Convenient Myths: The Axial Age, Dark Green Religion, and the World that Never Was

6. Ecologically Noble Ancestors? Why Spiritual People Don’t Necessarily Look after Their Living Space

69 Ecologically Noble Ancestors? Why Spiritual People Don’t Necessarily Look after Their Living Space 6 . . . the appearance of balance between traditional native groups and their environment has more to do with low human population densities, lack of markets, and limited technology than it does with any natural harmonious relationship with nature. —Michael Alvard, “Testing the ‘Ecologically Noble Savage’ Hypothesis” It is . . . important to surrender the image of the aboriginal peoples living in idyllic harmony with host ecological systems, at least if by that is meant living in a way that conformed to current notions of ecological propriety. —Thomas Neumann, “The Role of Prehistoric Peoples in Shaping Ecosystems in the Eastern United States” Would the lives of modern “primitive peoples” suggest anything like an Edenic dark green golden age in the Paleolithic period? In chapter 5 we considered this question from the perspective of peace and equality. In this chapter we shall consider it from the perspective of ecological wisdom and useful religion. 70 Convenient Myths An Age of Ecological Wisdom? Would the lives of modern “primitive peoples” suggest that long ago people were capable, in a way that modern human beings are not, of living in harmony with nature? Are we safe in assuming, on the analogy of modern hunter-gatherer societies, that our prehistoric ancestors took care not to exceed in population the carrying capacity of their environment or to damage the earth and its various animal populations? The Native Peoples of Amazonia The native peoples of Amazonia have often been depicted as possessing an innate conservation ethic of the sort that my questions imply. The Tukanoan peoples of the northwest, for example, forbid deforestation of the riverbanks; this has been heralded as management of the river’s edge so that its resources remain sustainable. The Gorotire Kayapó have been credited with a management technique arising out of an environmental philosophy that involves the creation of “islands” of forest in the savanna of central Brazil. The Cocamilla have been portrayed as enhancing floodplain lake-fishing resources by adding manure and garbage to the lake waters to increase nutrients. In these cases and in others , however, Allyn Stearman suggests that there is, in fact, no evidence that a conservation ethic is functioning at all. 1 The “conservation” that arises is simply an accidental by-product of the main business at hand: surviving as best one can in challenging circumstances. It is resource constraints that drive their practice, not an environmental philosophy. Stearman notes that the original 1983 report on the Cocamilla, in particular, states on more than one occasion that the people themselves have no conscious awareness of managing the lake. Indeed, she further notes that most of the original analyses of the indigenous practices she describes do not mention a conservation ethic in relation to the practices: “These assertions tend to come later and in an entirely different context, primarily when these cases are reinterpreted in light of the growing rhetoric concerning the role of indigenous peoples as conservationists.” Over against these examples of allegedly conservationist behavior in Amazonia, Stearman cites the example of the Yuquí of eastern Bolivia, who do not face resource constraints and whose “use patterns . . . tend toward extravagance rather than conservation.” 2 She notes that the Yuquí kill animals without regard to age or sex, including females with young or who are pregnant, and that they do Ecologically Noble Ancestors? 71 not value animals apart from their usefulness as food. Their fishing habits are damaging from an ecological perspective, as are their patterns of harvesting fruit. Insofar as the Yuquí nowadays show more concern about conservation than they did before, they do so as a result of outside influence. These and other cases are not exceptions to the rule, Stearman concludes “and are certain to disturb those who romanticize indigenous peoples according to their own ethnocentric perceptions of how native societies relate to nature.” Those same romantics were shocked and outraged when in the early 1990s it emerged that the Kayapó were exploiting for profit the natural resources on their reserve in just the way that many nonnative peoples might do. 3 They might still have been shocked and outraged, but at least not surprised, if they had taken the time to talk with the natives themselves. Perhaps they should have listened to someone like Nicanor González, a Kuna Indian from Panama, who writes, “I don’t believe that you can...