16 ms·

The headline literally says they lived in 3% of the forest area, which implies that the vast majority of the rest of the forest actually was untouched

• _visgean 2mo ago
  not really, the 3pct was just what they scanned with lidars so far.
• Terr_ 2mo ago
  Perhaps, but was it untouched by design, or was it untouched because it wasn't economically feasible for them to exploit it? Those two are very very different when it comes to assigning virtuous environmental brownie-points, and the latter is the default across most civilizations ever known.
  • boomlinde 2mo ago
    Since when is "assigning virtuous environmental brownie-points" the topic of discussion? Your original claim which GP responded to is unrelated to that.
    • Terr_ 2mo ago
      > Since when is "assigning virtuous environmental brownie-points" the topic of discussion? I think it's very straightforward. Here's a recap of the thread, you can see it in the quote for the first item: 1. khanhnguyen8386 implied that they were "sophisticated ecosystem engineers, shaping the rainforest for centuries without destroying it." 2. smt88 challenged that by pointing that 97% of "the rainforest" was probably untouched by this group, as opposed to shaped deliberately. 3. I (Terr_) chime in to emphasize that we shouldn't assume a region was intentionally left-alone when the much simpler explanation is that it wasn't practical to exploit it. > Your original claim which GP responded to is unrelated to that. You have also confused me with some other user.
      • boomlinde 2mo ago
        Yeah, I confused you for another user. Still, I don't get where "virtuous environmental brownie-points" enter the discussion or how the first reply pertains to them. It seems like a simple factual statement that is either true or false and can be evaluated as such without invoking virtuous brownie points. That the Amazon remained largely untouched is true regardless of whether that was the result of a deliberate effort, a technological limitation, a lack of need or any other reason. No one uses "preserved" until now. It can simultaneously be true that the populated areas of the Amazon where deliberately and carefully managed by the population and that the Amazon was largely untouched for any other reason.
        • sophrosyne42 2mo ago
          > It can simultaneously be true that the populated areas of the Amazon where deliberately and carefully managed by the population and that the Amazon was largely untouched for any other reason. Certainly, though nothing about the quoted fact that 97% of forest was uninhabited should lead us to make statements like "the pristine untouched Amazon idea is a European myth", nor does it give any information to go off of regarding their possible knowledge of environmental engineering.
          • boomlinde 2mo ago
            Perhaps they weren't basing their statement on the "quoted fact" which was later posted in response to their statement (which FWIW isn't factual; as someone else points out this was not the only Amazonian civilization).
  • charlieyu1 2mo ago
    I’d assume it was unnecessary because food needs were already satisfied plus the danger from deeper parts of the forest.
• culi 2mo ago
  10% of the Amazon soil is man-made terra preta. The paper is just referring to this one civilization. It is definitely not the only Amazonian civilization.
• rbanffy 2mo ago
  Not really. It refers to a single civilisation. Other societies existed in the neighbouring space and time.