Slashdot Mirror
Man-Made Fire Blamed for Australian Extinctions
JeiFuRi writes "Around 50,000 years ago, many large Australian animals died off with the arrival of man. From a study carried out by the Carnegie Institution, we now know that the continent's earliest settlers caused these extinctions through their use of fire. In addition, it may have altered the ecosystem of ancient Australia and brought about it's collapse. Futher commentary at BBC News, newKerala, and Red Nova." "Know" is a strong word; the study suggests this may be the case, though.
50,000 years and the Aussies are still big on barbecues. .The species that could not adapt quickly enough died off.
Seriously though , Such is evolution
I always had a small problem with conservation efforts , I know its lovely to save endangered species and all that , but does it not hamper the natural order further by trying to save species that can not cope by themselves.
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
Thank God animals can't demand reparations! *whew*
MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
http://mompp.sourceforge.net/
This Slashdot story brought to you by PETA where our message is: Animals Good - People Bad
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
I've survived many a bush fire with nothing but a damp potato sack for my miseries, and much as I despise the negative impact we've had on this land, I can tell you that its a beautiful thing indeed to walk around the scorched Aussie landscape for weeks after the event, watching new life grow
Australia is a beautiful place, so truly uniqe. Its a good thing that, at least, we are discussing its management, and our effect, and the demise so far, intelligently at least
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Its This is the possessive form of "it" as in "brought about its collapse." This is easily confused with "it's" primarily because we're taught that an apostrophe implies possession. This is an exception. It's The contraction of "it is" as in "It's a good day."
"Oh my primordial nature God! Timmy's set fire to the outback!"
"Now kids - remember, when cooking animals, make sure they're dead *before* you set them on fire, or otherwise they might run away and set the entire continent on fire"
"Gee, thanks GI Aboriginal Tribesman!"
"Now you know - and knowing is half the battle! Now lets set that Dingo on fire."
Smokey the Marsupial says: "Only you can prevent outback fi-" *wham* *wham* *sizzle*
Pyro the Aboriginie says: "Mmm, marsupial tasty over fire. More burnt marsupials good. Burn! Burn!"
*sets outback on fire*
Bloody oath! That's the most lame post I have read in weeks mate.
A dead kookaburra is funnier.
Again, I do not condone charging ahead to flatten forests or eliminate other species but it seems strange one never hears discussion of things in this light....
So are mass extinctions, but if given the choice you'd generally prefer not to be involved in one of those.
We're supposed to be the intelligent ones here, but we don't appear to be smart enough yet not to shit in our own beds...
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
We have the ability to choose one outcome over another. In this case when several consequences are choosable, the argument that the "consequences are part of the natural order" is a moot point and at worst an excuse for being irresponsible. Even if *conservation* is a human concept it is a concept brought about by a desire to live in a world that is interesting, varied and reasonably stable for the majority of the human population.
The bikini - security through obscurity since 1943
I am suprised that this paper seems to be written by a bunch of geologists and archeologists that have come to some conclusions without talking to anyone in the field that they're guessing about. They need to talk to someone who has qualifications in land management, particularly with practical knowledge of wildlands management and wildlands firefighting.
Because a lot of the countryside around the world has this alarming habbit of setting itself on fire. In the middle of the dry season, all it takes is one luckily placed lightning strike and thousands of acres go up.
Yes, there are now humans around that also accidentally start fires - but there are also a humans (ie: wildlands firefighters) who have a thankless job to put them out. 4 million acres typically burn in the US each year, this would be far greater if it wasn't stopped.
For all we know, a long time ago in Australia there were couple of particularly damp and wet seasons (so lots of plants grew), followed by a few particularly dry and hot long summer (so lots of plants died and became easily flamable). Maybe a natural dam burst, draining a lake and changing the local climate patterns. Then there's one lightning strike and it's all gone.
The fact that the foliage never recovered seems to suggest that a more permanent change was to blame. Otherwise when the humans moved away the forest would grow back. I hesitate to think how many humans would have been required to burn the entire continent of Australia - and keep it that way until the change was permanent. And all of the burned forests that I am aware of recover if left to their own devices (and I've regularly visited one here in Colorado). Typically the root structures of most trees, and some seeds of plants survive fires and the forest gradually grows back, the charred tree trunks gradually being overrun by a sea of new green growth.
Anyway, I'm skeptical, is all.
and brought about it's collapse
"its".
Note to moderators: I have placed this correction as close to the top as possible. Please MOD THIS POST UP (+5 Informative) so that the editors and orginal submitter can see it. Thank you.
If the environment was that prone to fires then how do the scientists know the fires were not caused by lighting? It's one thing to blame humans but it's another thing to completely ignore one of the main causes of fires.
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
I tend to agree with you but this is one of the great debates.
Is man above nature or part of it.
If we are above it then we have an obligation and the right to manage it.
If we are part of it then what ever we feel like is "right".
As far as being part of extinctions. Do you know that some people feel that humans do not have the "right" to wipe out the smallpox virus? What about Polio? How about Aids? Frankly there are some life forms that I am all for making extinct.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Linguistically, there's sort of a reason for this. Let me point you to the definition of the word "artificial" from http://www.m-w.com/
Main Entry: artificial
Pronunciation: "är-t&-'fi-sh&l
Function: adjective
1 : humanly contrived often on a natural model : MAN-MADE
2 a : having existence in legal, economic, or political theory b : caused or produced by a human and especially social or political agency
3 obsolete : ARTFUL, CUNNING
4 a : lacking in natural or spontaneous quality b : IMITATION, SHAM
5 : based on differential morphological characters not necessarily indicative of natural relationships
Specifically, note definitions 1 and 4. Something that is artificial tends to be something man-made. In addition, it lacks a natural or spontaneous part to it. Thus, if things that are man made are, by definition, not natural, then it cannot be the case that a human caused fire is not a natural fire.
When the Maoris arrived over a thousand years ago they burned the forrests heavily to flush out birds to catch and so they could plant crops in the ash. This caused the extinction of many species and heavy deforestation where there was once mostly forest.
Another couple of thousand years of that and New Zealand would've lost all its forests and areas would've turned to desert. As it is there are areas that only receive 300mm of rain per year and rely on canals to prevent desertification.
Our smarts are much faster than it can ever be. We're an 'out-of-context' problem. The consequences of our actions come by much quicker than evolution can compensate.
You're not trying to ascribe anything intelligent to Evolution, are you?
I mean, how could anything be a 'problem' for blind chance? And why would it try to 'compensate' for anything?
Let's not be thinking of Evolution as some kind of Intelligent Creator, okay?
The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
By the same logic, human poop is not natural poop...
Come on now. Obvious flaw in your logic.
If all Artificial things are in the set of Man-made things, and all Artificial things are in the set of Imitation things, then all Man-made things are in the set of Imitation things? Thats a classic fallacy, and one which I had assumed most people were done with.
all A in M
all A in I
Does NOT imply all M in I!
--me
"The species that could not adapt quickly enough died off."
I would say it's more like one large species wiped out 80% of the other large species because it seemed like a good idea at the time.
"I always had a small problem with conservation efforts , I know its lovely to save endangered species and all that , but does it not hamper the natural order further by trying to save species that can not cope by themselves."
No species can cope by itself except perhaps some single cell organisims, but certainly not humans. The reason conservation efforts concentrate on larger animals and birds is because thier demise is a signal that the environment that supports them is in trouble. I suppose you could say that it's the "natural order" for humans to kill anything that moves, after all we are predators. However, following the "natural order" of poulation growth in the absence of any serious restraints we end up by ourselves in a desert, surrounded by dead oceans. Soylent Green anyone? It's a natural product!
The really sad part is that some people are so divorced from thier surroundings they cannot comprehend that the environment tolerates humans not the other way around.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
A classic population experiment gives a species everything it needs to survive but the available space remains fixed. This invariably ends up with a rapid and total collapse of the system.
We have so far acted "naturally", (we have done what humans do), and are now much closer to the "natural" consequence of our behaviour than ever before. I suspect that if humans do not adapt thier "nature" to suit the "natural order" then rapid human exitinction will be the "natural" outcome.
I agree with you that not enough attention is given to our place as a species. The above is simple high school biology, yet looking around the planet I can't help feeling like a goldfish suffocating in its own shit.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
You are absolutely correct when you say that most fires are started by lightning, the same is true here in Australia. However with regards to the fuel that the fire consumes and Occams razor, don't you think that wiping our most of the large herbivors would induce a change in ground cover?
The problem is that it is never just as simple as one correct answer. Sure the Aborigines changed things by using fire and importing dogs (not to mention snacking on giant wombats who had never seen a hungry human), but before they arrived there were so many low level lightning fires in the Australian bush that much of the vegetation has actually evolved to depend on fire to propogate.
The prevailing wisdom in temperate Australia is to deliberately burn off (or better still mulch) the undergrowth in autum and spring. We still have some of the planets worst bushfires here but that is mainly because of the sheer size of the bush and the fact that we just leave some places up to nature to sort out. We cannot manage the whole of the bush so we burn off and create firebreaks in strategic locations. No matter what we do nothing can stop a wildfire backed by 30knt winds and tempratures of 40+ degC in the shade. When you have spot fires starting several kilometers upwind from the fire front you just have to protect the properties you can and let it run out of fuel (or prey for rain).
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.