Had a discussion at work about how successful the Aboriginals were. My opponents definition of success was that they had been in Australia for 60,000 years and had lived in harmony with the environment and could have carried on indefinitely without destroying the natural resources.
My immediate response was bo**ocks all people and species are only here to multiply. The only reason they never depleted the natural resources was that they failed to utilise the environment to anywhere near it's full potential and then multiply in sufficient numbers to do this.
If the world's population was relative to the Aboriginal population in Australia pre Captain Cook then the world's resources would be sustainable even with all the modern technology and luxury items we have.
Although the above paragraph may suggest that I agree that the Aboriginals had got it right and were successful I do not believe it was intentional and that had they had the ability to decimate the environment for their own benefit they would have done it.

Any thoughts ?

PS if you do reply please don't turn it in to another racism thread.

I think most ,if not all civilisations will use the environment in which they live for there own means, wheather they are destroying it or not. If you have a small tribe in a remote part of the world and they fell trees to make huts is that classed as destroying the environment? When it's done in a small way maybe not! When done in a huge way it gets noticed.
The bigger and bigger the planets population grows the more resourses are needed.

S.

I believe it is a fallacy that the Aboriginals lived completely in harmony with their environment. I understand that it is generally accepted that they inroduced dogs (the dingo) and fire management of the landscape, and that these actions caused the extinction of both the megafauna and the ancient rainforests that covered much of Australia before their arrival. However, they were not too far from an equilibrium with their country, and these changes happened over pretty vast time scales.

Of course, the white man has caused vastly more damage, first by introducing all sorts of new and competing species, then by not understanding (and still not understanding!!!) the natural way that water is used by this land, and finally by sheer numbers and pollution.

I wish I could remember the name of a fascinating book I read recently about how in 'natural' Australia it was unusual to find a river flowing, water in this land should flow underground through the soil unless there is actual flooding. Absolutely fascinating stuff and quite different from Europe and the ideas we brought with us from there.

furthermore it is thought by some that there were several waves of settlers landing in australia over the last 50,000-60,000 years each destroying or severley depleting the previous inhabitants.
if this is true, then aboriginals are not that different to the rest of civilisation.