What were the environmental implications of the commodification of land? Are commodification of land and environmental stewardship mutually exclusive? Was aboriginal land use more sustainable than European land tenure in North America? Why or why not?
-
Brandon Davis
Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
eddietastic, 
congo96, 
phoebe, and 26 others are discussing.
msmith92 2:47 pm on February 2, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I do think that aboriginal land use was probably more sustainable than European land use. A large part of this is the fact that a hunter-gatherer lifestyle kept population in check. Because aboriginals didn’t produce a surplus, the population could not grow as rapidly. Additionally, they were not sedentary. Instead of using the same plot of land continuously, they moved to exploit abundant resources. This ensure that fields were not overused to the point of exhaustion or soil break down.
The main impact of the commodification of land is that it leads to the division of land for specific purposes. This can lead to overuse of one area because if you own the land, you are likely to stay where you are to continue to make use of it. However, despite this, I do not think that environmental stewardship and the commodification of land are mutually exclusive. Especially in the present day, not that we recognize the impact that we as humans have on the land, ownership of land can lead to greater care of it. Someone who is solely responsible for an area is likely to take proper care of it, if only for their own personal purposes.
katehaxt 4:04 pm on February 3, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Aboriginal land use clearly was more sustainable than European land tenure. Aboriginal land use took its cues from the land itself, leaving areas to replenish when they were low on resources. European land tenure was an imported system that based on cultural beliefs about ownership. Commodification of the land meant that land no longer had diverse uses or as much time to recover. This was more likely to physically change the environment permenantly, as settled communities put consistent pressure on the land. Commodification of land can and does interfere with environmental stewardship but it doesn’t have to. Charities such as Cool Earth are using commodification of the land as a means of environmental stewardship, by raising money to buy tracts of rainforest for indigenous communities to then protect.
bgibson 3:22 pm on February 7, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Not only do some charities protect land through buying property, government protects the environment through the creation of parklands.
jonl 12:42 pm on February 4, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think that one of the biggest implications of commodification of land was the fact that land ceased being thought of as “land” or part of the earth, the environment. It became money, wealth, someone one owns much like they own a house, animals, or their furniture. That sort of led to forgetting about taking care of the land. Although I don’t believe commodification is mutually exclusive to environmental stewardship. The early settlers simply didn’t know better. With some of things we know now, particularly about agriculture, the land could probably have been better taken cared of.
Aboriginal land use was definitely more sustainable. I think the fact that their population and social groups didn’t grow to large number like the Europeans meant that pressure on the land was smaller. By moving around and living in small groups also allowed the land to recover.
jenniefrench 2:47 pm on February 4, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think that the environmental implications of the commodification of land were deep and many, such as draining the nutrients from the soil and disturbing the ecosystems. To this day these implications are felt, as we have to rely so heavily on pesticides and fertilizer. I do not believe that stewardship and commodification of land are exclusive – I believe that land can still be owned, but that it can be managed, shared, and cultivated in a more respectful and inclusive manner. I believe that the aboriginal use of the land was more sustainable than the European method. The Aboriginals had found a system that worked for their environment – they still used the land, still cultivated, still domesticated, but they were more concerned with the continuity of food supply, than in the commodification of crops and food. This meant that not only did the environment not suffer as much, as it was given time to recover, but also that the communities of humans that lived off the land were able to share the bounty they worked so hard to collectively perpetuate.
natashap 4:26 pm on February 4, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think that the commodification of land meant that the land lost a lot of its original value. The Aboriginal people would use a piece of land for multiple different things depending on the time of year and other factors; the European approach to land meant that once it was assigned, it did one thing only – it couldn’t serve multiple purposes. This obviously very negatively affected the environment as it drains the soil of its nutrients and makes it easier for pests and invasive species to take over.
I don’t think commodification of land and environment stewardship are necessarily mutually exclusive – but the process of assigning pieces of land singular tasks definitely is.
Aboriginal land use was definitely more sustainable than European land use – the European way used the land until it couldn’t give anymore whereas the Aboriginal way used the land for a bit, moved to a different new piece of land which allows the ground time to recuperate. The cultural attitude of the Aboriginal people was also more sustainable – they didn’t feel the need to accumulate objects and possessions just because they could like the Europeans did; the Aboriginal people just used what they needed from the land, not everything they could take from it.
sharonshi 3:23 pm on February 5, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The commodification of land meant the transformation of goods that is now regarded as a marketable item used to satisfy needs and wants. The environmental implications of the commodification of land are such like overuse and deterioration. Land can be owned, however, it is the treatment of land that makes the difference notable. Aboriginal land was both an efficient and effective one because it ensured that the land and all its resources will be there for future generations. Their strategy of systems that they used worked with the environment because they want the resources to last for longer periods of time. However, subsequent to the commodification of land, such resources will be seen as a “right” to which one can use to the fullest extent. This proves to have more negative environmental impacts in that once overused, the resources will soon be depleted.
roypat 9:58 pm on February 5, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I don’t think that environmental stewardship and commodification or land are environmentally exclusive, but given the era when New England (and the rest of what is now the USA) was colonized, the consequences of their actions at the time weren’t fully understood. It is only in retrospect that we can now understand the long-term consequences to the soil as well as the misunderstandings regarding ownership between the original european settlers and the aboriginals. I hesitate to say that ‘if the settlers had known these things before, they wouldn’t have colonized land in the same way,’ but I feel as if someone 50 years from now will say the same thing about our current society.
Aboriginal land use was more sustainable than european or north american land use due to its well-planned timing, where moving each season allowed certain resources to be replenished.
erikaw 1:26 am on February 6, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Environmental Implications of the commodification of land – soil degradation (depleting minerals due to monoculture crops and no (or little) crop rotation), not ideal use of land (not planting crops where their ecological “best fit” is.) Overall they may have had greater outcomes in the short run but less crop productivity in the long run. If the Europeans had learned from Indigenous crop tenure they may have been able to maximize productivity in a sustainable fashion.
Aboriginal land use was more sustainable because it didn’t deplete the soil (it actually added to the nutrients!) No plants can grow forever on weak and demineralized soils – since everything the plant needs (nutrition) comes from the soil. Even if the Indigenous peoples didn’t realize that they were replenishing the soil (as mentioned in course notes) they still had knowledge on what worked best in the long run. In the present day we still have much trouble with mono-culture crops (only now they are on a much larger scale!) Why aren’t farmers yet keying in to sustainable biodynamic farming methods that are better for the environment and the nutrition of the plant (and in the end us!)? Hm….. It seems money may be involved as usual. Thoughts?
jaydee 3:14 pm on February 6, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think the largest barriers present in our society to these sustainable farming methods is our huge population and our reliance on past methods. The method of agriculture that Europeans used (sedentary monoculture), and the system we use today, is capable of producing a large amount of food over a longer period of time in the time scale of a few years. This system allowed European and North American populations to increase drastically over time to the point that it is today. However, these methods have their limits, and over centuries, make the land more and more difficult to use. Technology has allowed us to slow this process, but eventually the limits will be reached.
Because of the surplus population we have built, we cannot cannot switch to the sustainable life style of the indigenous people because doing so would mean periods of starvation, and with this many people dependent on our high food production, it would mean the deaths of millions of people, as well as causing many social and political problems. Thus we are now forced to rely on a system that will continue to worsen our current state. We are stuck digging our own grave.
bgibson 1:57 am on February 7, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Money certainly is involved. Farmers now produce crops to yield profit, which in turn provides them with a means with which to buy food, shelter, creature comforts etc. Aboriginal techniques didn’t deplete the soil but the system was also subsistence farming. If modern farmers produced this way we would not be able to enjoy any of our modern conveniences since we would all be working the land to survive the winter. I’m not educated on recent developments into biodynamic farming methods but Jaydee is probably on the right track here. Unless these methods can produce enough food to sustain an overpopulated planet we are going to continue to produce food through the method that yields the largest return.
youngblutt 8:07 pm on February 6, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
European land use and land commodification has implications that are still felt today. Foremost of these is the unsustainable manner in which other resources have been used by landowners to delay the effects of soil degradation. Surplus production methods involving an exponentially growing dependence on fossil fuel energy began with the idea that the owner of a plot of land was essentially “the king of the land” and it was his job to exploit his plot and it’s resources as best as he could, for the betterment of society and in turn, for the betterment of his wallet.
It is enough to consider the environmental impacts that this European attitude had, but the commodification effect also largely shaped the course that North American society would take in forming social hierarchies based on the value of commodity ownership. It seems to be a self-perpetuating process that derived from the relative abundances of North America, even compared to European societies of the same time period, where greater “per capita” considerations provoked earlier sustainability debates.
paige 12:46 am on February 7, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Commodification of land locks the soil into one use which generally leads to much faster leaching of nutrients and involves a long recovery time. By micro-managing the areas, more natural processes are not being allowed to happen, such as burn offs. These processes help set the ecological cycle and maintain productivity of the land. We still see the consequences of actions like these today. Commodification and environmental stewardship are not the same thing because stewardship would think of the future and plan use according t sustainability. Commodification just prevents diversity and creates limited use land decrease the length of that lands usefulness.
Aboriginal land use was much more sustainable that European because aboriginal use conformed to the natural order of things. Without human impact the earth would function as it normally does. Aboriginal use was existing with the earth, European land use practices were using the earth for human existence. The crop rotation and the human movement allowed the soil to maintain and regenerate it’s nutrients before being fully depleted.
bgibson 3:53 pm on February 7, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The commodification of land is not exclusive of environmental stewardship, setting aside park lands or buying land for protectionist goals allows environmental stewardship to take advantage of land commodification. I think the notes make it pretty clear that aboriginal land use was more environmentally sustainable than European practices since they did not establish permanent settlements nor did they leave a permanent footprint. However, European practices were better suited to sustain a population than aboriginal practices. Simply look at how permanent settlements and agricultural practices have allowed the human population to increase and for the quality of life to increase. In that regards perhaps European practices are more “sustainable.”
emilym 6:36 pm on February 8, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The European viewpoint of land as something that can and should be owned has far reaching implications to this day. The commodification of land has led to environmental degradation as people have changed their individual plots of land in order to yield profit off of them. Whereas the Native Americans used land on a rotational and communal basis for varying uses, Europeans split land down arbitrary lines of ownership and then proceeded to over-use the land to the point of environmental degradation. However, I do not think that commodification of land and environmental stewardship are mutually exclusive as land can be owned and used in a sustainable and eco-friendly way. You can also have the opposite problem where communal lands turn into a “tragedy of the commons” situation.
sampethick 10:09 pm on February 8, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The environmental implications of the commodification of the land were that the climate was changing (the summers getting hotter and the winters getting colder), new and foreign plants (including weeds) were being introduced, and soil exhaustion and erosion became an issue. Also the deforestation which was taking place at this time was eliminating the canopy that protected areas of the land; this canopy kept the ground cooler in the summer and was a habitat for wildlife. I think that aboriginal land use was definitely more sustainable than European land tenure in North America. They used only what they needed, rather than the maximum that they could use simply because they could. They also weren’t ripping apart the land and cutting down forests. The aboriginals were not damaging the land but were instead living in a way which allowed the environment to survive as well as them; the Europeans were living in a way which harshly damaged the environment, especially in the long run.
Olga F 11:13 pm on February 8, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
First of all, i this the implications of putting price on land, is that people feel they own it, literally, and thus can do whatever they want with that land. This is especially true will large corporations like oil sands, logging etc.
Absolutely, Aboriginal land was used sustainably, because they knew if they abuse the nature, it will get back at them. Eg, if they over catch the fish, next year and the year after they may not be enough for all. They dependance on land created responsibilities for land. We do not feel such responsibility for land, because in modern society we are not as connected to nature (incl. land), as we should be. We are not completely aware of it and thus do not exactly care for it. However, sooner or later, the nature fights back. Great example climate change or pollution. We think we can pollute as much as we want for our “benefit” but in reality it harms us just as much. for instance, cancer rates are through the roof. Why? people do not see the connection or what? …..
nytsuen 6:58 pm on February 9, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
With the commodification of land, over time, our lands have been so exhausted from continuously planting one crop. The Europeans believe that since they have ‘ownership’ of the land, they can do anything with it. On the other hand, indigenous peoples don’t see land as an exclusive ownership but as a piece of land that grows their precious crops. Indigenous use of lands was definitely more sustainable than Europeans. It has always been about growing and expanding for Europeans. (Industrialization, globalization) They don’t just want to sustain, they want to live an advanced and comfortable life. The indigenous just want to live and therefore, they didn’t find the need to over produce like the Europeans. European actions have resulted in degradation of land, environmental problems, and depleted resources. However, there are consequences and I believe, we are slowly recognizing them in these decades.
lcoulthard 8:00 pm on February 9, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think that Aboriginal land use was more sustainable because their tendency to move around allowed the land to regenerate much better than the intensively used European areas. I don’t think that the commodification of land and environmental stewardship go hand-in-hand, because the Europeans flattened large areas of forest in order to raise monocultures – both two environmentally degrading acts. Intensive soil use from monocultures can lead to degeneration in quality or salinization of soil even with legumes planted for nitrogen fixation. Privatized European monoculture crops also introduced weeds and were at risk of crop failure from disease. Aboriginal land use took more from what was already there rather than remodel the landscape. Their communal methods of land use were more beneficial to humans also, because it allowed for a wider range of people to have sufficient resources.
brenden 9:57 pm on February 9, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I agree with the general consensus that aboriginal land use was more sustainable then European land use. Aboriginal culture revolved around a close connection with the environment in a spiritual manner and they did not share the european views of mercantilism, private property and surplus production. European culture motivated individuals to cultivate large parcels of land and fish and hunt in surplus to generate wealth. Aboriginal culture was more concerned with providing sustenance, as evidenced by their hunting and cultivation practices (ex. using all parts of an animal slain) as opposed to europeans who would simply decimate animal populations in pursuit of furs and other animal byproducts. Commodification of land leads to the exhaustion of resources and put strain on the environment as it damages biodiversity but interrupting natural habitats and food chains.
Keaton Briscoe 10:25 pm on February 9, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
That is a very good point that the commodification of land leads to damaging biodiversity and interrupts natural habitats and food chains. I think that is something that is often overlooked as the majority of the attention is focused on the land itself, not what else depends on the land.
Keaton Briscoe 10:23 pm on February 9, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think that Aboriginal land use was more sustainable than European land use because it did not focus on a make sure a surplus was present and they had a different connection with the land and environment than the Europeans. They also moved around a lot so they didn’t keep using the same field continuously which would cause the soil to be exhausted and unusable.
I think a problem that is associated with commodification is that the land isn’t really seen as earth or part of the environment, but it is seen as a setting the is spefically used for something, such as making a profit or surplus. This changes the lands ability to serve different purposed and be diverse. I also think that because of this division of land, the one particular area that society is expecting great profits from will get over used.
midara 11:00 pm on February 9, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
What were the environmental implications of the commodification of land?
Are commodification of land and environmental stewardship mutually exclusive?
Was aboriginal land use more sustainable than European land tenure in North America? Why or why not?
The commodification of land implies fixed land uses and allows more production; yet, the commodification definitely brings more soil exhausion and less vegetation dynamics on the land. Due to ownership of land, the owner who depend on the land for specific goods production will overcrop and harvest the land; the overproduction and lack of abundant period will soon lead to soil exhausion and nutrient deficit. The lack of vegetation dynamics and the aboriginal agriculture (i.e. growing beans and corns to balance soil nutrients) are also the reasons for environmental implication of the commodification of land. In modern days, artificial fertilizers and pesticides may be added to the land in order to improve production; yet, these scientific methods cannot fully recover the loss of nutrients and further harm the soil itself. Hence, it is hard to say that commodification of land and environmental stewadship are mutually exclusive because the latter is deeply impacted if commodified land is not properly managed.
Aboriginal land use was more sustainable than European land tenure in North America. The reason is apparently because aboriginal land use allows abundance period for land to restore its soil nutrients (either naturaly or manually by burning). Also, smaller scale of production also limits people from overusing the land and its nutrients. The creation of forest parking nevertheless keeps the population and dynamics of wild creatures less disturbed than that of the European land tenure. The aboriginal land use is then more sustainable.
Danni 11:01 pm on February 9, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Environmental implication and commodification Not mutually exclusive, because both are closed linked to each other, because the ownership of land sustainable impacts the environmental implication in the land stewardship. European Land ownership culture affects profoundly of the environmental implication. Issue about commodification of land is the culture of consideration of land as private properties, like their own house, furniture, and animals. Aboriginal land is more sustainable, because their sizes of communities. Their sizes of communities are much smaller than European’s, and the resources they have to extract from the land is much smaller. Therefore, there are more “room” for land recover. Furthermore, aboriginal also found their way in the stewardship of land, which is much efficient and beneficial than European’s. However, European seem could be able to obtain more profits from their stewardship than aboriginal community.
alyumam 11:10 pm on February 9, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Like most of the people here, I do believe Aboriginal land use has been certainly more sustainable than the use of European did of the land. However, an idea comes to my mind regarding how was land tenure in Europe at that time. Does this North American example was the same than in Europe? What differences they established in the New World? And, how they did they acquired, or if they ever got close, to sustainable agricultural practices?
I believe the question about commodification of land and environmental stewardship is a difficult one, since here, different contexts and/or cultures can be involved as also contribute to this debate; however, as for the example we have read and the circumstances that we live today, I do think they are mutually exclusive. Perhaps in a future, lots of organization and communication among landowners within a large geographical area can change this.
tsung 1:15 am on February 10, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The Commodification of land alienated us further from nature and has divorced land with ecological use. The need for efficiency and rapid growth has no consideration for the environment whatsoever and as long as the land is of value and of use, we remain and continue to exploit its resource until another plot is needed. In terms of whether commodification of land and environment stewardship is mutually exclusive, I must say no. Different people may own land but each person will have a different purpose for what they own. Aboriginal land use was more sustainable that European land use as the aboriginals worked with the land. They never saw it was a commodity and used it for the purpose of feeding. Europeans on the other hand may have used it for feeding purposes, however, the land was considered a commodity. It was fixed and used by one person for their own means and unlike the aboriginals they never shared their plot or allowed for regeneration of land. By introducing animals as crop machines, not only the soil was further eroded but also increase in crop production to feed the animals was necessary.
jlin 9:34 am on February 11, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The commodification of land ultimately divorced the human relationship with the environmental furthermore in the sense that it created a dominant view of “humans over nature” that eventually spread to all corners of the planet. Whereas before humans shared a more two way process with the land, appreciating the relationship that they supported each other’s survival, the commodification of land made land exploitable…something to be commanded and controlled. As a result, we standardized a lot of ways to interact with the land using technology and management approaches that allowed us to limit the diversity of nature’s form. This meant that we further reduced biodiversity and modified many ecosystems in negative ways.
Aboriginal land use was more sustainable because it did not concentrate stress on one piece of land, they used organic ways to keep the soil healthy and most importantly it was sustainable because the land was not able to reject anybody from using it in the future (whereas privatizing land does).
yitailiu 7:34 pm on February 12, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Commodification of land destroys the natural characteristics of the land and makes the lost features less resilient. I think that aboriginal land use is more sustainable than European land tenure in North America. Aboriginal people’s usufruct rights shifted with ecological use, which means that they did not claim to own or commodity the land, but rather claim the resources on the land available at different times of the year. Their frequent movement allowed time for the land to recover and they are not exploiting the resources because the aboriginal people had little sense of accumulation or exclusive use. Commodification of land and environmental stewardship are not entirely mutually exclusive. Even in a commodified land, the environmental stewardship can still stand to make the effort in limiting the negative impacts on the environment.
hannahepperson 5:35 pm on February 13, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Another thing to consider (much has already been said) is the more general paradigm that came with the so-called Enlightenment, that basically emphasized that humankind is industrious and ingenious enough to be able to ‘rise above’ any complications that may come up and prove threatening to our survival, or even just our comfort. One of the gruesome mantra’s in popular economic discourse is just that – use stuff up, and human ingenuity will find a way to adapt when the resource is gone. What is missing from this perspective, obviously, is any hint of a value system that reaches beyond abstraction of Money. This proves to be highly problematic in terms of cultural, social, spiritual and environmental survival and sustainability.
phoebe 6:07 pm on February 13, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The environmental implications of the commodification of land was that a single piece of land was continuously used over and over again without being given time to rest. Thus nutrients from the soil were quickly used up and were not given enough time to replenish itself before the Europeans began to grow another crop.
Commodification of land and environmental stewardship do not have to be mutually exclusive concepts. It all depends on the social influences and practices of the culture and in particular the individual to whom the land belongs to. There is a tendency to associate environmental abuse and creation of toxic waste simply to large corporations. However, even everyday individuals may cause car pollution, waste of freshwater supplies, and the littering and destruction of natural marine habitats. Thus, it is not the ownership of land that causes environmental abuse, but the atttitude we inherit and learn from her culture and society on whether or not we value nature and the environment.
Aboriginal land use was more sustainable than European land use likely because their culture celebrated nature and stressed the importance of taking care of the earth in order to ensure that there would be more harvests and food in the future. In comparison, European culture celebrated the ability of humans to overcome nature and to bring forth “civilization” to the earth. These two contradictory ideas demonstrate the differences in the attitudes of the Aboriginals and Europeans with regard to their use of the land.
congo96 5:40 pm on February 29, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The commodification of land by Europeans resulted in faster deterioration of the ecological system the ‘property’ belonged because it did not take into account the ecological ‘big picture’. Commodification of land and environmental management need to be mutually exclusive but it tends to be so because the property is used to further the private interests of the individuals who own it. Aboriginal land use was more sustainable because their culture valued a relationship with the land and thus served the big picture even at a disavantage to themselves. The commodification of land tends to serve the needs of the land owners even at a disadvantage to the environment.
eddietastic 3:33 pm on March 5, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Since the industrial revolution, European industries has resulted in land deteriorating at a much faster rate due to just population and need. Aboriginal land use was much more sustainable because they had traditions such as fishing only what was needed or burying skeletons in the farm that resulted in a much more healthy environment. in addition, the industrial revolution brought about a greater sense of consumerism and the Europeans became unhappy with what they had. Furthermore, aboriginal communities were much smaller then the cities which Europeans built. As a result, the sheer pollution and trash which came from Europeans was much more detrimental to the environment. Lastly weapons and industrial manufacturing needed a huge amount of natural resources and fossil fuels both things which aboriginals did not need a large amount of.