It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Humans responsible for demise of gigantic ancient mammals

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   
This isn't the least bit surprising.

Turns out our ancient ancestors had the same poor judgement/habits that exist today. It's always unfortunate to see one single organism cause so much destruction. Yes, it is within their nature, but unfortunate nonetheless. Humanity seems to draw more similarities to that of viruses/parasites than it does other animal species.






Scientists at the universities of Exeter and Cambridge claim their research settles a prolonged debate over whether mankind or climate change was the dominant cause of the demise of massive creatures in the time of the sabretooth tiger, the woolly mammoth, the woolly rhino and the giant armadillo.

Known collectively as megafauna, most of the largest mammals ever to roam the earth were wiped out over the last 80,000 years, and were all extinct by 10,000 years ago.

Lewis Bartlett, of the University of Exeter, led the research, which also involved the universities of Reading and Bristol and is published in the journal Ecography. He said cutting-edge statistical analysis had helped solve the mystery almost beyond dispute, concluding that man was the dominant force in wiping out the creatures, although climate change could also have played a lesser role.

Source

The methods they used to come to this conclusion is quite simplistic really. The researchers ran thousands of scenarios which mapped the windows of time in which each species is known to have become extinct, and humans are known to have arrived on different continents or islands. This was compared against climate reconstructions for the last 90,000 years.




Examining different regions of the world across these scenarios, they found coincidences of human spread and species extinction which illustrate that man was the main agent causing the demise, with climate change exacerbating the number of extinctions. However, in certain regions of the world – mainly in Asia – they found patterns which patterns were broadly unaccounted for by either of these two drivers, and called for renewed focus on these neglected areas for further study.




posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Could not agree more! Why is it that so many villain characters are correct?!??!

Furthermore, Why must hoping for a change be so exhausting?



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147


Why is it that so many villain characters are correct?!??!

Only 'villains' are allowed to state it. The truth is not acceptable otherwise.

To add, humans per se aren't the whole problem. More the designed in necessity by mega corporations to make money from all the consumption that fuels the engine of eco destruction.


edit on 18-8-2015 by intrptr because: bb code



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Yes, Capitalism certainly is the main issue in today's modern world.

However, even back then when we had no civilization, we were still a destructive force on Earth. I think the best we can hope for is excessive education for the present and future generations, and the demise of capitalism.

Over hunting seems to be an intrinsic property to Humans, though, regardless if capitalism exists or not. We understand that now to some degree, but we still see things like Over-fishing which we've only just begun to try and prevent in the past couple of years.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

I think If we disappear the next intelligent animal to evolve will do the same thing and help kill off many other animals.
Be it the raccoon people of 2 million years ago or the Cat people in 2 million years time they will all do it.
Hopefully we will evolve a bit more in the future to not destroy other species like we have...It is happening but many will die until then.
They should evolve to taste bad tbh.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147


Humanity seems to draw more similarities to that of viruses/parasites than it does other animal species.


Well, actually just to be fair, many species of both plant & animal tend to cause major havoc on the local fauna & flora when introduced into a new environment, due to native life forms not having evolved a defense against introduced species.... So its not just us humans.

Humans are actually the only species who can recognize the damage that can be done and is able to take measures to prevent it.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Stating this an undisputed fact is disingenuous. The reason for Pleistocene mega-fauna extinction is a highly debated topic with different pressures present on every continent.

In Australia, because of the timing of human arrival, it is highly unlikely that humans had anything to do with the extinction of the mega-fauna there.

Link

In North America, it may have been a combination of pressures; including human predation. However...


It does not seem possible for models alone to resolve the question of whether megafauna were hunted to extinction, due to the number of assumptions in the models (4).


Link

Which is what your study used. The jury is still very much out on this question, particularly when it comes to Asia, which was the primary focus of the example study used. Even they admit that (albeit somewhat confusingly) in the article.

Personally, I don't think that the human presence at that time simply had the sheer numbers to make the negative impact asserted in the way it is couched. It simply could not have been humans alone. However, climate change pressures would affect all species, including humans, in synergistic ways. It is possible that humans, because of necessity had to switch their hunting habits to mega-fauna because it provided a steadier source of more meat as their usual prey items became more scarce. This mega-fauna may have already been under pressure by climate change and as humans adapted and became more efficient at hunting them over the generations it certainly could have pushed these animals over the edge in a knife-edge situation environmentally. But saying, or even implying that issue is resolved as a completely human-driven phenomenon is either completely ignorant or just skewing the evidence to fit a misanthropic agenda (i.e. lying for a cause).
edit on 18-8-2015 by redhorse because: Clarity

edit on 18-8-2015 by redhorse because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-8-2015 by redhorse because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Is it at all possible the species has suffered at the hands of their fate as intended by nature? To everything there is a season.

We didn't cause mass extinction of dinosaurs, right?



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: Ghost147

Is it at all possible the species has suffered at the hands of their fate as intended by nature? To everything there is a season.


I cannot see nature possessing the ability to intend anything. Nevertheless, it certainly is possible that the arrival of humans in accordance to the extinction of many of these species is pure coincidence. However, from statistical evidence we see that there is likely a connection.


originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: Ghost147
We didn't cause mass extinction of dinosaurs, right?


Did you think that I was implying that Humans are the direct result of every known species' extinction? That is ludicrous.

Did humans directly cause the extinction (or at least quicken their extincting) because humans migrated into their lands? Seems very possible considering we do it on a mass scale even to this day.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to Gost147


I cannot see nature possessing the ability to intend anything. Nevertheless, it certainly is possible that the arrival of humans in accordance to the extinction of many of these species is pure coincidence. However, from statistical evidence we see that there is likely a connection.


You have a human brain with limited abilities as we all do. We humans cannot understand the ALL THAT IS, just those portions we are capable of understanding. Nature does what nature does and for a reason known only to Nature. You cannot see the reason, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I am not one to believe in coincidence. I believe in purpose. The reason a species goes extinct is for purpose. With or without our human intervention. Can you fathom the concept that by retarding a species from its timely extinction, we are causing harm on some other level?



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Anytime a predator becomes too successful massive death follows... after "relearning the wheel" a few times, we've learned at least a bit of conservation. We've not mastered it yet, but we're no longer unrestrained super predators, we've becomes slightly self restrained super predators instead. This IS an evolutionary improvement over the standard super predator. We're learning... slowly, but we're learning...

Sadly the mega-fauna faced the brunt of our learning experience...
edit on 8/18/2015 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: NewzNose

If everything has a purpose than nothing does.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Or, you could look at things with an entirely different view. Not that it's a good or bad point of view, just different.

For instance, is Human Species considered part of Earth's nature?

What I mean is, if you are not part of the "We were seeded by Aliens" group, you must believe that we evolved and actually came to being from this very planet. If it is true, that our race is born from this Earth, then we are for certain, a part of nature.

So if we are a part of nature, when we destroy something, isn't that the same thing as a "natural" destructive force?

If we are .. NATURE, then what is GMO?

How can GMO, be GMO, if WE created GMO and we are NATURE itself?

Produced by nature... Produced by man... Man is part of Nature... so what is the difference here?

If we completely wipe a specie off this planet, it is OUR doing. However, if we are part of nature, then are our actions considered "Nature's Intentions"?



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: truthseeker84

I prefer to believe that nature is an unintelligent, cold, unfeeling force with no purpose or direction of it's own. The alternative is too sickening and revolting to consider as there is no system more cruel, sadistic and destructive than that imposed upon all life by the natural "order."

Any being that would do what nature does, create nature or be nature sentient incarnate is the most evil vile being possibly imaginable.

All that is good in this world exist despite the natural order, not because of it.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147
This isn't the least bit surprising.

Turns out our ancient ancestors had the same poor judgement/habits that exist today. It's always unfortunate to see one single organism cause so much destruction. Yes, it is within their nature, but unfortunate nonetheless. Humanity seems to draw more similarities to that of viruses/parasites than it does other animal species.






Scientists at the universities of Exeter and Cambridge claim their research settles a prolonged debate over whether mankind or climate change was the dominant cause of the demise of massive creatures in the time of the sabretooth tiger, the woolly mammoth, the woolly rhino and the giant armadillo.

Known collectively as megafauna, most of the largest mammals ever to roam the earth were wiped out over the last 80,000 years, and were all extinct by 10,000 years ago.

Lewis Bartlett, of the University of Exeter, led the research, which also involved the universities of Reading and Bristol and is published in the journal Ecography. He said cutting-edge statistical analysis had helped solve the mystery almost beyond dispute, concluding that man was the dominant force in wiping out the creatures, although climate change could also have played a lesser role.

Source

The methods they used to come to this conclusion is quite simplistic really. The researchers ran thousands of scenarios which mapped the windows of time in which each species is known to have become extinct, and humans are known to have arrived on different continents or islands. This was compared against climate reconstructions for the last 90,000 years.




Examining different regions of the world across these scenarios, they found coincidences of human spread and species extinction which illustrate that man was the main agent causing the demise, with climate change exacerbating the number of extinctions. However, in certain regions of the world – mainly in Asia – they found patterns which patterns were broadly unaccounted for by either of these two drivers, and called for renewed focus on these neglected areas for further study.








Thought for sure the "Overkill" hypothesis was dead as it has been highly contested since the mid 70s



www.pnas.org...



cosmictusk.com...




craterhunter.wordpress.com...



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   
There are a number of hypothesis concerning the megafauna die off at the end of the Ice Age.

change of climate. Too quick for many creatures to adapt.

A meteor impact in Northern Canada, though this is still hotly debated...

Arrival of man. Certainly a factor, though personally, I think rather overrated.

A disease introduced by animal migration during that period.

Or any combination of these factors.

To blame it solely on humans is disingenuous, and rather arrogant, really.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   
So according to these researchers, correlation does in fact equal causation. The problem with basing findings upon computer models is that if even one important piece of data is left out for one reason or another, then the whole model can be skewed.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to Gost147


I cannot see nature possessing the ability to intend anything. Nevertheless, it certainly is possible that the arrival of humans in accordance to the extinction of many of these species is pure coincidence. However, from statistical evidence we see that there is likely a connection.


You have a human brain with limited abilities as we all do. We humans cannot understand the ALL THAT IS, just those portions we are capable of understanding. Nature does what nature does and for a reason known only to Nature. You cannot see the reason, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


Considering there is no evidence to suggest nature as an actual Entity with consciousness, there is no reason for us to suppose that it has human-like traits, such as the ability to choose or imply things.


originally posted by: NewzNose
I am not one to believe in coincidence. I believe in purpose. The reason a species goes extinct is for purpose. With or without our human intervention. Can you fathom the concept that by retarding a species from its timely extinction, we are causing harm on some other level?


No, there is no such thing as purpose in nature. What is perceived as purpose is simply a matter of the human mind attempting to project it's own thoughts upon the world/universe around us for little more reason than self worth.

For instance, it is much more comforting feeling that we are significant, or that we have some sort of an effect during our lives. Definitely! Logically, however, it is merely coincidental events. Perceive what you will, purpose is merely a tool in order to fulfill one's own dire need to feel more important.
edit on 18/8/15 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

How do you validate your statement there is no such thing as purpose in nature? Purpose is reason and intent.

YOU have no evidence there is a consciousness in nature so there cannot possibly be one. Arrogance.

Purpose, by its literal definition, is not defined by coincidence, logic, or consciousness.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join