I globally agree and will have about 3-4 points to add, that came during reading... I am aware that the main reason for commenting is some urge to share a discord, some "yes but..." so that's why I focus on adding parameters!
The main shift could be illustrated by this image: how to pull out a stuck drawer, a bit on each side. Maybe agriculture and population increased through this pattern?
Overpopulation is rarely considered before the very visible recent bigger and sudden rise. You did, and I appreciated the read.
So my 1st addition is to consider that we are unable to see what's slow, like plant growth. Until we suddenly see the change.
My background is behaviour, animals' and plants', trauma resolution and anthropology. I live in the Canaries and you will find interesting information there, as the only place with clear limits where the native islanders had NO BOATS to migrate with! The consequences were very different according to the size and steepness of each island. They had to control their population in other ways than in Polynesia...
I am not an English speaker and don't remember all my thoughts at once, as it needs scrolling up and down your post, but we'll exchange on the go, right?
"Low-level warfare". It's equivalent to your saying that we need first hand experience to be really aware of a mistake. We might need low-level warfare... But we are afraid of it.
Most of us are aware of wars on tv (2 are going on now) and the word "tribal" is usually today coupled to the idea of Warfare and shootings.
It's not uncommon to read that empires had ended too frequent clashes by pushing Territory limits away. The trade for such peace was hierarchy and inequalities... Will we end up with 2 or 3 huge territories?
1st because they didn't know about previous failures.
2nd because obligation is more powerful than freedom (and there's no real free will, at least not from the mental mind).
3rd because we don't really learn from mistakes but from successes. Mistakes only enhances success, with risks keeping us more alert.
4th because memory of mistakes make us more aware of appearances than patterns. The clearest example could be being aware of racism but not of less visible "differencism". (Yes I coined this word...)
In a bit of a rush and came past your stack on a different page, so have not read properly, but it seems to me that there might be a generalisation going on here, which is possibly unhelpful. Pardon me if I missed something in this early morning ramble...
There are different _kinds of civilisation_. Those that radiated out of West Asia, based on ploughing, grains, slavery, tax and debt commanded and controlled by an elite in a state bureaucracy, are but one kind of civilisation. Though dominant in more than one sense, including that of the human imagination, there have been other attempts at configuring the complex web of life.
Notably much better attempts were made in the Amazon before the Europeans turned up. Charles Mann has written nicely about the cultural context and scientific framework relevant here, in "1491", and this archaeology piece is an easy intro https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30038410/ - see also the illuminating work of Michael Heckenberger.
The point I am trying to make is that: Whether plant knowledge leads to civilisation or not, is less interesting than questions concerning: What can plants teach us about building complex societies, how we can we learn from them to live in alliances with all the other beings (and in extension of their alliances with fungi and the rest of the soil communities)?
In other words, what exists in the patterns we know about that we can deploy today, here and now, to regenerate our habitat, develop more-than-sustainable food systems, and enrich our landscape with biodiversity - and so on.
People can do good, people can do bad. All things have two handles, beware of the wrong one.
I think you are too sure of the idea that climate drove the extinction of the megafauna. I’m sure it had an impact, but we know for a fact that humans hunted megafauna, and that extinctions occurred after human arrival at different times on many continents. Also, considering that climate changed rapidly throughout the ice age suggests to me that megafauna were relatively adapted to these changes.
Of course these are just heuristics, but I think if you do a broad look at the literature, it seems to come down slightly if not heavily in favor of humans playing a role in these extinctions, with many papers also arguing for climate impacts. I think the plausible scenario is that humans began hunting megafauna, and some combination of over hunting, climate change, and human led range restriction, lead to the demise of many megafauna. There is usually an increase in ecosystem fire after these extinctions, which may have been partly aided by humans as well.
I think that people resist the idea of human induced exctinctions because they assume it was an instance of greed, overhunting, overpopulation, etc. I think it was more that people were an introduction into ecosystems that were fragile to the impacts people have, even in modest numbers. A bit of hunting and competition for resources at the wrong moment can lead to extinctions, especially for apex herbivores who don’t have natural predators (for adults).
Thank you for reading this article and for your comment!
Actually, I am well aware that the discussion is still ongoing, and that there will probably never be some kind of ultimate resolution to it. Those two factors reinforced themselves. If warmer climate leads to melting permafrost and thus to more swampy areas, and humans take advantage of this by herding megafauna into such an area to immobilize them, what caused the death of the animals - human hunting or climate change?
As so often with scientific discourse, I think that the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Both theories can be right to some extend - this is not some either/or scenario. We've even seen this with the Lamarckist and Darwinist Theory of Evolution. In the past, people have fought pitched battles over who is right, and it seemed like Darwin won for over a century. But recent findings in the field of epigenetics have reignited the discussion. It seems that, overall, Darwin was right, but in some instances, Lamarck might have been onto something (read "Lamarck's Revenge: How Epigenetics Is Revolutionizing Our Understanding of Evolution's Past and Present" for more info).
I will not start a "study duel" where I just quote whatever study seems to support the point I'm making, but I agree that you have a good point here. Those extinctions *do* coincide with the arrival of humans in new territories, so humans were certainly a factor.
The entirety of the literature on the subject can, in my opinion, be read either way, depending on the argument you're trying to make. I've been following this discussion for years, and (as far as I know) the last comprehensive review was attempted by John Gowdy in his latest book "Ultrasocial: The Evolution of Human Nature and the Quest for a Sustainable Future", who found the scale slightly tipping in favor of climate being the main culprit.
I definitely agree that the Pleistocene Overkill Theory is all too often being exploited by capitalists, libertarians and other idiots who want to prove that humans are inherently "bad" and "greedy" - doomed to destroy the environment they inhabit. As I pointed out in the article, *even if* it was exclusively overhunting that caused those extinctions, they happened at a rate of approximately *two species per 1,000 years* - way too slow to be the violent massacre Hobbesians are trying to paint it as (and actually still within the limit of the natural Background Extinction Rate).
"A bit of hunting and competition for resources at the wrong moment can lead to extinctions, especially for apex herbivores who don’t have natural predators (for adults)."
I most definitely agree with that! But I think that it would have been much more difficult (if not impossible) for early humans to actually hunt those large animals into extinction if the climate wouldn't have been in their favor.
I readily admit that your arguments have merit, but I don't think that this will affect my overall conclusion in any way. Anyway, thanks again for your comment!
I globally agree and will have about 3-4 points to add, that came during reading... I am aware that the main reason for commenting is some urge to share a discord, some "yes but..." so that's why I focus on adding parameters!
The main shift could be illustrated by this image: how to pull out a stuck drawer, a bit on each side. Maybe agriculture and population increased through this pattern?
Overpopulation is rarely considered before the very visible recent bigger and sudden rise. You did, and I appreciated the read.
So my 1st addition is to consider that we are unable to see what's slow, like plant growth. Until we suddenly see the change.
My background is behaviour, animals' and plants', trauma resolution and anthropology. I live in the Canaries and you will find interesting information there, as the only place with clear limits where the native islanders had NO BOATS to migrate with! The consequences were very different according to the size and steepness of each island. They had to control their population in other ways than in Polynesia...
I am not an English speaker and don't remember all my thoughts at once, as it needs scrolling up and down your post, but we'll exchange on the go, right?
"Low-level warfare". It's equivalent to your saying that we need first hand experience to be really aware of a mistake. We might need low-level warfare... But we are afraid of it.
Most of us are aware of wars on tv (2 are going on now) and the word "tribal" is usually today coupled to the idea of Warfare and shootings.
It's not uncommon to read that empires had ended too frequent clashes by pushing Territory limits away. The trade for such peace was hierarchy and inequalities... Will we end up with 2 or 3 huge territories?
Why some people continued building civilizations?
1st because they didn't know about previous failures.
2nd because obligation is more powerful than freedom (and there's no real free will, at least not from the mental mind).
3rd because we don't really learn from mistakes but from successes. Mistakes only enhances success, with risks keeping us more alert.
4th because memory of mistakes make us more aware of appearances than patterns. The clearest example could be being aware of racism but not of less visible "differencism". (Yes I coined this word...)
In a bit of a rush and came past your stack on a different page, so have not read properly, but it seems to me that there might be a generalisation going on here, which is possibly unhelpful. Pardon me if I missed something in this early morning ramble...
There are different _kinds of civilisation_. Those that radiated out of West Asia, based on ploughing, grains, slavery, tax and debt commanded and controlled by an elite in a state bureaucracy, are but one kind of civilisation. Though dominant in more than one sense, including that of the human imagination, there have been other attempts at configuring the complex web of life.
Notably much better attempts were made in the Amazon before the Europeans turned up. Charles Mann has written nicely about the cultural context and scientific framework relevant here, in "1491", and this archaeology piece is an easy intro https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30038410/ - see also the illuminating work of Michael Heckenberger.
The point I am trying to make is that: Whether plant knowledge leads to civilisation or not, is less interesting than questions concerning: What can plants teach us about building complex societies, how we can we learn from them to live in alliances with all the other beings (and in extension of their alliances with fungi and the rest of the soil communities)?
In other words, what exists in the patterns we know about that we can deploy today, here and now, to regenerate our habitat, develop more-than-sustainable food systems, and enrich our landscape with biodiversity - and so on.
People can do good, people can do bad. All things have two handles, beware of the wrong one.
Good article with many interesting points.
I think you are too sure of the idea that climate drove the extinction of the megafauna. I’m sure it had an impact, but we know for a fact that humans hunted megafauna, and that extinctions occurred after human arrival at different times on many continents. Also, considering that climate changed rapidly throughout the ice age suggests to me that megafauna were relatively adapted to these changes.
Of course these are just heuristics, but I think if you do a broad look at the literature, it seems to come down slightly if not heavily in favor of humans playing a role in these extinctions, with many papers also arguing for climate impacts. I think the plausible scenario is that humans began hunting megafauna, and some combination of over hunting, climate change, and human led range restriction, lead to the demise of many megafauna. There is usually an increase in ecosystem fire after these extinctions, which may have been partly aided by humans as well.
I think that people resist the idea of human induced exctinctions because they assume it was an instance of greed, overhunting, overpopulation, etc. I think it was more that people were an introduction into ecosystems that were fragile to the impacts people have, even in modest numbers. A bit of hunting and competition for resources at the wrong moment can lead to extinctions, especially for apex herbivores who don’t have natural predators (for adults).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379118307005?casa_token=DL2oeKCER3QAAAAA:F3xB4WEfRNdJZGlI5gYD_g1cFBb6WehapZyMy7VxE7CEtewM_F23Bd3D8t6LMLJJuX48Dw_E2w
https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/sciadv.abb2459
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-07897-1
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13277-0
You may disagree with this point, but I think it’s worth investigating, because it may impact your conclusions in some way.
Thank you for reading this article and for your comment!
Actually, I am well aware that the discussion is still ongoing, and that there will probably never be some kind of ultimate resolution to it. Those two factors reinforced themselves. If warmer climate leads to melting permafrost and thus to more swampy areas, and humans take advantage of this by herding megafauna into such an area to immobilize them, what caused the death of the animals - human hunting or climate change?
As so often with scientific discourse, I think that the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Both theories can be right to some extend - this is not some either/or scenario. We've even seen this with the Lamarckist and Darwinist Theory of Evolution. In the past, people have fought pitched battles over who is right, and it seemed like Darwin won for over a century. But recent findings in the field of epigenetics have reignited the discussion. It seems that, overall, Darwin was right, but in some instances, Lamarck might have been onto something (read "Lamarck's Revenge: How Epigenetics Is Revolutionizing Our Understanding of Evolution's Past and Present" for more info).
I will not start a "study duel" where I just quote whatever study seems to support the point I'm making, but I agree that you have a good point here. Those extinctions *do* coincide with the arrival of humans in new territories, so humans were certainly a factor.
The entirety of the literature on the subject can, in my opinion, be read either way, depending on the argument you're trying to make. I've been following this discussion for years, and (as far as I know) the last comprehensive review was attempted by John Gowdy in his latest book "Ultrasocial: The Evolution of Human Nature and the Quest for a Sustainable Future", who found the scale slightly tipping in favor of climate being the main culprit.
I definitely agree that the Pleistocene Overkill Theory is all too often being exploited by capitalists, libertarians and other idiots who want to prove that humans are inherently "bad" and "greedy" - doomed to destroy the environment they inhabit. As I pointed out in the article, *even if* it was exclusively overhunting that caused those extinctions, they happened at a rate of approximately *two species per 1,000 years* - way too slow to be the violent massacre Hobbesians are trying to paint it as (and actually still within the limit of the natural Background Extinction Rate).
"A bit of hunting and competition for resources at the wrong moment can lead to extinctions, especially for apex herbivores who don’t have natural predators (for adults)."
I most definitely agree with that! But I think that it would have been much more difficult (if not impossible) for early humans to actually hunt those large animals into extinction if the climate wouldn't have been in their favor.
I readily admit that your arguments have merit, but I don't think that this will affect my overall conclusion in any way. Anyway, thanks again for your comment!
Great response, a good read.