Easter Island has been described by Jared Diamond as the "clearest example of a society that destroyed itself by overexploiting its own resources".
Prof Diamond has told and retold the story and drawn a parallel between the ecological disaster he says befell Easter Island and our likely fate because we are cutting down too many trees and consuming too much energy.
In the September-October issue of American Scientist Online Terry Hunt details findings from his work on Easter Island.
It is an interesting read in which Hunt concludes that rats introduced by the Polynesians negatively impacted on recruitment in Jubaea palms resulting in forest decline. In contrast, Jared Diamond says the Polynesians simply cut down all the trees.
Furthermore Hunt suggests that the downfall of the original Polynesian civilization resulted not from internal strife associated with ecological disaster following destruction of the forest, but rather from contact with Europeans.
I read a lot of James Michener books when I was a bit younger. Civilizations destroyed by new arrivals is a consistent theme in Michener's stories.
Incisive question Taust. The "desirability of the mixing of humans from different continents" was not always seen as that...ie "desirable". It still isn't in many places, at least when not in proportion. Russell has seen the introduction of new fish species into Irian Jaya. Once I saw the introduction of Javanese transmigrants into Irian Jaya. The recieving population were not too impressed. But in the end they were in a similar position as endemic fish. They had to adapt. Nothing would ever be the same again. Is this called evolution?
Fair enough question Taust.
I remeber complaining to a chinese friend about flying into Irian Jaya from Java with a plane load of Javanese mine workers returning from holidays with plastic bags full of water and snakefish as handluggage because they liked them to eat and they were not native to Irian Jaya. She asked why does it matter, aren't they good to eat, and so what if they eradicate the local fish -most of which are endemic to the region?
For me that diversity was important for her not -depends on what you think is important.
Can any one tell me why given the evident desirability of the mixing of humans from different continents the mixing of all other forms of life among the different continents is considered a very bad thing? After all the non-mixed distribution of species was largely a outcome of chance.
Jared Diamond's narative did also involve rats, as the explanation for inhibited regrowth. I look forward to learning from how this plays out in the science arena, but it is just one paper, isn't it?
It has put the Easter Island history I thought was well accepted into a kind of mental holding pattern for me, but there certainly were questions that paper did not answer and assumptions of its own that did not seem well founded. Plus, comments from the authors that suggested a conclusion looking for evidence.
Anyway, as I said I look forward to how the story developes and not being a producer of research myself, will accept whatever consensus eventually emerges.
Sounds as if Easter Island needed a few ships' cats.
I did read it Schills - good grief. You need to get out more. Acthung baby.
That Easter Island stuff always had the ring of bull$hit about it because the explanation, that man cut it all down, assumed that there was no such thing as seedling regrowth. And it maintained this assumption not just for the existing forests and their seed sources but for all subsequent seed supply from ocean drift etc.
My overly neurotic Kelpie has just eaten through a healthy 16 year old Palm Tree at ground level, munching through 35cm of trunk in a few days. So hungry rats on a Coconut diet is a highly probable explanation. Science 1, Bimbecology nil.
Luke,
You are so totally busted. You posted before you had time to read the text at that link. But I *do* appreciate how you have reinforced my point with your remarks.
Schills mate - we might ponder the impacts of cats and foxes on Australian native marsupials. One size does not necessarily fit all.
Your credentials to undertake this tiresome anti-green tirade about eco-fascism is fascinating as an essay in hypocrisy given you've lived your life in a agri-chemical soup protected by a government with massively protectionist trade policies and whose approach to international diplomacy is increasingly military force (when it suits - see exceptions for recent conflict intervention).
And you have the hide to about biodiversity (used to be called native wildlife - with some aspects of a functioning natural system) when you've systematically poisoned your own for decades. I think we know who has the fascist tendencies. Whatever the science see Easter Island as an example of limits to growth, unchecked population dynamics or encounter with a superior technology.
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. (George Santayana)
"Civilizations destroyed by new arrivals" is precisely why we must preserve the entire planet as a museum; preferably as it was somewhere in the past, if we can possibly achieve that. Back when everything was in harmony with nature. Back when xenophobia was righteous and miscegenation between races was prosecuted. Not.
When people tout biodiversity, it often turns out to be a claim that one biodiversity is better than another biodiversity.
Whenever you see the word "biodiversity," you can generally exchange it with "racial purity" or "Blut und Boden" and it will all come out to mean the same thing. Anti-globalism as a global movement. Freedom as trade protectionism. Natural species as unnatural. Emigration as evil. The "planned ecology." Basically, Fascism wearing a green shirt.
Should we blame Polynesians, or rats, or both? Is the "invasion" of either inherently bad? There are some pernicious presuppositions at work here.
Consider "Fascist Ecology: The 'Green Wing' of the Nazi Party and its Historical Antecedents," at http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html