For years, scientists have debated whether humans or the climate have caused the population of large mammals to decline dramatically over the past several thousand years. A new study from Aarhus University confirms that climate cannot be the explanation.
About 100,000 years ago, the first modern humans migrated out of Africa in large numbers. They were eminent at adapting to new habitats, and they settled in virtually every kind of landscape—from deserts to jungles to the icy taiga in the far north.
Part of the success was human’s ability to hunt large animals. With clever hunting techniques and specially built weapons, they perfected the art of killing even the most dangerous mammals.
But unfortunately, the great success of our ancestors came at the expense of the other large mammals.
It is well-known that numerous large species went extinct during the time of worldwide colonization by modern humans. Now, new research from Aarhus University reveals that those large mammals that survived also experienced a dramatic decline.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot recently. I don’t think this finding suggests that humans are innately negative forces in ecosystems, but rather that becoming indigenous to a place is a process. As people spread out to new areas, they didn’t have cultural practices that maintained historical ecological relations, and upended some of the ecology in the new places. But over time, it’s in everyone’s best interest to maintain relatively sustainable and cyclical ecological relations for long term survivalship, and that becomes part of the culture and stories, and then you get indigeneity. I think there’s no coincidence that the megafauna that still exists is primarily in the area where humans evolved (subsaharan africa). This is where people have been indigenous to the longest, perhaps before people had the means to extirpate megafauna. And once the cultural indigeneity was in place, there were reasons to not destroy megafauna populations (until the modern colonial era, at least)
Cool things to ponder while I ride my bicycle to work.
In the book Sapiens, a Brief History of Humankind, Yuval Noah Harari proposes that one of the problems with humans is that we lept to the top of the foodchain too quickly. Other alpha predators like lions got there by slowly evolving over millions of years, giving themselves time to adjust to their new position and giving nature time to delevope checks and balances. For example, antelope getting faster over time.
Neither we nor nature has adjusted to the new hierarchy. We are unable and unwilling to create enough checks and balances on ourselves so we rape the environment and set whole species to extinction.
When the first humans arrived in Australia almost immediately all the large mammals were wiped out. They didn’t have time to learn to fear the tiny little apes newly arrived on their shores.
An interesting point he made is that genetically we are still scavengers. The earliest tools were likely for smashing apart bones to get at the marrow, after other animals had taken their share. We still feel hunted, and it could be that a large part of anxiety and depression we see could be attributed to our insecurity at our place in the world.
If you once again look at a lion, they are full of confidence and power and all the things we expect to see in an alpha predator. Who knows how long it might take humanity to become comfortable with our place in the world. Who knows if we and the planet will be able to adapt together well enough for that to come to fruition, rather than just becoming another extinct species ourselves.
Until a people develop science its pretty silly to me to assign a value judgment to things like this. Invasive species wipe out other species all the time, and did so before humans to boot. Mitigating that is ideal, but you don’t even really conceive of a problem until you have a society which can conceive of the harms and alternatives anyway.
Yeah i think you have a point but I also think humans were moral agents and ascribed value to each other and their environment long long before the advent of science
Sure. But until a people can even know what the consequences of their actions are it’s a stretch to judge them harshly.
In this particular case, humans weren’t really moral agents until much later.