Post by Pete Barrett
It is, though I note that there's nothing in the
report (there may be in the full article, which I
haven't read, of course) which suggests that European
diseases were to blame for the population collapse.
The report merely says that the people on the island
were using what we might call 'extreme farming'
techniques to get as much food from agriculture as
possible. That suggests that over-population was a
Nor do I see how the finding that the people had
'extensive knowledge of how to overcome poor soil
fertility, improve environmental conditions, and
create a sustainable food supply' is inconsistent with
an 'ecocide' narrative, as the report states. If they
were desperately trying to increase their food supply
using all the techniques they had available, isn't
that exactly what you'd expect if the environment had
become degraded? And isn't it exactly what you'd
expect to cause further environmental degradation,
leading to population collapse?
All of which is not to say that what's reported isn't
consistent with their preferred narrative, merely that
it doesn't seem decisive, or even suggestive, about
which narrative is more likely. Again, there may be
something in their full research which does do that,
but if so, it doesn't seem to be in the report.