Neanderthals

Hmmm.... "Reddish"? Is that name at all related to Greenish, of the Inevitably Successful In All Circumstances? ------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

But it sounds cool to think that it happened this way so it is probably the most accepted idea out there replacing climate change...and ignoring what I am interested in which is the potential for disease to mediate extinction.

---

Personally, I don't see why we shouldn't treat the extinction of large mammals when humans were introduced in the same manner that we can look at the virtual extinction of most new-world races with the introduction of Europeans. It wasn't due to a single factor, but instead was due to *many* factors. Westerners brought disease, guns, and competition over resources, to name a few. No one factor brought them down.Likewise, it seems likely that the megafauna were doomed by the combination of disease, hunting technology, competition over resources (such as prey animals), artificially induced environmental alteration, and other corresponding factors - all at an ecologically delicate time (during a natural climatic change).One shouldn't get too comfy with the idea of natives as being "ecologically benign people", and that environmental destruction as being a relatively new concept. The desertification caused by the Anasazi, or the complete deforestation of Easter Island are striking examples of this. Westerners have only caused the extinction of one large mammal species in the New World (although a number of subspecies have been destroyed as well); the extinctions from the Native Americans (albeit, over a much longer period of time) astoundingly dwarf our record on this front.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

If you'll recall, I wasn't arguing for the "hunting-only" theory - I was arguing that a combination of factors is likely the key. I do, however, believe that hunting was *one* of them, but that hunting alone would never have caused such widespread extinctions.I do, however, think that you underestimate the value to a society of a megafauna kill. I don't have figures for mammoths, but after watching a show about the Donner party and cannibalism, they mention that the average adult male human has about 4.5 lbs of protein, enough for 60 people for one day. Assuming a 180lb human and a 8 ton mammoth, with simply scaling these figures up by body mass, we're looking at about 400 lbs of protein, feeding a whopping 5,400 people for a day (or more realistically, a smaller number for notably longer). Do you have more precise figures (also addressing things like calorie consumption)?Also, where did you get that sloth meat is bad? It's eaten in some parts of South America.I would argue that the reason some of North America's large mammals survived is that a steady state was reached before extinction. Early humans were no more migratory than many other predators, especially without horses. If left in a fairly stable environment for long enough, most species tend toward equilibrium. Not only do the buffalo, for example, adapt, but also do the social values of the native tribes. They are selected apon - through natural selection - based on their ability to not kill off all of the food supply in the area.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

R-selected species tend to be short lived, have high mortality, numerous offspring, rapid reproduction, a small build, and are often pioneer species. How do you conclude that most megafauna were R-selected?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

Megafauna are K-selected. But a lot of extinctions are r-selected species.

---

I was discussing the extinctions of the megafauna. ------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

(Edit: Moved to the Megafauna extinction thread)[This message has been edited by Rei, 10-15-2003]