Los antepasados de los indios de las praderas y del amazonas, los pacificos habitantes de las islas del pacifico que viven en perpetuo equilibrio con el medio ambiente y bla bla bla, fueron los causantes de la mayor extinción de especies que ha producido el ser humano.
Resulta que el buen salvaje de los progres no vivía ni vive tan en perpétuo equilibrio con el medio ambiente como nos cuentan los ecologetas. Un buen recordatorio de lo que puede ocurrir al mundo si aceptamos el modelo de no desarrollo que nos quieren vender los amigos del planeta:
http://www.edge.org/q2005/q05_print.html
Traduzco lo que he puesto en negrita en el artículo original más abajo:
Estoy convencido de que llegaron a Norte America hace alrededor de 14000 años, a Sudamerica hace arededor de 13500 años y a Australia y Nueva Guinea hace alrededor de 46000 años, y que los humanos fueron los responsables de la extinción de la mayoría de los animales grandes de esos continentes en unos pocos cientos de años a partir de su llegada; y que los científicos aceptan esta conclusión mas facil y con menos reticencia para Australia y Nueva Guinea que para Norte y Sudamérica.
La clara conclusión: cuando llegaron, rápidamente llenaron esos continentes y mataron fácilmente a los animales grandes, que nunca habian visto seres humanos y dejaban a los humanos llegar hasta ellos como hacen todavia hoy los animales de las islas Galapagos y la Antártida.
Los animales grandes de los ultimos tres continentes (Africa, Asia y Europa) sobrevivieron, porque tuvieron millones de años para aprender el miedo a los cazadores humanos con técnicas que avanzaban muy despacio; muchos animales de los otros continentes no sobrevivieron, porque tuvieron la desgracia de que su primer encuentro con humanos fué de repente, con cazadores completamente modernos y preparados. (En Europa y Asia, que es un caso intermedio, aunque sobrevivieron mucho mas tiempo, al final muchos de ellos fueron eliminados por el Homo Sapiens, mientras que en África, la cuna de todos los homínidos, se conservó toda la fauna en general).
Debió ser una fiesta carnivora que duro algunos cientos de años hasta que se extinguieron los animales grandes y los animales mas pequeños aprendieron a huir de los buenos salvajes ya que evolucionaban mas rápido ante esa fortisima presión adaptativa al tener ciclos mas cortos de vida. Hay que recordar que los bisontes y las llamas eran animales relativamente pequeños en comparación con los enormes animales que poblaban América.
Por fortuna para los ecologetas, los Homo Sapiens primitivos no tenian capacidad para cazar ballenas, si no, esos hombres primitivos que tanto adoran les hubieran birlado la oportunidad de llorar por ellas y exhibir ante el mundo su auto-atribuida superioridad moral.
JARED DIAMOND
Biologist; Geographer, UCLA; Author, Collapse
When did humans complete their expansion around the world? I'm convinced, but can't yet prove, that humans first reached the continents of North America, South America, and Australia only very recently, at or near the end of the last Ice Age. Specifically, I'm convinced that they reached North America around 14,000 years ago, South America around 13,500 years ago, and Australia and New Guinea around 46, 000 years ago; and that humans were then responsible for the extinctions of most of the big animals of those continents within a few centuries of those dates; and that scientists will accept this conclusion sooner and less reluctantly for Australia and New Guinea than for North and South America.
\n
\n Background to my conjecture is that there are \n now hundreds of thousands of sites with undisputed \n evidence of human presence dating back to millions \n of years ago in Africa, Europe, and Asia, but \n none with even disputed evidence of human presence \n over 100,000 years ago in the Americas and Australia. \n In the Americas, undisputed evidence suddenly \n appears in all the lower 48 U.S. states around \n 14,000 years ago, at numerous South American sites \n soon thereafter, and at hundreds of Australian \n sites between 46,000 and 14,000 years ago. Evidence \n of most of the former big mammals of those continents—e.g., \n elephants and lions and giant ground sloths in \n the Americas, giant kangaroos and one-ton Komodo \n dragons in Australia—disappears within a \n few centuries of those dates. The transparent \n conclusion: people arrived then, quickly filled \n up those continents, and easily killed off their \n big animals that had never seen humans and that \n let humans walk up to them, as Galapagos and Antarctica \n animals still do today.
\n
\n But some Australian archaeologists, and many American \n archaeologists, resist this obvious conclusion, \n for several reasons. Archaeologists try hard to \n find convincing earlier sites, because it would \n be a dramatic discovery. Every year, discoveries \n of many purportedly older sites are announced, \n then to be forgotten. As the supporting evidence \n dissolves or remains disputed, we're now in a \n steady state of new claims and vanishing old claims, \n like a hydra constantly sprouting new heads. There \n are still a few sites known for the Americas with \n evidence of human butchering of the extinct big \n animals, and none known for Australia and New \n Guinea—but one expects to find very few \n sites anyway, among all the sites of natural deaths \n for hundreds of thousands of years, if the hunting \n was all finished locally (because the prey became \n extinct) within a few decades. American archaeologists \n are especially persistent in their quest for pre-14,000 \n sites—perhaps because secured dating requires \n use of multiple dating techniques (not just radiocarbon), \n but American archaeologists distrust alternatives \n to radiocarbon (discovered by ",1] );
Background to my conjecture is that there are now hundreds of thousands of sites with undisputed evidence of human presence dating back to millions of years ago in Africa, Europe, and Asia, but none with even disputed evidence of human presence over 100,000 years ago in the Americas and Australia. In the Americas, undisputed evidence suddenly appears in all the lower 48 U.S. states around 14,000 years ago, at numerous South American sites soon thereafter, and at hundreds of Australian sites between 46,000 and 14,000 years ago. Evidence of most of the former big mammals of those continents—e.g., elephants and lions and giant ground sloths in the Americas, giant kangaroos and one-ton Komodo dragons in Australia—disappears within a few centuries of those dates. The transparent conclusion: people arrived then, quickly filled up those continents, and easily killed off their big animals that had never seen humans and that let humans walk up to them, as Galapagos and Antarctica animals still do today.
But some Australian archaeologists, and many American archaeologists, resist this obvious conclusion, for several reasons. Archaeologists try hard to find convincing earlier sites, because it would be a dramatic discovery. Every year, discoveries of many purportedly older sites are announced, then to be forgotten. As the supporting evidence dissolves or remains disputed, we're now in a steady state of new claims and vanishing old claims, like a hydra constantly sprouting new heads. There are still a few sites known for the Americas with evidence of human butchering of the extinct big animals, and none known for Australia and New Guinea—but one expects to find very few sites anyway, among all the sites of natural deaths for hundreds of thousands of years, if the hunting was all finished locally (because the prey became extinct) within a few decades. American archaeologists are especially persistent in their quest for pre-14,000 sites—perhaps because secured dating requires use of multiple dating techniques (not just radiocarbon), but American archaeologists distrust alternatives to radiocarbon (discovered by D(["mb","U.S. scientists) \n because the alternative dating techniques were \n discovered by Australian scientists.
Every year, beginning graduate students in archaeology \n and paleontology, working in Africa or Europe \n or Asia, go out and discover undisputed new sites \n with ancient human presence. Every year, new such \n discoveries are announced to the other three continents, \n but none has ever met the requirements of evidence \n accepted for Africa, Europe, or Asia. The big \n animals of the latter three continents survive, \n because they had millions of years to learn fear \n of human hunters with very slowly evolving skills; \n most big animals of the former three continents \n didn't survive, because they had the misfortune \n that their first encounter with humans was a sudden \n one, with fully modern skilled hunters.
\n
\n To me, the case is already proved. How many more \n decades of unconvincing claims will it take to \n convince the holdouts among my colleagues? I don't \n know. It makes better newspaper headlines to report \n "Wow!! New discovery overturns the established \n paradigm of American archaeology!!" than to report, \n "Ho hum, yet another reportedly paradigm-overturning \n discovery fails to hold up."",1] ); U.S. scientists) because the alternative dating techniques were discovered by Australian scientists.
Every year, beginning graduate students in archaeology and paleontology, working in Africa or Europe or Asia, go out and discover undisputed new sites with ancient human presence. Every year, new such discoveries are announced to the other three continents, but none has ever met the requirements of evidence accepted for Africa, Europe, or Asia. The big animals of the latter three continents survive, because they had millions of years to learn fear of human hunters with very slowly evolving skills; most big animals of the former three continents didn't survive, because they had the misfortune that their first encounter with humans was a sudden one, with fully modern skilled hunters.
To me, the case is already proved. How many more decades of unconvincing claims will it take to convince the holdouts among my colleagues? I don't know. It makes better newspaper headlines to report "Wow!! New discovery overturns the established paradigm of American archaeology!!" than to report, "Ho hum, yet another reportedly paradigm-overturning discovery fails to hold up."
Resulta que el buen salvaje de los progres no vivía ni vive tan en perpétuo equilibrio con el medio ambiente como nos cuentan los ecologetas. Un buen recordatorio de lo que puede ocurrir al mundo si aceptamos el modelo de no desarrollo que nos quieren vender los amigos del planeta:
http://www.edge.org/q2005/q05
Traduzco lo que he puesto en negrita en el artículo original más abajo:
Estoy convencido de que llegaron a Norte America hace alrededor de 14000 años, a Sudamerica hace arededor de 13500 años y a Australia y Nueva Guinea hace alrededor de 46000 años, y que los humanos fueron los responsables de la extinción de la mayoría de los animales grandes de esos continentes en unos pocos cientos de años a partir de su llegada; y que los científicos aceptan esta conclusión mas facil y con menos reticencia para Australia y Nueva Guinea que para Norte y Sudamérica.
La clara conclusión: cuando llegaron, rápidamente llenaron esos continentes y mataron fácilmente a los animales grandes, que nunca habian visto seres humanos y dejaban a los humanos llegar hasta ellos como hacen todavia hoy los animales de las islas Galapagos y la Antártida.
Los animales grandes de los ultimos tres continentes (Africa, Asia y Europa) sobrevivieron, porque tuvieron millones de años para aprender el miedo a los cazadores humanos con técnicas que avanzaban muy despacio; muchos animales de los otros continentes no sobrevivieron, porque tuvieron la desgracia de que su primer encuentro con humanos fué de repente, con cazadores completamente modernos y preparados. (En Europa y Asia, que es un caso intermedio, aunque sobrevivieron mucho mas tiempo, al final muchos de ellos fueron eliminados por el Homo Sapiens, mientras que en África, la cuna de todos los homínidos, se conservó toda la fauna en general).
Debió ser una fiesta carnivora que duro algunos cientos de años hasta que se extinguieron los animales grandes y los animales mas pequeños aprendieron a huir de los buenos salvajes ya que evolucionaban mas rápido ante esa fortisima presión adaptativa al tener ciclos mas cortos de vida. Hay que recordar que los bisontes y las llamas eran animales relativamente pequeños en comparación con los enormes animales que poblaban América.
Por fortuna para los ecologetas, los Homo Sapiens primitivos no tenian capacidad para cazar ballenas, si no, esos hombres primitivos que tanto adoran les hubieran birlado la oportunidad de llorar por ellas y exhibir ante el mundo su auto-atribuida superioridad moral.
JARED DIAMOND
Biologist; Geographer, UCLA; Author, Collapse
When did humans complete their expansion around the world? I'm convinced, but can't yet prove, that humans first reached the continents of North America, South America, and Australia only very recently, at or near the end of the last Ice Age. Specifically, I'm convinced that they reached North America around 14,000 years ago, South America around 13,500 years ago, and Australia and New Guinea around 46, 000 years ago; and that humans were then responsible for the extinctions of most of the big animals of those continents within a few centuries of those dates; and that scientists will accept this conclusion sooner and less reluctantly for Australia and New Guinea than for North and South America.\n
\n Background to my conjecture is that there are \n now hundreds of thousands of sites with undisputed \n evidence of human presence dating back to millions \n of years ago in Africa, Europe, and Asia, but \n none with even disputed evidence of human presence \n over 100,000 years ago in the Americas and Australia. \n In the Americas, undisputed evidence suddenly \n appears in all the lower 48 U.S. states around \n 14,000 years ago, at numerous South American sites \n soon thereafter, and at hundreds of Australian \n sites between 46,000 and 14,000 years ago. Evidence \n of most of the former big mammals of those continents—e.g., \n elephants and lions and giant ground sloths in \n the Americas, giant kangaroos and one-ton Komodo \n dragons in Australia—disappears within a \n few centuries of those dates. The transparent \n conclusion: people arrived then, quickly filled \n up those continents, and easily killed off their \n big animals that had never seen humans and that \n let humans walk up to them, as Galapagos and Antarctica \n animals still do today.
\n
\n But some Australian archaeologists, and many American \n archaeologists, resist this obvious conclusion, \n for several reasons. Archaeologists try hard to \n find convincing earlier sites, because it would \n be a dramatic discovery. Every year, discoveries \n of many purportedly older sites are announced, \n then to be forgotten. As the supporting evidence \n dissolves or remains disputed, we're now in a \n steady state of new claims and vanishing old claims, \n like a hydra constantly sprouting new heads. There \n are still a few sites known for the Americas with \n evidence of human butchering of the extinct big \n animals, and none known for Australia and New \n Guinea—but one expects to find very few \n sites anyway, among all the sites of natural deaths \n for hundreds of thousands of years, if the hunting \n was all finished locally (because the prey became \n extinct) within a few decades. American archaeologists \n are especially persistent in their quest for pre-14,000 \n sites—perhaps because secured dating requires \n use of multiple dating techniques (not just radiocarbon), \n but American archaeologists distrust alternatives \n to radiocarbon (discovered by ",1] );
Background to my conjecture is that there are now hundreds of thousands of sites with undisputed evidence of human presence dating back to millions of years ago in Africa, Europe, and Asia, but none with even disputed evidence of human presence over 100,000 years ago in the Americas and Australia. In the Americas, undisputed evidence suddenly appears in all the lower 48 U.S. states around 14,000 years ago, at numerous South American sites soon thereafter, and at hundreds of Australian sites between 46,000 and 14,000 years ago. Evidence of most of the former big mammals of those continents—e.g., elephants and lions and giant ground sloths in the Americas, giant kangaroos and one-ton Komodo dragons in Australia—disappears within a few centuries of those dates. The transparent conclusion: people arrived then, quickly filled up those continents, and easily killed off their big animals that had never seen humans and that let humans walk up to them, as Galapagos and Antarctica animals still do today.
But some Australian archaeologists, and many American archaeologists, resist this obvious conclusion, for several reasons. Archaeologists try hard to find convincing earlier sites, because it would be a dramatic discovery. Every year, discoveries of many purportedly older sites are announced, then to be forgotten. As the supporting evidence dissolves or remains disputed, we're now in a steady state of new claims and vanishing old claims, like a hydra constantly sprouting new heads. There are still a few sites known for the Americas with evidence of human butchering of the extinct big animals, and none known for Australia and New Guinea—but one expects to find very few sites anyway, among all the sites of natural deaths for hundreds of thousands of years, if the hunting was all finished locally (because the prey became extinct) within a few decades. American archaeologists are especially persistent in their quest for pre-14,000 sites—perhaps because secured dating requires use of multiple dating techniques (not just radiocarbon), but American archaeologists distrust alternatives to radiocarbon (discovered by D(["mb","U.S. scientists) \n because the alternative dating techniques were \n discovered by Australian scientists.
Every year, beginning graduate students in archaeology \n and paleontology, working in Africa or Europe \n or Asia, go out and discover undisputed new sites \n with ancient human presence. Every year, new such \n discoveries are announced to the other three continents, \n but none has ever met the requirements of evidence \n accepted for Africa, Europe, or Asia. The big \n animals of the latter three continents survive, \n because they had millions of years to learn fear \n of human hunters with very slowly evolving skills; \n most big animals of the former three continents \n didn't survive, because they had the misfortune \n that their first encounter with humans was a sudden \n one, with fully modern skilled hunters.
\n
\n To me, the case is already proved. How many more \n decades of unconvincing claims will it take to \n convince the holdouts among my colleagues? I don't \n know. It makes better newspaper headlines to report \n "Wow!! New discovery overturns the established \n paradigm of American archaeology!!" than to report, \n "Ho hum, yet another reportedly paradigm-overturning \n discovery fails to hold up."",1] ); U.S. scientists) because the alternative dating techniques were discovered by Australian scientists.
Every year, beginning graduate students in archaeology and paleontology, working in Africa or Europe or Asia, go out and discover undisputed new sites with ancient human presence. Every year, new such discoveries are announced to the other three continents, but none has ever met the requirements of evidence accepted for Africa, Europe, or Asia. The big animals of the latter three continents survive, because they had millions of years to learn fear of human hunters with very slowly evolving skills; most big animals of the former three continents didn't survive, because they had the misfortune that their first encounter with humans was a sudden one, with fully modern skilled hunters.
To me, the case is already proved. How many more decades of unconvincing claims will it take to convince the holdouts among my colleagues? I don't know. It makes better newspaper headlines to report "Wow!! New discovery overturns the established paradigm of American archaeology!!" than to report, "Ho hum, yet another reportedly paradigm-overturning discovery fails to hold up."
2 comentarios:
Solo un matiz: Ni buenos ni malos savajes. Simplemente seres que luchaban por sobrevivir, como haría cualquier otro. Como seguimos haciendo. Lo que hay que ir eliminando es el non-topos de Rousseau y valorar a los salvajes como lo que eran y de cómo la evolución humana, afortunadamente, mejoró la especie para "enchir y poblar el mundo" como dice el Génesis. El mundo es nuestro porque lo transformamos. Y somos distintos de los animales porque nosotros somos capaces de amarlos, de respetarlos e ncluso de mitificarlos.
Gran comentario de gran blog.
Enhorabuena.
Es que generalmente cuando vemos al pasado, si no se tiene una buena documentación, y algo de sensatez y sentido común, se tienda a idealizarlo.
Y esa falta de sensatez y sentido común no es que sea muy abundante. Siempre que no valora su presente, y no se da cuenta de lo espantoso que era vivir hace unos 150 años.
En Chicago como en el 1860 murieron 70.000 personas a causa de las enfermedades causadas por las aguas negras. Por Dios 70.000!!!! esa es una cifra espeluznante. Pero es que las personas que critican el presente no ve esas cosas. Y pareciera que le pusieran mucho PhotoShop a las imagenes que tienen del pasado, para quitarles las imperfecciones, y por eso tienden a ver tan distorcionadamente el pasado. Ven las cosas como les gusrtaria que hubiera sido.
Publicar un comentario