And we will do the same. We seem quite determined to destroy the earth's ecology on a mass scale. Prior attempts were just warm ups.

While I have no doubt that we will continue to poison our Petri dish, I always question whether conclusions such as the ones drawn in the referenced work are politically motivated or scientifically motivated.

To wit, it seems unlikely that, working with nothing but stone axes and/or fire, and then farming the land by hand or with light animals, an indigenous S. American population could have put even a minor dent in the forest.

If you don't believe me, go clear 20 acres by hand and then try to keep it clear. By hand. Good luck with that.

You seem to be saying that deforestation wasn't possible until the invention of metal tools.

Most deforestation has been done by fire, historically.

The Nazca lived in a semiarid area-not Amazonian jungle or Andean forests. I'd guess that if Easter Island natives could eradicate their trees (which they did) it's not far fetched to see the Nazca bringing on catastrophe by doing the same.

Actually, I noted the potential for fire in my original post, which you quoted.

Reading the original article, however, it turns out that fire was not used:



So I repeat my concern - much of this type of research is not motivated by scientific curiosity, but rather by political bent.

It seems to me that there are a thousand reasons why a people may die out. "Clearcutting" forests using stone choppers seems like it would be a stretch, when basic explanations like rapid climate shift, disease, and other such regulars are possible.

IIRC, Thor Heyerdahl wrote a book called The Tigris Expedition, in which he was exploring history in the mideast. During a side trip he learned of an ancient city ruins in the Arabian desert, near some copper deposits. The wadis in the area had pictographs of trees and forest animals carved in the stone walls. He concluded that a once booming copper smelting operation had used charcoal for fuel and deforested the entire area, now a desert.

Apparently, the copper was a highly prized trade good, and the basis of some ancient trading done with africans and indians. Heyerdahl's interest was in the trade routes, and the vessels used, but discovered this more or less as an aside from his purpose.

I read this 15+ years ago, and it was an old book then. Dunno if it's still in print, but it proved to me that ancient deforestation not only was possible, but created at least a large area of the Arabian desert!

(Used books available on Amazon.)

Huh, so by your reasoning people could build pyramids and the ancient cities of the Mayans, Incas etc. . .but couldn't figure out to chop down a bunch of trees.

Yeah, right.

Anyone who has done any amount of "tree chopping" know the easiest way to clear land is to simply girdle the tree and wait for it to die.

Even if they did clear cut, it was the global weather pattern that probably led to their demise. I bet an extended drought did them in.

I agree, FWIW.

From article: 'The enigmatic society that once flourished apparently collapsed around 500 A.D. after a bloody resource war'.

Great. How encouraging.
Something tells me we are going to see deja vu but on a global scale this time.

We certainly will, considering that we seem to spend too much of our effort pretending civilizations can't commit suicide via environmental damage.

And that clears it how?

"Cleared" means "free of large plants." It doesn't mean, "free of living trees."

So you girdle a couple thousand trees over a few acres. Then what? You still have to cut the trees down, or wait years for them to fall, remove stumps, keep sapling growth down.

It seems to me that it would take a huge effort to clear land, and that it would be extremely difficult to keep a large tract of land cleared by hand - I can barely keep up with my several dozen acres and I have a 100 horse tractor and a brush hog.

Guys with stone axes, no draft animals (S. America?), working entirely by hand . . . how many acres could they have possibly cleared and kept farmed?

Seems to me that the report might be politically motivated.

I happen to agree with the political end, I just wouldn't agree with stretching the truth to get to it.

Good lord you get tiresome. Go figure it out, and if you can't too bad for you.

You're running up hill for no reason and complaining that it's tiresome?

Stop running ol chap.

[Warning to the tired - stop reading here]

No idea what you mean by "go figure it out."

There's really nothing to figure out.

In short, in my experience, I find that a lot of people doing social research tend to hunt for conclusions that support their world view.

For example, most of the people doing "research" into daycare are people who, themselves, believe wholeheartedly that daycare is a good thing. Their "research" is really nothing more than their best efforts to assuage nervous working mothers that they aren't screwing up. It's a validation of self-interest. You see it everywhere. New study that says that spanking kids is bad for them? Done by people who hate spanking. New study saying that smoking really doesn't give you cancer? Done by cig companies.

This article seems to me to be potentially tainted by somebody who desperately wants the world to understand that cutting down forests is, in the end, really bad for people.

So when he/she looks back into the archeological record, he/she desperately wants to find proof that human behavior caused climate change which then wiped out the humans. A stretch, to say the least.

Are you tired yet? Perhaps you should go watch some Scooby Doo in order to relax.

Here's another example.

Guy publishes well supported article that says Easter Islanders likely wiped themselves out by chopping down all their trees. Very clearly possible, very clearly likely. No need to invoke climate change - just simply a very small island with a small forest that was rapidly cut to stumps.

But, wait! Lo and Behold! There's somebody with a competing interest who comes out of the driftwoodwork and refutes the very well supported "they did it to themselves" theory.

Who would venture such a loser of an argument?

Answer - a native islander!!! Brilliant! The guy did not like the conclusion that his ancestors/close relatives/non-whites had screwed up their own island, so he came up with a competing theory that Europeans brought disease with them and that the island was fine when they got there.

Just one more person doing "research" couched as science to further a political belief.