WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

994

(post is archived)

[–] 21 pts (edited )

Just because "indigenous people" harvested oysters "sustainably" doesn't mean they did that intentionally. Their technology was limited or their was limited demand for oysters vs. other food.

People have always exploited their environment to the limits of their technology up until the point of intersection of the supply/demand curve.

Anyone claiming otherwise is full of shit. Native Americans used to scare herds of buffalo off of cliffs, wasting most of the buffalo, for example.

[–] [deleted] 8 pts

Right. There is no fucking way to overfish oysters with the tools they had.

[–] [deleted] 4 pts

Also need to consider the population size along with their tools.

[–] [deleted] 5 pts

And even more to the point, consider predator populations like wolves. As their prey numbers decline, so does the wolf population, and as the wolf population declines, the prey numbers go back up. Look at this, wolves live in harmony with nature and don't overhunt their prey. Wow, what an accomplishment for indigenous people!

[–] [deleted] 6 pts

I've read that American abbos (indians) were not the noble stewards of the land that revisionists want you to believe. They killed everything in site and torched the soil with their human waste and garbage.

[–] 4 pts

Yep, so tiresome with all this 'indigenous sustainability/ living with nature ' cope. Their smaller population sizes and limited technology, in general, meant they had little to no lasting impact on most resources - except of course the dozens of actual examples where 'indigenous cultures' wiped out entire species or the habits various wildlife needed to survive.

[–] 6 pts

Their next article might as well be indigenous sub-Saharans have sustainably lived for thousands of years by residing in mud huts and cooking over dung fires.

[–] 0 pt

And died in their millions, not from starvation but lack of access to resources /

[–] [deleted] 5 pts

And many people starved

[–] 3 pts

That's how you know it's sustainable.

[–] 5 pts

umm honestly if you could only eat fish if you lived on the coast most shit would be sustainable its the fact that we have all parts of land eat all parts of the water systems that makes it unsustainable

[–] 4 pts

Indians weren't that good at pulling oysters out of the water.

[–] 3 pts (edited )

Jesus these fucking retarded liberals are unbearable. These are the same indigenous people that hunted the woolly mammoths and sabertooth tigers to extinction, thus proving their indifference to "sustainability" and willingness to wipe species from the face of the earth. They didn't hunt oysters to the brink because they were too stupid to invent the means, not because they made a conscious choice to preserve them.

Where's your fucking sustainability now, you morons?

EDIT - .

[–] 2 pts

Indigenous populations also arguably wiped out the mammoths and other megafauna left over from the last ice age. They definitely wiped out horses prior to the Spanish reintroductions. Saying they're "sustainable" because they could only harvest 1% of a given resource doesn't apply to today.

[–] 1 pt

How sustainable would they have been if they had 300 million negative mouths to feed tho