Not exactly what I had in mind… but…?
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-08-17-rewilding_x.htm
or ye’know, bring back the buffalo.
seriously. the plains indians had a relationship with the bison and their huge furry hides, the inuit have large sea mammals. higher altitude/latitude regions have bears, elk, moose. without modern textiles, who can still help us humans to keep warm on the plains? what can you do with goose down w/o woven fabric? fabric takes a lot of freakin thread. good luck making that much cordage.
Oh, I don’t know… how about because Lions and Elephants are separated from Mastadons and Sabre Toothed Tigers by A FEW MILLION YEARS of evolution, as well as a few thousand miles of geography!?
Thats about as great an idea as replacing all the humans with chimpanzees so humans can get about doing whatever they want. “Well, you know, Chimpanzees are pretty much like humans, so we’ll just replace them”.
My mind is absolutely reeling with the utter stupidity of this idea. The ecology of the America’s was just fine and balanced when Columbus got here. Nor did the Amero-Indians “wipe out” all the large creatures – that’s Taker-talk.
You know why cheetahs live in Africa and NOT America? Because it WORKS for them. Because they didn’t EVOLVE here. Because they don’t BELONG in America. Saber-Toothed Cat does NOT equal Cheetah. And these dopes actually got a degree in ecology!?!
I’m going to sign off before I hurt myself bashing my head on my keyboard.
~ SW
[quote author=Starving.Wolf link=topic=547.msg5977#msg5977 date=1194891016]
Why do you think they didn’t wipe out the large creatures named in the article? I’m actually asking, not just being snotty. All I know about is evidence that supposedly suggests that the listed animals went extinct a few hundred years after humans arrived here in “north america”. Not necessarily due to being hunted down to the very last one or anything, but with hunting pressure and a combination of a new animal moving into its new niche (that had already been occupied in part by some different animals, but very much was filled by the sabertooth that the other animals knew to fear, as opposed to humans that were not feared yet supposedly and could much more easily approach their prey.). At this time there was also some very real climate change that was going on, but supposedly it was a benefit to most every animal around, making food more available and such.
So I believed all this stuff, mostly cause I never even thought to question it I guess. I would love to hear different theories that are out there. I’m intrigued by the Ice Age, but don’t really know shit. Maybe if I get lucky, another ice age will begin while I’m still around, compliments of global warming. (No, I don’t really want that.)
Hunting pressure, in my opinion, differs wildly from “wiping out” a species. To say that the native Americans (as per the article) wiped-out species of animals carries the direct implication that it was done deliberately and with purpose. That’s the part I have an issue with.
“Human hunters of the Mesolithic period may well have hunted the mammoth to extinction, but they certainly didn’t do this as a matter of policy, the way farmers of our culture hunt coyotes and wolves, simply to get rid of them. […] The point to keep in mind is this: It is the policy of totalitarian agriculture [read: “takers”, or “Civilization”] to wipe out unwanted species. If ancient foragers hunted any species to extinction, it certainly wasn’t because they wanted to wipe out their own food supply!” ~Charles Atterley [Daniel Quinn]
You know that other species than humans are responsible for the deaths of other species too - Quinn’s character also makes mention of the rise of the Big Cats, and how many “easy prey” species they “wiped out”, too - but you don’t see scientists weeping over those species. Nope - they get all teary-eyed and nostalgic over species that humans kill - only further separating themselves from the natural cycle that they’re supposedly trying to “fix” (an ironic twist, if anything, eh?). Now, don’t get me wrong - our 200-species-a-day genocide doesn’t sit at all well with me, either. Our current war with the planet really raises my ire, depending on how the subject is being handled. My beef here is that these guys are trying to “fix” a “problem” from way back when the human settlers were still living as an actual dynamic part of their ecosystem - that is, as a function of nature, not an adversary of it. If you’re going to demonize humans for migrating into an area and hunting the mammoth out of existence, then you’re going to have to demonize bears, cats, wolves, bacteria, viruses, white-tailed deer, fungi, woody-stemmed trees… basically anything remotely competitive in form and/or function.
It is my firm belief that humans are not a plague on this planet - we (and the rest of the globe) did just fine for the first 97% of human history - it’s only in the last 3% (the last 10,000 years or so) that we’ve really started to screw things up - and that’s only ONE culture. We don’t need to “fix” humanity, we don’t need to “fix” the planet - we need to fix our culture, and we need to do it about 9,999 years ago.
The introduction of forein species will just further degrade an already vulnerabel and declining ecosystem, turning it into a weedy, grassy desert faster than any human efforts to date. Before, the introduction of new species was limited to what could stow away with humans; with this, the animals are huge and deliberatly planted. With correspondingly large consecwences…
Okay I get it. I thought you meant that humans did not play a major role in their extinction. In my mind “wiped out” is interchangeable with “extinction”. If you think of “wiped out” as deliberate then I would agree that humans did not deliberately wipe out a species during the ice age. And of course introducing a new species, no matter what our intention may be, is in my opinion, always a bad move.
Ha Ha Ha yeah introducing a species that needs to adapt to survive like the mammoth when the polar bears are losing habitat? Every population of animal is lessening with the exception of racoons and black bears in america but now is the time to introduce new species to the world! Ha Ha Ha maybe the Mammoth will save us HA HA HA. Science will destroy mor life trying to recreate mammoths than it will produce. Also I think its a fcked up and a rascist move trying to remake animals extinct by primitivist and not one of the 24 a day we extinct. It will just serve to convince people that we arent as fcked up because even “Indians” wiped out animals. And say Science is fixing human conditions of extincting species. what a transparent and shallow gesture. But, Mammoths look awesome so spend a billion dollars reinventing them. I would want to shoot one before they go extinct again.
I agree with Trollsplinter about introducing new species. I don’t like the mindset of “change the world to better suit us, I see no problem with that”. most people don’t see beyond there life any more, and are so human centric they think whats good for us is good for the world because (like that song) we are the world. Short sighted gains lead us here. We are not intelligent enough to know what will be good for the world, my oppinion is that intelligence is not whats needed to help live at peace with the world.
Preach it brother!
The main issue I have about all this is:
Science has a really shitty track record attempting to fix things that civilization broke in the first place.
true dat.
Hi TrollSplinter, I'm in Aberdeen. Changed names, tell you later, see you next week.
-Grimkinbit of a tangent, but, at least in my neck of the woods, there are quite a few populations that are in the process of expansion beyond just raccoons & black bears. (whitetails, beavers, geese, coyotes,…).
Both whitetail deer and coyotes are expanding across the whole continent. They are both common now, in the last few decades, in places where there is no record of them ever having been before.
I remember hearing the same about timberwolves in states like Montana/N. Dakota/Minnesota; this was about 5 years ago and I’m not sure how that trend is doing now.
Cougars are also making a comeback in many parts of the west, as well as even some eastern locales. They appear to be following some of the wild river valleys that flow east from the mountains out onto the plains. The high deer numbers may have a direct relationship.
I think it’s really cool but cougars also stalk and hunt people and that freaks a lot of folks out. I live where there are cougars, black and grizzly bears. I’m used to having to be aware of them.
Allow me to ammend my statement, black bears and racoons are the only species who’s populations have increased since white colonization of N America. The deer thing is interesting though, I gusse eliminating their natural predetors and creating more “meadows” may well allow a population increase in some areas. Cayottes seem to do well too picking up the wolves vacated niche. Oh well I guess nothing does “well” because of cvilization sure some populations rise but its a depressing plight for everything. I just keep praying to science to start solving the problems it creates, have faith, I guess thats all we can do… right?
I’m talking about the difference between migration and evolution vs. simple transplantation.
Humans migrated across Siberia and Alaska, etc. Good for them. They probably brought a number of hitchhikers with them, as well (clinging seeds, various bacteria, fungal spores, blah blah blah). Good for them, too.
Cheetah’s didn’t migrate into the Americas (at least, according to current scientific theories) - like you said, they couldn’t. Good for them. They’re doing fine where they are, anyway (that is, when they’re not being eradicated out of learned fear and prejudice). Cheetah’s live in Africa because it does work for them. That’s how evolution works. If Cheetah’s could live in America, they would, otherwise, there would be another big cat that evolved in such a way that it occupies a similar niche. Oh wait… there is. It’s called a Puma.
~ SW