2 ms·

> 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 ecoc

> 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 ago
Oh 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 ago
    Sure, 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.

crazygringo 2y ago

Oh 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 ago
  Sure, 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.