4 ms·
The article says this, but it then goes on to say: >To increase yields, the natives initially cut down the island's trees to get nutrients back into the soil.
by Jiro 2y ago
The article says this, but it then goes on to say:
>To increase yields, the natives initially cut down the island's trees to get nutrients back into the soil.
>When there were no more trees, they engaged in...
That sounds to me like the theory is correct, at least to the extent of the islanders using up their trees unsustainably. The fact that they then found other methods of surviving and their population didn't go down after using up the trees doesn't mean that they didn't permanently damage the environment.
- SamPatt 2y agoThey didn't need trees to survive, as proven by their survival. The claim is that their population hit a plateau due to the space available for farming, instead of dramatically collapsing as previously claimed. If survival is the metric for success, then they didn't permanently damage their environment. As much as we love trees that's hard to imagine, but that's my interpretation of the study.
- crazygringo 2y ago> That sounds to me like the theory is correct No, because the theory posits that this led to a collapse. What this article is arguing is that there was no collapse -- the population hadn't been higher when there were trees. You can argue that the environmental damage was bad for other reasons, but then you're talking about something totally different.
- mrighele 2y ago> What this article is arguing is that there was no collapse -- the population hadn't been higher when there were trees. But that is not the definition of ecocide. Ecocide is only about the destruction of the ecosystem, and the article itself says that it happened. What is disproven is the theory that after the environmental destruction the population collapsed. I don't know what this theory should be named, but I think "ecocide theory" is a poor choice.
- crazygringo 2y agoOh that's an interesting point. The article seems to be treating the collapse hypothesis and the ecocide theory as the same thing, and I guess I was too. I suppose you could separate them out as two parts. Although if it continued to support the same human population, is it really fair to call it ecocide? The environment was transformed but certainly not "killed" as the "-cide" would require. I mean I guess it really depends on whether you would call cutting down forests in New York State to grow fields of corn "ecocide". Yes you eliminated one environment but those fields of corn are very much alive. So I don't think many people would call that "ecocide".
- mrighele 2y ago> Although if it continued to support the same human population, is it really fair to call it ecocide? The environment was transformed but certainly not "killed" as the "-cide" would require. Humans are resilient, but what about other animals ? Easter Island fauna was probably not varied at the time, but there may have been some animals depending on the presence of trees (e.g. birds nesting on trees) that disappeared together with them.
- crazygringo 2y agoSure, but I don't think making a habitat unsuitable for a few species is what "ecocide" refers to. Obviously wherever you draw the line of ecocide is going to be blurry, but I don't think it applies to the situation here -- or else it would apply virtually everywhere humans live and grow crops, and would cease to have meaning.