Is this behemoth dead yet, or did the iceage let his fat ass slip by?
Posted on 06/05/2002 3:34:28 PM PDT by vannrox
Is this behemoth dead yet, or did the iceage let his fat ass slip by?
Australia: Australia had several significant species of mega fauna. There was a wombat the size of a hippo. A nine foot tall kangaroo. And many others. They all died out 50,000--45,000 years ago. Human beings arrived in Australia about 50,000 years ago.
New Zealand: New Zealand had extremely large ostrich-like birds called moas as its mega fauna. If alive today, the largest moa woulds be twice the size of an African ostrich. Moas died out about 1,000 AD. Human beings arrived in New Zealand about 1,000 AD.
The Americas: Well, it has been posted above, but the mega fauna died out after the arrival of man, which is not really disputed.
Eurasia: Europe and Asia had mammoths and wooly rhinos, however, the genus homo has been living in Eurasia for 1/4 million years. The Indian elephant and rhinoceros still ives.
Africa: Africa still has most of its mega fauna. The genus homo evolved here. The case has been made, that as man evolved from skinny, hapless ape towards the world's most dangerous predator, the animals evolved along side man to build a natural fear of him. These seems to be the case with Africa/South Asia, which man has lived in far longer than anywhere else in the world. From there he spread nothward to Europe and Siberia. The mammoth and wolly rhinos home grounds (hmmm).
Since we have been homo spaiens sapiens, whenever we entered an entirely new area, the big meaty animals went extinct. I've also seen studies showing how only a moderately heavy predation of an animal species can have a sprial effect downward on that species survival, especially large animals that have few young that take years to reach adulthood. My vote still resides with (hungry) man the predator as the culprit.
Remember the opening credits when Fred orders a side of ribs at the drive-in? Man, they were so big the whole car fell over! And Fred was not a small cave man! I rest my case.
The fact is that these large, cold weather adapted mammals had survived numerous warm interglacial periods before, without going extinct. The difference then in those earlier interglacial periods was that either man did not yet exist, or later, man existed but did not have the very efficient tools and methods he would eventually develop about 15,000 years ago, or so. Without these, the mammoths and other large animals would still be around, because parts of North America, Northern Europe, and North Asia (Siberia) still resemble the climate and ecology which these animals inhabited during the ice ages; the only difference during the interglacial periods is that these ecological zones move northward. Mankind's better hunting skills were not going to make these animals extinct (necessarily) during the ice age, but during the difficult transition from ice age to interglacial period, the greater hunting skills of humans would have been enough to push several species into extinction when they were most vulnerable. Had ancient man had some kind of modern land management system (get your hunting license to hunt mammoth, etc.), then these animals would still be around. Instead, man overhunted them until they were gone (because they were easier to hunt or had more meat), and then switched to other species which were not as easy to hunt (and did not have as much meat) but which were better suited to survive man's predations.
And no one should buy this guy's "disease" argument. Where is the evidence that any large animal species was ever made extinct by disease? Sure, introduced diseases wiped out large numbers of American Indians, but they did not go extinct. They eventually developed resistence to these diseases, and survived. Animals are the same, and they do not live in large cities or other overpopulated clusters (unless domesticated by humans), so they are much less vulnerable to epidemics. This "theory" is nonsense, designed to deny the obvious effect that humans had on their environment; these politically correct types want you to believe that "environmental damage" is something that only rich white guys with modern technology are capable of doing. Rubbish. Mankind has been doing "environmental damage" ever since he discovered fire. It's an inevitable byproduct of human improvement; on the whole it was worth the price. No doubt some of the greenie-weenies disagree with me.
Molly Ivins will tell you with authority, that is was the Republicans. What this author doesn't tell us is that the passing of the mammoths and other behemoths had a significantly more negative effect on blacks, minorities, the handicapped, and homosexuals than it did on the evil white Europeans who caused the disaster. I think the Times ran a series of front page articles to prove this and that the did contain several facts.
Around 1110, in England, there was a very strange disease that killed all kinds of mammals and birds. No one knows what it was and it doesn't sound like any known disease. I read about it in an old book I have. Perhaps it was the same disease that caused the last mass extinction.
Yes, but did this disease cause any species to go extinct? That's the proof you'd need to give this theory any credence at all.
Frankly, this theory is bonkers. Cross-species infection is very rare; I've never heard of humans infecting wild, non-domesticated animals. The only wild animals ancient man would have had contact with would have been animals he killed and ate - it's kinda hard to spread a disease from man to wild animal population that way, would you not agree?
Of course domesticated animals sometimes cross-species infect humans (for example domesticated pigs can spread new flu varieties to humans). But humans infecting wild animals populations: I'd need to see demonstrable proof that this has actually happened in the past. Then I'd need to see demonstrable proof that in the past a disease had once wiped out an entire species. Even if there is proof of both, this theory is a long shot at best.
"What killed the mammoths and other behemoths?"
Molly Ivins will tell you with authority, that is was the Republicans. What this author doesn't tell us is that the passing of the mammoths and other behemoths had a significantly more negative effect on blacks, minorities, the handicapped, and homosexuals than it did on the evil white Europeans who caused the disaster. I think the Times ran a series of front page articles to prove this and that the did contain several facts.
Nonsense. Everyone knows that the Republican symbol is the elephant. A mammoth is simply a hairy elephant adapted for cold climates. Political cartoonists often portray very reactionary or very old fashioned Republicans as woolly mammoths. Why would Republicans kill off one of their own? And has anyone checked Molly Ivans' freezer to see if she is hoarding any mammoth steaks?
More blame human garbage.
Regards,
Even if it were a disease, there's no evidence that humans introduced it. He made a good case himself for mosquitos as a culprit.
Again, where is the evidence for diseases making species go extinct? To argue this one would have to ignore the capacity for species to develop increased immunity to diseases.
More blame human garbage.
It's not "blame human garbage" if we humans actually did it (hunted certain animals to extinction, that is). I don't see why acknowledgement of the truth has to be avoided simply because it might be misinterpreted by some people with bad political motivations.
Maybe the disease can be carried by a native North American bird that pecks at dung piles dropped by giant ground sloths. The bird then passes the disease to other giant ground sloths, and eventually they all get the disease.
I know it's difficult to think about such a complex process as a multi-species epidemic, but it happens. The best studied system involves human beings, pigs and birds, all living in China. They pass influenza back and forth, species to species, and every now and then create killer flu.
Re-read the entire article - slowly this time!
Oh, good one, I forgot about Madagascar. They said there was a lemur there the size of a gorilla. Went extinct. When? Around the time man arrived there.
Yes; there was also a giant flightless bird in Madagascar (similar in size to New Zealand's Moa, but thicker and heavier), and it went extinct shortly after the arrival of man, as well. Interestingly the original human colonizers of Madagascar were distantly related to the Polynesians who settled Hawaii, Polynesia, and New Zealand. They migrated to Madagascar traveling along the islands of the Indian ocean which lie between Africa and India.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.