Discussion:
Easter Island collapse
(too old to reply)
SolomonW
2017-07-15 12:08:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
More and more it does not look like the people of Easter Island, committed
environmental suicide but that European contact and their diseases that
caused the collapse.

http://www.newswise.com/articles/easter-island-not-victim-of-ecocide-analysis-of-remains-shows3
a425couple
2017-07-15 15:26:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SolomonW
More and more it does not look like the people of Easter Island, committed
environmental suicide but that European contact and their diseases that
caused the collapse.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/easter-island-not-victim-of-ecocide-analysis-of-remains-shows3
Interesting.
However it is a sad fact that you cannot get a refund on
books and their authors that tell a false narrative.
And they will not revoke a PhD that was given for an
incorrect thesis.
Pete Barrett
2017-07-16 07:59:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a425couple
Post by SolomonW
More and more it does not look like the people of Easter Island,
committed environmental suicide but that European contact and their
diseases that caused the collapse.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/easter-island-not-victim-of-ecocide-analysis-of-remains-shows3
Interesting.
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 problem.

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.
--
Pete BARRETT
SolomonW
2017-07-16 10:10:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by a425couple
Post by SolomonW
More and more it does not look like the people of Easter Island,
committed environmental suicide but that European contact and their
diseases that caused the collapse.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/easter-island-not-victim-of-ecocide-analysis-of-remains-shows3
Interesting.
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 problem.
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.
The report says

" Results of carbon and nitrogen analyses independently show that around
half the protein in diets from the humans measured came from marine
sources...and suggest the prehistoric Rapa Nui population had extensive
knowledge of how to overcome poor soil fertility, improve environmental
conditions, and create a sustainable food supply."
Peter Jason
2017-07-16 21:38:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SolomonW
The report says
" Results of carbon and nitrogen analyses independently show that around
half the protein in diets from the humans measured came from marine
sources...and suggest the prehistoric Rapa Nui population had extensive
knowledge of how to overcome poor soil fertility, improve environmental
conditions, and create a sustainable food supply."
But just how did the islanders control their population? With just a
small land area and unlimited sea fishing they must have had some
means of contraception else there would be standing-room only within a
short time. This is a question for our own time too.
SolomonW
2017-07-17 07:39:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Jason
Post by SolomonW
The report says
" Results of carbon and nitrogen analyses independently show that around
half the protein in diets from the humans measured came from marine
sources...and suggest the prehistoric Rapa Nui population had extensive
knowledge of how to overcome poor soil fertility, improve environmental
conditions, and create a sustainable food supply."
But just how did the islanders control their population? With just a
small land area and unlimited sea fishing they must have had some
means of contraception else there would be standing-room only within a
short time. This is a question for our own time too.
Why a pre-industrial society would be growing at .5 to 1.3% a year growth.

If you assume that the had about 100 people in 1200, then by 1600 they
would have between 700 and 17,500 people.

They had according to the wikipedia estimated high of approximately 15,000
then.
Peter Jason
2017-07-18 01:37:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SolomonW
Post by Peter Jason
Post by SolomonW
The report says
" Results of carbon and nitrogen analyses independently show that around
half the protein in diets from the humans measured came from marine
sources...and suggest the prehistoric Rapa Nui population had extensive
knowledge of how to overcome poor soil fertility, improve environmental
conditions, and create a sustainable food supply."
But just how did the islanders control their population? With just a
small land area and unlimited sea fishing they must have had some
means of contraception else there would be standing-room only within a
short time. This is a question for our own time too.
Why a pre-industrial society would be growing at .5 to 1.3% a year growth.
If you assume that the had about 100 people in 1200, then by 1600 they
would have between 700 and 17,500 people.
They had according to the wikipedia estimated high of approximately 15,000
then.
My theory is that whenever that population reached some critical size,
then a plague swept through severely reducing the numbers.
SolomonW
2017-07-18 09:56:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Jason
Post by SolomonW
Post by Peter Jason
Post by SolomonW
The report says
" Results of carbon and nitrogen analyses independently show that around
half the protein in diets from the humans measured came from marine
sources...and suggest the prehistoric Rapa Nui population had extensive
knowledge of how to overcome poor soil fertility, improve environmental
conditions, and create a sustainable food supply."
But just how did the islanders control their population? With just a
small land area and unlimited sea fishing they must have had some
means of contraception else there would be standing-room only within a
short time. This is a question for our own time too.
Why a pre-industrial society would be growing at .5 to 1.3% a year growth.
If you assume that the had about 100 people in 1200, then by 1600 they
would have between 700 and 17,500 people.
They had according to the wikipedia estimated high of approximately 15,000
then.
My theory is that whenever that population reached some critical size,
then a plague swept through severely reducing the numbers.
The plague would come from somewhere.
g***@gmail.com
2017-07-17 10:02:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Jason
Post by SolomonW
The report says
" Results of carbon and nitrogen analyses independently show that around
half the protein in diets from the humans measured came from marine
sources...and suggest the prehistoric Rapa Nui population had extensive
knowledge of how to overcome poor soil fertility, improve environmental
conditions, and create a sustainable food supply."
But just how did the islanders control their population? With just a
small land area and unlimited sea fishing they must have had some
means of contraception else there would be standing-room only within a
short time. This is a question for our own time too.
I have often wondered if it didn't occur to them to figure out ways to control their population because they were quite inbred and had reached a point where analytical thinking was beyond mental capabilities.
SolomonW
2017-07-18 09:57:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Jason
Post by SolomonW
The report says
" Results of carbon and nitrogen analyses independently show that around
half the protein in diets from the humans measured came from marine
sources...and suggest the prehistoric Rapa Nui population had extensive
knowledge of how to overcome poor soil fertility, improve environmental
conditions, and create a sustainable food supply."
But just how did the islanders control their population? With just a
small land area and unlimited sea fishing they must have had some
means of contraception else there would be standing-room only within a
short time. This is a question for our own time too.
I have often wondered if it didn't occur to them to figure out ways to control their population because they were quite inbred and had reached a point where analytical thinking was beyond mental capabilities.
Most Jews over a 100 years ago were generally breeding with their first
cousins, does not seem to have affected their mental capabilities.
Peter Jason
2017-07-18 23:34:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SolomonW
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Jason
Post by SolomonW
The report says
" Results of carbon and nitrogen analyses independently show that around
half the protein in diets from the humans measured came from marine
sources...and suggest the prehistoric Rapa Nui population had extensive
knowledge of how to overcome poor soil fertility, improve environmental
conditions, and create a sustainable food supply."
But just how did the islanders control their population? With just a
small land area and unlimited sea fishing they must have had some
means of contraception else there would be standing-room only within a
short time. This is a question for our own time too.
I have often wondered if it didn't occur to them to figure out ways to control their population because they were quite inbred and had reached a point where analytical thinking was beyond mental capabilities.
Most Jews over a 100 years ago were generally breeding with their first
cousins, does not seem to have affected their mental capabilities.
But alas, it affected their political acumen.
The Horny Goat
2017-07-19 21:42:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SolomonW
Post by g***@gmail.com
I have often wondered if it didn't occur to them to figure out ways to control their population because they were quite inbred and had reached a point where analytical thinking was beyond mental capabilities.
Most Jews over a 100 years ago were generally breeding with their first
cousins, does not seem to have affected their mental capabilities.
So did Charles Darwin.

I remember when I was doing family research 10 years ago I met a lady
of Dutch ancestry who had 4 great-grandparents - 2 on each side. Both
her parents' parents were first cousins.

Point is if there are no inherited diseases in the family it's not an
issue. If there are it's a HUGE issue.
SolomonW
2017-07-24 13:21:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by SolomonW
Post by g***@gmail.com
I have often wondered if it didn't occur to them to figure out ways to control their population because they were quite inbred and had reached a point where analytical thinking was beyond mental capabilities.
Most Jews over a 100 years ago were generally breeding with their first
cousins, does not seem to have affected their mental capabilities.
So did Charles Darwin.
I remember when I was doing family research 10 years ago I met a lady
of Dutch ancestry who had 4 great-grandparents - 2 on each side. Both
her parents' parents were first cousins.
Point is if there are no inherited diseases in the family it's not an
issue. If there are it's a HUGE issue.
The problem is with royality is that these people are living in a welfare
state, so if there is something wrong the problems are huge.
g***@gmail.com
2017-07-20 09:56:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Jason
Post by SolomonW
The report says
" Results of carbon and nitrogen analyses independently show that around
half the protein in diets from the humans measured came from marine
sources...and suggest the prehistoric Rapa Nui population had extensive
knowledge of how to overcome poor soil fertility, improve environmental
conditions, and create a sustainable food supply."
But just how did the islanders control their population? With just a
small land area and unlimited sea fishing they must have had some
means of contraception else there would be standing-room only within a
short time. This is a question for our own time too.
I have often wondered if it didn't occur to them to figure out ways to control their population because they were quite inbred and had reached a point where analytical thinking was beyond mental capabilities.
As far as I am concerned, when the obvious doesn't occur to people, or when the people become oblivious to the obvious, there HAS to be a reason.

Shouldn't those Easter islanders have realized that once they cut down the last tree on their island and fail to use to the wood to build a boat, that there was no way to escape from their circumstances?
Eric Stevens
2017-07-21 00:51:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Jason
Post by SolomonW
The report says
" Results of carbon and nitrogen analyses independently show that around
half the protein in diets from the humans measured came from marine
sources...and suggest the prehistoric Rapa Nui population had extensive
knowledge of how to overcome poor soil fertility, improve environmental
conditions, and create a sustainable food supply."
But just how did the islanders control their population? With just a
small land area and unlimited sea fishing they must have had some
means of contraception else there would be standing-room only within a
short time. This is a question for our own time too.
I have often wondered if it didn't occur to them to figure out ways to control their population because they were quite inbred and had reached a point where analytical thinking was beyond mental capabilities.
As far as I am concerned, when the obvious doesn't occur to people, or when the people become oblivious to the obvious, there HAS to be a reason.
Shouldn't those Easter islanders have realized that once they cut down the last tree on their island and fail to use to the wood to build a boat, that there was no way to escape from their circumstances?
But what if they thought they lived on _the_world_?

If they thought there was nowhere else to go they would have no
purpose for a boat.
--
Regards,

Eric Stevens
SolomonW
2017-07-26 09:48:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Jason
Post by SolomonW
The report says
" Results of carbon and nitrogen analyses independently show that around
half the protein in diets from the humans measured came from marine
sources...and suggest the prehistoric Rapa Nui population had extensive
knowledge of how to overcome poor soil fertility, improve environmental
conditions, and create a sustainable food supply."
But just how did the islanders control their population? With just a
small land area and unlimited sea fishing they must have had some
means of contraception else there would be standing-room only within a
short time. This is a question for our own time too.
I have often wondered if it didn't occur to them to figure out ways to control their population because they were quite inbred and had reached a point where analytical thinking was beyond mental capabilities.
As far as I am concerned, when the obvious doesn't occur to people, or when the people become oblivious to the obvious, there HAS to be a reason.
Shouldn't those Easter islanders have realized that once they cut down the last tree on their island and fail to use to the wood to build a boat, that there was no way to escape from their circumstances?
There was little they could do as it was probably not humans that
deforested the Island but rats.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/rats-not-men-to-blame-for-death-of-easter-island-431105.html
a425couple
2017-07-28 17:30:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SolomonW
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Jason
Post by SolomonW
The report says
" Results of carbon and nitrogen analyses independently show that around
half the protein in diets from the humans measured came from marine
sources...and suggest the prehistoric Rapa Nui population had extensive
knowledge of how to overcome poor soil fertility, improve environmental
conditions, and create a sustainable food supply."
But just how did the islanders control their population? With just a
small land area and unlimited sea fishing they must have had some
means of contraception else there would be standing-room only within a
short time. This is a question for our own time too.
I have often wondered if it didn't occur to them to figure out ways to control their population because they were quite inbred and had reached a point where analytical thinking was beyond mental capabilities.
As far as I am concerned, when the obvious doesn't occur to people, or when the people become oblivious to the obvious, there HAS to be a reason.
Shouldn't those Easter islanders have realized that once they cut down the last tree on their island and fail to use to the wood to build a boat, that there was no way to escape from their circumstances?
There was little they could do as it was probably not humans that
deforested the Island but rats.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/rats-not-men-to-blame-for-death-of-easter-island-431105.html
In my reading Capt. Cook's observations of his visit
to Easter Island in 1774, it seems evident the Island
was declining.
"Cocks and Hens like ours which are small and few of
them, nor did we see any quadrupedes, but ratts which
I believe they eat as I saw a man with some in his hand
which he seemed unwilling to part with"

Pete Barrett
2017-07-17 16:23:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SolomonW
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by a425couple
Post by SolomonW
More and more it does not look like the people of Easter Island,
committed environmental suicide but that European contact and their
diseases that caused the collapse.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/easter-island-not-victim-of-ecocide-analysis-of-remains-shows3
Interesting.
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 problem.
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.
The report says
" Results of carbon and nitrogen analyses independently show that around
half the protein in diets from the humans measured came from marine
sources...and suggest the prehistoric Rapa Nui population had extensive
knowledge of how to overcome poor soil fertility, improve environmental
conditions, and create a sustainable food supply."
Which is exactly the technology they would have needed to acquire if there
was an environmental collapse resulting in a dwindling food supply.
--
Pete BARRETT
SolomonW
2017-07-18 09:55:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by SolomonW
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by a425couple
Post by SolomonW
More and more it does not look like the people of Easter Island,
committed environmental suicide but that European contact and their
diseases that caused the collapse.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/easter-island-not-victim-of-ecocide-analysis-of-remains-shows3
Interesting.
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 problem.
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.
The report says
" Results of carbon and nitrogen analyses independently show that around
half the protein in diets from the humans measured came from marine
sources...and suggest the prehistoric Rapa Nui population had extensive
knowledge of how to overcome poor soil fertility, improve environmental
conditions, and create a sustainable food supply."
Which is exactly the technology they would have needed to acquire if there
was an environmental collapse resulting in a dwindling food supply.
It is no going to affect most of the food that is from the sea.
Pete Barrett
2017-07-18 16:13:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SolomonW
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by SolomonW
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by a425couple
Post by SolomonW
More and more it does not look like the people of Easter Island,
committed environmental suicide but that European contact and their
diseases that caused the collapse.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/easter-island-not-victim-of-ecocide-analysis-of-remains-shows3
Interesting.
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
problem.
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.
The report says
" Results of carbon and nitrogen analyses independently show that around
half the protein in diets from the humans measured came from marine
sources...and suggest the prehistoric Rapa Nui population had extensive
knowledge of how to overcome poor soil fertility, improve environmental
conditions, and create a sustainable food supply."
Which is exactly the technology they would have needed to acquire if
there was an environmental collapse resulting in a dwindling food supply.
It is no going to affect most of the food that is from the sea.
Not unless 'marine sources' means fish farming.

But if an ecological collapse doesn't affect the food which is from the sea,
it's fully compatible with seafood being a major part of their diet. What
would be helpful would be to know if there was a change in their diet
shortly before the population collapse, but the report doesn't say anything
about that.
--
Pete BARRETT
Nyssa
2017-07-18 21:01:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by SolomonW
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by SolomonW
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by a425couple
Post by SolomonW
More and more it does not look like the people of
Easter Island, committed environmental suicide but
that European contact and their diseases that caused
the collapse.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/easter-island-not-victim-of-ecocide-
analysis-of-remains-shows3
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by SolomonW
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by SolomonW
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by a425couple
Interesting.
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
problem.
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.
The report says
" Results of carbon and nitrogen analyses independently
show that around half the protein in diets from the
humans measured came from marine sources...and suggest
the prehistoric Rapa Nui population had extensive
knowledge of how to overcome poor soil fertility,
improve environmental conditions, and create a
sustainable food supply."
Which is exactly the technology they would have needed
to acquire if there was an environmental collapse
resulting in a dwindling food supply.
It is no going to affect most of the food that is from
the sea.
Not unless 'marine sources' means fish farming.
But if an ecological collapse doesn't affect the food
which is from the sea, it's fully compatible with seafood
being a major part of their diet. What would be helpful
would be to know if there was a change in their diet
shortly before the population collapse, but the report
doesn't say anything about that.
How about something that caused much of the fish population
around Easter Island to become tainted in some way?

I remember being in Florida on the Gulf coast when there
was a large fish kill due to something they called "red
tide." The dead fish floating on the water certainly couldn't
have been edible.

Something similar might have happened in the waters
around Easter that caused much of the seafood to be
inedible and what limited resources of non-tainted seafood
wouldn't have been sufficient to keep the whole population
alive and healthy.

Just a thought that might be more in keeping with what-if.

Nyssa, who has a lot of what-ifs going around in her head
D. Spencer Hines
2017-07-18 21:28:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Thoughtful What-If.

DSH
-------------------------------------

Heinlein's Razor

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by
stupidity, but don't rule out malice."

Robert Anson Heinlein [1907-1988] U.S.N.A. '29
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by SolomonW
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by SolomonW
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by a425couple
Post by SolomonW
More and more it does not look like the people of
Easter Island, committed environmental suicide but
that European contact and their diseases that caused
the collapse.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/easter-island-not-victim-of-ecocide-
analysis-of-remains-shows3
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by SolomonW
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by SolomonW
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by a425couple
Interesting.
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
problem.
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.
The report says
" Results of carbon and nitrogen analyses independently
show that around half the protein in diets from the
humans measured came from marine sources...and suggest
the prehistoric Rapa Nui population had extensive
knowledge of how to overcome poor soil fertility,
improve environmental conditions, and create a
sustainable food supply."
Which is exactly the technology they would have needed
to acquire if there was an environmental collapse
resulting in a dwindling food supply.
It is no going to affect most of the food that is from
the sea.
Not unless 'marine sources' means fish farming.
But if an ecological collapse doesn't affect the food
which is from the sea, it's fully compatible with seafood
being a major part of their diet. What would be helpful
would be to know if there was a change in their diet
shortly before the population collapse, but the report
doesn't say anything about that.
How about something that caused much of the fish population
around Easter Island to become tainted in some way?

I remember being in Florida on the Gulf coast when there
was a large fish kill due to something they called "red
tide." The dead fish floating on the water certainly couldn't
have been edible.

Something similar might have happened in the waters
around Easter that caused much of the seafood to be
inedible and what limited resources of non-tainted seafood
wouldn't have been sufficient to keep the whole population
alive and healthy.

Just a thought that might be more in keeping with what-if.

Nyssa, who has a lot of what-ifs going around in her head
Peter Jason
2017-07-18 23:35:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by SolomonW
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by SolomonW
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by SolomonW
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by a425couple
Post by SolomonW
More and more it does not look like the people of
Easter Island, committed environmental suicide but
that European contact and their diseases that caused
the collapse.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/easter-island-not-victim-of-ecocide-
analysis-of-remains-shows3
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by SolomonW
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by SolomonW
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by a425couple
Interesting.
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
problem.
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.
The report says
" Results of carbon and nitrogen analyses independently
show that around half the protein in diets from the
humans measured came from marine sources...and suggest
the prehistoric Rapa Nui population had extensive
knowledge of how to overcome poor soil fertility,
improve environmental conditions, and create a
sustainable food supply."
Which is exactly the technology they would have needed
to acquire if there was an environmental collapse
resulting in a dwindling food supply.
It is no going to affect most of the food that is from
the sea.
Not unless 'marine sources' means fish farming.
But if an ecological collapse doesn't affect the food
which is from the sea, it's fully compatible with seafood
being a major part of their diet. What would be helpful
would be to know if there was a change in their diet
shortly before the population collapse, but the report
doesn't say anything about that.
How about something that caused much of the fish population
around Easter Island to become tainted in some way?
I remember being in Florida on the Gulf coast when there
was a large fish kill due to something they called "red
tide." The dead fish floating on the water certainly couldn't
have been edible.
Something similar might have happened in the waters
around Easter that caused much of the seafood to be
inedible and what limited resources of non-tainted seafood
wouldn't have been sufficient to keep the whole population
alive and healthy.
Just a thought that might be more in keeping with what-if.
Nyssa, who has a lot of what-ifs going around in her head
Also, birds are known carriers of this 'n that.
Pete Barrett
2017-07-20 16:30:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nyssa
How about something that caused much of the fish population
around Easter Island to become tainted in some way?
I remember being in Florida on the Gulf coast when there
was a large fish kill due to something they called "red
tide." The dead fish floating on the water certainly couldn't
have been edible.
Some sort of algal bloom, is it? And when the fish eat the algae, it kills
them?
Post by Nyssa
Something similar might have happened in the waters
around Easter that caused much of the seafood to be
inedible and what limited resources of non-tainted seafood
wouldn't have been sufficient to keep the whole population
alive and healthy.
These things don't last several years do they, normally? It does seem to me
that whatever caused the population crash on Rapa Nui would have to have
lasted for several seasons, otherwise any population decrease in one year
would have recovered as soon as the food supply returned to normal. Or if
you're thinking of large numbers being poisoned, as far as I know, it didn't
happen that quickly (not that I know that much about it!).
Post by Nyssa
Just a thought that might be more in keeping with what-if.
Nyssa, who has a lot of what-ifs going around in her head
--
Pete BARRETT
SolomonW
2017-07-24 13:23:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Nyssa
How about something that caused much of the fish population
around Easter Island to become tainted in some way?
I remember being in Florida on the Gulf coast when there
was a large fish kill due to something they called "red
tide." The dead fish floating on the water certainly couldn't
have been edible.
Some sort of algal bloom, is it? And when the fish eat the algae, it kills
them?
Post by Nyssa
Something similar might have happened in the waters
around Easter that caused much of the seafood to be
inedible and what limited resources of non-tainted seafood
wouldn't have been sufficient to keep the whole population
alive and healthy.
These things don't last several years do they, normally? It does seem to me
that whatever caused the population crash on Rapa Nui would have to have
lasted for several seasons, otherwise any population decrease in one year
would have recovered as soon as the food supply returned to normal. Or if
you're thinking of large numbers being poisoned, as far as I know, it didn't
happen that quickly (not that I know that much about it!).
Especially as half the food came from land.
Post by Pete Barrett
Post by Nyssa
Just a thought that might be more in keeping with what-if.
Nyssa, who has a lot of what-ifs going around in her head
Loading...