How is everything connected from the perspective of indigenous peoples and western scientists?
In my opinion, there are huge differences in the perspectives of indigenous peoples and western scientists.
Most indigenous people learn about their environment through knowledge passed down from generation to generation. This knowledge isn't gained by reading a book, instead it's learned visually or by doing. For example; a parent might teach a child how ice on the ocean or a lake should look like in order to be safe to travel on, and the indicators of rotten ice. A child also learns how to survive if caught in a storm through stories.
The western perspective seems to gear more towards the overall picture; changes in the environment, keeping track of overpopulation or near extinction of a certain species. This may have negative consequences when a species that is being protected starts overpopulating and therefore starts to disrupt the natural flow of the food chain process.
What are the advantages of knowing both ways?
If you've had the opportunity of having learned to live both ways, you are probably aware of the differences between the two. It doesn't matter if it was in rural Kenya, or in a secluded village; I believe that there are two very different world views. There are differences in survival modes and ways of subsisting. For example; getting food on the table by substance way of life or buying it from Carrs.
I also believe that integrating the two can have deadly consequences if you do not fully comprehend the differences between the two. Favoring one way more than the other can have dire consequences.
In the movie Into The Wild, the person wanted to live in a way that he thought represented freedom from the western way of life. The problem was; he didn't know how to subsist. He didn't have any prior knowledge and was ill equipped to survive in his surroundings.
Another example would be an indigenous person using technology while out subsisting. They know the area, but if there was a blizzard and that person used a GPS to head home, the GPS doesn't transfer prior knowledge of open water that might be in front of you. In this incident, over confidence in the use of technology would be their downfall.
Clay mentioned to me that stories are a very powerful way to learn. Some are based on history and they have a lesson to tell. I found this article from BBC news that I thought you might find interesting. It's an article on how folklore passed down from generation to generation saved people.
I believe both indigenous peoples and western scientists way of view are relevant, but if you are in a life and death situation, stick with what you know.
In my opinion, there are huge differences in the perspectives of indigenous peoples and western scientists.
Most indigenous people learn about their environment through knowledge passed down from generation to generation. This knowledge isn't gained by reading a book, instead it's learned visually or by doing. For example; a parent might teach a child how ice on the ocean or a lake should look like in order to be safe to travel on, and the indicators of rotten ice. A child also learns how to survive if caught in a storm through stories.
The western perspective seems to gear more towards the overall picture; changes in the environment, keeping track of overpopulation or near extinction of a certain species. This may have negative consequences when a species that is being protected starts overpopulating and therefore starts to disrupt the natural flow of the food chain process.
What are the advantages of knowing both ways?
If you've had the opportunity of having learned to live both ways, you are probably aware of the differences between the two. It doesn't matter if it was in rural Kenya, or in a secluded village; I believe that there are two very different world views. There are differences in survival modes and ways of subsisting. For example; getting food on the table by substance way of life or buying it from Carrs.
I also believe that integrating the two can have deadly consequences if you do not fully comprehend the differences between the two. Favoring one way more than the other can have dire consequences.
In the movie Into The Wild, the person wanted to live in a way that he thought represented freedom from the western way of life. The problem was; he didn't know how to subsist. He didn't have any prior knowledge and was ill equipped to survive in his surroundings.
Another example would be an indigenous person using technology while out subsisting. They know the area, but if there was a blizzard and that person used a GPS to head home, the GPS doesn't transfer prior knowledge of open water that might be in front of you. In this incident, over confidence in the use of technology would be their downfall.
Clay mentioned to me that stories are a very powerful way to learn. Some are based on history and they have a lesson to tell. I found this article from BBC news that I thought you might find interesting. It's an article on how folklore passed down from generation to generation saved people.
I believe both indigenous peoples and western scientists way of view are relevant, but if you are in a life and death situation, stick with what you know.
