[BurlyShirley]

I was scowering the web, looking up some stuff on survival when I ran across this interesting rant.

Mother Nature Is a Cruel Bitch


I write this addendum to the site because many folks have forgotten what nature and wilderness are all about. When I surf around the net, I discover abundant quantities of Birkenstock brain-mulch on the subject of nature, most of it being pure crap. When I watch the news, I hear about hikers dying. This is because many shrub-cuddling types out there have forgotten the truth about nature, and are now yammering on about how warm and fuzzy it all is. The truth is that nature can be a cruel bitch.



Yes, Mother Nature is truly a woman. She may be a joy to visit, but if you live with her full time, you know that there are times when it’s best to be as far removed from her as possible. For those living in her domain, she can be a cruel queen who gladly sentences her subjects to the most grisly and ghastly types of torture and death imaginable. To live at nature's mercy, one must abandon all notions of graceful golden years and those of a peaceful death in one's sleep. Nature has other plans... slightly less peaceful ones. Ma Nature prefers disembowelment and tearing of flesh while one kicks and screams, bleeding out slowly while watching ones flesh be eaten. Not very warm and cuddly, eh? Many of nature's inhabitants die by a wide and colorful array of causes including freezing to death, dehydration, slow starvation and disease . In nature, a broken leg typically means a slow death of starvation… or the quicker route via predator as mentioned above. Most of natures “little miracles” never make it to maturity. Yup, those cuddly baby creatures are but quick snacks for the rest.



We humans easily forget the truth about nature in this modern age. We live in a world of safety and comfort, a world where immediate dangers to our well-being have not only been virtually eliminated, but outlawed as well (seatbelt laws, helmet laws, etc, etc). As such, we begin to see only the beauty in our surroundings, and we forget about all the dangers and inherent brutality that make the system work.



We have forgotten what a bad host Mother Nature can be because there are very few societies left that truly live at her mercy. The small handful of tribes that do, typically consider a 40-year-old person to be a tribal elder. Living to 50 or 60 is almost unheard of, as these tribes have fantastically high mortality rates from all manner of causes (none of which you'd care to partake of). We have, for some odd reason, seen fit to romanticize these kinds of cultures to the extreme. What I don’t understand is why none of the soapbox proselytizers are flocking to join these tribes. It’s an odd dichotomy that the same folks who rant about returning society to mother nature are the same types who would be amongst the first to perish under her rules.



One of the best examples of romanticizing proximity to nature is the hype surrounding Native American culture. Schools teach our kids that Native American culture was somehow superior to our own, and that they peacefully coexisted with both nature, and with their fellow man. Simply put, this is pure bull****, and is just one of many ways that history has been bastardized to fit into “politically correct” dogma.



Upon the arrival of Europeans to the Americas, the Native American “culture” was pretty close to that of Neanderthal man. They were largely and necessarily nomadic, as they had no concept of gardening, farming, livestock or of game management. They quickly depleted all resources in an area, and then had to move on to other areas. Everything they owned had to be either carried or dragged across the land, as they had not yet invented the wheel and had no livestock or domesticated animals. Although Western art is fond of portraying the "noble American Indian astride his trusty horse", there were no horses here until the Europeans brought them. Sickness, disease, famine and warfare all claimed a goodly share of many tribes each year. In Northern areas, the winter claimed many as well. If one tribe came across another, there was seldom any kind of sit-down with a peace pipe. It almost always meant a turf war. To the victor went the spoils (the women, food, and all other possessions). Any men not killed in the fighting were either ritualistically killed or taken as slaves. There is much evidence today showing that Southwestern Indians sometimes ate those taken as prisoners, though the forensic researcher who first proved it has been harassed and threatened ever since.



Returning to modern times, another of the great myths of our age is that industrialized nations live at odds with nature, and are destroying what remains of it. This cannot be further from the truth. In fact, the polar opposite is true. The third world definitely lives closest to nature, yet they are rapidly destroying it in all manner of ways. Living off the land in the third world means burning, hacking, slashing, killing, and otherwise destroying all that gets in your way. HUGE tracts of forest and jungle fall to “slash and burn farming”. The people do not give a rat’s ass about nature, as they are more concerned about where their next meal will come from. In reality, the only folks in South America or Africa who seem to care about environmental issues are those who are looking for money from the industrialized nations.



The countries that actively preserve and defend nature are the industrialized nations. Europe, North America and the wealthier parts of Asia are filled with pristine, unpolluted forests, grasslands, mountains, and all other manner of nature. These are preserved and cared for simply because we have the time, money, and resources to do so. With modern agricultural methods and technology on our side, we produce more food from less land, and we place a higher value on what remains.



Remember that actions speak louder than words. Those who scream the loudest are not necessarily the most correct. For instance, the logging industry has planted more trees, and done more for preserving the forests of North America than all of the “nature preservation” groups ever have. Hunters, likewise, have paid for the management of, and done more for the preservation of wildlife in North America than all of the Anti-Hunting groups put together. These groups may yell a lot, but typically don’t actually do anything positive.



The point of all this is that it is a fine thing to teach the youth of today that nature should be preserved and cared for, but it is a dangerous trend to teach that nature is somehow warm and fuzzy and that man is cruel. Historical distortions do not enlighten. Man is, after all is said and done, the ONLY creature in all of nature that actually cares about the environment. It is fine and dandy to teach low-impact woodsmanship, but where survival is concerned; YOU are the only part of nature that should be preserved.



In summation, if you’re in a survival situation, the only thing you need to know about a spotted owl is that it tastes like chicken !!!

http://www.m4040.com/Survival/Mother Nature.htm

 

[3D.]

Slash and then burn the McDonalds Big Mac beef patty, what a dumb ass! Oh wait, most rainforests don't have McDonalds...


-Prescott Bush Supported Hitler-

 

[Silver]

<I>We have forgotten what a bad host Mother Nature can be because there are very few societies left that truly live at her mercy. The small handful of tribes that do, typically consider a 40-year-old person to be a tribal elder. Living to 50 or 60 is almost unheard of, as these tribes have fantastically high mortality rates from all manner of causes (none of which you'd care to partake of).</I>

Not true. Infant mortality was very high, but the lifespans of preagricultural humans appear to be higher than the lifespans of humans after the adoption of agriculture.

Now, comparing the remaining hunter gatherers in the world, who have been pushed to the worst land by farmers isn't really fair, is it?

The rest of the article is crap too...

 

[valve bouncer]

Typical frothing rant with as tenuous a link to reality as BigDrop5 has to sanity.

 

[3D.]

<I>We have forgotten what a bad host Mother Nature can be because there are very few societies left that truly live at her mercy. The small handful of tribes that do, typically consider a 40-year-old person to be a tribal elder. Living to 50 or 60 is almost unheard of, as these tribes have fantastically high mortality rates from all manner of causes (none of which you'd care to partake of).</I>

Not true. Infant mortality was very high, but the lifespans of preagricultural humans appear to be higher than the lifespans of humans after the adoption of agriculture.

Now, comparing the remaining hunter gatherers in the world, who have been pushed to the worst land by farmers isn't really fair, is it?

The rest of the article is crap too...

You can say that again Silver. History has proven that, most often, the tribal way of living was to never over farm an area of land or exploit animals for any reason. They frequently moved from one area to the next because they knew a lot about soil nutrient depletion and the harmful long term affects of it, not because they chose to ravage one region and then on to the next.

The ancient tribes were absolutely appalled by the way the white man hastily devastated the Buffalo population. It was completely against their way of life.

This article is obviously crap, just for the mere fact that; It wasn’t until the white man showed up that they adopted genocidal warfare as a common practice. Tribal battling before the introduction of gun powder, usually consisted of very little casualties, comparatively speaking.

Another topic that the author failed to acknowledge is that; the ancient tribal way of life had one very important technique totally dialed… BIRTH CONTROL! From the appearance of modern humans 200,000 thousand years ago (estimates range from 70,000-400,000 years but 200,000 is the most commonly accepted figure based on fossil records) through the era of the Clovis People (the real founders of the Americas) 11,500 years ago, all the way up to 2000BC, these tribes only grew to a global population of 250 million. That’s approximately 200,000 years and only a population growth of 250 million. Now look at the past 4,000 years where we have grown another 7 billion.

Bring on the livestock herding and agricultural revolution of the Sumerian times (about 2000BC), and that’s when preservation started really getting out of hand.

They also lived much longer lives than the author has stated. 40yrs old might be considered old for a modern day tribe trying to survive in some resource depleted, disease ridden, politically broken area of the world, but some of the oldest recorded human life spans were from the times of the ancients.


And as for the ancient tribes supposedly being overwhelmed with diseases, three words “Europeans” & “Free Blankets”.

 

[Toshi]

Not true. Infant mortality was very high, but the lifespans of preagricultural humans appear to be higher than the lifespans of humans after the adoption of agriculture.

source?

 

[BurlyShirley]

You can say that again Silver. History has proven that, most often, the tribal way of living was to never over farm an area of land or exploit animals for any reason. They frequently moved from one area to the next because they knew a lot about soil nutrient depletion and the harmful long term affects of it, not because they chose to ravage one region and then on to the next.

Not quite.
There are tons of examples of tribes ravaging nature. See THE ENTIRE CONTINENT OF AUSTRALIA for example. But even in the Americas, a somewhat common practice for gather food was a to start a forest fire, then walk around to pick up the charred, dead animals.
The nomadic people frequently moved from place to place because they were following wandering herds. Not because they were great agriculturalists and understood soil nutrients.
Tell me this. If they had such great understanding of soil nutrients, how is that europeans have been farming the same few acres of land for thousands of years, yet the natives have to wander?
While I think this guy (the author) is kind of an idiot, I do think he raises a valid point about how we all are taught that a native way of life is somehow more dignified and that the native americans, in particular, were these great conservationists.

 

[valve bouncer]

Shirl, I suggest you read "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond. He answers these questions and plenty of others. Should be required reading for everyone that book.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Shirl, I suggest you read "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond. He answers these questions and plenty of others. Should be required reading for everyone that book.

Ive read it. Pretty good, and well aligned with my beliefs.
I dont have "questions" about why things were the way they were.

 

[valve bouncer]

Ive read it. Pretty good, and well aligned with my beliefs.
I dont have "questions" about why things were the way they were.

Then why did you ask a question he answers at length.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Shirl, I suggest you read "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond. He answers these questions and plenty of others. Should be required reading for everyone that book.

I watched the series on PBS tv recently. Very interesting.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Then why did you ask a question he answers at length.

The question was: If the native americans were such great soil scientists, why were they nomadic? The answer is that they werent so great at agriculture (the nomadic people I mean, not those farm-based tribes) . I was asking 3D because he stated the opposite.

 

[N8 v2.0]

The question was: If the native americans were such great soil scientists, why were they nomadic? The answer is that they werent so great at agriculture (the nomadic people I mean, not those farm-based tribes) . I was asking 3D because he stated the opposite.

LOL! If they were so bright how come they hadn't invented the wheel by the time the Europeans got to the New World?

 

[valve bouncer]

LOL! If they were so bright how come they hadn't invented the wheel by the time the Europeans got to the New World?

They didn't have smallpox either. Do you think Europeans invented the wheel N8?

 

[BurlyShirley]

LOL! If they were so bright how come they hadn't invented the wheel by the time the Europeans got to the New World?

N8, the difference in what Im saying is that "brightness" didnt have anything to do with it. In europe, it was a matter of necessity to farm in one place. And when you're in one place, not worrying about where your next meal is coming from, you have free time to invent things like wheels and guns and steel.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Nope... they were knuckle dragging neanderthals at the time...

You probably are going to have to credit one of the 'Cradles of Life" for its developement... like Mesopotamia or the Yellow River in China.

 

[fluff]

They didn't have smallpox either. Do you think Europeans invented the wheel N8?

C'mon, it was Enzo Ferrari - he was Italian, no?

 

[N8 v2.0]

N8, the difference in what Im saying is that "brightness" didnt have anything to do with it. In europe, it was a matter of necessity to farm in one place. And when you're in one place, not worrying about where your next meal is coming from, you have free time to invent things like wheels and guns and steel.

However, there are a number of indian tribes who were farmers... like the pueblos in the southwest. They were in one place long enough to build large communities... see Mesa Verde, Chaco Canyon etc...

But they were no stewards of nature. They cut down forests for firewood without replinishing.. etc

 

[BurlyShirley]

However, there are a number of indian tribes who were farmers... like the pueblos in the southwest. They were in one place long enough to build large communities... see Mesa Verde, Chaco Canyon etc...

But they were no stewards of nature. They cut down forests for firewood without replinishing.. etc

Right. Exactly my point.
Especially look at the Incas, Aztecs, Mayans in SA. They invented "slash and burn" in the rainforest as a proud, corn, yams, farming people. They also conquered and enslaved their enemies.

 

[Toshi]

Shirl, I suggest you read "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond. He answers these questions and plenty of others. Should be required reading for everyone that book.

i thought that book was awful. bunch of feel-good handwaving that was largely unsupported, imo.

 

[valve bouncer]

i thought that book was awful. bunch of feel-good handwaving that was largely unsupported, imo.

What exactly annoyed you mate? He was setting himself a task...."say, I'll write a book that explains....ummm...everything". Bound to not please all I guess.

 

[Silver]

source?

Wiki article on lifespan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

Seeing as how the original posted article's source is an anon person's ass, I didn't feel the need to work too hard.

 

[Silver]

You can say that again Silver. History has proven that, most often, the tribal way of living was to never over farm an area of land or exploit animals for any reason. They frequently moved from one area to the next because they knew a lot about soil nutrient depletion and the harmful long term affects of it, not because they chose to ravage one region and then on to the next.

They could move because before agriculture was introduced, population densities were much lower. Put a bunch of hunter gatherers in a small area with limited resources, and you'll have environmental damage, guaranteed.

 

[Toshi]

What exactly annoyed you mate? He was setting himself a task...."say, I'll write a book that explains....ummm...everything". Bound to not please all I guess.

take the chapter on new guinea, for instance. showing that they do not have many words for colors and then going on a tangent about how eskimos don't have many words for sand since, get this, there are no deserts in the great white north, does not prove that they possess equal aptitude as any other group of people. in fact, it doesn't prove anything. bunch of handwaving.