1 edit
Originally posted by sonhousehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Island
That would be Easter Island. You see any natives there now? Easter Island had a population of around 50,000 at its peak.
Ethnographers and archaeologists also blame diseases carried by European colonizers and slave raiding of the 1860s for devastating the local peoples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapanui
(natives of Easter Island).
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadDid you actually read anything on the history of Easter Island, or did you just cherry pick one sentence that you seemed to like?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_IslandEthnographers and archaeologists also blame diseases carried by European colonizers and slave raiding of the 1860s for devastating the local peoples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapanui
(natives of Easter Island).
Also from Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Island#History ):
(Jared) Diamond suggested that cannibalism took place on Easter Island after the construction of the Moai contributed to environmental degradation when extreme deforestation destabilized an already precarious ecosystem. Archeological record shows that, by the time of the initial settlement, the island was home to many species of trees, including at least three species which grew up to 50 feet or more: Paschalococos - possibly the largest palm trees in the world at the time, Alphitonia zizyphoides, and Elaeocarpus rarotongensis, as well as at least six species of native land birds. Barbara A. West wrote, "Sometime before the arrival of Europeans on Easter Island, the Rapanui experienced a tremendous upheaval in their social system brought about by a change in their island's ecology... By the time of European arrival in 1722, the island's population had dropped to 2,000 – 3,000 from a high of approximately 15,000 just a century earlier." By that time, 21 species of trees and all species of land birds went extinct through some combination of overharvesting/overhunting, rat predation, and climate change, the island was largely deforested, and it did not have any trees more than 10 feet tall. Loss of large trees meant that residents were no longer able to build seaworthy vessels, significantly diminishing their fishing abilities. This was further exacerbated by the loss of land birds and the collapse in seabird populations. By the 18th century, residents of the island were largely sustained by farming, with domestic chickens as the primary source of protein.
-Removed-No, it's my metaphor for technology and civilization. Capitalism is only a symptom of that.
Eden represents mankind's distant past, before he became much of a hunter and was primarily just a gatherer and scavenger. The Tree of Knowledge represents technology, the first of which was improved tools which allowed humans to begin hunting large animals. Once he had acquired that ability, his short term success, but long term doom, was sealed. Instead of living in harmony with nature, mankind began to impose his will upon it. He became radically estranged from nature and set himself in opposition to it. Overhunting led to the mass extinction of megafauna in every environment where mankind spread. Mankind found himself "sent forth from the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken."
Originally posted by twhiteheadClimate change is disputed as well, but I'm pretty sure it's true.
Yes I did. And as I pointed out, the population was not wiped out or doomed. I must also add that some of what you posted is disputed.
Being reduced from 15,000 people to 2,000 is a devastating drop. When humans finally get around to irreversibly trashing their planet, their population will experience a similar drop. They probably won't drive themselves to complete extinction, though. I'm sure there will be survivors. But it will necessarily mean the extinction of the survivor's previous way of life.
Originally posted by sonhouseTo not kill is a choice.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120420105539.htm
Dasa, put this in your pipe and smoke it🙂
Persons who embrace true religion make the right choice.
Making the right choice is crucial to advancing in spiritual consciousness.
Making the wrong choice prevents advancing spiritual consciousness.
There is plenty of information available to make the correct choice.
Originally posted by kevcvs57Because the level of strain we are placing on the Earth's ecosystems far exceeds the level of technological development needed to fly us away to somewhere else. In the last 2 to 300 years we have only succeeded in placing man on our own moon. We haven't even gone to another planet within our own solar system, let alone that of another solar system. And there are no prospects that we will do so any time soon. But we push the environment closer and closer to the brink of collapse on a daily basis.
I would rather go out with a man made bang than a slow death by solar, we should pick up our game and take the sun out first, and as a bonus there would be no global warming.
Seriously how can you look at the technological innovations of the last 2 to 300yrs and claim with any certainty that we will not attain interstellar travel before we destroy ourselves rwingett the negative.
To put it another way:
1. More technologically advanced societies consume more resources per capita than less advanced ones.
2. The level of resources necessary to sustain a space faring society eclipses any planet's ability to provide them.
3. Therefore, every civilization will necessarily collapse in upon itself before it has achieved the level of technology required for the ever elusive goal of inter-stellar space travel.
It is an unachievable fantasy. You have been conditioned since birth by Star Trek style fiction to think that space travel in inevitable, but it isn't going to happen for the same reason that we are never visited by other space faring civilizations. They will have necessarily destroyed themselves before being able to break free from their habitat.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by rwingettSubstantiate your unproven claims or stop making them.
Because the level of strain we are placing on the Earth's ecosystems far exceeds the level of technological development needed to fly us away to somewhere else. In the last 2 to 300 years we have only succeeded in placing man on our own moon. We haven't even gone to another planet within our own solar system, let alone that of another solar system. And ther ...[text shortened]... ll have necessarily destroyed themselves before being able to break free from their habitat.
Originally posted by rwingettWhat a ridiculous argument. Some people are pretty sure Creationism is true - and I am pretty sure they are wrong. The claims you quoted are disputed by people with knowledge of the subject and neither of us knows much about the facts of the matter. That you know more about the facts of some other unrelated matter is so totally irrelevant.
Climate change is disputed as well, but I'm pretty sure it's true.
Originally posted by sonhouseMeat eating had nothing to do with the non-existent evolution, but due to
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120420105539.htm
Dasa, put this in your pipe and smoke it🙂
disobeying God. Then, since the worldwide flood was needed to destroy much
of the evil that had resulted, meat eating became necessary for man to survive.
HalleluYah !!! 😏