5 ms·

Yesterday, a friend reminded me about the story of the Easter islands. I remember reading / hearing about it. But then forgot about it. They destroyed the whole

Yesterday, a friend reminded me about the story of the Easter islands. I remember reading / hearing about it. But then forgot about it. They destroyed the whole forest on the island and with it, they destroyed them self... I bet, they were in a similar situation, people saying that we should stop. That it changes things. And... they didn't stop until the bitter end. I think we will be like the easter island. We won't stop.

seren 7y ago
Actually, there are some researches saying that the often cited conclusion about Easter Islands (notably in 'Collapse') might not be accurate. See for example: https://gizmodo.com/new-evidence-contradicts-theory-that-easter-island-soci-1828307589 https://gizmodo.com/new-evidence-contradicts-theory-that-eas...
- graeme 7y ago
  The account confuses me. Diamond's central argument was that the Islanders cut down all their trees, and thus no more could grow. This article suggests they got all their stone from a single quarry, and so must have collaborated around that quarry. ....this doesn't seem to contradict the central claim of a society destroying its resource base. Am I missing something? It's also not incompatible to have collaboration around a central resource and conflict elsewhere. Though I mainly think it's a sideline to the tree story.
  - seren 7y ago
    Maybe, this was not the best source, but there are articles disputing that the population decreases happened before the first contact with European explorers in 1722. http://islandheritage.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/RNJ_23_2_Mulrooney_Etal.pdf http://islandheritage.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/... I don't think it does challenge the idea that the deforestation led to the collapse, but maybe it was not the only cause.
    - graeme 7y ago
      Thanks, that paper is much clearer. It seems their argument is that deforestation was not a factor in collapse, as land use didn't shift and no big decrease in toolmaking was seen before 1800, post contact. Certainly plausible. To know beyond that point we'd need a subject matter expert and possible original investigation. In other words it's possible Diamond's tree narrative is correct but not his war narrative. I think that doesn't undermine it so much for the purposes of discussing the possibility that we may use all of a certain resource. But it is indeed a caveat worth noting.
CannisterFlux 7y ago
The collapse of Easter Island was mostly likely due to Europeans introducing disease to the island in their first visits, kidnapping the islanders for slavery aboard ships, then nearby Chile doing the same sort of thing, followed by more disease when some islanders were returned later. Early reports of visits to the island noted how friendly the islanders were. Then just a couple of years later they were aggressive towards visiting ships. I wonder why? On the first visit some islanders were killed "by accident" (shot one! oops!). The "stupid natives cut down their trees" story is mostly propaganda to cover the real tragedy caused by external forces destroying the island life.

seren 7y ago

Actually, there are some researches saying that the often cited conclusion about Easter Islands (notably in 'Collapse') might not be accurate. See for example: https://gizmodo.com/new-evidence-contradicts-theory-that-easter-island-soci-1828307589 https://gizmodo.com/new-evidence-contradicts-theory-that-eas...

graeme 7y ago
The account confuses me. Diamond's central argument was that the Islanders cut down all their trees, and thus no more could grow. This article suggests they got all their stone from a single quarry, and so must have collaborated around that quarry. ....this doesn't seem to contradict the central claim of a society destroying its resource base. Am I missing something? It's also not incompatible to have collaboration around a central resource and conflict elsewhere. Though I mainly think it's a sideline to the tree story.
- seren 7y ago
  Maybe, this was not the best source, but there are articles disputing that the population decreases happened before the first contact with European explorers in 1722. http://islandheritage.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/RNJ_23_2_Mulrooney_Etal.pdf http://islandheritage.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/... I don't think it does challenge the idea that the deforestation led to the collapse, but maybe it was not the only cause.
  - graeme 7y ago
    Thanks, that paper is much clearer. It seems their argument is that deforestation was not a factor in collapse, as land use didn't shift and no big decrease in toolmaking was seen before 1800, post contact. Certainly plausible. To know beyond that point we'd need a subject matter expert and possible original investigation. In other words it's possible Diamond's tree narrative is correct but not his war narrative. I think that doesn't undermine it so much for the purposes of discussing the possibility that we may use all of a certain resource. But it is indeed a caveat worth noting.

CannisterFlux 7y ago

The collapse of Easter Island was mostly likely due to Europeans introducing disease to the island in their first visits, kidnapping the islanders for slavery aboard ships, then nearby Chile doing the same sort of thing, followed by more disease when some islanders were returned later. Early reports of visits to the island noted how friendly the islanders were. Then just a couple of years later they were aggressive towards visiting ships. I wonder why? On the first visit some islanders were killed "by accident" (shot one! oops!). The "stupid natives cut down their trees" story is mostly propaganda to cover the real tragedy caused by external forces destroying the island life.