Megachange : the world in 2050

[Tyrannical]

Easter Island was also furtherest away from the Asian dust cloud that fertilizes islands over time. Likely no one factor but deforestation and infertile soil certainly could be major factors.

I understand that dust fertilizes reefs and fisheries as well.

I wouldn't think that to be an issue on a volcanic island, they generally are already nutrient rich.

[macdoc]

Unless the volcano is active - the nutrients leach quickly and continental dust is important

Analysis of the eastern Pacific islands shows that low topography, low inputs of soil-enriching continental dust, and little or no volcanic ash fallout predispose small, dry islands to deforestation.

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Easter_I ... opic=49578

[Pappa]

However, there are also plenty of examples of populations living in a sustainable fashion.

Plenty?? I know of only -
hunter gatherers of which almost none are left 40,000 years in Aus paleo, Inuit 14,000 years, paleo, North American indians 12,000 years some agriculture but paleo,
The new guinea highlands - some agriculture - still ongoing but under threat - 40,000 years

The long term ones were in areas not subject to glacial forces tho certainly subject to the climate change.

The Bushmen were certainly 10s of thousands of years and gone in my lifetime....

ah forgot - west coast native Canadians, some tribes maintain an ongoing sustainable culture.

Lots??? how about ...almost none.

Cuba is considered the closest to sustainable as they already have hit peak oil and ( barely ) survived it.

Bronze Age Europeans are thought to have carefully managed their woodlands for charcoal production. If they hadn't they would have quickly deforested the whole place due to the amount of wood that was used in the smelting process. Not sure of the page, but you'll find the info here: http://www.amazon.com/Early-Metal-Minin ... 90498259X/

(Excellent book btw, a complete review of everything we know about metallurgy up to the middle ages.)

[macdoc]

Thanks - I suspect we have a different time range in mind.
Certainly there have been a few areas =- there are towns in Souther China that have a complex food loop with fishponds, chiickens, pigs and human waste fertilizer that have been productive for at least 5,000 years and fed many times the population of the village.

That looks a interesting book thanks.

In today's terms within a modern society the Amish perhaps have durability.

[Pappa]

One of the problems that hunter-gatherers all over the world faced when agrarian cultures entered their territories was/is that their land seems to be unused. The incomers see empty land that would be ideal for crops or animals, while the hunter-gatherers have been carefully managing their use of the land so no species gets depleted from any one area. It's a bit of a weighty tome, but if you only ever read one book on hunter-gatherers, make it "The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunter Gatherers".

[macdoc]

I'm not 100% convinced it was "managed" consciously - more they moved when game was scarce and were low enough density to allow recovery.
New Guinea highlanders indeed managed plants very well and some evidence for that with Aus Aboriginals.

I'd say technology was the limiting factor - even with that low tech they wiped out mega fauna - that is becoming more and more established. So I don't think it was a noble savage preserving the land.....more starvation when over exploited was the fickle hand.

IN the case in Aus...cannibalism was a result in some areas.....Chinese tasted sweeter - good alternative when the fishing grounds were destroyed by the gold miners.

[Pappa]

I'm not 100% convinced it was "managed" consciously - more they moved when game was scarce and were low enough density to allow recovery.
New Guinea highlanders indeed managed plants very well and some evidence for that with Aus Aboriginals.

I'd say technology was the limiting factor - even with that low tech they wiped out mega fauna - that is becoming more and more established. So I don't think it was a noble savage preserving the land.....more starvation when over exploited was the fickle hand.

IN the case in Aus...cannibalism was a result in some areas.....Chinese tasted sweeter - good alternative when the fishing grounds were destroyed by the gold miners.

That doesn't really match up with what's known from historical hunter-gatherers and inferred about prehistorical ones. I'm sure just following the game is/was common (especially when moving into new areas), but almost all hunter-gatherers have pretty clearly defined territories that they can't stray from. Their use of resources within those territories needs to be managed in most cases I can think of. I'm not putting forward some noble savage idea of environmental protection, just simple pragmatism.

[Hermit]

One of the problems that hunter-gatherers all over the world faced when agrarian cultures entered their territories was/is that their land seems to be unused. The incomers see empty land that would be ideal for crops or animals, while the hunter-gatherers have been carefully managing their use of the land so no species gets depleted from any one area.

The story of the destruction of Australia's native civilisation. Having existed for 40 to 50,000 years while maintaining a stable environment, it was basically wiped out in a matter of a few decades.

So, yeah, that was sustainable society stretching across an entire continent, and for several thousand years of time. Not that I'd want to live there, though. Life was tough. Men's roles were dominant to those of women. And no air-conditioning.

[Tyrannical]

One of the problems that hunter-gatherers all over the world faced when agrarian cultures entered their territories was/is that their land seems to be unused. The incomers see empty land that would be ideal for crops or animals, while the hunter-gatherers have been carefully managing their use of the land so no species gets depleted from any one area.

The story of the destruction of Australia's native civilisation. Having existed for 40 to 50,000 years while maintaining a stable environment, it was basically wiped out in a matter of a few decades.

So, yeah, that was sustainable society stretching across an entire continent, and for several thousand years of time. Not that I'd want to live there, though. Life was tough. Men's roles were dominant to those of women. And no air-conditioning.

Australians had no native civilization and were quite the opposite of civilized.

[Hermit]

Australians had no native civilization

That's what the parliamentary act declaring the Australian continent to be terra nullius proclaimed. That notion has been destroyed a few decades ago now. Do keep up. Even though the Australian Aborigines were not in possession of air-conditioners and machines that go *ping*, they maintained their communities, replete with rituals, traditions, legends and all manner of records thereof that were not at all dissimilar to Sumerians, Etruscans and other not nearly as ancient European communities that are considered to be civilisations, and they did so in a sustained fashion for a fuckload longer.

[Tyrannical]

Australians had no native civilization

That's what the parliamentary act declaring the Australian continent to be terra nullius proclaimed. That notion has been destroyed a few decades ago now. Do keep up. Even though the Australian Aborigines were not in possession of air-conditioners and machines that go *ping*, they maintained their communities, replete with rituals, traditions, legends and all manner of records thereof that were not at all dissimilar to Sumerians, Etruscans and other not nearly as ancient European communities that are considered to be civilisations, and they did so in a sustained fashion for a fuckload longer.

What the Australians had was never considered civilization by any meaning of the word. To claim so would render the concept of civilization meaningless, because to claim the low-level that Australians had attained was a civilization would imply that all humans were civilized. If that were true, it would be a meaningless descriptor as it would be an intrinsic human characteristic.

Calling them civilized is merely a politeness to protect their feelings of inadequacy.

[Hermit]

What the Australians had was never considered civilization by any meaning of the word.

I guess we disagree on the meaning of civilisation. To me communities that leave behind evidence of being able to deliberately light fires and works of art daubed on cave walls qualify as early examples of civilisation.

[Tyrannical]

What the Australians had was never considered civilization by any meaning of the word.

I guess we disagree on the meaning of civilisation. To me communities that leave behind evidence of being able to deliberately light fires and works of art daubed on cave walls qualify as early examples of civilisation.

No, you disagree on the meaning of civilization. They don't even deserve the term barbarian as they had not evolved culturally into that. Archaically, sub-human would be the most accurate descriptive term.

[Pappa]

Archaically, sub-human would be the most accurate descriptive term.

Wow. Come on, let's hear it. How exactly do Australian Aborigines fit the category sub-human, archaically or otherwise?

[Rum]

Archaically, sub-human would be the most accurate descriptive term.

Wow. Come on, let's hear it. How exactly do Australian Aborigines fit the category sub-human, archaically or otherwise?

Well easy if you are a racist, which Tyrannical is.