4 ms·

Small counter-point: The theory that the Clovis people hunted megafauna to extinction has been challenged a lot by recent research. It looks like North-American

Small counter-point: The theory that the Clovis people hunted megafauna to extinction has been challenged a lot by recent research. It looks like North-American megafauna were actually quite likely driven extinct by changes to the climate. Analysis of the prevalence of fungal spores from large herbivore dung suggests that megafauna began going extinct in the northeastern parts of North America, and did so long before the Clovis people - who arrived from the west - would've been there to affect them. Here's a very well-written article from 2020, from the respected D. Meltzer, that breaks down the evidence really concisely and cites most of the other literature I would point to: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2015032117 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2015032117 All of that said, I agree with and want to add to your main point. We did see commercial hunting result in exactly the conditions you described in early American history. Actually, famous commercial hunters like Boone recognized that we were quickly losing the prevalence of wildlife (although it is likely that the prevalence was only there because of the recent demise of the majority of the Indian - and I use that word for the same reason as the author I'll cite - population that had been hunting them, see Charles Mann's "1491").

xyzzyz 4y ago
I find these theories attributing mass megafauna extinction to changes in climate rather unconvincing, for very simple reason: it would be an extreme coincidence that dozens of species that lived there for literally millions of years all just happened to go extinct right around when humans showed up. Now, I certainly believe that climate changes at the time also played a role: for all we know, these might have even been responsible for most of the animal population reduction, through shrinking the habitat etc. But without the humans killing off the rest, they’d have survived, just like they did during climate changes for previous millions of years — it’s not like the climate just suddenly became unstable recently, after millions of years of high stability. But yes, the overall point is that humans have produced cultural technology that made us just too good at hunting for it to be sustainable source of calories for majority of population, and this has already been true for many millennia.
- user_ 4y ago
  There is a theory[0] that a series of impact events ~12,000 years ago melted the North American ice sheets over the course of a few days. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesi...
- wizofaus 4y ago
  But it's not a coincidence - the climate conditions changing was what enabled humans to move into the continent. Still, I'd be surprised if human activity wasn't a significant contributor towards species extinction in this case.
- LeftHandPath 4y ago
  I would encourage you to read the current literature. The evidence is more compelling than you might expect. Actually Meltzer’s 2020 paper (linked in my previous comment) touches on this exact concern under the subheading, “Getting past the Impasse”. There was another good paper that broke down how the end of the Pleistocene was radically different from previous glacial transitions and how the effects of that likely played into the extinctions. Combined with the revelation that most mammoth “kill sites” were actually more likely to be scavenged… it’s not at all an unlikely picture.
  - xyzzyz 4y ago
    Thank you for recommendations. It’s been a while since I last skipped sleep to read on these topics, so maybe it is in fact time to catch up with recent ideas. My priors are still strong on humans being ultimately responsible, especially as the entire field is filled with a lot of wishful thinking about the noble nature of savage people, living in harmony with each other and environment.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - EdwardDiego 4y ago
    I suspect it's a combination of both - climate change put the megafauna population under stress, and then humans showed up and dramatically exacerbated their woes. The extinction of moa in New Zealand is entirely attributable to over-exploitation by humans. The extinction of megafauna in Australia seems to have been climate change + human hunting + human modification of the environment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire-stick_farming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire-stick_farming

xyzzyz 4y ago

I find these theories attributing mass megafauna extinction to changes in climate rather unconvincing, for very simple reason: it would be an extreme coincidence that dozens of species that lived there for literally millions of years all just happened to go extinct right around when humans showed up. Now, I certainly believe that climate changes at the time also played a role: for all we know, these might have even been responsible for most of the animal population reduction, through shrinking the habitat etc. But without the humans killing off the rest, they’d have survived, just like they did during climate changes for previous millions of years — it’s not like the climate just suddenly became unstable recently, after millions of years of high stability. But yes, the overall point is that humans have produced cultural technology that made us just too good at hunting for it to be sustainable source of calories for majority of population, and this has already been true for many millennia.

user_ 4y ago
There is a theory[0] that a series of impact events ~12,000 years ago melted the North American ice sheets over the course of a few days. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesi...
wizofaus 4y ago
But it's not a coincidence - the climate conditions changing was what enabled humans to move into the continent. Still, I'd be surprised if human activity wasn't a significant contributor towards species extinction in this case.
LeftHandPath 4y ago
I would encourage you to read the current literature. The evidence is more compelling than you might expect. Actually Meltzer’s 2020 paper (linked in my previous comment) touches on this exact concern under the subheading, “Getting past the Impasse”. There was another good paper that broke down how the end of the Pleistocene was radically different from previous glacial transitions and how the effects of that likely played into the extinctions. Combined with the revelation that most mammoth “kill sites” were actually more likely to be scavenged… it’s not at all an unlikely picture.
- xyzzyz 4y ago
  Thank you for recommendations. It’s been a while since I last skipped sleep to read on these topics, so maybe it is in fact time to catch up with recent ideas. My priors are still strong on humans being ultimately responsible, especially as the entire field is filled with a lot of wishful thinking about the noble nature of savage people, living in harmony with each other and environment.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- EdwardDiego 4y ago
  I suspect it's a combination of both - climate change put the megafauna population under stress, and then humans showed up and dramatically exacerbated their woes. The extinction of moa in New Zealand is entirely attributable to over-exploitation by humans. The extinction of megafauna in Australia seems to have been climate change + human hunting + human modification of the environment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire-stick_farming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire-stick_farming