In New Zealand the pre-European Maori population pretty much burnt the South Island beech forests to the ground in order to plant ferns, the roots of which were a staple food source. If you think that only Europeans flattened habitats and that all indigenous populations pranced about Mother Nature in harmony with the planet like fauns in Arcadia, you’re flat out wrong.
In particular?
Jared Diamond, in his book Collapse, has an entire chapter on the Anasazi. As I recall, they used a lot of wood for building and cooking, and had to go farther and farther away every year to get any, eventually removing almost all of the trees, which in turn had a major impact on the local ecology. At least that’s Diamond’s opinion based on his research.
Actually, “Whitey with guns” didn’t manage a single extinction (although we got fairly close) whereas Natives with their Clovis points apparently wreaked considerable havoc Giant sloths, horses, camels, mammoths, mastodons, etc)- according to most zoologists.
Any government regulation was of a kind that would also exist in the US.
Which, as I have noted, is *exactly *the same as the situation in North America.
Well I await your demonstration of it with bated breath. Because it contradicts the work of every palaeoecologist I have ever read.
You have got to be joking. :eek:
Approximately 80% of the North American magafuana went extinct as a result of Native American activities. And I mean actually extinct, not just close. In contrast “whitey” has seen only 4 - 10 species face extinction, depending how you define that, and just one species has become actually extinct.
adhay, this forum is supposed to be for factual answers based on actual evidence. There is absolute no evidence for the wild claims that you are making here. Your quaint notions of the noble savage at one with nature are amusing, but they have no basis in fact.
Which one?
Ok, I had remembered that no large land mammal went extinct, but yes, indeed the Monk Seal is almost certainly extinct*. You’re correct.
So is Stellers Sea Cow, if you wish to stretch a point (there were almost certainly extant Sea Cows on the Alaska side when humans reached the area).
There are some other “large” Mammals- the Sea Mink Neovison macrodon- although doubt exists if it was a species or a subspecies (it’s fairly recently extinct, in any case) and several subspecies- Eastern Elk, Arizona Jaguar and a few others. However, again, those are often poorly described subspecies and doubt remains.
*there’s about as much hope for it as the Thylacine, aka Tasmanian Tiger. However, the Ivory-billed Woodpecker may well still exist, so there’s some hope. In fact there’s a whole list of animals thought extinct which are now just rare and often ndangered:
Steller’s Sea Cow was exterminated in North America by Native Americans, not “whitey”. So it counts as part of the 80% of the megafauna exterminated by Native Americans. It was finally exterminated globally by a mixture of white and yellow people, but that occurred in Asia, not in North America.
The standard size limit for megafauna is man sized or larger, so >70kg. The Sea Mink, while large for a mink, was still orders of magnitude to small to be considered megafauna.
And doubtless many North American subspecies have become extinct, both before and after European arrival. But Adhay believes that only after Europeans arrived in North America did species face extinction. Not subspecies.
When it comes to megafauna only one North American species has become extinct due to European influence, compared to the 30 or so since Indian arrival. That fact alone pretty much puts paid to Adhay’s claim that species only became extinct after the arrival of “whitey”.
OK, I’ll agree here, 100%, then.
Likewise.
Yes it’s certainly true that the pre-historic arrival of man in the Americas resulted in many extinctions just as it did in Australia.
My original post was in response to Oakminster’s
My intended point was that all of these species were doing quite well until the European invasion, that a number of them were pushed to near extinction (at least in the US) and, in the end, they were saved only by govt intervention.
OK, so you’re part way there. You have accepted that Native Americans exterminated many species, rather than having no impact as you originally claimed.
Now do you also retract your claim that it was only after white people arrived that most species of megafauna became extinct?
And do you also understand now that the situations in North America and Australia were nearly identical, rather than radically different as you originally stated?
No, it wasn’t. Your claim was made “in passing”, with reference to nothing. Oakminster never mentioned Australia.
I don’t know what your intent was. But what you actually said was that the situation in Australia was completely different to that in the US, because US animals evolved alongside humans and Australian animals didn’t. So megafauna extinctions only occured in North America after Europeans arrived.
When I pointed out that humans were as alien to North America as to Australia, and that Europeans in fact caused fewer extinctions than Native Americans, you said that this was “demonstrably untrue”.
So at this stage I would like you to either acknowledge that North America is not different in this regard, or else to demonstrate this thing that you say can be demonstrated.
Whatever dispute you may have with Oakminster is another matter. But I would like to clarify the errors of fact that you have posted, repeatedly.
Did you read what I just posted?
OK, so you’re part way there. You have accepted that Native Americans exterminated many species, rather than having no impact as you originally claimed.
Now do you also retract your claim that it was only after white people arrived that most species of megafauna became extinct? Or do you still contend that white people exterminated more species than Native Americans?
And do you also still contend that the situations in North America and Australia were nearly identical, rather than radically different as you originally stated?
At this stage I would like you to either acknowledge that North America is not different in this regard, or else to demonstrate this thing that you say can be demonstrated.
Ahhhh.
Yes, I was certainly mistaken. Apologies.
Now, I admire Blakes general biology knowledge, but in the case of the Clovis Man (Early North American culture) vs the Woolly Mammoth, I think that the evidence is weak that hunting natives were the sole cause of the megafauna extinctions. The only evidence for this is a rather weak coincidence between the date man arrived here in NA, and many megafauna extinctions. However, there is scant archeological evidence. For example, there are maybe a dozen Clovis mammoth kills. In Europe, there are about that many mass mammoth kill sites, with hundreds or perhaps even thousands of Mammoth kills piled up. In some species, there is no evidence at all that they were hunted by early man. In any case, we have no solid date for mans arrival in the New World, and even less solid dates for the extinctions.
I cheerfully concede that in the case of other areas- particularly NZ- the evidence is very strong. And, there’s no doubt early man had a hand in the extinctions. But although there’s a good numbers of Zoologists and Paleontologists that *believe *early man was the culprit, the actual scientific evidence is slim. Even so- no serious scientist currently accepts the most radical of the megafauna extinctions- the “overkill hypothesis”, although as I said, most believe humans had some part in the extinctions.
Oh for Pete’s sake Dr. Deth, Colibri and you and I have been over this at least a dozen times indifferent threads. You’ve seen the evidence. Let it go.
Umm, no, no one has presented any evidence. I have seen that a majority of scientists think that humans played a major part in the extinctions. However, no actual scientific evidence has been presented (and in fact, there is little *to *present) . In any case, that was then,and this is a new thread, with a similar theme.
So a majority of scientists have been convinced of the fact and allowed to publish those conclusions in the most prestigious, peer reviewed journals. Yet according to Dr. Deth “no actual scientific evidence has been presented”.:dubious:
I’m not going to engage him on this nonsense yet again. I’ll let any readers decide who is more trustworthy on the existence of evidence: the editors and reviewers of the most prestigious journals in the world, or some anonymous internet user.
If you believe that the editors and reviewers of the most prestigious journals in the world allowed scientists to publish their conclusions despite "“no actual scientific evidence has been presented” to support those conclusions, then by all means accept what Dr. Deth says.
Well, as Cecil sez, “we don’t vote on the facts”. I also produced actual cites from those "most prestigious, peer reviewed journals’ which contradicted other articles. In other words, even the best experts in the field disagree on this issue. It’s not like every expert sez one way and I claim the other. No one should accept my opinion. Or anyones.
Here’s a wiki article "Quaternary extinction event - Wikipedia
which has five different hypothesis on the Quaternary extinction event, all of which have arguments for and against, and all have some degree of expert scientific backing.
In other words, we’re not talking the vast majority, scientific opinions differ. It’s like what caused the extinction of the dinosaurs- there are multiple hypothesis. None are 100% accepted. Perhaps the “Impact event” hypothesis has the most support- does that mean the supporters of the Deccan Traps are wrong? Do we vote on the facts?
So we’ve gone from “no one has presented any evidence” to “there is evidence, but it’s equal on both sides”.
Dr. Deth back to his old weaseling form again. We’ve been through this too many times for me to consider it amusing any more.