freediver wrote on Apr 25
th, 2007 at 11:05am:
Those societies had no sustainable economies.
Because the economy ultimately depended on the environment. It was nothing inherent to their economy that caused their collapse.
That is what is the result of no economy. Eventually you just use all your resources.
No it isn't. That was not Diamond's conclusion either.
The nations which built sustainable economies also protected their resources as they knew they needed them for a sustainable economy.
When you say resources, you mean the environment don't you?
Yes I do.
It
was Diamond's conclusion as I recall as he speaks of the desperate times that must have been faced at the end as people starved to death after chopping down all their trees to make boats to plunder more resources. Once the boats fell apart they had nothing. With no industry (food production) to sustain them they ate all their resources and perished.
So they had no trees because they had built boats. They plundered the seas for fish to eat. As soon as the boat broke they could not build another as they had no trees and they could no longer get produce to eat as it was in the ocean.
Let's say those same people built fish farms. Instead of chopping down the trees to make innumerable boats they harvested the trees for fibres, branches, blah blah to construct netted areas to hold live fish, and they farmed them. After they have the farms working they need never build boats as the supply of food is at hand and they are mindful of the need to keep the trees growing to supply the replacement fibres etc to repair netting/fencing.
Now they have an industry which supplies produce (fish) that requires an environment (trees) to keep it functioning.
But the industry (the economy) must come first to justify keeping the environment (trees). It's pretty simple and only works one way - not in reverse.
But I'm beginning to get the idea you're thinking Greeny and that's not for me. Nor is it for most Australians. The polling percentages prove I'm right.