Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - Re: [permaculture] nitrogen fixing trees/shrubs that feed livestock

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Benjamin Horst <benjamin_horst@myrealbox.com>
  • To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [permaculture] nitrogen fixing trees/shrubs that feed livestock
  • Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 21:18:30 -0800

Marimike6@cs.com wrote:

The thesis has been argued for many decades since the 1960's, when this early volume came out, but it is apparent that the world over, major land fauna have disappeared whenever the old paleo hunting culture entered the scene. Thus giant ground sloths, uintatherium, sabertooth cats and horses departed the American scene nine to eleven thousand years ago, when Folsom Man came with his refined toolkit and pack-animal tactics for bringing down big game.

The human-induced megafaunal extinction theory has been in common currency for several decades, but in reality there's very little direct evidence to support it at this time. In fact, the most recent evidence suggests that all the hominids -- from Australopithecus to Homo erectus to modern Homo sapiens -- were and are (with the exception of settled, urban societies) opportunistic hunters at best. Among almost all modern hunter-gatherer groups, hunting does play an extremely significant role ... but it's largely a symbolic one. Wild game -- most frequently killed by men -- has an important religious and social role in most societies, but it is the foods often gathered by women, such as plant foods, fungi, and shellfish, which provide the lion's share of nutrition, including protein, for nearly every hunter-gatherer group (many anthropologists are now proposing that we adjust our terminology and refer to these groups as gatherer-hunters instead). There's every reason to suppose that this general pattern among modern hunter-gatherers or gatherer-hunters extends back to our very origins as a species.

The vision of our ancestors as "Man the Hunter" now appears more deeply rooted in European and Euro-American fantasies of native and prehistoric peoples as uncultured and brutish (and of the impression that male activities must somehow be of more importance and value than female) than on the anthropological and paleontological record. Technologies like the so-called "Folsom toolkit" in North America may have made killing mammoths, camels, horses, and giant sloths a little easier, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the early Native Americans drove these species extinct. The San of southern Africa have been using extremely effective stone tools for millenia, but they have yet to drive giraffes, elephants, or Cape buffaloes to their demise. In addition, North American archeological sites that once seemed to offer conclusive evidence of small bands of humans driving thousands of animals over cliffs are proving to be less and less human-induced. Humans certainly butchered a few of these animals after their deaths, but there is no real evidence that they caused the beasts to stampede in the first place. As more and more archeology is showing, we've got a far longer history of scavenging than we do of hunting, going back all the way to our earliest hominid ancestors, the australopiths of the African Rift Valley.

So did the Native Americans kill off the mammoth and ground sloth? Did the Cro-Magnons finish off the woolly rhino and the cave bear, or the Aborigines the giant kangaroo? I'll concede that it's possible. But consider that Homo sapiens is a biological organism like any other. We're a highly adaptable species, but constrained -- and blessed -- by our biological niches like any other species. In the modern, Western world we're surrounded by so many technological marvels that we tend to forget that we're adapted to any particular niche. However, in the early days of Homo sapiens, physical technology was pretty limited, even if our art, culture, spirituality, and know-how about our local environments were vast.

It seems to me most likely that the spread of humans across the planet happened not because of any obvious technology (at least none that's been preserved in the archeological record) but because of climate shifts and changes in ecosystems. Homo sapiens spread from Africa into the Levant, South and Southeast Asia, and Australia following a climate shift at around 50,000 years ago, not after developing a new technology (especially not a hunting technology). The expansion into Central Asia occurred around 35,000 years ago, at exactly the time climate change opened new corridors of grassland into the vast Eurasian steppes, an environment somewhat similar to the savannahs our species originally evolved in. And movements from Central Asia into Europe and the Americas (about 30,000 and 15,000-20,000 years ago, respectively) were also accompanied by (caused by?) major changes in climate, including the advance and retreat of the glaciers at the end of the last ice age. In sum: climate change allowed Homo sapiens to migrate into new areas, so might climate change not also have triggered changes in the population of other large mammals, including the extinction of many? In any event, should we not consider human beings as merely one possible cause of the megafaunal extinctions, not the single causal factor? Why, in the absence of any definitive data, should we consider humans a more likely cause of the North American extinctions than, say, the opportunistic grizzly bear, which migrated from Siberia into North America at roughly the same time and via the same route? And all this is to say nothing about the meteor or comet impact in South America at about 10,000-15,000 years ago (a smaller version of the Yucatan impact that likely killed off the dinosaurs 65 million years ago) that almost certainly caused great clouds of dust over North America -- an event that would have caused great stress and hardship for large herbivores and their predators.

In the absence of any real data either way, I believe it is conceivable that Homo sapiens killed off megafauna species across the globe. But the available evidence, albeit far from definitive, suggests to me that climate played a much more significant role. Except for the case of the colonization of small, isolated islands such as in Polynesia, it seems to me that human-induced mass extinctions have rarely, if ever, occured ... until recently. It is those of us of European descent who bear the responsibility for many megafaunal extinctions -- including the Steller's sea cow, the great auk, the tarpan, the quagga, and the thylacine, to name just a few. And we bear the greater burden of responsibility for the decimation of entire ecosystems and the imposition of deserts and monocultures on formerly lush and biodiverse regions throughout the world. Our current problem of mass extinctions is a cultural one, not one that we (or our ancient predecessors) are necessarily biologically predisposed to.

Alas, I'm rather long-winded. So to tie back in to the original thread of discussion: yes, "invasive" species, possibly including human beings, do occasionally cause extinctions in the areas they "invade," but they wouldn't move into these new areas unless some change -- climactic or human-induced -- opened up a niche for them to begin with. (Extinctions are far more likely in isolated ecologies such as the Pacific and Indian Ocean islands where species interchange between geographic areas is substantially less frequent than in continental ecologies.) And eventually they thrive, and are incorporated as integral members of a reorganized local ecosystem, or they die out. The opening up of niches is one of the primary mechanisms of speciation, and without it the dynamic, creative evolutionary process would grind to an ugly halt.

We opened up a niche, and kudzu moved in to try to fill it. As a result, kudzu will eventually be incorporated into the ecosystems of the southeastern US, or it will die out. Right now our cultural framework is to compete with kudzu for the niche it's trying to fill -- the niche we opened up in the first place. It's unclear to me which species is going to win the battle for that particular niche, in the end, but for now my money's on the kudzu.

Ben Martin Horst




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page