Giant kangaroos wiped out by humans, not climate change In a land before time – or at least Australia about 40,000 years ago – five meter kangaroos bounded across the landscape. Some were fleeing colossal marsupial lions. Others were trying to stay out of the way of Emus twice the size of today's specimens or Diprotodon Optatum, a rhinoceros-like beastie that was the largest …
Tim Flannery has been saying this for three, maybe four decades now.
It isn't politically correct to say that Austfailia's original 'custodians' wiped out more species and destroyed far more ecosystems (through the dubious practice of, um.... burning down all the trees*) than us white-bread newcomers have in the past 200 years.
Austfailia - failing since 50,000BC - continuing the proud tradition into the 20th century**.
* - the native fire-clearing served only to retain species that are fire-resistant. Before native fire-clearing Australia looked more like the Daintree across the tropics, and Wollombi across the termperate zone. The deserts are only a new thing in the past 50,000 years or so - suspiciously coinciding with the spread of the plague of homo sapiens currently infesting the planet.
** - we're a bit behind down 'ere, maaaaaayte.
Definitely not a new theory. I actually thought it was commonly considered to be the most likely scenario. Sure, there hasn't been much direct evidence, but we think we know when humans arrived in Australia and we know that the mass extinction of Australia's large animal life happened at this time.Correlation may not BE causation, but in this case it's a pretty big red flag.
It's not politically correct to say that the early Australian aboriginals ate every big land-animal they could catch to extinction? I always thought it was pretty obvious.
No, Tim says it was the fires that humans started that wiped out the megafauna, whereas this research suggests it was wiping out the megafauna which allowed "natural" fires to spread. This may be an academic point, but it is actually the whole point of the paper that the reduction in animals led to more grass first and then the fires as opposed to the fires which led to less grass and then a reduction in the animals.
There's a very consistent pattern across the world - humans arrive, megafauna disappears. The Americas 15,000 years ago - giant sloths and sabre-tooths; all gone within a couple of millennia. While the Battle of Hastings was being fought, 12 foot moas were roaming the Kauri forests of NZ. Humans arrive shortly thereafter; and within a couple of centuries the moas are all gone.
Meanwhile, in Africa where the megafauna coevolved to keep out of the way of the chimps with spears, they survived until the gun was invented.
Why have people in the media started using that word when there are so many others available. It should only ever be uttered by someone under five years of age and even then only if they're from a very twee family.
I'd have excused it in this case if the Reg sub had used it as creatively as I have.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
