My point is that they were able to live there for 40,000 years.
No where do I claim they were noble.
PeakOil is You
THE Power Down Thread (merged)
by Malthus » Fri 11 Mar 2005, 17:57:46
Well easter islanders also would have survived and most probably will survive in the next 40000 years unless something really bad happens. The western people would probably also survive in the next 40000 years but living in a world of environemental degradation, poverty, misery and famine just like eastern islanders or aborigens. At least native australians destryed their habitat so slowly that they were able to adjust easily to the damage they have dealt. Probably they didnt even noticed it. For us on the other hand the ride to poverty and misery may be more bumpy.
-
Malthus - Peat
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Sat 15 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: varies
by Ludi » Fri 11 Mar 2005, 18:00:45
Your information about the Australian savanna and the australian natives is faulty. Far from being a place of scarcity, it was a very diverse and productive landscape. Prior to the white colonists, the aborigines did not live in misery and poverty as you portray them, but had rich cultures. Link
- Ludi
by Malthus » Fri 11 Mar 2005, 18:31:11
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ecause the burning practices of the Aboriginals in northern Australian savannas remain largely unknown, it is difficult to infer the influences of fire on the species present. While savanna ecosystems are known to have evolved with fire, it is difficult to test empirically whether species have adapted to Aboriginal burning, or whether they are the evolutionary result of pre-Aboriginal fires.
The fossils clearly show biodiversity and vegetation droping after the arival of the aboriginals and more desert like plants gaining ground. It is a very logical conclusion after all where would you prefer to live on a tropical island or in the australian desert? Of course the pastoralist fire practices are much worse but give them a break they ve came just some 150 years ago while the aboriginals lived there for 40000 thousand years they have adapted to the misery they have created if you think that living of the desert is cool you should try it out. I also laugh at the myth of the rich aboriginal culture which falls appart when you compare it to our achievements like Bach or Beethoven just to name a few.
Story
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ASHINGTON - Settlers who came to Australia 50,000 years ago and set fires that burned off natural flora and fauna may have triggered a cataclysmic weather change that turned the country's interior into the dry desert it is today, US and Australian researchers said on Tuesday.
Their study, reported in the latest issue of the journal, Geology, supports arguments that early settlers literally changed the landscape of the continent with fire.
"The implications are that the burning practices of early humans may have changed the climate of the Australian continent by weakening the penetration of monsoon moisture into the interior," Gifford Miller of the University of Colorado at Boulder, who led the study, said in a statement.
The geological record shows that the interior of Australia was much wetter about 125,000 years ago.
The last Ice Age changed the weather across the planet but monsoons returned as the glaciers retreated 12,000 years ago -- all except the Australian Monsoon.
The Australian Monsoon now brings about 39 inches (one metre) of rain annually to the north coast as it moves south from Asia, but only about 13 inches (33 cm) of rain falls on the interior each year.
Miller's study suggests that large fires could have altered the plant population enough to decrease the exchange of water vapor with the atmosphere, stopping clouds from forming.
The researchers, working with John Magee of Australian National University in Canberra, used computerized global climate simulations to show that if there were some forest in the middle of Australia, it would lead to a monsoon with twice as much rain as the current pattern.
Fossil evidence shows that birds and marsupials that once lived in Australia's interior would have browsed on trees, shrubs and grasses rather than the desert scrub environment that is there today.
It also shows large charcoal deposits most likely caused by widespread fires, conveniently dating to the arrival of people.
People are also blamed for killing off 85 percent of Australia's huge animals, including an ostrich-sized bird, 19 species of marsupials, a 25-foot-long (7.5-metre) lizard and a Volkswagen-sized tortoise.
Some experts have suggested climate change caused by burning killed off these species, rather than direct hunting by human.
-
Malthus - Peat
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Sat 15 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: varies
- Ludi
Re: Powerdown = Environmental Devastation?
by eric_b » Fri 11 Mar 2005, 19:09:44
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'I')'ve discussed this a little with Bart and others, but I'd like to hear more opinions from other posters.
The theory seems to be this: Powerdown (whether intentional or unintentional) will have positive effects on the health of the environment, and thus is something environmentalists should welcome.
I would argue for the opposite effect: Powerdown will make everyone increasingly poor, and they will assault the environment to compensate. For example, fuel shortages (or expensive fuel) will lead people to poach trees for fuel, and food shortages (or increasing poverty) will lead people to clear new land, poach wildlife, overfish, fish over the limit etc.
Cuba is often cited as an example of successful powerdown, but the evidence shows that Cuba has the same environmental problems as other countries, i.e. deforestation, desertification etc. North Korea, another country which has experienced a form of powerdown, also has severe ongoing environmental problems.
Will powderdown ameliorate environmental problems? Or make them worse?
The theory seems to be this: Powerdown (whether intentional or unintentional) will have positive effects on the health of the environment, and thus is something environmentalists should welcome.
I would argue for the opposite effect: Powerdown will make everyone increasingly poor, and they will assault the environment to compensate. For example, fuel shortages (or expensive fuel) will lead people to poach trees for fuel, and food shortages (or increasing poverty) will lead people to clear new land, poach wildlife, overfish, fish over the limit etc.
Cuba is often cited as an example of successful powerdown, but the evidence shows that Cuba has the same environmental problems as other countries, i.e. deforestation, desertification etc. North Korea, another country which has experienced a form of powerdown, also has severe ongoing environmental problems.
Will powderdown ameliorate environmental problems? Or make them worse?
Oh, I definitely feel any sort of powerdown - intentional or not - will only make any environmental problems worse. Lots and lots of cheap oil and a largely 'hidden' infastructure allow us to hide most of the profligate consumption needed to keep things going currently.
Once cheap oil/gas is not an option, people will burn whatever they have to get by. Where I live (Wisconsin) I can easily imagine a tremendous amount of tree/wood poaching so people will be able to stay warm in the Winter, cook food, etc.
Once push comes to shove, environmentalism will be a luxury. People will do what they have to to survive. I can imagine hordes of hunters illegally hunting and fishing the limited amount of game (deer, rabbits, fish) to near extinction in just a few years in the case of a hard crash and loss of ag/modern farming practices.
In a nushell, we're F*cked at this point, the way I see it. Only question is how bad it will be.
-
eric_b - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: Fri 14 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: us
