Comment by blario | Hacker News Reader

Comment by blario | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This sounds like a repeat of when Europeans came to the Americas. There were no environmental issues (other than natural ones) in the Americas before "Land Ownership". Land Ownership created deforestation and pollution, not the other way around.

Deforestation causes erosion of top soil, nutrient imbalances, dust storms and land slides. Even the type of farming that goes hand and hand with land ownership causes environment problems.

This view seems like foolhardy view, endorsed because of its prevalence on earth in powerful nations.

Regarding point #2, poverty is relative. Although you may consider not having internet to be poverty, much of the world couldn't care less about it. Hunter/Gathers native to Sudan, central, and south africa live the way they do because it is considered to be their culture (they choose to do it). So there is no "poverty" to be talked about. "Being behind" and "Building wealth" sound like nonsense that they deliberately want no parts of. Their state is not something they're trying to get away from. It is desired. So your notion of 'not owning land' put them in this position is false. Their will-power is why they live traditionally, not land ownership.

Living natively didn't cause the land grab. Other people's notions of land ownership is what caused the land grab. If it were not for people who think they own land, there would have been no land grab...

Your logic seems to be completely backwards.

There were no environmental issues in the Americas before "Land Ownership".

That was before the industrial revolution and consumerism. That's why America was so pristine and clean.

The deforestation was due to farming not necessarily land ownership. Go to maps.google.com and look up any eastern US state. You'll find that almost all the deforestation is due to farming fields. Deforestation and farming happens even in communal lands. And that happens because people need food (either to eat or to export to others who want to eat). Deforestation will happen with or without land ownership.

"Living natively didn't cause the land grab. Other people's notions of land ownership is what caused the land grab."

That's like saying "Living without an army didn't cause a country to lose the war. Other people's notions of invade & conquer is what caused the war." Well of course. When the whole world operates on the notions of land ownership and great countries are built on those rules, not having it screws a country. My argument has some flaws because with or without land ownership humans are reckless. They're just more likely to be punished or motivated when they own something. But you seem to be unable to make the connection between Africa's lack of growth, lack of investment, and extreme poverty and the inability to own land. Do people really think Africa is going to get somewhere like this?! This defies all historical examples of nation and empire building. It ignores history. As if tribal lands are really going to give birth to a wealthy, healthy nation. This is just Ludicrous.

"Being behind" and "Building wealth" sound like nonsense that [African's] deliberately want no parts of. Their state is not something they're trying to get away from. It is desired." & "[African's] will-power is why they live traditionally, not land ownership."

I honestly cannot believe you uttered that statement. At this point, there's no reason to debate with someone that ignores so much history, so much suffering, so many problems, and so much struggle, and writes it off as simply "they don't mind it at all, they like it". This is why we need better world history in American classrooms.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com