Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Man-Made Fire Blamed for Australian Extinctions 52

Posted by timothy from the smokey-the-kangaroo-never-caught-on dept.
JeiFuRi writes "Around 50,000 years ago, many large Australian animals died off with the arrival of man. From a study carried out by the Carnegie Institution, we now know that the continent's earliest settlers caused these extinctions through their use of fire. In addition, it may have altered the ecosystem of ancient Australia and brought about it's collapse. Futher commentary at BBC News, newKerala, and Red Nova." "Know" is a strong word; the study suggests this may be the case, though.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Man-Made Fire Blamed for Australian Extinctions More

Man-Made Fire Blamed for Australian Extinctions

Comments Filter:

  • Thats evolution for you (Score:5, Interesting)

    by FidelCatsro ( 861135 ) <fidelcatsro&gmail,com> on Monday July 11, 2005 @03:55AM (#13031123) Journal
    50,000 years and the Aussies are still big on barbecues.
    Seriously though , Such is evolution .The species that could not adapt quickly enough died off.
    I always had a small problem with conservation efforts , I know its lovely to save endangered species and all that , but does it not hamper the natural order further by trying to save species that can not cope by themselves.
    • Depends.
      Leopards and lions aren't obsessed with hunting elephants just to get at their tusks.

      When it's a matter of survival, rather than fetching a good price on the black market - let me know.
      • Just to play devils advocate here( i was also doing that in the grandparent post).
        This is a matter of survival , If elephants are being wiped off the face of the earth as they can't cope with the hunting habits of humans is that not natural selection.
        OK it could be argued that being cute is an evolutionary advantage as humans get sympathetic and try to save the species ,but is it advantageous for the development of life.
        We are a part of nature , and we are very much on the top of the food chain right now .T
        • You claim we're a part of nature, but I'd rather say we're apart from it.
          We combat diseases that are supposed to be effective as population-control (yes, yes I know, I'm a sinister/twisted person).
          We take more from nature than we need.

          Maybe Agent Smith wasn't all that wrong in his statement about humans being parasites.

          I guess my main problem is that the animals in danger of extinction are the wrong animals.
          Mosquitos, flies, cockroaches etc.. Get rid of 'em!
          Just don't touch my cuddly stoned koalas with sh
          • No one will wipe out koalas , they are far too cute.
            Some parts of nature went for fearsome power , speed , teeth and claws that can eviscerate anything not made of stone and another part went for lazy and cute .
            Now look how well the gunny pig is doing compared to some of the big cats , coincidence .. i think not.
          • If the Biosphere of the Earth can be likened to a giant cell, then within it, humans function as a lysosome. If this is likened, instead, to a giant organism - then humans function as a metastatic cancer.

            Not dissimilarly to the analogous functions of the United States in world politics, Wal*Mart in retaul economics or Microsoft in the world of software sales.

          • We combat diseases that are supposed to be effective as population-control (yes, yes I know, I'm a sinister/twisted person).

            That Darwinian view tends to be OK for others. It's when we ourselves are hit thereby that we seek work-arounds.
            Necessity mothers both invention and unintended consequences.
            I think Jeremiah Cornelius's response in this thread that human beings are a 'cancer' in the 'cell' of the world misses some of the more obvious feedback loops in play, like war and falling birthrates.

          • Most diseases that are caused by bacteria or viruses actually developed along with human agriculture. There were almost no diseases in the New World when Europeans arrived. Disease may be good population control, but it is largely a human creation / coevolution.
            • They had STDs, which weren't present in Europe until the explorers returned to Europe with them. Getting back to the subject, it's important to preserve as many species as possible because we can't forsee the future, and who knows if elephants will be perfect for the environment after some catastrophic event, or even the key to the survival of our or another species. Additionally, farming animals isn't terribly smart either because once an animal is farmed it is bred to produce the most and best quality
        • Valid point.

          How do you save an indangered species? Let people eat it. Then it will be farmed and man will make sure that it is not wiped out.
        • The first rule to tinkering is to save all the parts.
          - Paul Erlich

          Second argument, the easter Island scenario: a willful disregard for
          all them other critters might cause us to make things hard on
          ourselves at some point, through unintended consequences.
        • There's a good book called "Guns, Germs, and Steel" that covers many topics on the rise of civilizations and proposes theories on why the world is the way it is now. There's an interesting section of animal domestication that explains why, even with the latest technologies, we simply cannot domesticate certain wild animals, like elephants.

          The bottom line is that the closest we can get to "farming" of elephants is to have wild-life preserves where they can grow on their own and will not be killed by humans.
    • Well no, that's not evolution. Remember evolution is a very, very, very slow process.

      The problem is that man has bested evolution. Our smarts are much faster than it can ever be. We're an 'out-of-context' problem. The consequences of our actions come by much quicker than evolution can compensate.

      So in less than a blink, on evolution's time scale, *poof*, wooly mamouths hunted to extinction, *poof*, no more Amazon rainforest, etc...

      • We are evolution. Our smarts are part of evolution. Evolution usually comes from mass extintictions. All but the strongest die off and the strongest, most evolved for the current habitat, continue to populate the planet.
    • "The species that could not adapt quickly enough died off."

      I would say it's more like one large species wiped out 80% of the other large species because it seemed like a good idea at the time.

      "I always had a small problem with conservation efforts , I know its lovely to save endangered species and all that , but does it not hamper the natural order further by trying to save species that can not cope by themselves."

      No species can cope by itself except perhaps some single cell organisims, but certain
  • Thank God animals can't demand reparations! *whew*

  • Its bloody hot down there. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by torpor ( 458 ) <ibisum AT gmail DOT com> on Monday July 11, 2005 @04:44AM (#13031263) Homepage Journal

    I've survived many a bush fire with nothing but a damp potato sack for my miseries, and much as I despise the negative impact we've had on this land, I can tell you that its a beautiful thing indeed to walk around the scorched Aussie landscape for weeks after the event, watching new life grow .. and the first rains after the fire are wonderful too, for days afterwards new wildflowers spring forth, and in the midst of the dry black and grey and red, you suddenly see green and purple and blue and pink and yellow .. and a month or two afterwards, the land is restored to its glory..

    Australia is a beautiful place, so truly uniqe. Its a good thing that, at least, we are discussing its management, and our effect, and the demise so far, intelligently at least ...

  • Only you... (Score:5, Funny)

    by identity0 ( 77976 ) on Monday July 11, 2005 @05:23AM (#13031370) Journal
    Smokey the Marsupial says: "Only you can prevent outback fi-" *wham* *wham* *sizzle*

    Pyro the Aboriginie says: "Mmm, marsupial tasty over fire. More burnt marsupials good. Burn! Burn!"

    *sets outback on fire*
  • I understand that we have the intellect to comprehend the consequences of our actions and that makes us culpable for more than your average animal. But I find it curious that one never hears the argument that we are in fact a species on this planet and our actions are natural and the consequences are part of the natural order.

    Again, I do not condone charging ahead to flatten forests or eliminate other species but it seems strange one never hears discussion of things in this light....

    • Re:Homo sapiens: The Other Species (Score:5, Insightful)

      by meringuoid ( 568297 ) on Monday July 11, 2005 @06:24AM (#13031509)
      our actions are natural and the consequences are part of the natural order

      So are mass extinctions, but if given the choice you'd generally prefer not to be involved in one of those.

      We're supposed to be the intelligent ones here, but we don't appear to be smart enough yet not to shit in our own beds...

      • I tend to agree with you but this is one of the great debates.
        Is man above nature or part of it.
        If we are above it then we have an obligation and the right to manage it.
        If we are part of it then what ever we feel like is "right".
        As far as being part of extinctions. Do you know that some people feel that humans do not have the "right" to wipe out the smallpox virus? What about Polio? How about Aids? Frankly there are some life forms that I am all for making extinct.

    • Re:Homo sapiens: The Other Species (Score:5, Interesting)

      by kotku ( 249450 ) on Monday July 11, 2005 @06:25AM (#13031517) Journal
      We have the ability to choose one outcome over another. In this case when several consequences are choosable, the argument that the "consequences are part of the natural order" is a moot point and at worst an excuse for being irresponsible. Even if *conservation* is a human concept it is a concept brought about by a desire to live in a world that is interesting, varied and reasonably stable for the majority of the human population.
    • Linguistically, there's sort of a reason for this. Let me point you to the definition of the word "artificial" from http://www.m-w.com/ [m-w.com]

      Main Entry: artificial
      Pronunciation: "är-t&-'fi-sh&l
      Function: adjective
      1 : humanly contrived often on a natural model : MAN-MADE
      2 a : having existence in legal, economic, or political theory b : caused or produced by a human and especially social or political agency
      3 obsolete : ARTFUL, CUNNING
      4 a : lacking in natural or spontaneous quality b : IMITATION
      • Come on now. Obvious flaw in your logic.

        If all Artificial things are in the set of Man-made things, and all Artificial things are in the set of Imitation things, then all Man-made things are in the set of Imitation things? Thats a classic fallacy, and one which I had assumed most people were done with.

        all A in M
        all A in I
        Does NOT imply all M in I!
    • A classic population experiment gives a species everything it needs to survive but the available space remains fixed. This invariably ends up with a rapid and total collapse of the system.

      We have so far acted "naturally", (we have done what humans do), and are now much closer to the "natural" consequence of our behaviour than ever before. I suspect that if humans do not adapt thier "nature" to suit the "natural order" then rapid human exitinction will be the "natural" outcome.

      I agree with you that not

  • Why not non-human causes? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I am suprised that this paper seems to be written by a bunch of geologists and archeologists that have come to some conclusions without talking to anyone in the field that they're guessing about. They need to talk to someone who has qualifications in land management, particularly with practical knowledge of wildlands management and wildlands firefighting.

    Because a lot of the countryside around the world has this alarming habbit of setting itself on fire. In the middle of the dry season, all it takes is one
    • without talking to anyone in the field that they're guessing about
      I think if you check the citations for the paper you would find otherwise - I know that sometime in the 1980s this theory was popular in Australia and was described on information signs at Kakadu National Park in the north of Australia. It is known as firestick farming.

    • Occam's Razor. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by TapeCutter ( 624760 )
      You are absolutely correct when you say that most fires are started by lightning, the same is true here in Australia. However with regards to the fuel that the fire consumes and Occams razor, don't you think that wiping our most of the large herbivors would induce a change in ground cover?

      The problem is that it is never just as simple as one correct answer. Sure the Aborigines changed things by using fire and importing dogs (not to mention snacking on giant wombats who had never seen a hungry human), but
  • If the environment was that prone to fires then how do the scientists know the fires were not caused by lighting? It's one thing to blame humans but it's another thing to completely ignore one of the main causes of fires.

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein

Close