:01 UTC)