Dr. Margaret Flowers International Interview

Margaret Flowers: To Save the Planet, We Must End Instruments of Corporate Power

"Clearing the FOG" host Margaret Flowers speaks with Manuel Pérez-Rocha of the Institute for Policy Studies about ousted Pakistani leader Imran Khan and how trade agreements function to force countries into allowing corporations to exploit their workers and devastate their environment.
Ousted Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan. [ U.S. Institute of Peace / CC BY 2.0]

By Margaret Flowers / Clearing the FOG

On April 10, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan was ousted in what is believed to be a US-backed soft coup. One of the likely reasons for the coup is that Khan was taking action to end excessive corporate power bestowed by bilateral trade agreements. Clearing the FOG speaks with Manuel Pérez-Rocha of the Institute for Policy Studies about Khan and how trade agreements function to force countries into allowing corporations to exploit their workers and devastate their environment. Pérez-Rocha explains why ending corporate abuse is essential to addressing the climate crisis and how trade could be structured to uphold human rights and protection of the planet. He also speaks about the risks of extraction for minerals that are required for a green economy.

Listen here:

Subscribe to the show on iTunesSoundCloudMixCloud or Stitcher.

Guest:

Manuel Pérez-Rocha is an Associate Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington and an Associate of the Transnational Institute (TNI) in Amsterdam. He is a Mexican national who has led efforts to promote just and sustainable alternative approaches to trade and investment agreements for two decades. Prior to working for IPS’ Global Economy Program, he worked with the Mexican Action Network on Free Trade (RMALC) and continues to be a member of that coalition’s executive committee. He also worked for the Make Trade Fair campaign of Oxfam International.

Manuel studied International Relations at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), has a diploma on European Studies from the Autonomous Technological Institute of Mexico (ITAM) and holds a M.A. on Development Studies from the Institute of Social Studies (ISS) in The Hague, Netherlands. Some of his last publications include op-eds in The Nation and The New York Times.

18 comments

  1. Critics like C. Wright Mills have been saying this since the ’50s. Even Ike warned us about the MIC. How are we going to do with this when the money in politics prevents any reform legislation? Citizens United and McConnell-McClarren. MtFr Mitch. It’s currently money by bribery. And I find it offensive that progressive politicians have to ask poor people for money. Millions of poor people don’t have even close to as much money as even a single Oligarch, let alone a corporation.

    1. @Tom
      The solution to this problem is a total prohibition of private campaign contributions or donations. This is nothing but buying elections and has nothing to do with having a representative government. Political campaigns should be 100% publicly funded, period. Anything else is corruption and illegitimate, and amounts to one-dollar-one-vote instead of one-person-one-vote.

      BTW, Buckley v. Valeo from the 1970s was the preeminent case holding that money is speech and that campaign contributions couldn’t be restricted. The case was a challenge to federal legislation that was trying to limit campaign contributions in response to something Nixon did. We read this case in law school, and I was shocked that the Supreme Court held that money is speech, but now I would expect this attitude from them.

  2. To save the planet, humans must radically lower their population and radically change their lifestyles to living a lot more simply and naturally. This headline is just more leftist BS, looking at life as if human left/right issues are relevant to trees. Humans were wrecking the Earth thousands of years before “instruments of corporate power” existed.

    Just about everything humans do is unnatural and therefore harmful to the Earth and all the life here. Therefore, trying to list all the things we need to do in order to save the planet is a fool’s errand. We need to fix the root causes of all these problems, which means greatly lowering our population and greatly simplifying our lifestyles and living a lot more naturally. These changes will take a long time, but we didn’t get into this mess overnight and it’s not realistic to think that we could get out of it overnight either. Sure, get rid of corporate power and corporations themselves, even get rid of the cancer known as capitalism, but those are symptoms, not causes of environmental and ecological harms. It’s fine to work on symptoms too, but our focus needs to be on root causes, not symptoms.

    1. Has Jeff been reading Ted Kaczynski again? Where will he put all those “radically lowered” people? Tom believes Congress has an important role.
      There’s just no one to vote for, Tom.
      I think Margaret and Manuel are saying international business practices are criminal. The hope would be that if people were informed they could resist.
      Notice how it was the “secret government” who removed that old retired cricket star Imran Khan, probably because he drifted away from the US war on terror and became more aligned with Russia and China. It’s not that this contradictory populist is so perfect, but that he was legally elected by the voters of Pakistan. In fact he was mostly a pro-business administrator and used IMF loans to shore up a deficit budget. But that wasn’t good enough and western corporations became impatient to maximize their extraction. It looks pretty heavy handed, but no surprise at a time of Capital crisis.

      1. @Red Hornet
        Typical BS leftist response to a call for lowering the grossly bloated human population. Human population is lowered by birth control and abortion, not by killing people. But instead of educating yourself on this issue, you make an asinine comment, complete with a personal attack.

        What you and your ilk don’t get is that overconsumption is only one of the two physical root causes of environmental and ecological problems, and that overpopulation is the other root cause of them. Overpopulation is an even more fundamental problem, because without it much if not most overconsumption, like industrial society, wouldn’t even be possible. But go ahead and keep growing your population like the cancer that it is, see where that gets the environment.

        All I can say is that if the vast majority of humans insist on being mentally, spiritually, and emotionally unevolved, they can all go kill each other for all I care, despite the fact that I’ll miss some of them personally. Just use preindustrial weapons so that you don’t harm the Earth or any nonhumans.

        The ONLY proper role of humans on this planet is to expand our consciousness. There are many ways to do this beside mental exercises like meditation, so I’m not advocating for a homogeneous society where everyone is the same. Even playing sports can be a way to expand one’s consciousness, for example. But unnaturally and very harmfully manipulating the physical/natural world in order to seemingly benefit your own species while harming the Earth and all other life here is totally immoral and unacceptable. Agriculture and the overpopulation that it spawned is exactly this type of harmful manipulation.

  3. Good work Margaret does, for sure, and Rocha, tambien. “Well, a recent study in Nature Communications, evaluating a range of datasets, confirms much of what I’ve written, that it is the affluent minority who “are responsible for most environmental impacts”. They speak to societies that require overconsumption and have to incentivise it, based on the imperative for endless growth through market-based economies. They are talking about capitalism.”

    So, the answer to the question is actually quite clear, and it’s time for environmentalists to accept it and focus on the hard and daunting work the answer calls for.
    +–+
    https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-07-16-saving-nature-overpopulation-is-not-the-primary-problem/#gsc.tab=0

    The exploitation of nature at the frontiers is overwhelmingly in the service of centres of production, usually located far away in urban areas. Think of the clearing of tropical rainforest for industrial agriculture – meat, soy, palm oil – it is not the locals, who often do the clearing to earn a menial living, that are driving this process. Such processes also happen to the pathways for pathogens like Covid-19 to escape their natural containers and become pandemics.

    Where the exploitation of nature occurs outside of such relations of production – perhaps poaching, local deforestation and overgrazing – those doing the exploiting have almost always been excluded by those very relations and have no other alternatives to put bread on the table. This is why Büscher and Fletcher describe the focus on such people, rather than those who own these centres of production, as a contradiction of conservation.

    In the words of Bellamy Foster:

    “Where threats to the integrity of the biosphere as we know it are concerned, it is well to remember that it is not the areas of the world that have the highest rate of population growth, but the areas of the world that have the highest accumulation of capital, and where economic and ecological waste has become a way of life, that constitute the greatest danger.”

    It is both convenient to centre overpopulation as the problem instead of the logic of our economic system. Doing so protects the interests of those who benefit from it, the powerful.

    The use of overpopulation to explain the ills of hunger and unemployment demonstrate this. There is, in fact, an abundance of food – the obsession of Malthus – and much of it wasted, yet there is hunger. This contradiction points towards the deficiency in the distribution of food, a result of food being produced for profit.

    +–+
    https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/01/17/what-ikes-military-industrial-complex-speech-didnt-say/

    And, Ike was no hero:

    We know that the CIA under Eisenhower had flourished in its secret Cold War operations throughout the 1950’s, particularly under the aegis of Allen Dulles (Deputy CIA Director 1951-1953; Director 1953-1961). While the president had shown a reticence for major military conflict (as a former commanding general he had seen his share in World War II), he had allowed the CIA a long tether in terms of covert action, which we now know included a sordid number of activities, including the assassination of political leaders (and/or attempts), regime change (including the overthrow Iran’s democratic elected leader Mossadegh in 1953), and notorious mind control/LSD experiments. Ted Snider has a good round-up of some of the most notorious CIA-backed foreign coups here. The bottom line is by November 22, 1963, they became essentially, unaccountable.

    “Ike madly loved covert operations. Guatemala and Iran were his babies and he went on to Indonesia, China, Eastern Europe, the Congo, Cuba, etc, with covert gusto. He personally ordered assassinations of foreign leaders and pushed for ‘more extreme’ regime-change ops,” Stephen Kinzer, author of Poisoner in Chief: Sidney Gottlieb and the CIA Search for Mind Control, and The Brothers: John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, and Their Secret World War, tells me.

    “Part of the reason he did this was because he saw covert ops as a peace project. He had sent kids off to die by the thousands in WWII and was deeply affected by it,” Kinzer surmises. “Now he found a way to work America’s will in the world without wars — fantastic! So the MIC speech was certainly a reflection of his budget-cutting instinct, but there was also an unspoken message: ‘forget the bomber squads and tanks, rely on covert ops the way I’ve been doing.’ It’s cheaper and a lot fewer people die.”

    1. @Paul+Haeder
      While it’s obviously true that the rich are the most responsible for overconsumption, pretty much by definition, you don’t address the other fundamental physical root cause of all environmental problems, namely overpopulation. The blame for this is equally divided among all groups of people, though a few countries like Russia and Japan are actually lowering their population (despite the fact that the governments in those countries are trying to bribe people to have more kids). Both of these problems must be solved in order to fix environmental and ecological problems. Overpopulation is an even more fundamental and thus bigger problem, because without it much overconsumption, such as industrial society, couldn’t even exist, and because there are so many people on Earth that the nonhumans basically don’t have anywhere to live — humans, their agriculture, and their infrastructure now occupy more than half of the terrestrial land on Earth, and most of the remainder is unsuitable habitat for any but the most primordial life.

      1. Jeff: Thanks for openly revealing your disdain for the majority of humanity.
        By claiming your POV and your solutions are the only possible way to survive, you set yourself up as a defacto death camp commandant.
        Maybe there is no other way to emphasize how urgent our ecological plight actually is, but the short circuit of your argument tends to shock rather than to win consideration.
        I kind of got to giggling when you said you’d implement extensive birth control and abortions. It’s not like those things have not been tried and are not in widespread use. For China the demographic head kind of caught up with the tail two generations into a one child policy. And the truth is that abortion remains a sad choice even for people like me who demand women be allowed to control their own bodies.
        You walk right past the fact that the upper crust consumption and demands for profit are the main driver of environmental degradation.
        Your plan to penalize all for the crimes of a few embraces the fallacy of collective punishment. But I do agree with the urgency in your message.

      2. Yes and no. The entire planet went to complete hell in the 20th century. The population combined with technology growth that allowed faster, more efficient destruction of everything correlated with the destruction of the environment. But . . . your explanation fails to take into account the disparity in damage to the planet by the industrialized nations for most of the 20th century.

        The 1960s proved that even not even 180 million Americans could live the low-tech, lack-of-plastic life that Americans lived in those days, and still have a viable planet very far into the future. This was when wildlife populations were close to four times what they are today, and Rachel Carson had already written Silent Spring by 1962. Entire rivers were on fire, and entire lakes were too toxic for humans to step foot in.

        Our environmental problems are very cultural. We Euro-types started trashing everything alive the moment we got off the boats in this hemisphere. We felled forests everywhere we looked. We exterminated 99% of all the Native Americans in the lower 48 states, all the large predators, all the “pests,” like our only parrot species and the passenger pigeons, sending our woodland bison into extinction, almost succeeding in doing the same millions and millions of prairie bison. We fouled all the waters immediately!

        Humans have certainly changed the planet, as have ALL animals, over the hundreds of thousands of years of our existence. That’s how biology works. As the movies goes, even wolves change rivers, and they change them dramatically.

        Ancient humans who lived in Nature cultures for tens of thousands of years were very mindful of their effects on, and of the limits of, the Earth. They did rectify mistakes they deemed unsustainable, and did develop practices specifically for sustainability. The idea that people didn’t “progress” (according to us) because they were too “primitive” is nonsense. Lots of people on this planet LOVED the Earth, and they have a very different experience living on it and with it than people in our culture have for well over a thousand years.

        We had trashed Europe by the middle ages. The waters there were already full of human and animal waste from our domestication, which brought epidemic diseases. Europeans were already unsustainable the moment we became civilized. That’s why we Euro-colonials were all in religious psychosis to find this “new land” that was full of trees and furs and rich soil, and fish and game that they didn’t have anything like back in the old country.

        You are correct that we need to live in a Nature culture, or what we arrogantly call “stone age”, an ignorant term if there ever was one. A consistently small population could live Amish-ish, with some mining and some renewable power, but only if they did so allowing the rest of the Earth to replenish itself naturally.

        Population didn’t drive this mess we are in. It is a product of Euro-invasion throughout the world. Our culture drove the current population explosion, which we have facilitated over the past 500 years by invading the entire planet and destroying Nature cultures everywhere we went, and moving in and trashing the entire planet. But, as they say, only about 17% of the planet’s population has done 80% of the damage to the planet. Certainly a small portion of the global population has reaped the rewards of that damage.

        We aren’t going to survive it all much longer, either.

      3. @Tupe
        Actually, wildlife populations began declining substantially around 1800, when artificial fertilizer from industrialization provided more food and human populations began increasing again. (The first unnatural increase was when humans started using agriculture.) Decline of megafauna tracks almost exactly with human population growth beginning in 1800. It’s totally false that 17% of the population has done 80% of the damage. Everyone but hunter-gatherers has done immense damage, and this started thousands of years ago. Every farm, every civilization is destruction of habitat and ecosystems, and killing of native plants & animals. This is not meant as blaming people, but instead as pointing out that we’re way farther off course than your comments say. If you were to look at the Earth 10-12,000 years ago before humans started using agriculture and look at it even 500 years ago, you’d think that you were looking at two different planets.

        While we have basically the same attitude about loving and respecting the Earth and all life on it, you begin your analysis of the problems in the middle instead of the beginning. There’s an excellent argument to be made that even by leaving Africa 60-90,000 years ago, humans began causing immense harm, because everywhere they went they caused extinctions. But for the sake of argument I’ll skip that problem. The beginning of all these problems is agriculture, which humans started using 10-12,000 years ago. There were about 5-10 million people on the entire planet at that time, and that was the ecological balance for humans after 60-90,000 years after leaving Africa. The use of agriculture provided an unnatural abundance of food, causing a human population explosion — just like the Petri dish experiment we all did in high school biology, give animals more food and you get more animals, and that includes humans — that resulted in civilization. The very first civilization destroyed an entire forest in the Middle East, which turned it into a desert. (Much of the desert in the Middle East used to be forest before humans killed all the trees.)

        So no, the problems didn’t start in the 1960s or even 500 years ago, they started 10-12,000 years ago. Hunting and gathering is the only natural way to live on this planet, it’s how all other animals live, and it’s how humans lived for 95% of our existence. Agriculture means, by definition, killing native plants in order to plant crops. The only excuse for killing is to kill what you directly eat, so agriculture is supremely immoral and ecologically devastating. The only reason people support agriculture is that they’re what Derrick Jensen calls “human supremacists.” If you view all life as equal, you can’t support agriculture, mining, or anything like that.

        As you’ve noted in your comments, this doesn’t mean that we regress to some mindless existence. What humans should be focused on, as some if not most hunter-gatherer cultures are, is empathy (for the Earth and all life, not merely humans), wisdom, and expanding our consciousness. Humans should not in any way be unnaturally and very harmfully be manipulating the physical natural world. Our relationship with that world should be to enjoy it by merely experiencing it as it is, “look but don’t touch” so to speak.

    2. You are correct. Over population is not our primary problem. Also, the population problem could be addressed through education and birth control, and population control. The Chinese did it. We think we don’t like that level of control, but no one wants to live on a planet that looks like Mad Max or The Road, either.

      Our primary problem is destruction of habitat for living species, driven by our western ideology, and maybe by something else. Maybe it is a problem with human evolution, and aggressive, warring, cousin chimpanzees. I don’t know.

      There are known nonviolent societies, and there have been plenty of Nature cultures on the planet everywhere. Many indigenous people had culture-wide beliefs that they could literally feel the Earth’s energies. Sitting Bull said , “Healthy feet can feel the very heart of Mother Earth.”

      The Kogi of Columbia will not wear shoes so as not to break contact with the Earth.

      Traditional aboriginal people of Australia sit on the ground to remain in contact with the Earth at all times.

      Traditional people around the world taught each other to be open to a very different experience of this planet. They taught concepts we will never even hear expressed in words.

      At the time of contact between Native Americans and Europeans, Native Americans had an average life span nearly twice that of Europeans. They bathed daily. They were the world’s best astronomers. They were the world’s best biologists, and were hybridizing crops for preferred characteristics when Europeans didn’t understand plant reproduction at all. They, and almost everyone else, were better at medicine than the Europeans.

      They had metallurgy, but declined to mine the Earth. It was a matter of values in connection with violence toward the Earth that made the difference, not intellectual limitations on their parts.

      I write this to challenge our cultural worldview which holds that that we are the epitome of human evolution, the most “advanced” humans, and everyone else was “primitive.”

      Our way of life is the problem. Humans cannot live the way we want to live. Not a tiny fraction of the current human population could live the way we want to live and still have a future. None of it is up to us.

      The resource orgy and all the rest of the human psychopathy, equally shared among people or not, is circling the drain and will be over in the near future because of the current extinction event that is already far gone. We would be lucky if we got an asteroid instead, but I don’t think we’re going to get one.

      1. @Tupe
        I fully agree with most of what you wrote except for saying that overpopulation is not the problem, which I address below. The problem is certainly not physical evolution, because as you pointed out, there ARE groups of people who focused on wisdom, empathy, and expanding their consciousness, instead of intellect, ego, and unnaturally and very harmfully manipulating the physical/natural world for their own benefit. It was a CHOICE made thousands of years ago, whether conscious or unconscious, but certain groups of people who eventually destroyed the large majority of traditional indigenous cultures and came to dominate human society. The traditional societies that you mentioned are or were comprised of the most evolved people on Earth. Civilized people are the least evolved, because we’ve evolved in the wrong direction; in fact, I’d say that we’ve devolved, worshiping ourselves and our hideous technology that’s killing the planet and all the life here.

        One thing that is incorrect is that the large majority of Native groups here on Turtle Island were hunter-gatherers when white people got here, not agriculturalists. Agriculturalists may have exceeded the hunter-gatherers by numbers of people because agricultural societies automatically overpopulate, whereas hunter-gatherer societies don’t, but the large majority of tribes or nations (whatever you want to call them) were hunter-gatherers, not agriculturalists.

        Did you know that humans, their agriculture, and their infrastructure occupy more than half of the terrestrial land on Earth? And that the remainder of the rest is “rocks and ice,” suitable habitat for only the most primordial species? Or that scientists say that human overpopulation is the No. 1 cause of the current extinction crisis? Or that scientists say that the best thing anyone can do to lower greenhouse gas emissions to help fix the global warming/climate change problem is to have fewer kids? Or that we wouldn’t even have industrial society without overpopulation?

        So of course overpopulation is the primary problem. It’s the human supremacist that makes us think that human overpopulation isn’t the fundamental problem that it really is. This is not to say that overconsumption is not also a fundamental problem and physical root cause of these problems, because it clearly is. Both problems have to be fixed.

        You’re correct that the primary SYMPTOM of our real problems is destruction of habitats and entire ecosystems, along with extirpation and extinction of species. But those things are caused by overpopulation more than anything, though overconsumption, including consuming things that we should not be like fossil fuels and tress, is right behind overpopulation as the twin physical root of these problems.

        These are by far the biggest problems on Earth. But mentally & spiritually unevolved humans, who make up almost 100% of the human race, continue to argue about relatively trivial issues and ignore these fundamental problems. I’m more concerned with the Earth itself and all the life here than I am about humans, but humans are going to be in for a very rude awakening when they learn, far too late, that you can’t destroy the Earth with agriculture and overpopulation, and with all the evil results of those things, and still have a planet to live on.

  4. @Jeff,

    My comment regarding recent wildlife population declines doesn’t in the least mean that I’m not aware of previous damage to the planet by humans.

    As I wrote, Europeans began killing everything that moved the instant they got off the boats in this country, and they had already trashed their own lands centuries earlier. I specifically mentioned driving the woodland bison to extinction in the US very quickly. It is believed that somewhere between 30 and 60 million prairie bison were driven to near-extinction in little more than a decade.

    We’re very good at driving things to extinction, and we have been since we were Rome. But that wasn’t going on everywhere in the world. Other people were smarter, and frankly, less murderous, than the Europeans on that score.

    There was agriculture throughout the western hemisphere, from South America through Canada. Agriculture was extensive in the US, throughout the entire eastern seaboard, what is now the southern US, the southwest, and the midwest. Well over half the people who were here were farmers as well as hunters and gatherers, because the largest Amer-Indian populations were in the east.

    Agriculture was extensive throughout central America, as well, perhaps more than any other region. Agriculturalists dominated central America. So, I don’t know what your point is about most tribes not being agricultural. I disagree with your statement. Agriculture was extensive. The majority of humans in North and central America had agriculture. Trying to win this argument and trying to give more weight to humans who were only hunters and gatherers by quibbling over the word “tribes” is nonsense.

    Humans have been changing the planet since we were Lucy. All animals change the planet. I disagree with your statement that equates all changes to the environment with “damage” to the environment. That’s a failure to understand biology and ecosystems.

    The megafauna argument falls apart with every new archaeological finding. With every glacial minimum, ice age animal populations were hugely reduced to small pockets of survivors. Humans have been in this hemisphere for at least 20,000 years longer than the beginning of the last glacial minimum. Humans have been in Australia for about 60,000 years longer than the disappearance of that megafauna. There is something wrong with the theory that all the “largest” animals disappeared with entrance of humans. Especially when we apparently killed lots of animals that were smaller than the ones we left behind, like the huge bison and grizzly bears and kodiak bears and polar bears, 1600-pound moose, which are all monstrously large animals, larger than saber toothed cats by large amounts.

    You repeatedly state that over population that is the biggest problem, but then you appear to state that human existence at all is the real problem. Whatever. I put in my half penny regarding the fact that no humans can live the way we want to live. Plenty of humans have been sustainable in our 300,000 years of known existence, it could be much longer, and we absolutely can know that many of them were sustainable purposefully out of knowledge of biology. Lots of people in our culture really want to take that away from other humans because it makes us look bad, by our own standards.

    We look bad because we are, but everyone hasn’t been like us.

    1. @Lupe
      I don’t understand what your point is, but you clearly don’t understand mine. My point is that it’s only natural to live as hunter-gatherers, that using agriculture is immoral, unnatural, and totally destructive to the natural world and all the life there, and that human destruction of the natural environment began with the use of agriculture, which was thousands of years after at the times you discuss. Agriculture also causes human overpopulation, and overpopulation is the No. 1 cause of environmental and ecological harm on Earth.

      I’m not going to argue about how many or what percentage of Natives here lived as hunter-gatherers, it’s irrelevant to my point. I will say that if you can’t understand the difference between individuals and groups — I never contested which term should be used for groups, that was not at all my point — I don’t know what to tell you. You are wrong about agriculture in the west, there was very little of it. Aside from the Hopi and the “Pueblo,” I can’t think of any substantial agriculture here.

      You also fail to differentiate between unnatural human-caused changes, and those caused by natural evolution. Agriculture is unnatural, not evolutionary. Because of using agriculture, its resultant overpopulation, and everything that came after, the human race fits the medical definition of being a cancerous tumor on the Earth. The only exception is hunter-gatherers, and they are a small fraction of 1% of humans at this point. If you’re just going to say that everything is natural, then don’t use that word because you’ve completely destroyed its meaning. I’m not talking about natural changes, there is no problem with that. I’m talking about unnatural harms caused by humans choosing to live unnaturally.

  5. I want to correct my comment regarding the largest Amer-Indian populations. The largest indigenous populations in the hemisphere were in central America. That remains the case today. Indigenous populations have been reduced throughout the hemisphere to tiny percentages of what they were pre-Columbian times. The largest indigenous population remaining is the Mayans.

    The largest Amer-Indian populations in what is now the US were in the east, including the northeast, the south, and the midwest. Cahokia was in the mid-west. There was vibrant trade and exchange of agricultural knowledge between central America and north America that existed from Florida to California.

    Most Amer-Indians had some form of agriculture. Even remote tribes in the Amazon have some limited agriculture, and have had for a very long time. The nomadic tribes of the plains did not, but all the great lakes tribes did. The reason the pacific northwest tribes did not was because that region was so abundant in wild food and salmon specifically, that people did not have to farm at all. They had the most and the easiest food there was, in a land that had abundant game. Benjamin Franklin wrote of the Iroquois in his part of the world in 1770,

    ” . . . almost all their Wants are supplied by the spontaneous Productions of Nature, with the addition of very little labour, if hunting and fishing may indeed be called labour when Game is so plenty . . .”

    That was the tribes in the cold Atlantic northeast. Everyone else had it much easier. Their land was full of so much life that we cannot conceive of it. Written accounts of the numbers of whales in single pods in the pacific tell of their odor being so strong that it overwhelmed people standing on the beaches when the whales were passing by. Passenger pigeons darkened the skies darker than night for three days at a time when one flock passed overhead.

    I don’t know what your ideology is regarding what the Earth should look like, i.e., no damage. Because everything changes the environment. Add or remove a single species from any environment, and that system will change, and often dramatically. Remove a mouse species, and it will change the environment. Wait until the rest of the insects are gone.

    I think the Earth should look like abundant Life. If that’s going on, then we’re good.

    We never needed to change the “world.” The world was doing exactly what it was supposed to do – sustain Life. We only ever needed to change ourselves. I don’t think we’ve got what it takes.

    I agree with you that human Nature cultures were as “evolved” as we’re ever going to get, unless we have a massive, species-wide, permanent kundalini elevation, if that is possible.

    Nonetheless, I’m pretty sure we’re all going to a new world soon because this one is going to be dead in this dimension in the very near future. Geologically, it will be a nanosecond.

    peace

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: