| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Qinella
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Location: the crib
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 8:50 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| endo wrote: |
| Qinella wrote: |
One poster also said that disease brought by the original migrations from Asia had an effect on the fauna of NA. I don�t think there is any evidence for this. And large scale diseases like that rarely migrate between species. |
I don't know why my idea was so quickly dismissed? I mean the overwhealming majority of native americans who died after the Europeans came died of disease.
Why couldn't the same theory be afforded to the large game of the Western Hemesphere who were sheltered for thousands of years from animals from the Old World?
There is also the climate change that needs to be accounted for. The opening and eventual closing of the Beiring Straight land bridge coinsided with the ending of the last ice age. During this period the climate around the world changed and most of the large game animals (even those in Africa - i.e even larger lions and hippos) died off.
I just don't buy the elimination of the big game animals in the Americas as a consequence of over hunting by the newly arrived homo sapiens. Yes, humans have the ability to drastically alter their envoronment like no other species on this planet, however, in my opinion over hunting was likely third in the scale of factors behind the extinction of these animals.
Climate change is probably the first factor while disease is the second (remember the native people who crossed the Beiring Straight also brought with the dogs, which are disease carriers).
But hell I wasn't there and there still needs to be a lot of research done on this question so who knows? |
Well, that was posted by Flotsam and I don't speak for him, but I will point out that Europeans and Native Americans are the same species. He was saying interspecies, not interculture, disease transmission is rare.
However, it is still a leading theory. I searched the internet about this topic the other night, and found that it is considered plausible by many.
About the climate change, I think that is addressed in GG&S. The entire world experienced climate change, not only NA, and the NA animals that died off weren't all large. As Flotsam pointed out, the NA horse. Have you ever read about the evolution of horses? It's fascinating. In the Americas, there were little tiny horses about the size of rabbits. (However, I do not know what species actually existed 10k years ago in America.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Privateer wrote: |
| Qinella wrote: |
I'm not denying that these are good weapons, but what I mean by inferior is that they are still primitive when compared to the Europeans and Asians, who already had metal weapons and gunpowder about the time that Americans were inventing the bow.
That may have something to do with the time differentials, but was there another factor at play? |
Why didn't the Americans invent metal and gunpowder? Because progress isn't inevitable and needn't be irreversible either. After all it took tens of thousands of years for humanity to stop being hunter gatherers.
Or, it was cultural isolation. You have a relatively homogeneous culture spread over much of America and isolated from communication with all the many and varied cultures in Asia, Europe, and Africa. |
Or its like why did China invent gun powder but not really use it in war? China was huge, rich, Chinese emperors pretty much thought they had everything they needed. They didn't have to travel half way across the world for spices and silk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mack the knife
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: standing right behind you...
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| When you finish GG&S you need to read The Selfish Gene by Dawkins. Then you will have caught up with everyone in Anthro 101. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dutchy pink
Joined: 06 Feb 2007
Location: Incheon
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
quinella's question about why North Americans wiped out species faster than Africans is probably due to intent rather than ability. Wiping out large game in NA helped the newly arrived Europeans control native populations. It wasn't because they needed food. It reduced the food supply, changed migration patterns, weakened and generally demoralized the locals. This was part of a plan.
Africans didn't wipe out large number of species at one time because there was no need or incentive to. Populations were generally smaller and more isolated so killing a few animals at a time was all that was needed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VirginIslander
Joined: 24 May 2006
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 5:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mindmeto wrote
China was huge, rich, Chinese emperors pretty much thought they had everything they needed. They didn't have to travel half way across the world for spices and silk[/b]
Actually, "they" did.
http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0507/feature2/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SuperFly
Joined: 09 Jul 2003
Location: In the doghouse
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
700am this morning,
You - Sat down across from me and started to read Guns, Germs & Steel.
Me: Half awake across from you on the subway & said something to you as I was getting off the train about having the book sitting on my shelf for the past two years...promising myself to start reading it when I got back to Korea. hahaha
 that was weird, especially after reading this thread a few days ago...
small world! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Diamond's books are some of my favorites... I often re-read them just to make sure I've got his theories fresh in my head. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dutchy pink wrote: |
quinella's question about why North Americans wiped out species faster than Africans is probably due to intent rather than ability. Wiping out large game in NA helped the newly arrived Europeans control native populations. It wasn't because they needed food. It reduced the food supply, changed migration patterns, weakened and generally demoralized the locals. This was part of a plan.
Africans didn't wipe out large number of species at one time because there was no need or incentive to. Populations were generally smaller and more isolated so killing a few animals at a time was all that was needed. |
I disagree with this. Africans didn't wipe out large all of the large fauna becuase they couldn't. The Fauna had grow up around human development and had adjusted to it. Where as the megafauna in the Americas was quite vulnerable to those danged homosapiens. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dutchy pink
Joined: 06 Feb 2007
Location: Incheon
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 6:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I agree plant, animal and humans developed over longer periods of time together in Africa and this is a factor. However the wildlife we are talking about was wiped out when Europeans arrived, roughly 1700-1800. Prior to that the native populations lived there for at least 10,00 years without any major extinctions we know of. So the years in question are 1700-1800 and what changed during this period that would cause statistically large number of species to go extinct. The answer is what i mentioned above. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Qinella
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Location: the crib
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dutchy pink wrote: |
| I agree plant, animal and humans developed over longer periods of time together in Africa and this is a factor. However the wildlife we are talking about was wiped out when Europeans arrived, roughly 1700-1800. Prior to that the native populations lived there for at least 10,00 years without any major extinctions we know of. So the years in question are 1700-1800 and what changed during this period that would cause statistically large number of species to go extinct. The answer is what i mentioned above. |
Can you think of any examples of things that went extinct? I'm curious about that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dutchy pink
Joined: 06 Feb 2007
Location: Incheon
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not sure of the specifics, but several species of bison and wolf went extinct while many others went on the verge of being extinct. Actually, this is more of what i meant when i said 'wiped out' and 'extinct'. I guess i meant more or less extinct. Obviously not the same thing but i think in this context it compares.
Sure, there were other factors at work as well, and numerous other 'smaller' species went extinct, but in regards to this discussion I think we are talking about larger animals directly killed by humans. And at that, over a relatively short period. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dutchy pink
Joined: 06 Feb 2007
Location: Incheon
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 7:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| qinella, curious if you've finished the book. any last impressions? etc... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faster
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mack the knife wrote: |
| When you finish GG&S you need to read The Selfish Gene by Dawkins. Then you will have caught up with everyone in Anthro 101. |
Hehe, I'm teaching both of those books this year. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Qinella
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Location: the crib
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dutchy pink wrote: |
| qinella, curious if you've finished the book. any last impressions? etc... |
Nah I have not been reading much lately. Been back in the studying mood, so that's taking up most of my free time. I'm about halfway finished with it. It's up to the point where animal domestication is discussed and, frankly, it's quite boring compared to the first few chapters. I hope it gets more interesting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ronald
Joined: 14 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fascinating book indeed. I started reading it and got about half way through before I had get back into my school work. Agriculture really made human culture what it is; religion, law, classes, all due to agriculture. The latitudes in relation to skin pigmentation is also interesting.
There is another book called culture and carnage that I hear is also interesting. Has anyone read it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
