5 ms·

It's still mistaking correlation for causation, even when considering multiple instances, if you can't describe an unfalsifiable mechanic as the cause. There a

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.

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.