The early Humans destroyed Australian/NZ Mega-Fauna/ why are so many against facts?

The early Humans destroyed Australian/NZ mega Fauna, why are so many against the facts?

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160208-the-lost-giants-that-prowled-the-australian-wilderness

 

Globalization is a natural process, fueled by population growth and shaped by our capacity to think and act. The impact is inevitable short of natural disaster (which themselves also impact the ecosphere in a big myriad of ways). So ruling out natural disasters, it's a form of survival of the fittest, which is the number 1 rule of nature.

Integral to what makes us the fittest here, is our capacity to think and act beyond other animals. It means we can act differently to animals. Early human did not have the same resources to achieve this, and so acted more like the other animals. This also means then that we no longer have to be bound by survival of the fittest and examples of this can be found in cultures with laws. All this is what a civilized society represents and contrasts the uncivilized dynamics of other animals relationships. We can take a inappropriate viewpoint and assert that non-human nature is more natural, but its ignoring the realities of why it appears that way, and that we are both part of and a result of that same nature.

I think the trick is to balance interference with rest of the nature as much as we can as we all continue to grow, but another way to view things is to try and improve nature to make it more civilized... but that is getting a bit ahead of myself I think. The main reason young and old people in particular cling to keeping things they like the same and changing things they don't, is because they are either too young to appreciate how change operates in the real world, or too old to want to see what they are familiar with disappear in front of them (clinging to the past). Action needs to come from a broader inclusive morals based decision matrix, and not one of personal associations and preferences.

But what was the topic anyway?

 

The article actually says that the arrival of Australian Aboriginals may have nothing to do with the demise of native animals in Australia. With an average IQ of 61, it's doubtful if Australian Aboriginals could be effective hunter-gatherers who outwitted these native animals and drove them into extinction.

 

In America, I don't think those who have faith in the idea that humans can have no effect on the planet (e.g. people who think global warming cannot possibly be caused by humans) are even aware that places like Australia and North America previously had megafauna what went extinct after the arrival of humans. Is this some kind of Australian controversy?

 

Not even remotely!!!

It was possible that it was the indigenous people - after all there are possible drawings of the "thunderbird" aka Demon Duck of Doom on cave walls in Arnhem land

- - - Updated - - -

Where the @#$#@$ did you get that pile of racist rubbish!!

 

about the mythology vs science . many (idealists) believe that indigenous people couldn't be the main cause of such destructive effect on nature, which is wrong....

 

Usually there is more than one cause of extinction but I would like to know who you think is denying that there was an anthropogenic cause

 

PBS has a great show about Australia: the first 4 billion years. Its a miracle they survived at all.

- - - Updated - - -

Australia: the first 4 billion years.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/australia-first-years.html

Produced by NOVA.. Its exceptional ..

 

Given the lack of wildlife able to be domesticated (try rounding up 'roos) and the paucity of reliable edibles in a continent of "droughts and flooding rains" it is a wonder that they survived at all. Some of the nuts that formed staples within the diet required to be soaked in running water for up to 3 weeks before they became edible

 

[video=youtube;x_Nx6C5cSHU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_Nx6C5cSHU[/video]

 

A big problem for the humans of ancient Australia is that there were so few of them.. It was a bottleneck so they have to travel vast distances to find mates.

 

A You tube presentation of an AMERICAN talking about megaflora extinction in AMERICA

ummm - tell me is there a logic failure here somewhere?

 

Americas, NZ, Madagascar, etc, everywhere the same story: humans arrives , Mega - Fauna gone

- - - Updated - - -

a lot of information
[video=youtube;N9omoHuvScc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9omoHuvScc[/video]

 

I am not disagreeing with a hypothesis of anthropogenic cause of extinction - I am taking issue with the fact that you are claiming we are denying it - without adequate evidence

You will probably find more acceptance of human caused extinction in Australian scientific society and literature than in American.

 

my evidence is - timing, arriving oh humans and vanishing of mega - fauna. it have always matched , on all continents ...

 

As I said - I have no real issue with the whole humans wiped out fauna and flora - but I have a huge issue with those who tell me we are denying the events

 

Half way intelligent people won't deny that, Bb.
Just look at our Liberals/Nationals, denying global warming to be attributed to us human beings.
How stupid can it get? Very stupid indeed.
Cheers

 

It's entirely possible humans did wipe them out. It seems as a species we have form for that. What I wonder about though is why the race angle?

I disagree as much with the "noble savage" view as I do with the IQ of 61 view. Both are bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

Humans are adaptable creatures, it's why we're found in nearly every part of the planet. How we adapted/adapt is the issue. Sometimes it's at the expense of the local fauna. I don't see that as a moral issue in the past. I do see it as a moral issue of the present. We know what we're doing now. We have knowledge, science, technology, a world-wide view and understanding of what we do, how we do it and what impact it has.

Indigenous Australia had a culture that barely changed over 40,000 years (more or less, depending on your ideological position). But let's not think that unchanging culture had anything to do with IQ. Look at a map of Australia that shows various indigenous language groups.

http://www.abc.net.au/indigenous/map/

The desert areas have huge areas devoted to one language group. The coastal and more arable areas have much smaller groups and more of them. See the connection?

An idiot from one of the conservative parties in our federal parliament a few years ago in a speech decried the ancient indigenous people for not inventing the wheel. Said dickhead couldn't understand that there was no need for a wheel. And there was nothing to pull it. Said dickhead probably didn't think of North American indigenous people who had horses but apparently no wheels, using a travois for transport. But then perhaps wheels would have been impractical in various forms of terrain.

 

no, they did wipe all horses , and got them again with the Europeans

 

Obviously the author has never seen a fully grown male red kangaroo.

 

At the time of European invasion it's estimated 300,000-700,000 Aborigines in Australia.

 

Or one of the feared members of the species Thylarctos plummetus

http://australianmuseum.net.au/drop-bear

 

I rarely visit here anymore. but having seen this. here you go. http://www.connorcourt.com/catalog1/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=343#.Vvp6ZORJnIU

 

I think the Pseudo Russian Mongol Putinoids had something to do with this.