4 ms·

That's mistaking correlation for causation. I don't have proof, but let's consider an alternative: that the climate change that made those areas newly-hospitab

That's mistaking correlation for causation. I don't have proof, but let's consider an alternative: that the climate change that made those areas newly-hospitable to humans made them inhospitable to megafauna. Can you falsify "all of the species were subject to the same environmental shift" before you jump to "arriving humans hunted them all to extinction"? (And I recognize the parallels to some unsavory arguments, and would like to point out that the evidence regarding contemporary man-made climate change is strong and sound. But that's with industrialization and a couple orders of magnitude more people on the planet.)

curioadu 1mo ago
[dead]
desotus 1mo ago
> That's mistaking correlation for causation. I made no such mistake. Though, I was not aware of there being competing theories regarding the significant number of extinct megafauna species around the gross time interval of the arrival of Aboriginals to Australia and Tasmania, my apologies. There are two competing set of theories, namely human-caused ones and natural-climate-caused ones, as far as I can tell. I was only aware of or could only remember the first type of theory. For a clearer and possibly more settled and agreed upon example: From your or the other commenter's perspective, what caused the extinction of Moa after the arrival of Maori in New Zealand? Some claims that the Moa went extinct within 100 years of human settlement, and that it had a large population before that
- frmersdog 1mo ago
  https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/zoology/maoris-hunt-moa-extinction https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/zoology/maoris-hunt-... >The extinction of all moa species occurred relatively swiftly, between 1380 and 1440, making it one of the most rapid extinctions in history. Contributing factors included habitat destruction through woodland burning, the introduction of non-native predators such as dogs and rats, and the birds' natural life cycle, which featured low egg production. It's not a good example to use to prove your contention, because it's an outlier, and because it involved the use of technology that wasn't necessarily available to other incidences of megafauna extinction.
graemep 1mo ago
I think if you consider that single instance it is mistaking correlation for causation. However, it happens every time, with a lag. In different climates and environments. When humans expanded out of Africa, spread out over Eurasia, reached North America, South America, Australia, new Zealand extinction of megafauna always followed. We know that there was large scale hunting and humans are highly effective hunters. Hunting megafauna is the easiest available food source for a pre-industrial society until they get to the point where there is too little megafauna left (and changes, eventually including farming follow). Unlike large carnivores we are not dependent on hunting megafauna so our human numbers do not drop when they are in short supply.
- frmersdog 1mo ago
  It's still mistaking correlation for causation, even when considering multiple instances, if you can't describe an unfalsifiable mechanic as the cause. There are two problems here: 1) It hasn't actually happened every time. Elephants, hippopotamuses, large whales, polar bears, grizzly brown bears, certain large bovines, and moose still exist. 2) Extinctions of megafauna are distributed across a time delta from human arrival. I don't know for sure, but I would wager that that delta doesn't necessarily correlate with date (as a proxy for technological development). That is to say, "humans arrive -> everything big dies" is not so cut-and-dry a rule. It should be clear that other factors are involved. I'll suggest a third option: humans hunt megafauna to extinction in the presence of conditions that favor such behavior - perhaps climatic, geographic, and/or cultural. So, it happens. But it doesn't always happen. For the purposes of this conversation, I don't think you've proven the original contention wrong, which was that indigenous people in the Americas found a niche which made their presence and behavior sustainable over long periods of time. If your evidence is the total extinction of American megafauna, then you would be forced to admit that you were incorrect. In fact, you potentially argue for the opposite: in clearing some megafauna but sparing others, humans did indeed carve out a potentially sustainable ecological niche, which their continued presence helps to prove was sustainable. At least, until culturally disparate humans arrived.
  - graemep 1mo ago
    A significant number of mega fauna species is hunted to extinction whenever humans arrive. > If your evidence is the total extinction of American megafauna The evidence is the extinction of most American megafauna species. > In fact, you potentially argue for the opposite: in clearing some megafauna but sparing others, humans did indeed carve out a potentially sustainable ecological niche, which their continued presence helps to prove was sustainable. Humans have continued to survive everywhere, so that is evidence the the presence of humans everywhere has been sustainable. The comment making the claim about indigenous societies in the Americas is that they are "ecologically compatible". They are compatible with an ecology they altered. This is, again, true everywhere. You might argue that industrialisation has changed this as a (relatively) stable state is not reached because of continuing rapid change, but it was true before industrialisation. > I'll suggest a third option: humans hunt megafauna to extinction in the presence of conditions that favor such behavior - perhaps climatic, geographic, and/or cultural. So, it happens. But it doesn't always happen. I have two objections to that: 1. Its not all megafauna, it is most. Some species can survive humans. 2. The extinctions have happened across many different climates and cultures and on every continent and many islands. It is not proved beyond doubt that humans have always caused extinctions, but the pattern is very consistent, which makes it by far the most likely explanation. Even where hunting is not the direct cause, many things humans do (such as agriculture) will destroy their habitats. Where humans did not arrive until much later than most places (e.g. in places such as New Zealand or Madagascar) megafauna survived until after they did, and were then gone with a few hundred or a few thousand years.

curioadu 1mo ago

[dead]

desotus 1mo ago

> That's mistaking correlation for causation. I made no such mistake. Though, I was not aware of there being competing theories regarding the significant number of extinct megafauna species around the gross time interval of the arrival of Aboriginals to Australia and Tasmania, my apologies. There are two competing set of theories, namely human-caused ones and natural-climate-caused ones, as far as I can tell. I was only aware of or could only remember the first type of theory. For a clearer and possibly more settled and agreed upon example: From your or the other commenter's perspective, what caused the extinction of Moa after the arrival of Maori in New Zealand? Some claims that the Moa went extinct within 100 years of human settlement, and that it had a large population before that

frmersdog 1mo ago
https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/zoology/maoris-hunt-moa-extinction https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/zoology/maoris-hunt-... >The extinction of all moa species occurred relatively swiftly, between 1380 and 1440, making it one of the most rapid extinctions in history. Contributing factors included habitat destruction through woodland burning, the introduction of non-native predators such as dogs and rats, and the birds' natural life cycle, which featured low egg production. It's not a good example to use to prove your contention, because it's an outlier, and because it involved the use of technology that wasn't necessarily available to other incidences of megafauna extinction.

graemep 1mo ago

I think if you consider that single instance it is mistaking correlation for causation. However, it happens every time, with a lag. In different climates and environments. When humans expanded out of Africa, spread out over Eurasia, reached North America, South America, Australia, new Zealand extinction of megafauna always followed. We know that there was large scale hunting and humans are highly effective hunters. Hunting megafauna is the easiest available food source for a pre-industrial society until they get to the point where there is too little megafauna left (and changes, eventually including farming follow). Unlike large carnivores we are not dependent on hunting megafauna so our human numbers do not drop when they are in short supply.

frmersdog 1mo ago
It's still mistaking correlation for causation, even when considering multiple instances, if you can't describe an unfalsifiable mechanic as the cause. There are two problems here: 1) It hasn't actually happened every time. Elephants, hippopotamuses, large whales, polar bears, grizzly brown bears, certain large bovines, and moose still exist. 2) Extinctions of megafauna are distributed across a time delta from human arrival. I don't know for sure, but I would wager that that delta doesn't necessarily correlate with date (as a proxy for technological development). That is to say, "humans arrive -> everything big dies" is not so cut-and-dry a rule. It should be clear that other factors are involved. I'll suggest a third option: humans hunt megafauna to extinction in the presence of conditions that favor such behavior - perhaps climatic, geographic, and/or cultural. So, it happens. But it doesn't always happen. For the purposes of this conversation, I don't think you've proven the original contention wrong, which was that indigenous people in the Americas found a niche which made their presence and behavior sustainable over long periods of time. If your evidence is the total extinction of American megafauna, then you would be forced to admit that you were incorrect. In fact, you potentially argue for the opposite: in clearing some megafauna but sparing others, humans did indeed carve out a potentially sustainable ecological niche, which their continued presence helps to prove was sustainable. At least, until culturally disparate humans arrived.
- graemep 1mo ago
  A significant number of mega fauna species is hunted to extinction whenever humans arrive. > If your evidence is the total extinction of American megafauna The evidence is the extinction of most American megafauna species. > In fact, you potentially argue for the opposite: in clearing some megafauna but sparing others, humans did indeed carve out a potentially sustainable ecological niche, which their continued presence helps to prove was sustainable. Humans have continued to survive everywhere, so that is evidence the the presence of humans everywhere has been sustainable. The comment making the claim about indigenous societies in the Americas is that they are "ecologically compatible". They are compatible with an ecology they altered. This is, again, true everywhere. You might argue that industrialisation has changed this as a (relatively) stable state is not reached because of continuing rapid change, but it was true before industrialisation. > I'll suggest a third option: humans hunt megafauna to extinction in the presence of conditions that favor such behavior - perhaps climatic, geographic, and/or cultural. So, it happens. But it doesn't always happen. I have two objections to that: 1. Its not all megafauna, it is most. Some species can survive humans. 2. The extinctions have happened across many different climates and cultures and on every continent and many islands. It is not proved beyond doubt that humans have always caused extinctions, but the pattern is very consistent, which makes it by far the most likely explanation. Even where hunting is not the direct cause, many things humans do (such as agriculture) will destroy their habitats. Where humans did not arrive until much later than most places (e.g. in places such as New Zealand or Madagascar) megafauna survived until after they did, and were then gone with a few hundred or a few thousand years.