2 ms·
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 supp
by 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 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.