3 ms·

Actually, there are some researches saying that the often cited conclusion about Easter Islands (notably in 'Collapse') might not be accurate. See for example:

by 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.

by seren 7y ago

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.