
Humans Caused a Major Shift in Earth's Ecosystems 6,000 Years Ago - Mz
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/humans-caused-major-shift-earths-ecosystems-6000-years-ago-180957566/?no-ist
======
marincounty
I just happened to be reading The Emigrants' guide to Oregon and California.
It was the guide that the Donner party used to take a short cut.

The book doesn't embellish. (The Donner party took one sentence out of that
guide, and made a mistake.)

My reason for posting here is when the author was describing California; it
was almost like reading fiction. The amount of wildlife was staggering. We
were all told about the Bufflo, but there were so much more wildlife. Wildlife
that we destroyed. One sentence really got to me. It stated, 'Salmon are 10
lbs. to 60 lbs.' I thought 60 lbs--it must be an exaggeration, but I think
it's true.

~~~
npongratz
> Wildlife that we destroyed.

Who is "we"? I didn't do any of the destruction. Did you?

~~~
hsitz
This comment is symptomatic of a lot of modern-day problems, especially in
U.S. "We" are a society, a community. "You" don't exist alone. You couldn't
exist without the benefits from human societies you live in. It's hypocritical
and immoral to take the benefits of those societies, and then to disclaim
participation in actions that society takes (or has taken), which are in part
responsible for those benefits. American individualism is all well and good,
but it gets carried way too far. For America is also a single society, and
members of a society can't rationally accept the benefits of that society
while disclaiming all participation in the actions that produced those
benefits.

I'm not saying "you" destroyed any wildlife. What I am saying is that (if
you're American) you are reaping the benefits of a society that exists as it
does because it dominated a continent, destroying much of the existing
landscape and natural inhabitants. There is some level of responsibility that
individuals have for prior actions taken by their society. Surely not as great
a responsibility as if you'd done the actions yourself, or approved of the
actions at the time they were taken. But some level of responsibility
nonetheless (and when adding up the small responsibility of each current
member the responsibility to do something as a group to rectify past wrongs
may become quite large indeed).

~~~
13thLetter
> What I am saying is that (if you're American) you are reaping the benefits
> of a society that exists as it does because it dominated a continent,
> destroying much of the existing landscape and natural inhabitants.

 _Every_ society on Earth exists as it does because it destroyed much of the
previously existing landscape and natural inhabitants, most definitely
including the Native American societies. If you read Over the Edge of the
World, a fascinating book about Magellan's voyage around the globe, you'll
find that as he traveled the straits at the southern tip of South America --
the most miserable, cold, dreary, and awful environment that could be imagined
-- he met a miserable and starving aboriginal tribe: a tribe that, it turns
out, had been pushed all the way to the tip of Tierra del Fuego by succeeding
waves of "native" migration across the land bridge from Siberia to Alaska. The
sin of the United States is not original with the United States: it is the sin
of every society.

> But some level of responsibility nonetheless (and when adding up the small
> responsibility of each current member the responsibility to do something as
> a group to rectify past wrongs may become quite large indeed).

You could smuggle an elephant inside that parenthetical clause. For starters,
how specifically is one to "rectify past wrongs" that were committed against
people who have been dead for hundreds of years? And are the remnants of those
societies that still exist today also obliged to "rectify past wrongs" against
the people _they_ aggressed on even farther in the past?

~~~
simonh
I think you're blowing the comment put of proportion by deliberately
interpreting a very qualified statement in an extreme and maximalist way.

The poster dodnt say every wrong against everyone and everything ever has to
be rectified. There are many concrete and affordable steps we can take to
remediate much of the damage our societies have done and are doing to each
other and the environment. I agree with the poster that we have an obligation
to take as many of those steps as we feel we can afford.

~~~
13thLetter
I'm not going to just sign on to an arbitrary promise like that, though. In
the United States the people who talk about remediating what our societies
have done, etc., have proposed things like massive and unending wealth
transfers, unequal enforcement of the law, explicitly segregationist race-
based government systems, and even secession. For that reason I am disinclined
to just take someone talking about this subject at their word and say "sure,
whatever you want."

~~~
simonh
Not everybody talking about remediating past wrongs are proposing or endorsing
such extreme measures, or not in an extreme way. What's frustrating is that
moderate or conservative (small 'c') voices have been essentially silent on
the matter leaving the field disproportionately open to more extreme advocacy.
Those who are in favour of more moderate steps should advocate them and not
use other people's disproportionate views as an excuse for throwing their
hands in the air and giving up on the whole subject completely.

------
rubyfan
there's a creationism joke brewing somewhere right now

~~~
andrewflnr
It actually seems to have a tight tie-in to theistic evolution: Genesis 1-2
was a metaphor for the advent of agriculture.

~~~
rubyfan
Interesting, do you have a reference for that?

I've always found Genesis to be a beautiful poetic passage though I've never
read it as having an alternate meaning.

~~~
andrewflnr
Not really, it's just an idea. But it's at about the right time (6kya) to
transition between evolutionary and biblical history. Both are about a
transition from living off the land to tilling the soil, and the rise of
civilization. If you can figure out how moral responsibility ties in, you have
yourself a pretty theory, if not a rock-solid one.

------
jefurii
Maybe it had something to do with the "6,000-year-old temple with sacrificial
altars discovered in Ukraine"?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10753820](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10753820)

~~~
simonh
In the sense that agriculture, as well as triggering the ecological changes
discussed in this report also allowed the formation of dense populations
capable of building structures like that, yes.

