I noticed something halfway through the video. If you look at the “eradication” chart, it actually doesn’t show complete eradication. It shows a sharp decline, and then levels out. Almost as if the disrupting animists figured out how to coexist and not impact more than they had to for their own protection or survival.
It probably doesnt help that ancient animists may not have fully understood the extent of the consequences of their actions in hunting and tree cutting, at least not until after the fact. Though something interesting is we live in a time of knowledge where we know pretty much exactly how to preserve the land as a species, yet we fail to do so as a species. I guess knowing more doesnt necessarily lead to doing more.
Agree, love your work, appreciate your perspective…BUT, there’s a fallacy here that I cannot let go unchallenged. Correlation does not equal causation. All available data we currently have at our disposal suggests that sudden catastrophic climate change eradicated the ice age megafauna, rather than the old tired western trope of the unrestrained savage. People most likely moved into these areas as the rapid melting of continental ice sheets associated with the climate events that doomed the megafauna also made human territorial expansion possible. Hunting, I’m sure, didn’t help. But the old idea of human-caused mass extinction at the end of the last glacial maximum is problematic, at best.
What you have to take into consideration is natural changes to the habitat due to climate change at the end of the last Ice Age. I don't think the arrival of people helped but perhaps the species were already in decline when people arrived. Where there any emerging diseases at that time, and the arrival of people was just the thing that pushed them over the edge? I say that because rabies, distemper and parvo hit wild canid species pretty hard (African Wild Dogs and Ethiopian Wolves are two good examples of it.) There is a crytid fungus that is currently decimating amphibian populations around the world. There may have been more than one thing going on at the end of the last Ice Age. Island species and habitats are always more vulnerable to ecological collapse than those that occur on continents. The damage people do today though is far worse simply because of how we live - even environmentalists who are aware of the problems still cause it.
Exactly. I think it's more likely that the climate changes that drove humans to expand their range were the same forces that caused the downfall of those species. It's the reason that attempts to artifically expand the muskox's range have failed: ice age adapted species don't survive well out of that climate
In my field of environmental science, indigenous ideas are increasingly coming forward and being considered. In the past yes they may have been destructive with their hunting techniques for example, but now they're voicing their concerns with the state of our natural environment. And it makes me think that in the past people wouldn't of had the amount of information we have like estimates of total population of a species, or the effects of slash and burn like we have now. So to me I can understand how easy it is to drive megafauna to extinction, especially when during the paleolithic people were mostly nomadic hunters so their own survival would be obviously a priority. I also wonder if megafauna species were slowly on the way out as well, because from what I've researched myself during the paleolithic there would be maybe ~30,000 max people in Europe and thats not a lot of people when people would be moving with the herds, especially when it is believed that for example a singular mammoth could provide enough food for a group of people for almost a year. It reminds me of arguments against vegans "they're still destructive because they drive, live in a house, use technology" etc etc but they're not seeing that some of the destruction would be offset.
1:38 thought it’s starting to be re written that it’s pretty improbable that the mega fauna were hunted to extinction - that human presence in americas might predate ice bridge cross, and events like The Younger Dryas coinciding with mega fauna die off might have more to do with it. Think it’s been turned in it’s head now logistically impossible it would for primitive man to completely decimate populations of large animals like that.
Hello everyone, does anyone have a link the the intro song? Can't find it, nothing by putting the name of the song or the artists mentioned in the description here. The link to the RUclips channel of one of the artists seems like it is a dead channel, 3 songs uploaded 7 years ago. And Shazam doesn't recognize it.
Here in Aotearoa New Zealand, a lot of racists like to tout the extinction of the moa (a flightless bird) by early Māori settlers as evidence that tikanga (Māori customary law) is illegitimate. Pointing out the extinction of the moa ignores the fact that cultures evolve and adapt over time. Aotearoa New Zealand is the only temperate landmass and the largest landmass that Polynesians settled. The destruction of the moa populations and reduction in forest cover happened within a short span of time from 1250 AD-1450 AD during the early phase of Polynesian settlement. The flora and fauna to early Polynesians was unlike anything they had encountered in their smaller, tropical home islands. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that people in vast and unfamiliar landmasses are going to be rational actors in the sustainable use of resources. It's very telling that these racists hypocritically gloss over ecological destruction elsewhere, especially the destruction of forests in Britain and eradication of lynx, bison and wolf populations, where humans have been living far longer than humans in Aotearoa. I think it's reasonable to assume that indigenous cultures (such as the Māori) as we know them today, are the cumulative result of their experiences, which more often than not, included making loads of mistakes. The difference between their ecological mistakes and industrial colonial capitalism is simple: the former learnt from their mistakes, evolving and adapting. Colonial capitalism requires ecocide in order to function, which cannot evolve and adapt unlike stateless, animist societies.
I also regularly get this as a response to my attempt at building a contemporary position for eco-animism through dialogue with different parts of the past. It is a blatant and completely disproportionate what-about-ism to compare the biggest collapse in the history of life for 65 million years to the extinction of Moa in Aotearoa, the extinction of the muskox in parts of Greenland, the felling of trees in Iceland etc
yeah, i think its super important that the destructive phase is when people arrive at a new place (or, in the north american case, when a new tool-kit arrives...perhaps with new people). presumably ways that may have worked elsewhere and elsewhen simply did not match their new environmental relations. and, humans being humans, we can sometimes be slow learners. meanwhile, our society has been gifted with the great gift of scientific insight - we *know* what we are doing and we *know* the probable results. our society explicitly knows that what we are doing is horrific, and yet it can only accelerate towards the disaster.
This is a good topic to discuss. Living in the southwest US I’ve been to a lot of ruins from the ancestral Puebloan peoples (“Anasazi” or cliff dwellers). It’s widely accepted one of the main reasons they abandoned their cities was because they had deforested the immediate areas. So in old school archaeology they would talk about how their civilization “collapsed” and where did they mysteriously disappear to. Thankfully, newer archaeologists are starting to pay attention to the indigenous groups of the area’s own tellings of history and they finally have accepted the obvious, that the same cultural groups still exist they just made a conscious decision to move to a new area and change their way of life to be sustainable with their environment. While Neolithic people coming into the Americas might have contributed to the megafauna extinctions, I suspect this was more because they did not understand the impact of their actions at the time. I think it would be very hard for early peoples to imagine extinction was possible and that their actions could cause it. We certainly know now. But beyond that, it is important to note that at the time of European contact, many indigenous groups of the Americas were managing the ecosystems to increase and enhance biodiversity because they realized everyone ultimately benefitted. For example in the huge biodiversity in the Great Plains was enhanced in part by controlled burning, same in the mountains which are now burning like matches due to our ignorant modern mismanagement. Or the evidence the Maya in Central America were enhancing the rainforest with intentional plantings and seed distribution of species that might otherwise be rarer or even non existent (avocados, which would’ve otherwise gone extinct after the giant ground sloth did).
I noticed something halfway through the video. If you look at the “eradication” chart, it actually doesn’t show complete eradication. It shows a sharp decline, and then levels out. Almost as if the disrupting animists figured out how to coexist and not impact more than they had to for their own protection or survival.
yes - that is part of the the point. There is a sharp decline, but not a complete eradicaiton. Did I say that ?
I do think that when we talk about the really big animals (elephant size) then we are talking near complete eradication in many continents
@@NordicAnimism Not at all, was mostly making the observation for myself.
I struggle with existing in the industrialised society that we do and having the beliefs I hold, so this was something of a balm. Cheers, bud.
It probably doesnt help that ancient animists may not have fully understood the extent of the consequences of their actions in hunting and tree cutting, at least not until after the fact.
Though something interesting is we live in a time of knowledge where we know pretty much exactly how to preserve the land as a species, yet we fail to do so as a species.
I guess knowing more doesnt necessarily lead to doing more.
Thank you.
"But they did these bad things," doesn't mean we have to.
Agree, love your work, appreciate your perspective…BUT, there’s a fallacy here that I cannot let go unchallenged. Correlation does not equal causation. All available data we currently have at our disposal suggests that sudden catastrophic climate change eradicated the ice age megafauna, rather than the old tired western trope of the unrestrained savage. People most likely moved into these areas as the rapid melting of continental ice sheets associated with the climate events that doomed the megafauna also made human territorial expansion possible. Hunting, I’m sure, didn’t help. But the old idea of human-caused mass extinction at the end of the last glacial maximum is problematic, at best.
What you have to take into consideration is natural changes to the habitat due to climate change at the end of the last Ice Age. I don't think the arrival of people helped but perhaps the species were already in decline when people arrived. Where there any emerging diseases at that time, and the arrival of people was just the thing that pushed them over the edge? I say that because rabies, distemper and parvo hit wild canid species pretty hard (African Wild Dogs and Ethiopian Wolves are two good examples of it.) There is a crytid fungus that is currently decimating amphibian populations around the world. There may have been more than one thing going on at the end of the last Ice Age. Island species and habitats are always more vulnerable to ecological collapse than those that occur on continents. The damage people do today though is far worse simply because of how we live - even environmentalists who are aware of the problems still cause it.
Exactly. I think it's more likely that the climate changes that drove humans to expand their range were the same forces that caused the downfall of those species. It's the reason that attempts to artifically expand the muskox's range have failed: ice age adapted species don't survive well out of that climate
In my field of environmental science, indigenous ideas are increasingly coming forward and being considered. In the past yes they may have been destructive with their hunting techniques for example, but now they're voicing their concerns with the state of our natural environment. And it makes me think that in the past people wouldn't of had the amount of information we have like estimates of total population of a species, or the effects of slash and burn like we have now. So to me I can understand how easy it is to drive megafauna to extinction, especially when during the paleolithic people were mostly nomadic hunters so their own survival would be obviously a priority. I also wonder if megafauna species were slowly on the way out as well, because from what I've researched myself during the paleolithic there would be maybe ~30,000 max people in Europe and thats not a lot of people when people would be moving with the herds, especially when it is believed that for example a singular mammoth could provide enough food for a group of people for almost a year.
It reminds me of arguments against vegans "they're still destructive because they drive, live in a house, use technology" etc etc but they're not seeing that some of the destruction would be offset.
1:38 thought it’s starting to be re written that it’s pretty improbable that the mega fauna were hunted to extinction - that human presence in americas might predate ice bridge cross, and events like The Younger Dryas coinciding with mega fauna die off might have more to do with it.
Think it’s been turned in it’s head now logistically impossible it would for primitive man to completely decimate populations of large animals like that.
Probably the changing climate both allowed human populations to boom while killing of ice age species
Hello everyone, does anyone have a link the the intro song? Can't find it, nothing by putting the name of the song or the artists mentioned in the description here. The link to the RUclips channel of one of the artists seems like it is a dead channel, 3 songs uploaded 7 years ago. And Shazam doesn't recognize it.
Love this one. Thanks for the shout out! 🥰
Here in Aotearoa New Zealand, a lot of racists like to tout the extinction of the moa (a flightless bird) by early Māori settlers as evidence that tikanga (Māori customary law) is illegitimate. Pointing out the extinction of the moa ignores the fact that cultures evolve and adapt over time. Aotearoa New Zealand is the only temperate landmass and the largest landmass that Polynesians settled. The destruction of the moa populations and reduction in forest cover happened within a short span of time from 1250 AD-1450 AD during the early phase of Polynesian settlement. The flora and fauna to early Polynesians was unlike anything they had encountered in their smaller, tropical home islands. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that people in vast and unfamiliar landmasses are going to be rational actors in the sustainable use of resources. It's very telling that these racists hypocritically gloss over ecological destruction elsewhere, especially the destruction of forests in Britain and eradication of lynx, bison and wolf populations, where humans have been living far longer than humans in Aotearoa. I think it's reasonable to assume that indigenous cultures (such as the Māori) as we know them today, are the cumulative result of their experiences, which more often than not, included making loads of mistakes. The difference between their ecological mistakes and industrial colonial capitalism is simple: the former learnt from their mistakes, evolving and adapting. Colonial capitalism requires ecocide in order to function, which cannot evolve and adapt unlike stateless, animist societies.
totally! - thanks for this!
I also regularly get this as a response to my attempt at building a contemporary position for eco-animism through dialogue with different parts of the past. It is a blatant and completely disproportionate what-about-ism to compare the biggest collapse in the history of life for 65 million years to the extinction of Moa in Aotearoa, the extinction of the muskox in parts of Greenland, the felling of trees in Iceland etc
yeah, i think its super important that the destructive phase is when people arrive at a new place (or, in the north american case, when a new tool-kit arrives...perhaps with new people). presumably ways that may have worked elsewhere and elsewhen simply did not match their new environmental relations. and, humans being humans, we can sometimes be slow learners.
meanwhile, our society has been gifted with the great gift of scientific insight - we *know* what we are doing and we *know* the probable results. our society explicitly knows that what we are doing is horrific, and yet it can only accelerate towards the disaster.
Are we without a way to correct our behavior.
No - the point is that this is what Animism is- ways to correct behaviour
This is a good topic to discuss. Living in the southwest US I’ve been to a lot of ruins from the ancestral Puebloan peoples (“Anasazi” or cliff dwellers). It’s widely accepted one of the main reasons they abandoned their cities was because they had deforested the immediate areas. So in old school archaeology they would talk about how their civilization “collapsed” and where did they mysteriously disappear to. Thankfully, newer archaeologists are starting to pay attention to the indigenous groups of the area’s own tellings of history and they finally have accepted the obvious, that the same cultural groups still exist they just made a conscious decision to move to a new area and change their way of life to be sustainable with their environment. While Neolithic people coming into the Americas might have contributed to the megafauna extinctions, I suspect this was more because they did not understand the impact of their actions at the time. I think it would be very hard for early peoples to imagine extinction was possible and that their actions could cause it. We certainly know now. But beyond that, it is important to note that at the time of European contact, many indigenous groups of the Americas were managing the ecosystems to increase and enhance biodiversity because they realized everyone ultimately benefitted. For example in the huge biodiversity in the Great Plains was enhanced in part by controlled burning, same in the mountains which are now burning like matches due to our ignorant modern mismanagement. Or the evidence the Maya in Central America were enhancing the rainforest with intentional plantings and seed distribution of species that might otherwise be rarer or even non existent (avocados, which would’ve otherwise gone extinct after the giant ground sloth did).
Thank you Rune.
Excellent!