Population growth is often referred to as a force of destruction, whereas smaller indigenous populations are thought to be more “sustainable.” Shepard et. al addresses this concern for population growth within rainforests. Shepard et. al call attention to flaws in current sustainability indices. The authors propose that cultural anthropologists and scientists should look deeper into the “paradigmatic shift in the spatial and temporal impacts” of hunting.Using computer modeling, quantitative and qualitative data have provided insight into the “sustainability” of indigenous populations of the Amazon from the past, present, and future.
The model focuses on the Matsigenka and large primates in Peru’s Manu National Park, an area which falls under a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage site. Population growth is not the number one factor depleting animals, rather the hunting technology and distribution of human settlements does. Food preferences and taboos, settlement patterns, seasons, and hunting technology are some factors which Shepard et. al describe as affecting resources. The use of this modeling system is useful in looking at the sustainability of hunting and settlements in other Amazonian groups.
This research is important because it does not just focus on quantitative data, but takes into account qualitative data such as past interviews and taboos. Also, the model goes beyond population growth as one factor affecting environmental destruction as in Sherbin et al’s article. The model is set for a more localized scale rather than a globalized one as discussed in Taylor and Buttel’s and Tsing’s work. For management of natural resources, looking at the indices to decide what is or is not “sustainable” is important. The inclusion or exclusion of indices can change the picture presented, of how and why natural resources are being affected.
