1

I have been reading "What Is Education For" by David Orr and the author makes the following statement:

It is a matter of no small consequence that the only people who have lived sustainably on the planet for any length of time could not read, or, like the Amish, do not make a fetish of reading.

I do not know much about sustainability or sustainable living (and I am sure there are many levels of such) but that statement just seems wrong to me.

Anybody have any thoughts or references I could look at that support/refute that statement?

Oddthinking
  • 140,378
  • 46
  • 548
  • 638
user13432
  • 27
  • 1
  • 7
    The people we think of as living simple "sustainable" lifestyles now often turn out to be that way because they wiped out most of the easy sources of food. Natives of the Americas (especially in the south), Australian natives and New Zealand's Maoris, the natives of Easter Island all wiped out much local animal life before regressing to a more sustainable lifestyle. In some cases they lost much previously available technology after running out of things to kill. So any associating between current life and technology like writing may be an accident. – matt_black Apr 17 '13 at 21:09
  • 8
    I quite agree with @matt_black's comment here. The problem with this question is defining "sustainability." Greece, for example, has been colonized continuously since at least 2000bc. Does that count as sustainable? I am guessing that the author of the quote subscribes to some form of ecological romanticism. Ant colonies, wolf packs, and illiterate tribesmen routinely destroy their immediate environments to the point of endangering their livelihood. Conversely, one may argue that most extant "sustainable" civilizations (the ones that are still around) are literate. – denten Apr 17 '13 at 21:35
  • 4
    Bottom line: the sentiment has more to do with ideology than science. It is not falsifiable as stated. – denten Apr 17 '13 at 21:39
  • 2
    Would "Europe" count as a counter-example? – ChrisW Apr 17 '13 at 22:17
  • 2
    As an anecdote, I know many people who hate reading, and live very un-sustainable lives. – Flimzy Apr 18 '13 at 00:21
  • Correlation is not causation, and first you'll need to prove correlation. – Benjol Apr 18 '13 at 08:16
  • @matt_black [I live in New Zealand]. | Rapanui / Easter Island seems a valid example of your point due to the small geographical size, immense degree of isolation and heavy environmental pressures imposed by the population. | But, while NZ Maori did exterminate some species (eg Moas) (and combined with Europeans to exterminate others (eg Huia) I'd query whether they had anywhere near enough impact on the total ecosystem capacity to alter its ability to support sustainability. And the Australian Aboriginals, less so. – Russell McMahon Apr 19 '13 at 08:02
  • David Deutsch makes the very interesting point that the only truly sustainable societies are those that continuously grow – all others *stagnate*. This is a powerful point against Orr. But of course it’s not necessary to go that far to refute the ultimately luddite argument Orr makes. – Konrad Rudolph Apr 21 '13 at 12:34
  • @RussellMcMahon the extinction of Australian megafauna is now thought to be linked to the arrival of man about 45,000 years ago. – HappySpoon Jun 05 '14 at 04:11
  • @HappySpoon - But that's only the thought for this month / year / decade. Next xxx we'll 'now thin; something else. Based on history of thinking to date, anyway :-). – Russell McMahon Jun 06 '14 at 05:56
  • @matt_black - " ... natives of the americas ..."-> In 'the north the 1st transcontinental expedition reported (in fine detail and with meticulous recording of observations) buffalo herds as large as you hear about in subsequent stories that sound like legends. – Russell McMahon Jun 06 '14 at 05:58
  • @RussellMcMahon Clearly we have to rely on the best available evidence in the now, and not in the future! :) – HappySpoon Jun 06 '14 at 06:00

0 Answers0