Earth down the trash? (+case Easter Island)

[Kentonio]

Originally posted by carlosMM


sorry, I am a second language English speaker, and I did lack the right word, but there IS arrogance (i.e. 'I would NEVER be so stupid') in your statement.

Erm dude, I never actually said that though, did I?

Originally posted by carlosMM


and what about your own theories? 'something a bit more savage wiped them out like disease or weather conditions' - THAT is unsubstanciated right there!

Im not trying to put forward a theory as fact, as appears to be the case in the original article. Im merely saying there are a lot of alternative options that seem at face value to be a lot more credible.

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by Kentonio
Erm dude, I never actually said that though, did I?

no you didn't, but it is implied in your statement, which you know well, dude!

Im not trying to put forward a theory as fact, as appears to be the case in the original article. Im merely saying there are a lot of alternative options that seem at face value to be a lot more credible.

How can you tell? Have you studied the subject? I have taken quite a few courses in archeology, and I can tell you that the availability of wood and soil (i.e. cheap building material and a place to grow food) are THE driving factors in societies like these. There is alos ample literature about the polynesian expansion across the Pacific - I have read a lot out of personal interest. That theory on how the Easter Islander mismanaged (they couldn't really know better beforhand though) makes a load of sense!

Sure there are other feasible theories, but none of them more likely! Or how would a disease explain both the absence of trees and the presence of monuments and garbage that depict a culture based on extensive agriculture and buildings based on use of huge amounts of wood?

 

[Aphex_Twin]

@Carlos. I forgot about evaporation

 

[Kentonio]

Originally posted by carlosMM
no you didn't, but it is implied in your statement, which you know well, dude!

Thats simply a matter of interpretation then, isnt it?

Originally posted by carlosMM
How can you tell? Have you studied the subject? I have taken quite a few courses in archeology, and I can tell you that the availability of wood and soil (i.e. cheap building material and a place to grow food) are THE driving factors in societies like these. There is alos ample literature about the polynesian expansion across the Pacific - I have read a lot out of personal interest. That theory on how the Easter Islander mismanaged (they couldn't really know better beforhand though) makes a load of sense!

Sure there are other feasible theories, but none of them more likely! Or how would a disease explain both the absence of trees and the presence of monuments and garbage that depict a culture based on extensive agriculture and buildings based on use of huge amounts of wood?

I have no real problem per se with the idea that a shortage of materials drove down the quality of life on the island (although suggesting that it led to the total breakdown of a quite sophisticated civilization seems to be stretching it a tad). What I have a problem with is the idea that even if they used a lot of wood and there is no more wood, that it somehow means their somewhat fanciful tale of the clans out competing each other right down to the last tree is somehow true. I have so far seem simply no evidence to support such a hypothesis. If you have any evidence to show then be my guest, if not then I think we will have to simply agree to disagree on the subject.

 

[Matrix]

About Easter Island:
Kentonio, I've heard the story of Easter Island from my teacher (I'm studying human geography) and I'm quite positive that he wouldn't tell such a story if they're not very sure about it. I'm not an archeologist and neither are you, so we can't say this is the story. But it's the only story we have and the only possible reason that those statues are there. (Besides, have you ever thought of how much we already know about dinosaurs only because of their bones?)

Anyway, facts like that there were approx 7000 people at the highlight of their civilization is of course more controversial, but also less important.

About global warming/cooling:
Indeed, it is very likely that global warming will make the Gulf Stream decrease, but bare in mind that the effect only count for Europe. On one hand we have global warming that warms up Europe, on the other hand it will get cooler with a weaker Gulf Stream. The second effect will probably be stronger, but it's better to conclude that Europe will have much more variety in the weather (very cold or very warm winters and summers; very dry or very wet (with floods etc.), etc.).

But I'm pretty sure the Sahel for example will get warmer.

 

[Chauliodus]

There's the case global warming, there's the case of resources running short, the decaying ozon layer, the growing world population, decaying soil (thus food production) and the ever growing human 'needs' for more resources per person. And perhaps some more.

Most resourses arn't being consumed, their being randomized, instead of mining vains of ore, our ancestors will be mining landfills and the ruins of our cities.

The Aral lake is currently about half it's original size. And mismanagements of soils in Africa are making the food shortage even bigger.

Don't forget the Dead Sea is now two lakes, and Lake Chad is more or less a pond. China will collapse in the next 50 years or so, their population has depleated their aquifers so much all those rice fields will become virtual deserts (Chinese only needed to drill for water to a depth of 30 feet 50 years ago, now they need to go down to over 100.), and even if the whole world supplied food to china dailly, it wouldn't even dent the famine that would swamp them.

Canada might have a chance at greatness in another century with all our freash water, course we'd have to get a big kick in the ass to get ourselves in line to be an accual global power.

As said in the beginning: then the Europeans came and what they found were only about a 100 people, ignorant of their own history! After all, they didn't know where the moai came from. A civilization lost.

Don't forget they were using the Rongo Rongos as fire wood, the reason why only 50 or so survive. They didn't know what they were because the upper class wrote them in their own language, so when they went, the commoners had no idea what they were.

yes, Europe has one of the best climates to tolerate changes, deep soils, very varied terrain -we are truely lucky (which, btw is the reason why agriculture is still fine here while the Fertile Crescent is already ruined and the Great Plains will alos not survive 1000 years of intensive agriculture).

Russia would become a power house, some people are speculating that they are delaying in signing the Kyoto Accord because they reap nothing but benefits from a warmer climate.

Global Warming will not kill humanity, I don't take to the idea that we are the major cause of it, however it could and probably fill be a cause to the fall of modern civilization.

That theory on how the Easter Islander mismanaged (they couldn't really know better beforhand though) makes a load of sense!

One of the main reasons the Norse colonies failed in Greenland with Iceland meeting hard times was the extensive deforestation they did on those two islands without them, the Greenlanders were cut off and had no way to flee when the climate hit a cold spell and stopped most of their food production.

The same thing goes for Rapa Nui, except they were unable to flee the island the moment the tide grabbed them and pushed them ashore. They were doomed from the start, wheather or not the cut down all the trees to move the moai or just used them for fishing boards and everyday use, they used them to the extenction (the last stump died in the 50s or 60s I think).

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by Kentonio


Thats simply a matter of interpretation then, isnt it?

yes, sure is. Still, you will have to admit that you were quite scornful - can we meet in the middle?

I have no real problem per se with the idea that a shortage of materials drove down the quality of life on the island (although suggesting that it led to the total breakdown of a quite sophisticated civilization seems to be stretching it a tad). What I have a problem with is the idea that even if they used a lot of wood and there is no more wood, that it somehow means their somewhat fanciful tale of the clans out competing each other right down to the last tree is somehow true. I have so far seem simply no evidence to support such a hypothesis. If you have any evidence to show then be my guest, if not then I think we will have to simply agree to disagree on the subject.

How else would you imagine the situation? Just look at the beginning fights over water today - once you realize there is too little for all, you start to fight - and to spend more than you need just to demonstrate your right to it.

Also, there are stone figures in mid-construction and tools used on them at the very top of the garbage heaps - this DOES indicate that the waste of wood for status projects DID go to the last tree. Yes, they have dramatized it a bit - maybe a storm felled the last tree, so the word 'last' is not to be taken literally (but maybe it really was like that), but rather to mean 'to the very end of their use of wood in society' - like the last few years or so.

And the idea of lack of resources breaking down society is not stretching it, but rather true - there have been many examples of rather rapid decline. The problem usually is the inability to support specialists due to the inability to produce excess food. Very quickly, you drop from Kingdom to tribal bands, and who is to remember thousands of verses about history and thousnads of techniques for manufacturing tools and art objects if he cannot feed himself and his family sufficiently?

I recommend to you the book 'Guns, Germs and Steel' by Jared Diamond as a start, if you are interested in this part of sociology/archeology/history.

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by Chauliodus


Most resourses arn't being consumed, their being randomized, instead of mining vains of ore, our ancestors will be mining landfills and the ruins of our cities.

Metals are not a problem as long as you have energy to recycle them, they will justg et a lot more expensive...


uups, did I say 'have energy'? where will affordable energy come from?

Russia would become a power house, some people are speculating that they are delaying in signing the Kyoto Accord because they reap nothing but benefits from a warmer climate.

I do not see a great future for non-intensive agriculture in Russia - and intensive agriculture has ruined most soils there

Global Warming will not kill humanity, I don't take to the idea that we are the major cause of it, however it could and probably fill be a cause to the fall of modern civilization.

agree, it will kill modern civilization. But we do cause it. 99,9% of it.

One of the main reasons the Norse colonies failed in Greenland with Iceland meeting hard times was the extensive deforestation they did on those two islands without them, the Greenlanders were cut off and had no way to flee when the climate hit a cold spell and stopped most of their food production.

fleeing would also mean an end of the colonies, right? It simply was the 'little ice age' that made the colonies unable to produce enough food and made the supporting homeland marginal for agriculture, taking the ability to support non-self reliant colonies.....

The same thing goes for Rapa Nui, except they were unable to flee the island the moment the tide grabbed them and pushed them ashore. They were doomed from the start, wheather or not the cut down all the trees to move the moai or just used them for fishing boards and everyday use, they used them to the extenction (the last stump died in the 50s or 60s I think).

In hindsight, tough population control and ecomanagement WOULD have a allowed a bigger society to survive there, probably. Maybe 500 people? Maybe 1000? But by the time one sees the light it usually is too late

 

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Chauliodus
Most resourses arn't being consumed, their being randomized, instead of mining vains of ore, our ancestors will be mining landfills and the ruins of our cities.

Oil & uranium will be consumed. You can't gain energy from what comes out of a tailpipe.

Originally posted by Chauliodus
Global Warming will not kill humanity, I don't take to the idea that we are the major cause of it, however it could and probably fill be a cause to the fall of modern civilization.

Originally posted by carlosMM
agree, it will kill modern civilization. But we do cause it. 99,9% of it.

I'm not that pessimistic. It might happen. But if it does, it'll fully be our fault.

From what I've learned about the Kyoto-treaty, there is a future in it. But it's vital that the USA will join too.

 

[Aramazd]

We just have to change

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by Matrix
From what I've learned about the Kyoto-treaty, there is a future in it. But it's vital that the USA will join too.

you have a way more optimistic outlook on life than me - and I hope you are right!

 

[Chauliodus]

Oil & uranium will be consumed. You can't gain energy from what comes out of a tailpipe.

Yes, but does civilization rely on it other than our own?

I'm not that pessimistic. It might happen. But if it does, it'll fully be our fault.

I am because our civilization WILL fall, doesn't matter if its 100 or 1000 years it will and like everyother, it will be because of what we have and haven't done.

 

[Archer 007]

Global warming is a fake concept that really just a conspiracy by the Jews and Communists.

 

[Ossric]

other Easter Island analogies: the Maya's & Ankor Wath

 

[Aphex_Twin]

The Maya did vanish as a civilisation because of internal reasons, but I thought Angkor was overrun by the neighbouring Thai.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Originally posted by archer_007
Global warming is a fake concept that really just a conspiracy by the Jews and Communists.

Not to mention the liberals

Anyways, there is likely a certain level of truth to the theories of climate change.

Either way, there is likely to be a greater decentralization of the power grids of the western world, since they are going to have to be replaced soon anyways. Much of the new power will come from renewable forms of energy where they are plentiful, and because it means a local power source. Thus fossil fuels will likely not run out, or even become really expensive, but rather just become undesirable compared to alternative forms of energy.

It is just as delusional to think that fossil fuels are the only viable form of energy, as it is to think that renewable energies will dominate the world in the future.

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by Sobieski II
Either way, there is likely to be a greater decentralization of the power grids of the western world, since they are going to have to be replaced soon anyways. Much of the new power will come from renewable forms of energy where they are plentiful, and because it means a local power source. Thus fossil fuels will likely not run out, or even become really expensive, but rather just become undesirable compared to alternative forms of energy.

ahem, are you talking about a 250 year timespan or a 500 year timespan? because at the moment, only around 5% of investments into energy sources goes to renewable energies, and that includes all the funding for research

 

[RoddyVR]

global warming is a boon to humans. have you looked outside, its cold and there's snow and ice everywhere.

so:
during the winter i subscribe (and promote) to the global warming theory.
during the summer i subscribe to the global cooling (comming ice age) theory.
EDIT:
during the spring i think all these theories are bull. (its nice as it is)
during the fall i think that an alien will come and take all our water (so it stops raining).
end EDIT.
that way, the future always looks bright.

as for running out of energy. that will never happen. we always have the sun and the ocean tides to drain. and then there's always fusion. and after that we'll figure out how to "mine the sun" or something like that, to get energy directly out of it.
and then the adjacent stars.
then we'll use the gravitational pull between galaxies as a means to power our weapons..... i mean our way of life.... ye.....

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Originally posted by carlosMM


ahem, are you talking about a 250 year timespan or a 500 year timespan? because at the moment, only around 5% of investments into energy sources goes to renewable energies, and that includes all the funding for research

Perhaps in America, yes, but you cannot honestly think the country is going to allow themselves to be completely owned by the Saudis do you?

Besides the investments are picking up in Denmark and Germany, and it takes less to stimulate it then it does to stimulate coal or oil development.

I would say within 20-30 years, it will have really begun to complement itself as an energy force. It likely will not become dominant (however, you never know), but it will have begun the mass production process enough to make its presence felt.

Why are you so pessimistic anyways, if you truly believe in the power of the renewables? Wind has been growing at like 30% a year for some time now, and it is only a matter of time before some sort of private investment picks up in the states. 30% a year does not seem like a bad investment to me, and as "evil" as all those Republicans and corporations are, do you actually think they will exlude themselves from this pie indefinitely? Why do you think it is called "Shell Energy", rather than "Shell Oil" now adays? You cannot really pick the winners, and thus solar has failed to prove itself as viable as originally predicted for this timeframe, but wind has proved itself a winner in appropriate regions, and thus is likely to be used.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Originally posted by RoddyVR

as for running out of energy. that will never happen. we always have the sun and the ocean tides to drain. and then there's always fusion. and after that we'll figure out how to "mine the sun" or something like that, to get energy directly out of it.
and then the adjacent stars.
then we'll use the gravitational pull between galaxies as a means to power our weapons..... i mean our way of life.... ye.....

You see, now this is the level of enthusiasm for new sources of energy, I want to see in you Carlos. Nobody is going to support the ideas of the moping cynic.