'Pristine' landscapes haven’t existed for thousands of years

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2016-06-07-pristine-landscapes-haven%E2%80%99t-existed-thousands-years

[font face=Serif][font size=5]'Pristine' landscapes haven’t existed for thousands of years[/font]

7 Jun 2016

[font size=4]'Pristine' landscapes simply do not exist anywhere in the world today and, in most cases, have not existed for at least several thousand years, says a new study led by the University of Oxford.[/font]

[font size=3]An exhaustive review of archaeological data from the last 30 years details how the world’s landscapes have been shaped by repeated human activity over many thousands of years. It reveals a pattern of significant, long-term, human influence on the distribution of species across all of the earth’s major occupied continents and islands.

The paper by lead author Dr Nicole Boivin from Oxford and Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, with researchers from the UK, US, and Australia, suggests that archaeological evidence has been missing from current debates about conservation priorities. To say that societies before the Industrial Revolution had little effect on the environment or diversity of species is mistaken, argues the paper. It draws on new datasets using ancient DNA, stable isotopes, and microfossils, as well as the application of new statistical and computational methods. It shows that many living species of plants, trees and animals that thrive today are those that were favoured by our ancestors; and that large-scale extinctions started thousands of years ago due to overhunting or change of land use by humans. The paper concludes that in light of this and other evidence of long-term anthropogenic change, we need to be more pragmatic in our conservation efforts rather than aiming for impossible ‘natural’ states.

The paper identifies four major phases when humans shaped the world around them with broad effects on natural ecosystems: global human expansion during the Late Pleistocene; the Neolithic spread of agriculture; the era of humans colonising islands; and the emergence of early urbanised societies and trade.

It draws on fossil evidence showing Homo sapiens was present in East Africa around 195,000 years ago and that our species had dispersed to the far corners of Eurasia, Australia, and the Americas by 12,000 years ago. This increase in global human populations is linked with a variety of species extinctions, one of the most significant being the reduction by around two-thirds of 150 species of ‘megafauna’ or big beasts between 50,000 and 10,000 years ago, says the paper, with their disappearance having ‘dramatic effects’ on the structure of the ecosystem and seed dispersal.

…[/font][/font]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525200113

[The2ndWheel]

1. And we think giving ourselves what we hope is

access to even more self defined clean and green energy will save the day. It's not about the energy, or even how we do things, but it's that we do things at all. We want to think that by controlling and measuring everything, we can control and measure everything. We'll find the perfect state to existence. As though it's out there somewhere, and humans have simply not discovered it yet.

Far more likely, as with anything else, it will be a mix on the spectrum between whatever is worse than horrible and whatever is better than great.

[LouisvilleDem]

2. Arbitrary Definitions

The whole idea of defining a pristine landscape as what an area would look like without humans has always struck me as arbitrary and more than a little nonsensical. Humans are part of nature, not separate from it. Why even ask the question, and why arbitrarily define things as "better" when humans are absent? Would we ask the same question about any other species? Would we say, for example, that forests would be 'better' if only they did not contain ants? Humans are a part of nature and the result of the evolutionary process, not something 'artificial'.

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. I believe you agree with the OP

[font face=Serif][font size=3]… The paper concludes that in light of this and other evidence of long-term anthropogenic change, we need to be more pragmatic in our conservation efforts rather than aiming for impossible ‘natural’ states.

…[/font][/font]

[LouisvilleDem]

4. Correct (nt)

[cprise]

5. Defining "pristine" in the extreme, setting up a strawman

indicates the paper is probably of poor quality, making human-centered value judgments. These are archaeologists speaking about ecosystem health. In a non-sequitur, the lead author wants to "create ecosystems for the future" after she supposedly supports better "conservation".

The authors also simultaneously fault ecologists for being preoccupied with the distant past (neglecting human-affected ecosystems) and also for assuming that affected ecosystems are desirable and 'natural'. This is like saying you never finish those games of 8-ball, but the way you keep winning is amazing.

Why even ask the question, and why arbitrarily define things as "better" when humans are absent? Would we ask the same question about any other species? Would we say, for example, that forests would be 'better' if only they did not contain ants? Humans are a part of nature and the result of the evolutionary process, not something 'artificial'.

Supposing another species of sentient beings arrived on Earth and found our ecosystems damaged and populations of most animals and biodiversity in steep decline, its highly unlikely they would arrive at the same conclusion. Deprecating the idea of 'nature' as arbitrary and then declaring humans a part of nature suggests some kind of cognitive slip or attempt to self-deceive.

It also plays into the hands of many a troll who dismisses global warming as a scare because "the climate has always changed". They don't want to feel responsible, and they don't want anyone suggesting that they (we) are. Substitute any environmental cause for global warming, rinse, repeat. "Its all nature anyway."

Its commonplace for an ecologist or paleontologist to describe human effects on ecosystems in terms of pre-vs-post industrial, pre-vs-post agricultural, our development of language and tools, etc, and just how extractive and polluting we are as a result, and in many gradations of population levels and concentrations. For years now we have seen critiques of early agriculture that describe significant impacts, for instance.

So a better question would be: Does it hurt that 'pre-industrial' or 'pre-colonial' are typical benchmarks for habitats that are considered 'pristine'? ...that ecologists often consider those states to be more stable and healthier? ...that they choose examples of health based on a number of criteria? And does it help to accuse them of some kind of unexamined idealism while they are doing this?

I'll close with this gem from the paper:

Finally, negative consequences of human activity, such as extinction, reduced biodiversity, and habitat destruction, tend to receive more attention from researchers than examples of resilience and sustainability (100), probably because these transformations are more dramatic and visible in the archaeological record (137).

Translation: Ecologists are biased, dammit!

Really, I expect to see this one in the Texas schoolbooks.