>>Why are cats able to run rampant? A significant reason is the lack of balance that now characterises our ecosystems. A crucial step is likely to be returning native top predators, in particular dingoes and Tasmanian devils, to landscapes, so that they can resume their important ecological roles. Scientific research (pdf) is strongly suggesting that dingoes not only kill cats but also instill fear in them, which means that they avoid areas and times where dingoes are active. Hence dingoes can provide a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week, cat control service.

If we want to conserve our iconic and globally unique wildlife then we need to work with, rather than against nature, and supporting more positive management of dingoes and returning Tasmanian devils to mainland Australia for their biodiversity benefits (pdf) would be one of the best and most cost effective things policy-makers could do now. Non-government conservation organisations such as the Australian Wildlife Conservancy are already leading the way.

In 1995 the USA and Canada worked together to reintroduce wolves to Yellowstone for their ecosystem benefits. The success of this bold step is now the stuff of legend. Isn’t it time we had our ‘Yellowstone moment’ and began restoring Australia’s ecosystems to some of their former glory?<<

More:
http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2014/10/14/4106012.htm

Ok, I’ve read the article. Under the photo of the dingo we have this caption, “Australia’s native dog, the dingo, keeps feral cat numbers in check”.

Now my question would be, when did the dingo become a native? It’s only been here between 5 and 10 thousand years.

So if we waited a few thousand years we could begin to call cats native?

sibeen said:

Ok, I’ve read the article. Under the photo of the dingo we have this caption, “Australia’s native dog, the dingo, keeps feral cat numbers in check”.

Now my question would be, when did the dingo become a native? It’s only been here between 5 and 10 thousand years.

So if we waited a few thousand years we could begin to call cats native?

An introduced species becomes a native is when it can occupy a niche in the ecosystem to become part of it without serious detriment. An introduced species is one who exploits the environment without being able to become part of the ecosystem and hence will cause extinctions before it too will either die or its prey (what’s left) can learn to live with it and survive despite of it.

times are different now, we can’t wait 2-10 000 years. the impact on the environment would be infinitely more devastating now.

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

Ok, I’ve read the article. Under the photo of the dingo we have this caption, “Australia’s native dog, the dingo, keeps feral cat numbers in check”.

Now my question would be, when did the dingo become a native? It’s only been here between 5 and 10 thousand years.

So if we waited a few thousand years we could begin to call cats native?

An introduced species becomes a native is when it can occupy a niche in the ecosystem to become part of it without serious detriment. An introduced species is one who exploits the environment without being able to become part of the ecosystem and hence will cause extinctions before it too will either die or its prey (what’s left) can learn to live with it and survive despite of it.

Aye. You could have just said naturalised species.. we could have worked from there.

ChrispenEvan said:

times are different now, we can’t wait 2-10 000 years. the impact on the environment would be infinitely more devastating now.

has been and done that.

sibeen said:

Ok, I’ve read the article. Under the photo of the dingo we have this caption, “Australia’s native dog, the dingo, keeps feral cat numbers in check”.

Now my question would be, when did the dingo become a native? It’s only been here between 5 and 10 thousand years.

only since 31 July 1956 according to wiki

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

Ok, I’ve read the article. Under the photo of the dingo we have this caption, “Australia’s native dog, the dingo, keeps feral cat numbers in check”.

Now my question would be, when did the dingo become a native? It’s only been here between 5 and 10 thousand years.

So if we waited a few thousand years we could begin to call cats native?

An introduced species becomes a native is when it can occupy a niche in the ecosystem to become part of it without serious detriment. An introduced species is one who exploits the environment without being able to become part of the ecosystem and hence will cause extinctions before it too will either die or its prey (what’s left) can learn to live with it and survive despite of it.

Yes, I get that. So an introduced species can eventually turn into a native, albeit causing quite a bit of damage before it does?

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

Ok, I’ve read the article. Under the photo of the dingo we have this caption, “Australia’s native dog, the dingo, keeps feral cat numbers in check”.

Now my question would be, when did the dingo become a native? It’s only been here between 5 and 10 thousand years.

So if we waited a few thousand years we could begin to call cats native?

An introduced species becomes a native is when it can occupy a niche in the ecosystem to become part of it without serious detriment. An introduced species is one who exploits the environment without being able to become part of the ecosystem and hence will cause extinctions before it too will either die or its prey (what’s left) can learn to live with it and survive despite of it.

Yes, I get that. So an introduced species can eventually turn into a native, albeit causing quite a bit of damage before it does?

European rabbits were introduced into the British Isles by the Romans.

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

Ok, I’ve read the article. Under the photo of the dingo we have this caption, “Australia’s native dog, the dingo, keeps feral cat numbers in check”.

Now my question would be, when did the dingo become a native? It’s only been here between 5 and 10 thousand years.

So if we waited a few thousand years we could begin to call cats native?

An introduced species becomes a native is when it can occupy a niche in the ecosystem to become part of it without serious detriment. An introduced species is one who exploits the environment without being able to become part of the ecosystem and hence will cause extinctions before it too will either die or its prey (what’s left) can learn to live with it and survive despite of it.

Yes, I get that. So an introduced species can eventually turn into a native, albeit causing quite a bit of damage before it does?

The dingo probably usurped the roll of the thlacine on mainland Australia.

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

Ok, I’ve read the article. Under the photo of the dingo we have this caption, “Australia’s native dog, the dingo, keeps feral cat numbers in check”.

Now my question would be, when did the dingo become a native? It’s only been here between 5 and 10 thousand years.

So if we waited a few thousand years we could begin to call cats native?

An introduced species becomes a native is when it can occupy a niche in the ecosystem to become part of it without serious detriment. An introduced species is one who exploits the environment without being able to become part of the ecosystem and hence will cause extinctions before it too will either die or its prey (what’s left) can learn to live with it and survive despite of it.

Yes, I get that. So an introduced species can eventually turn into a native, albeit causing quite a bit of damage before it does?

The first thread I ever started on SSSF was about whether dingoes were native and there were a few discussions over at SG on the topic.

It was agreed that an animal who had migrated here on its own could be considered native. Remember Gaspode? He said that the dingo made its own way here too, albeit in company of humans. Did this make a difference? He thought not.

Anyhow, that is a separate topic I suppose.

As far as dingoes fitting into the Australian ecosystem now, since they replaced the Thylacine on the mainland, they are an obvious solution to the cat problem. How do we distinguish between wild dogs and dingoes though? Wild dogs are generally escaped pets who have formed roaming packs. They can be large and dangerous to humans as well as our larger natives. Last year, I saw 2 wild dogs chase an emu at Thargominda Qld. It’s not a pretty sight. Obviously these dogs should be controlled, but how do we bait/control them without also targeting dingoes?

The Tasmanian Devils being released on the mainland is a novel concept, but seems logical. We could control the feral cat population and at the same time establish disease-free populations of them away from Tasmania. Win-win.

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

Ok, I’ve read the article. Under the photo of the dingo we have this caption, “Australia’s native dog, the dingo, keeps feral cat numbers in check”.

Now my question would be, when did the dingo become a native? It’s only been here between 5 and 10 thousand years.

So if we waited a few thousand years we could begin to call cats native?

An introduced species becomes a native is when it can occupy a niche in the ecosystem to become part of it without serious detriment. An introduced species is one who exploits the environment without being able to become part of the ecosystem and hence will cause extinctions before it too will either die or its prey (what’s left) can learn to live with it and survive despite of it.

Yes, I get that. So an introduced species can eventually turn into a native, albeit causing quite a bit of damage before it does?

Well for a start it is not good to introduce any species into another environment as it will certainly upset the balance of the ecosystem, the question is by how much. The Aborigines you could say displaced the mega-fauna and used fire to counter their absence. Over time they changed much of Australia, but not in an exploitable way, but a way that created additional habitat and therefore provided other niches for new species to occupy, so although there ware initial losses, they actually improved the situation to the benefit of survivors and additional species, plus they learnt to live within that ecosystem.

The dingo possibly displaced the Thylacine and the Tasmanian Devil, who were top predators in their time, making the dingo the then top predator. It too has adapted to the Australian ecosystem and can live within in it without doing much damage (except to other introduced top predators like the cat and fox).

Because they were not desexed.

Any responsible owner of cats has a desexed cat, breeders excepted.

I camped at Innaminka for a few days last year and was gobsmacked at how many cats there actually were. Any rustling at night always turned out to be a … no two, actually thr …, no four, five, six cats, and I’m sure that this density was the same for the entire length of Cooper Creek. Feral animal control has always been an interest of mine and after that trip, I despaired about the number that are actually out there.

Baiting, predation, trapping etc will be of little benefit IMHO. I came to the conclusion that only science can rid our outback of feral cats via introduced diseases, similar to calicivirus for rabbits.

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

An introduced species becomes a native is when it can occupy a niche in the ecosystem to become part of it without serious detriment. An introduced species is one who exploits the environment without being able to become part of the ecosystem and hence will cause extinctions before it too will either die or its prey (what’s left) can learn to live with it and survive despite of it.

Yes, I get that. So an introduced species can eventually turn into a native, albeit causing quite a bit of damage before it does?

Well for a start it is not good to introduce any species into another environment as it will certainly upset the balance of the ecosystem, the question is by how much. The Aborigines you could say displaced the mega-fauna and used fire to counter their absence. Over time they changed much of Australia, but not in an exploitable way, but a way that created additional habitat and therefore provided other niches for new species to occupy, so although there ware initial losses, they actually improved the situation to the benefit of survivors and additional species, plus they learnt to live within that ecosystem.

The dingo possibly displaced the Thylacine and the Tasmanian Devil, who were top predators in their time, making the dingo the then top predator. It too has adapted to the Australian ecosystem and can live within in it without doing much damage (except to other introduced top predators like the cat and fox).

So except for wiping out the mega fauna the Aboriginals have lived in harmony with the continent.

sheesh

Speedy said:

I camped at Innaminka for a few days last year and was gobsmacked at how many cats there actually were. Any rustling at night always turned out to be a … no two, actually thr …, no four, five, six cats, and I’m sure that this density was the same for the entire length of Cooper Creek. Feral animal control has always been an interest of mine and after that trip, I despaired about the number that are actually out there.

Baiting, predation, trapping etc will be of little benefit IMHO. I came to the conclusion that only science can rid our outback of feral cats via introduced diseases, similar to calicivirus for rabbits.

The dingo would certainly reduce their numbers to a more acceptable level, but the are regarded even worse vermin than the cats and baited.

i believe the megafauna was dying out at the time the aborigines came, they hastened their demise.

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

Yes, I get that. So an introduced species can eventually turn into a native, albeit causing quite a bit of damage before it does?

Well for a start it is not good to introduce any species into another environment as it will certainly upset the balance of the ecosystem, the question is by how much. The Aborigines you could say displaced the mega-fauna and used fire to counter their absence. Over time they changed much of Australia, but not in an exploitable way, but a way that created additional habitat and therefore provided other niches for new species to occupy, so although there ware initial losses, they actually improved the situation to the benefit of survivors and additional species, plus they learnt to live within that ecosystem.

The dingo possibly displaced the Thylacine and the Tasmanian Devil, who were top predators in their time, making the dingo the then top predator. It too has adapted to the Australian ecosystem and can live within in it without doing much damage (except to other introduced top predators like the cat and fox).

So except for wiping out the mega fauna the Aboriginals have lived in harmony with the continent.

sheesh

There is no clear evidence.

ChrispenEvan said:

i believe the megafauna was dying out at the time the aborigines came, they hastened their demise.

almost.. or maybe?

ChrispenEvan said:

i believe the megafauna was dying out at the time the aborigines came, they hastened their demise.

—-

Tell us more!

tauto said:

ChrispenEvan said:

i believe the megafauna was dying out at the time the aborigines came, they hastened their demise.

—-

Tell us more!

Global warming.

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

Yes, I get that. So an introduced species can eventually turn into a native, albeit causing quite a bit of damage before it does?

Well for a start it is not good to introduce any species into another environment as it will certainly upset the balance of the ecosystem, the question is by how much. The Aborigines you could say displaced the mega-fauna and used fire to counter their absence. Over time they changed much of Australia, but not in an exploitable way, but a way that created additional habitat and therefore provided other niches for new species to occupy, so although there ware initial losses, they actually improved the situation to the benefit of survivors and additional species, plus they learnt to live within that ecosystem.

The dingo possibly displaced the Thylacine and the Tasmanian Devil, who were top predators in their time, making the dingo the then top predator. It too has adapted to the Australian ecosystem and can live within in it without doing much damage (except to other introduced top predators like the cat and fox).

So except for wiping out the mega fauna the Aboriginals have lived in harmony with the continent.

sheesh

Introducing exotic animals (including people) will change the environment and top predators more than most. The thing is with the Aborigines they created MORE different habitats that was a benefit to the non-megafauna. You are talking over 40,000 years and that is a very long time. Europeans on the other hand displaced the Aborigine and became the top predator, we too have devastated the flora and fauna (probably more so) in a little over 200 years and it will be a very long time before we could be regarded as indigenous.

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

Well for a start it is not good to introduce any species into another environment as it will certainly upset the balance of the ecosystem, the question is by how much. The Aborigines you could say displaced the mega-fauna and used fire to counter their absence. Over time they changed much of Australia, but not in an exploitable way, but a way that created additional habitat and therefore provided other niches for new species to occupy, so although there ware initial losses, they actually improved the situation to the benefit of survivors and additional species, plus they learnt to live within that ecosystem.

The dingo possibly displaced the Thylacine and the Tasmanian Devil, who were top predators in their time, making the dingo the then top predator. It too has adapted to the Australian ecosystem and can live within in it without doing much damage (except to other introduced top predators like the cat and fox).

So except for wiping out the mega fauna the Aboriginals have lived in harmony with the continent.

sheesh

Introducing exotic animals (including people) will change the environment and top predators more than most. The thing is with the Aborigines they created MORE different habitats that was a benefit to the non-megafauna. You are talking over 40,000 years and that is a very long time. Europeans on the other hand displaced the Aborigine and became the top predator, we too have devastated the flora and fauna (probably more so) in a little over 200 years and it will be a very long time before we could be regarded as indigenous.

I’m sorry, but I have to consider that a riduculous argument.

I am a member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. Aboriginals are members of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. If one member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens can be considered indigenous, then the species as a whole must be considered indigenous.

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

So except for wiping out the mega fauna the Aboriginals have lived in harmony with the continent.

sheesh

Introducing exotic animals (including people) will change the environment and top predators more than most. The thing is with the Aborigines they created MORE different habitats that was a benefit to the non-megafauna. You are talking over 40,000 years and that is a very long time. Europeans on the other hand displaced the Aborigine and became the top predator, we too have devastated the flora and fauna (probably more so) in a little over 200 years and it will be a very long time before we could be regarded as indigenous.

I’m sorry, but I have to consider that a riduculous argument.

I am a member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. Aboriginals are members of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. If one member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens can be considered indigenous, then the species as a whole must be considered indigenous.

So, accept your responsibility.

roughbarked said:

So, accept your responsibility.

WTF is that supposed to mean?

to mix your mower fuel to more exact standards so you don’t produce as much smoke. maybe?

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

So except for wiping out the mega fauna the Aboriginals have lived in harmony with the continent.

sheesh

Introducing exotic animals (including people) will change the environment and top predators more than most. The thing is with the Aborigines they created MORE different habitats that was a benefit to the non-megafauna. You are talking over 40,000 years and that is a very long time. Europeans on the other hand displaced the Aborigine and became the top predator, we too have devastated the flora and fauna (probably more so) in a little over 200 years and it will be a very long time before we could be regarded as indigenous.

I’m sorry, but I have to consider that a riduculous argument.

I am a member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. Aboriginals are members of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. If one member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens can be considered indigenous, then the species as a whole must be considered indigenous.

We are different cultures with then very different ways of living and we certainly displaced them.

ChrispenEvan said:

to mix your mower fuel to more exact standards so you don’t produce as much smoke. maybe?

OK, you’re right, Boris. By mixing at incorrect ratios I have hangs head in shame slaughtered the local wildlife.

Mostly those fucking starlings!

:)

sibeen said:

roughbarked said:

So, accept your responsibility.

WTF is that supposed to mean?

so what about accept and responsibility, are incomprehensible?

tauto said:

Tell us more!

Here

which is fairly old.

though there seems to be some contention with some fairly new reports, Here

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

Introducing exotic animals (including people) will change the environment and top predators more than most. The thing is with the Aborigines they created MORE different habitats that was a benefit to the non-megafauna. You are talking over 40,000 years and that is a very long time. Europeans on the other hand displaced the Aborigine and became the top predator, we too have devastated the flora and fauna (probably more so) in a little over 200 years and it will be a very long time before we could be regarded as indigenous.

I’m sorry, but I have to consider that a riduculous argument.

I am a member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. Aboriginals are members of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. If one member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens can be considered indigenous, then the species as a whole must be considered indigenous.

We are different cultures with then very different ways of living and we certainly displaced them.

I can accept that, but that in no way backs up your argument. If they are indigenous, then so am I.

roughbarked said:

sibeen said:

roughbarked said:

So, accept your responsibility.

WTF is that supposed to mean?

so what about accept and responsibility, are incomprehensible?

I still have NFI what you are on about.

when i visit mum in melb i am always noting the english type birds around rather than the, nearly all, natives we get over here.

sibeen said:

roughbarked said:

sibeen said:

WTF is that supposed to mean?

so what about accept and responsibility, are incomprehensible?

I still have NFI what you are on about.

If you are indigenous then this is your shit to deal with.

roughbarked said:

sibeen said:

roughbarked said:

so what about accept and responsibility, are incomprehensible?

I still have NFI what you are on about.

If you are indigenous then this is your shit to deal with.

Yes, agree totally. Where, pray tell, have I stated otherwise?

roughbarked said:

sibeen said:

roughbarked said:

so what about accept and responsibility, are incomprehensible?

I still have NFI what you are on about.

If you are indigenous then this is your shit to deal with.

Whoooooo, I am not indigenous so I can ignore it then.

ChrispenEvan said:

to mix your mower fuel to more exact standards so you don’t produce as much smoke. maybe?

—-

Aye.

The wrong mix disturbs the amount of carbon that could build up on a spark plug.

Not to mention the inlet valves……:)

sibeen said:

roughbarked said:

sibeen said:

I still have NFI what you are on about.

If you are indigenous then this is your shit to deal with.

Yes, agree totally. Where, pray tell, have I stated otherwise?

Maybe I was simply reminding you before you did?

tauto said:

ChrispenEvan said:

to mix your mower fuel to more exact standards so you don’t produce as much smoke. maybe?

—-

Aye.

The wrong mix disturbs the amount of carbon that could build up on a spark plug.

Not to mention the inlet valves……:)

gwarsh!

roughbarked said:

sibeen said:

roughbarked said:

If you are indigenous then this is your shit to deal with.

Yes, agree totally. Where, pray tell, have I stated otherwise?

Maybe I was simply reminding you before you did?

Do you even think before you post?

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

I’m sorry, but I have to consider that a riduculous argument.

I am a member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. Aboriginals are members of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. If one member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens can be considered indigenous, then the species as a whole must be considered indigenous.

We are different cultures with then very different ways of living and we certainly displaced them.

I can accept that, but that in no way backs up your argument. If they are indigenous, then so am I.

Aborigines are accepted by all avenues of science as being Indigenous, but you and I are not.

sibeen said:

Do you even think before you post?

How is he supposed to respond to every post if he has to waste time thinking?

sibeen said:

roughbarked said:

sibeen said:

Yes, agree totally. Where, pray tell, have I stated otherwise?

Maybe I was simply reminding you before you did?

Do you even think before you post?

With the theory of “2 ears and one mouth should be used in that ratio”…

RB has the same theory about ears and phalanges…

ChrispenEvan said:

when i visit mum in melb i am always noting the english type birds around rather than the, nearly all, natives we get over here.

Be thankful for the Nullarbor and the Ag Dept who trap and shoot any that do get across.

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

We are different cultures with then very different ways of living and we certainly displaced them.

I can accept that, but that in no way backs up your argument. If they are indigenous, then so am I.

Aborigines are accepted by all avenues of science as being Indigenous, but you and I are not.

All science?

I’d have to call bushwa on that one.

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

I can accept that, but that in no way backs up your argument. If they are indigenous, then so am I.

Aborigines are accepted by all avenues of science as being Indigenous, but you and I are not.

All science?

I’d have to call bushwa on that one.

Think you ought to do a great deal of reading about Aborigines and their culture.

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

Aborigines are accepted by all avenues of science as being Indigenous, but you and I are not.

All science?

I’d have to call bushwa on that one.

Think you ought to do a great deal of reading about Aborigines and their culture.

What has culture got to do with it?

Would a geneticist look at my genome and exclaim “Oh, look, he has no culture”?

shaddup, Boris

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

Aborigines are accepted by all avenues of science as being Indigenous, but you and I are not.

All science?

I’d have to call bushwa on that one.

—

Hey Jack, what do you reckon about the solutoin to the problem
Maybe lobbying your local member to have all pet cat owners only have neutered cats
Think you ought to do a great deal of reading about Aborigines and their culture.

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

All science?

I’d have to call bushwa on that one.

Think you ought to do a great deal of reading about Aborigines and their culture.

What has culture got to do with it?

Would a geneticist look at my genome and exclaim “Oh, look, he has no culture”?

shaddup, Boris

Culture determines how people live and how they regard the world around them. Are you saying the first settlers (let alone us now), think like and/or care about the environment in the same way?

tauto said:

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

All science?

I’d have to call bushwa on that one.

—

Hey Jack, what do you reckon about the solutoin to the problem
Maybe lobbying your local member to have all pet cat owners only have neutered cats
Think you ought to do a great deal of reading about Aborigines and their culture.

See you are cheaply bought by DO. He is very good at telling tales and you fall for it everytime.

sibeen said:

roughbarked said:

sibeen said:

Yes, agree totally. Where, pray tell, have I stated otherwise?

Maybe I was simply reminding you before you did?

Do you even think before you post?

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

Think you ought to do a great deal of reading about Aborigines and their culture.

What has culture got to do with it?

Would a geneticist look at my genome and exclaim “Oh, look, he has no culture”?

shaddup, Boris

Culture determines how people live and how they regard the world around them. Are you saying the first settlers (let alone us now), think like and/or care about the environment in the same way?

The first settlers, obviously not. They were just trying to survive in a harsh environment that was completely foreign to them. I suspect most ‘modern’ Australians care fairly deeply about the environment. Just as the Aboriginals cared, yet still set fires to catch game, built traps, built stone houses and generally killed anything that came their way as long as it could be considered tucker.

I’ll agree that ‘modern’ Australians are certainly better at causing widespread damage to the environment. The continent has never had to support 20+ million people before, and technology has assisted in the raping of the land; but saying that, even in my lifetime the attitudes to the land have changed considerably, and things that would have been acceptable when I was a child are now in many cases illegal.

Cultures change. Genetics don’t – at least over short time periods.

PermeateFree said:

tauto said:

PermeateFree said:

—

Hey Jack, what do you reckon about the solutoin to the problem
Maybe lobbying your local member to have all pet cat owners only have neutered cats
Think you ought to do a great deal of reading about Aborigines and their culture.

See you are cheaply bought by DO. He is very good at telling tales and you fall for it everytime.

—-

I have never met, emailed, or met in person CS. You shouldn’t go back in time or it will awaken all the venom felt

As Jack West you were very offensive .

PermeateFree said:

tauto said:

PermeateFree said:

—

Hey Jack, what do you reckon about the solutoin to the problem
Maybe lobbying your local member to have all pet cat owners only have neutered cats
Think you ought to do a great deal of reading about Aborigines and their culture.

See you are cheaply bought by DO. He is very good at telling tales and you fall for it everytime.

There you go again.

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

What has culture got to do with it?

Would a geneticist look at my genome and exclaim “Oh, look, he has no culture”?

shaddup, Boris

Culture determines how people live and how they regard the world around them. Are you saying the first settlers (let alone us now), think like and/or care about the environment in the same way?

The first settlers, obviously not. They were just trying to survive in a harsh environment that was completely foreign to them. I suspect most ‘modern’ Australians care fairly deeply about the environment. Just as the Aboriginals cared, yet still set fires to catch game, built traps, built stone houses and generally killed anything that came their way as long as it could be considered tucker.

I’ll agree that ‘modern’ Australians are certainly better at causing widespread damage to the environment. The continent has never had to support 20+ million people before, and technology has assisted in the raping of the land; but saying that, even in my lifetime the attitudes to the land have changed considerably, and things that would have been acceptable when I was a child are now in many cases illegal.

Cultures change. Genetics don’t – at least over short time periods.

sibeen, it was WE who introduced the cat and the fox, plus many others like the cane toad that kill our heritage 24/7, we clear land for various purposes. plus log the relatively few tall forests and all in the name of progress – progress for us yes, but not for our flora and fauna. It is not a question of genetics, but of attitude.

Care of country was a very large part of Aboriginal lives, most of us on the other hand, climb into our cars and occasionally drive to the beach, we see a bit of green, perhaps the odd lizard and of course the sea, but what you don’t see is the devastation of our wildlife, to see a once well populated environment with many species slide into oblivion, largely because of the cat or fox and most people don’t know or even care.

We might live in big houses and drive fancy cars, but it is all at the expense of the nature world around us.

tauto said:

PermeateFree said:

tauto said:

See you are cheaply bought by DO. He is very good at telling tales and you fall for it everytime.

—-

I have never met, emailed, or met in person CS. You shouldn’t go back in time or it will awaken all the venom felt

As Jack West you were very offensive .

You have too much history to be objective tauto.

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

tauto said:

See you are cheaply bought by DO. He is very good at telling tales and you fall for it everytime.

There you go again.

And there you go again.

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

See you are cheaply bought by DO. He is very good at telling tales and you fall for it everytime.

There you go again.

And there you go again.

I was reminding you.

You are the first to start the insults.

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

Culture determines how people live and how they regard the world around them. Are you saying the first settlers (let alone us now), think like and/or care about the environment in the same way?

The first settlers, obviously not. They were just trying to survive in a harsh environment that was completely foreign to them. I suspect most ‘modern’ Australians care fairly deeply about the environment. Just as the Aboriginals cared, yet still set fires to catch game, built traps, built stone houses and generally killed anything that came their way as long as it could be considered tucker.

I’ll agree that ‘modern’ Australians are certainly better at causing widespread damage to the environment. The continent has never had to support 20+ million people before, and technology has assisted in the raping of the land; but saying that, even in my lifetime the attitudes to the land have changed considerably, and things that would have been acceptable when I was a child are now in many cases illegal.

Cultures change. Genetics don’t – at least over short time periods.

sibeen, it was WE who introduced the cat and the fox, plus many others like the cane toad that kill our heritage 24/7, we clear land for various purposes. plus log the relatively few tall forests and all in the name of progress – progress for us yes, but not for our flora and fauna. It is not a question of genetics, but of attitude.

Care of country was a very large part of Aboriginal lives, most of us on the other hand, climb into our cars and occasionally drive to the beach, we see a bit of green, perhaps the odd lizard and of course the sea, but what you don’t see is the devastation of our wildlife, to see a once well populated environment with many species slide into oblivion, largely because of the cat or fox and most people don’t know or even care.

We might live in big houses and drive fancy cars, but it is all at the expense of the nature world around us.

Care of country was a very large part of Aboriginal lives,

Staying fed, dry, warm and happy was the major part of Aboriginal culture, just like any other. Before Europeans arrived they didn’t sit around the campfire singing kumbaya and eating tofu. If the Aboriginals had been able to find a staple grain crop like wheat, and a herdable animal like a sheep or goat, do you think their society would have remained reasonably stagnant, or would they have gone down the route of other societies that had those advantages?

Care of country was a very large part of Aboriginal lives,

=======

Care of country is a modern PR exercise. There is no proof of it and much to the contrary.

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

There you go again.

And there you go again.

I was reminding you.

You are the first to start the insults.

No I just respond to the likes of you and then get blamed for it all. Lets face it this all started with my altercation with morrie and of which has since been beaten up by the likes of DO into I am a bully, yet it was me who was slandered and likely to be introduced into my private life, but apparently it is all my fault.

Well from my point of view I am just protecting myself, but that doesn’t matter around here, especially when the biggest slanderer of them all flashes a couple of bottles of beer and virtually proclaims himself a “good’ guy and people believe whatever he says. Well sorry the world does not always work like that and some people will speak up against these people who think they can say what they like against others.

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

The first settlers, obviously not. They were just trying to survive in a harsh environment that was completely foreign to them. I suspect most ‘modern’ Australians care fairly deeply about the environment. Just as the Aboriginals cared, yet still set fires to catch game, built traps, built stone houses and generally killed anything that came their way as long as it could be considered tucker.

I’ll agree that ‘modern’ Australians are certainly better at causing widespread damage to the environment. The continent has never had to support 20+ million people before, and technology has assisted in the raping of the land; but saying that, even in my lifetime the attitudes to the land have changed considerably, and things that would have been acceptable when I was a child are now in many cases illegal.

Cultures change. Genetics don’t – at least over short time periods.

sibeen, it was WE who introduced the cat and the fox, plus many others like the cane toad that kill our heritage 24/7, we clear land for various purposes. plus log the relatively few tall forests and all in the name of progress – progress for us yes, but not for our flora and fauna. It is not a question of genetics, but of attitude.

Care of country was a very large part of Aboriginal lives, most of us on the other hand, climb into our cars and occasionally drive to the beach, we see a bit of green, perhaps the odd lizard and of course the sea, but what you don’t see is the devastation of our wildlife, to see a once well populated environment with many species slide into oblivion, largely because of the cat or fox and most people don’t know or even care.

We might live in big houses and drive fancy cars, but it is all at the expense of the nature world around us.

Care of country was a very large part of Aboriginal lives,

Staying fed, dry, warm and happy was the major part of Aboriginal culture, just like any other. Before Europeans arrived they didn’t sit around the campfire singing kumbaya and eating tofu. If the Aboriginals had been able to find a staple grain crop like wheat, and a herdable animal like a sheep or goat, do you think their society would have remained reasonably stagnant, or would they have gone down the route of other societies that had those advantages?

That has absolutely nothing to do will it. They were as they were, and we are as we are.

jjjust moi said:

Care of country was a very large part of Aboriginal lives,

=======

Care of country is a modern PR exercise. There is no proof of it and much to the contrary.

I agree. I see it more as exploiting the land to the fullest extent of their technology. Just that their technology was fairly basic and low impact in environmental terms. I don’t regard it as having a particular care for the environment so much as lacking the ability to screw it up.

jjjust moi said:

Care of country was a very large part of Aboriginal lives,

=======

Care of country is a modern PR exercise. There is no proof of it and much to the contrary.

I suggest you read a great deal more about contemporary Aborigines living in the north of Australia.

party_pants said:

jjjust moi said:

Care of country was a very large part of Aboriginal lives,

=======

Care of country is a modern PR exercise. There is no proof of it and much to the contrary.

I agree. I see it more as exploiting the land to the fullest extent of their technology. Just that their technology was fairly basic and low impact in environmental terms. I don’t regard it as having a particular care for the environment so much as lacking the ability to screw it up.

They screwed it up alright, heard of firestick farming?

The whole ecology of the country changed.

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

Care of country was a very large part of Aboriginal lives,

=======

Care of country is a modern PR exercise. There is no proof of it and much to the contrary.

I suggest you read a great deal more about contemporary Aborigines living in the north of Australia.

…and written by whom?

Don’t make me laugh.

jjjust moi said:

party_pants said:

jjjust moi said:

Care of country was a very large part of Aboriginal lives,

=======

Care of country is a modern PR exercise. There is no proof of it and much to the contrary.

I agree. I see it more as exploiting the land to the fullest extent of their technology. Just that their technology was fairly basic and low impact in environmental terms. I don’t regard it as having a particular care for the environment so much as lacking the ability to screw it up.

They screwed it up alright, heard of firestick farming?

The whole ecology of the country changed.

Good point.

Sort of what I meant though – screw it up to the level thaqt their technological ability allows. Just fire-stick farming had a profound impact.

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

sibeen, it was WE who introduced the cat and the fox, plus many others like the cane toad that kill our heritage 24/7, we clear land for various purposes. plus log the relatively few tall forests and all in the name of progress – progress for us yes, but not for our flora and fauna. It is not a question of genetics, but of attitude.

Care of country was a very large part of Aboriginal lives, most of us on the other hand, climb into our cars and occasionally drive to the beach, we see a bit of green, perhaps the odd lizard and of course the sea, but what you don’t see is the devastation of our wildlife, to see a once well populated environment with many species slide into oblivion, largely because of the cat or fox and most people don’t know or even care.

We might live in big houses and drive fancy cars, but it is all at the expense of the nature world around us.

Care of country was a very large part of Aboriginal lives,

Staying fed, dry, warm and happy was the major part of Aboriginal culture, just like any other. Before Europeans arrived they didn’t sit around the campfire singing kumbaya and eating tofu. If the Aboriginals had been able to find a staple grain crop like wheat, and a herdable animal like a sheep or goat, do you think their society would have remained reasonably stagnant, or would they have gone down the route of other societies that had those advantages?

That has absolutely nothing to do will it. They were as they were, and we are as we are.

They were as they were, and we are as we are.

Yes, both members of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. A species renowned for being the most rapacious on the planet.

party_pants said:

jjjust moi said:

Care of country was a very large part of Aboriginal lives,

=======

Care of country is a modern PR exercise. There is no proof of it and much to the contrary.

I agree. I see it more as exploiting the land to the fullest extent of their technology. Just that their technology was fairly basic and low impact in environmental terms. I don’t regard it as having a particular care for the environment so much as lacking the ability to screw it up.

I am sorry, but you are so ignorant about Aboriginal lifestyle. Look it is not something I made up, but is a fact6 of life and accepted by all who have studied Aboriginal lifestyles. You downgrade the intelligence of a human who made a good living from this country over thousands of years, yet if you went out there you would not last longer than a few days.

jjjust moi said:

party_pants said:

jjjust moi said:

Care of country was a very large part of Aboriginal lives,

=======

Care of country is a modern PR exercise. There is no proof of it and much to the contrary.

I agree. I see it more as exploiting the land to the fullest extent of their technology. Just that their technology was fairly basic and low impact in environmental terms. I don’t regard it as having a particular care for the environment so much as lacking the ability to screw it up.

They screwed it up alright, heard of firestick farming?

The whole ecology of the country changed.

Of course it did, prior to that the megafauna ate it down. Please read earlier posts.

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

Care of country was a very large part of Aboriginal lives,

=======

Care of country is a modern PR exercise. There is no proof of it and much to the contrary.

I suggest you read a great deal more about contemporary Aborigines living in the north of Australia.

…and written by whom?

Don’t make me laugh.

There is a great deal out there, you just need to look.

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

jjjust moi said:

Care of country was a very large part of Aboriginal lives,

=======

Care of country is a modern PR exercise. There is no proof of it and much to the contrary.

I agree. I see it more as exploiting the land to the fullest extent of their technology. Just that their technology was fairly basic and low impact in environmental terms. I don’t regard it as having a particular care for the environment so much as lacking the ability to screw it up.

I am sorry, but you are so ignorant about Aboriginal lifestyle. Look it is not something I made up, but is a fact6 of life and accepted by all who have studied Aboriginal lifestyles. You downgrade the intelligence of a human who made a good living from this country over thousands of years, yet if you went out there you would not last longer than a few days.

The noble savage defence.

Undisputed is that they were here some 40k years ago

During that time european type man has gone from caves to the stars, while the aborigine has barely progressed from the ape he descended from. Spare me.

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

Care of country was a very large part of Aboriginal lives,

Staying fed, dry, warm and happy was the major part of Aboriginal culture, just like any other. Before Europeans arrived they didn’t sit around the campfire singing kumbaya and eating tofu. If the Aboriginals had been able to find a staple grain crop like wheat, and a herdable animal like a sheep or goat, do you think their society would have remained reasonably stagnant, or would they have gone down the route of other societies that had those advantages?

That has absolutely nothing to do will it. They were as they were, and we are as we are.

They were as they were, and we are as we are.

Yes, both members of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. A species renowned for being the most rapacious on the planet.

You are just taking through your hats. If you knew anything about the subject you would not be spouting the rubbish you are. I cannot be bothered responding to such tripe and shall retire as it is pointless arguing with you.

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

I agree. I see it more as exploiting the land to the fullest extent of their technology. Just that their technology was fairly basic and low impact in environmental terms. I don’t regard it as having a particular care for the environment so much as lacking the ability to screw it up.

I am sorry, but you are so ignorant about Aboriginal lifestyle. Look it is not something I made up, but is a fact6 of life and accepted by all who have studied Aboriginal lifestyles. You downgrade the intelligence of a human who made a good living from this country over thousands of years, yet if you went out there you would not last longer than a few days.

The noble savage defence.

Undisputed is that they were here some 40k years ago

During that time european type man has gone from caves to the stars, while the aborigine has barely progressed from the ape he descended from. Spare me.

What a fool you are!

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

I am sorry, but you are so ignorant about Aboriginal lifestyle. Look it is not something I made up, but is a fact6 of life and accepted by all who have studied Aboriginal lifestyles. You downgrade the intelligence of a human who made a good living from this country over thousands of years, yet if you went out there you would not last longer than a few days.

The noble savage defence.

Undisputed is that they were here some 40k years ago

During that time european type man has gone from caves to the stars, while the aborigine has barely progressed from the ape he descended from. Spare me.

What a fool you are!

Disprove my statement, never mind the abuse.

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

That has absolutely nothing to do will it. They were as they were, and we are as we are.

They were as they were, and we are as we are.

Yes, both members of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. A species renowned for being the most rapacious on the planet.

You are just taking through your hats. If you knew anything about the subject you would not be spouting the rubbish you are. I cannot be bothered responding to such tripe and shall retire as it is pointless arguing with you.

I actually only own one hat, I’ll have you know.

As to the other, which one of us, Aboriginal or European, isn’t a member of Homo sapiens sapiens?

Just so I know.

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

They were as they were, and we are as we are.

Yes, both members of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. A species renowned for being the most rapacious on the planet.

You are just taking through your hats. If you knew anything about the subject you would not be spouting the rubbish you are. I cannot be bothered responding to such tripe and shall retire as it is pointless arguing with you.

I actually only own one hat, I’ll have you know.

As to the other, which one of us, Aboriginal or European, isn’t a member of Homo sapiens sapiens?

Just so I know.

I don’t own any sort of hat sib, so I guess I’m OK.

ChrispenEvan said:

when i visit mum in melb i am always noting the english type birds around rather than the, nearly all, natives we get over here.

Just you wait. Now the Starling Inspectors are gone, they’ll get there…

and here we were talking about cats….

tauto said:

and here we were talking about cats….

I will, as always, blame Boris!

tauto said:

and here we were talking about cats….

Nothing quite like pussy.

jjjust moi said:

tauto said:

and here we were talking about cats….

Nothing quite like pussy.

Look it is like arguing with children, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and are making the most ridiculous statements. Go and educate yourselves a little and then come back, because it is a total waste of time trying to point out the obvious to those with immense bravado, but nothing intellectual behind it.

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

tauto said:

and here we were talking about cats….

Nothing quite like pussy.

Look it is like arguing with children, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and are making the most ridiculous statements. Go and educate yourselves a little and then come back, because it is a total waste of time trying to point out the obvious to those with immense bravado, but nothing intellectual behind it.

I’ll add NSOH to your other failings.

OK, when did the Tassie Devil last live on the mainland?

It seems to me that re-introducing it would have unforseeable effects.

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

jjjust moi said:

Care of country was a very large part of Aboriginal lives,

=======

Care of country is a modern PR exercise. There is no proof of it and much to the contrary.

I agree. I see it more as exploiting the land to the fullest extent of their technology. Just that their technology was fairly basic and low impact in environmental terms. I don’t regard it as having a particular care for the environment so much as lacking the ability to screw it up.

I am sorry, but you are so ignorant about Aboriginal lifestyle. Look it is not something I made up, but is a fact6 of life and accepted by all who have studied Aboriginal lifestyles. You downgrade the intelligence of a human who made a good living from this country over thousands of years, yet if you went out there you would not last longer than a few days.

Ah well, you get that.

Michael V said:

OK, when did the Tassie Devil last live on the mainland?

It seems to me that re-introducing it would have unforseeable effects.

>>Widespread across Australia in the Pleistocene, the Tasmanian devil had declined and become restricted to three relict populations during the mid-Holocene period around 3,000 years ago. Rock art and a single fossil near Darwin point to a northern population, and remains in the southeast signify a southeastern population ranging from the mouth of the Murray River eastwards to the vicinity of Port Phillip in Victoria. This population had contracted from northern Victoria and New South Wales. The rising sea levels in the Holocene also cut it off from Tasmanian populations.

The third population was from southwest Western Australia. Fossil evidence from this last location has proven controversial. As with many native animals, ancient devils were larger than their contemporary descendants. In 1972, Mike Archer and Alex Baynes found a devil tooth at the foot of a cliff near Augusta in Western Australia and dated it to 430±160 years of age, a figure widely circulated and cited. Australian archaeologist Oliver Brown has disputed this, stating that the authors’ uncertainty about the origins of the tooth casts doubts on its age, especially as other remains all date to around 3,000 years ago.<<

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_devil

Thanks.

jjjust moi said:

During that time european type man has gone from caves to the stars, while the aborigine has barely progressed from the ape he descended from. Spare me.

That is a extremely ignorant view of Aboriginal culture. Just because they remained hunter gatherers until recent times has nothing to do with the richness of Aboriginal culture.

Witty Rejoinder said:

jjjust moi said:

During that time european type man has gone from caves to the stars, while the aborigine has barely progressed from the ape he descended from. Spare me.

That is a extremely ignorant view of Aboriginal culture. Just because they remained hunter gatherers until recent times has nothing to do with the richness of Aboriginal culture.

hear hear.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say I don’t expect the Europeans to still be here in 40,000 years, even if we change our ways.

We do not actually run a sustainable existence and we don’t show many signs of understanding that.

And yes, I’m a part of it.

buffy said:

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say I don’t expect the Europeans to still be here in 40,000 years, even if we change our ways.

We do not actually run a sustainable existence and we don’t show many signs of understanding that.

And yes, I’m a part of it.

hear hear. Good morning Buffy.

>>>I am a member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. Aboriginals are members of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. If one member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens can be considered indigenous, then the species as a whole must be considered indigenous.
<<<

>>>>I am sorry, but you are so ignorant about Aboriginal lifestyle. Look it is not something I made up, but is a fact6 of life and accepted by all who have studied Aboriginal lifestyles. You downgrade the intelligence of a human who made a good living from this country over thousands of years, yet if you went out there you would not last longer than a few days.

We might live in big houses and drive fancy cars, but it is all at the expense of the nature world around us.
<<<

I say to you Chief Little Cockortwo, I have looked toward the distant misty mountains where I hunted as a small boy & I have seen these native indigenous Aboriginal Peoples living in big houses, & driving fancy cars. And I have asked of these native indigenous Aboriginal Peoples, “can you show me the way?”.

They answer me with foresight & much wisdom – “Turn left at Catnip Avenue then right at Foxy Street & K Mart is just down the road!”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-13/canberra-cats-may-have-to-stay-indoors/5811020

Skeptic Pete said:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-13/canberra-cats-may-have-to-stay-indoors/5811020

I like it

Any cat found wandering the streets should be skinned & the fur used to make hats,,, hats for the pleasure of participants of this forum who don’t have a hat, or only one hat in their possession.

Do aboriginals have more culture than any other group of people? What does culture mean in this context?

AwesomeO said:

Do aboriginals have more culture than any other group of people? What does culture mean in this context?

football, meat pies, kangaroos & fancy Holden cars

The_observer said:

AwesomeO said:

Do aboriginals have more culture than any other group of people? What does culture mean in this context?

football, meat pies, kangaroos & fancy Holden cars

Lock in…

“What are things that don’t make it off Mt Panorama alive…”

Estumpy_seahorse said:

The_observer said:

AwesomeO said:

Do aboriginals have more culture than any other group of people? What does culture mean in this context?

football, meat pies, kangaroos & fancy Holden cars

Lock in…

“What are things that don’t make it off Mt Panorama alive…”

I was thinking that AFL, kangaroos and Holden cars are all very popular with our indigenous cousins, not sure about meat pies though.

So that is culture eh?

AwesomeO said:

Estumpy_seahorse said:

The_observer said:

football, meat pies, kangaroos & fancy Holden cars

Lock in…

“What are things that don’t make it off Mt Panorama alive…”

I was thinking that AFL, kangaroos and Holden cars are all very popular with our indigenous cousins, not sure about meat pies though.

So that is culture eh?

I thought peeing on your feet in the shower killed off cultures?…

Maybe aboriginals haven’t learnt that trick…

stumpy_seahorse said:

AwesomeO said:

Estumpy_seahorse said:

Lock in…

“What are things that don’t make it off Mt Panorama alive…”

I was thinking that AFL, kangaroos and Holden cars are all very popular with our indigenous cousins, not sure about meat pies though.

So that is culture eh?

I thought peeing on your feet in the shower killed off cultures?…

Maybe aboriginals haven’t learnt that trick…

Key word…. shower.

Tamb said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

AwesomeO said:

E

I was thinking that AFL, kangaroos and Holden cars are all very popular with our indigenous cousins, not sure about meat pies though.

So that is culture eh?

I thought peeing on your feet in the shower killed off cultures?…

Maybe aboriginals haven’t learnt that trick…

Key word…. shower.

i guess they didn’t discover homeopathy either.. or it might have worked in the bathtub…

> Why are cats able to run rampant?

Because they are smarter than humans?

mollwollfumble said:

> Why are cats able to run rampant?

Because they are smarter than humans?

For the record:

Aborigine = the person

aboriginal = description of person

So you can have an Aborigine or an aboriginal person.

buffy said:

For the record:

Aborigine = the person

aboriginal = description of person

So you can have an Aborigine or an aboriginal person.

we just call him ‘Neville’

AwesomeO said:

Do aboriginals have more culture than any other group of people? What does culture mean in this context?

Culture is the way a people live their lives, their attitude and the way they look at things around them, which when compared with the pre-European Aborigine vs the later European is vastly different. Their lifestyle was sustainable and lasted over 40,000 years, whilst ours is not sustainable and our future is problematic.

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

Do aboriginals have more culture than any other group of people? What does culture mean in this context?

Culture is the way a people live their lives, their attitude and the way they look at things around them, which when compared with the pre-European Aborigine vs the later European is vastly different. Their lifestyle was sustainable and lasted over 40,000 years, whilst ours is not sustainable and our future is problematic.

Evidence indicates they are the likely culprits for the extinction of our mega fauna.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

Do aboriginals have more culture than any other group of people? What does culture mean in this context?

Culture is the way a people live their lives, their attitude and the way they look at things around them, which when compared with the pre-European Aborigine vs the later European is vastly different. Their lifestyle was sustainable and lasted over 40,000 years, whilst ours is not sustainable and our future is problematic.

Evidence indicates they are the likely culprits for the extinction of our mega fauna.

Not enough evidence to come to that conclusion at all.

It is extremely disappointing in the way certain people here mock the Aboriginal. Don’t you realise we devastated these people for our own benefit, stole their land and killed their way of life. Then we introduced them to drugs and alcohol, take away their half-caste children and lock them up in missions to keep them out of our way. Are you really surprised at the way many have turned out, yet some still have a more healthy way at looking at life than the vast majority of white people.

When Europeans first arrived in Australia and even today we could have learnt so much from them about this country, but we in all our ignorant, uneducated and arrogant manner considered them uneducated rubbish on the same level as other native animals. And yet, and yet, we still have the same ignorant, uneducated and arrogant attitude towards towards them today, it is not surprising that some feel so bitter towards us, due to the lives we have forced them to live. If it were me and my ancestors had been treated in the way they have, I doubt if my contempt for the British would have been so well contained.

PermeateFree said:

It is extremely disappointing in the way certain people here mock the Aboriginal. Don’t you realise we devastated these people for our own benefit, stole their land and killed their way of life. Then we introduced them to drugs and alcohol, take away their half-caste children and lock them up in missions to keep them out of our way. Are you really surprised at the way many have turned out, yet some still have a more healthy way at looking at life than the vast majority of white people.

When Europeans first arrived in Australia and even today we could have learnt so much from them about this country, but we in all our ignorant, uneducated and arrogant manner considered them uneducated rubbish on the same level as other native animals. And yet, and yet, we still have the same ignorant, uneducated and arrogant attitude towards towards them today, it is not surprising that some feel so bitter towards us, due to the lives we have forced them to live. If it were me and my ancestors had been treated in the way they have, I doubt if my contempt for the British would have been so well contained.

I’m not mocking them, but they need to own their own actions or nothing will change

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

It is extremely disappointing in the way certain people here mock the Aboriginal. Don’t you realise we devastated these people for our own benefit, stole their land and killed their way of life. Then we introduced them to drugs and alcohol, take away their half-caste children and lock them up in missions to keep them out of our way. Are you really surprised at the way many have turned out, yet some still have a more healthy way at looking at life than the vast majority of white people.

When Europeans first arrived in Australia and even today we could have learnt so much from them about this country, but we in all our ignorant, uneducated and arrogant manner considered them uneducated rubbish on the same level as other native animals. And yet, and yet, we still have the same ignorant, uneducated and arrogant attitude towards towards them today, it is not surprising that some feel so bitter towards us, due to the lives we have forced them to live. If it were me and my ancestors had been treated in the way they have, I doubt if my contempt for the British would have been so well contained.

I’m not mocking them, but they need to own their own actions or nothing will change

They did and please stop confusing the Aborigines of today after we have finished with them, with the Aboriginal before settlement.

those attitudes seem to go with any conqueror though. i’m sure the romans thought the britons to be an uneducated rabble.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

Do aboriginals have more culture than any other group of people? What does culture mean in this context?

Culture is the way a people live their lives, their attitude and the way they look at things around them, which when compared with the pre-European Aborigine vs the later European is vastly different. Their lifestyle was sustainable and lasted over 40,000 years, whilst ours is not sustainable and our future is problematic.

Evidence indicates they are the likely culprits for the extinction of our mega fauna.

And we are responsible for the highest mammal extinction rate in the world. The Aboriginal went on to devise ways to improve their environment, we on the other hand continue to degrade and exploit it.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Culture is the way a people live their lives, their attitude and the way they look at things around them, which when compared with the pre-European Aborigine vs the later European is vastly different. Their lifestyle was sustainable and lasted over 40,000 years, whilst ours is not sustainable and our future is problematic.

Evidence indicates they are the likely culprits for the extinction of our mega fauna.

And we are responsible for the highest mammal extinction rate in the world. The Aboriginal went on to devise ways to improve their environment, we on the other hand continue to degrade and exploit it.

Not everyone and we do seem to be making a effort to change.

ChrispenEvan said:

those attitudes seem to go with any conqueror though. i’m sure the romans thought the britons to be an uneducated rabble.

Are you suggesting there is ANY similarity in the way the Romans managed their Empire with the way the British did here? The Romans brought peace and wealth to the British and other defeated people so they were happy to be part of the Roman Empire. We just stole and killed off the locals, often just for the fun of it.

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

Do aboriginals have more culture than any other group of people? What does culture mean in this context?

Culture is the way a people live their lives, their attitude and the way they look at things around them, which when compared with the pre-European Aborigine vs the later European is vastly different. Their lifestyle was sustainable and lasted over 40,000 years, whilst ours is not sustainable and our future is problematic.

Weren’t so sustainable with the mega fauna it would appear…

go learn some british history. then come back.

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

those attitudes seem to go with any conqueror though. i’m sure the romans thought the britons to be an uneducated rabble.

Are you suggesting there is ANY similarity in the way the Romans managed their Empire with the way the British did here? The Romans brought peace and wealth to the British and other defeated people so they were happy to be part of the Roman Empire. We just stole and killed off the locals, often just for the fun of it.

Are we responsible for the sins of our ancestors, if so none of the hatreds that cause genocide will change

ChrispenEvan said:

go learn some british history. then come back.

It was the orgies with the natives boris, don’t ya know?

…

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

Evidence indicates they are the likely culprits for the extinction of our mega fauna.

And we are responsible for the highest mammal extinction rate in the world. The Aboriginal went on to devise ways to improve their environment, we on the other hand continue to degrade and exploit it.

Not everyone and we do seem to be making a effort to change.

Well our efforts are too little, too late. Of the remaining surviving mammals species a very large number are near extinction in the wild and some only survive in captivity. Just because you can see a lot of bush, it does not mean it is in a healthy state.

PermeateFree said:

It is extremely disappointing in the way certain people here mock the Aboriginal. Don’t you realise we devastated these people for our own benefit, stole their land and killed their way of life. Then we introduced them to drugs and alcohol, take away their half-caste children and lock them up in missions to keep them out of our way. Are you really surprised at the way many have turned out, yet some still have a more healthy way at looking at life than the vast majority of white people.

When Europeans first arrived in Australia and even today we could have learnt so much from them about this country, but we in all our ignorant, uneducated and arrogant manner considered them uneducated rubbish on the same level as other native animals. And yet, and yet, we still have the same ignorant, uneducated and arrogant attitude towards towards them today, it is not surprising that some feel so bitter towards us, due to the lives we have forced them to live. If it were me and my ancestors had been treated in the way they have, I doubt if my contempt for the British would have been so well contained.

I think you’re not getting what people are saying. The aborigines lived in a sustainable way through keeping a low population, being mobile, and using technology limited to stone tools and fire-stick farming. This is all fine and good, but we don’t live that way. In finding a sustainable way to live with our large, settled population and high technology we have to look to some other solution. We can’t go back to having a small mobile, low technology situation as the answer to living sustainably in the Australian environment. The pre-colonial aborigine way of life is irrelevant now.

poikilotherm said:

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

Do aboriginals have more culture than any other group of people? What does culture mean in this context?

Culture is the way a people live their lives, their attitude and the way they look at things around them, which when compared with the pre-European Aborigine vs the later European is vastly different. Their lifestyle was sustainable and lasted over 40,000 years, whilst ours is not sustainable and our future is problematic.

Weren’t so sustainable with the mega fauna it would appear…

Again. Please provide references or stop saying it. It is more likely that climate change did it than the arrival of the aborigine.

The pre-colonial aborigine way of life is irrelevant now.

Sadly true and change is a universal constant and if you don’t adapt you die out

Are we responsible for the sins of our ancestors, if so none of the hatreds that cause genocide will change

no, though some societies find it hard move on. ireland was one, croatia and the serbs were another. israel and palestine. events that happened centuries ago are still fought over.

roughbarked said:

poikilotherm said:

PermeateFree said:

Culture is the way a people live their lives, their attitude and the way they look at things around them, which when compared with the pre-European Aborigine vs the later European is vastly different. Their lifestyle was sustainable and lasted over 40,000 years, whilst ours is not sustainable and our future is problematic.

Weren’t so sustainable with the mega fauna it would appear…

Again. Please provide references or stop saying it. It is more likely that climate change did it than the arrival of the aborigine.

“Simultaneous extinction of Genyornis at all sites during an interval of modest climate change implies that human impact, not climate, was responsible.”

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/283/5399/205.short

suck it.

Cymek said:

The pre-colonial aborigine way of life is irrelevant now.

Sadly true and change is a universal constant and if you don’t adapt you die out

Adaptation isn’t always as necessary as all of that. Many species have survived far longer with little or no adaptation for quite a long time.

poikilotherm said:

roughbarked said:

poikilotherm said:

Weren’t so sustainable with the mega fauna it would appear…

Again. Please provide references or stop saying it. It is more likely that climate change did it than the arrival of the aborigine.

“Simultaneous extinction of Genyornis at all sites during an interval of modest climate change implies that human impact, not climate, was responsible.”

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/283/5399/205.short

suck it.

One species?

Link

New evidence links humans to megafauna demise

Friday, 22 January 2010

A new scientific paper co-authored by a University of Adelaide researcher reports strong evidence that humans, not climate change, caused the demise of Australia’s megafauna – giant marsupials, huge reptiles and flightless birds – at least 40,000 years ago.

In a paper published today in the international journal Science, two Australian scientists claim that improved dating methods show that humans and megafauna only co-existed for a relatively short time after people inhabited Australia, adding weight to the argument that hunting led to the extinction of large-bodied species.

more at link

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

The pre-colonial aborigine way of life is irrelevant now.

Sadly true and change is a universal constant and if you don’t adapt you die out

Adaptation isn’t always as necessary as all of that. Many species have survived far longer with little or no adaptation for quite a long time.

Not humans usually

poikilotherm said:

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

Do aboriginals have more culture than any other group of people? What does culture mean in this context?

Culture is the way a people live their lives, their attitude and the way they look at things around them, which when compared with the pre-European Aborigine vs the later European is vastly different. Their lifestyle was sustainable and lasted over 40,000 years, whilst ours is not sustainable and our future is problematic.

Weren’t so sustainable with the mega fauna it would appear…

Nor were we with many other species. The megafauna were an easy target, just like gold was for us. They were new arrivals at that time, as we are now. An introduced species to any balanced environment will not be good for that environment. The Australian megafauna I might add, disappeared over 30,000 years ago and was the consequence of an entry of a new top predator species. It is what they developed post megafauna is what made Aborigines indigenous.

ChrispenEvan said:

go learn some british history. then come back.

I think you should not only learn some British history, but Roman history too.

Many species have survived far longer with little or no adaptation for quite a long time.

usually because the niche they use doesn’t change in the important aspects and so there is no need to adapt.

PermeateFree said:

poikilotherm said:

PermeateFree said:

Culture is the way a people live their lives, their attitude and the way they look at things around them, which when compared with the pre-European Aborigine vs the later European is vastly different. Their lifestyle was sustainable and lasted over 40,000 years, whilst ours is not sustainable and our future is problematic.

Weren’t so sustainable with the mega fauna it would appear…

Nor were we with many other species. The megafauna were an easy target, just like gold was for us. They were new arrivals at that time, as we are now. An introduced species to any balanced environment will not be good for that environment. The Australian megafauna I might add, disappeared over 30,000 years ago and was the consequence of an entry of a new top predator species. It is what they developed post megafauna is what made Aborigines indigenous.

That may be true, so they are like us they made mistakes and learnt from them.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

those attitudes seem to go with any conqueror though. i’m sure the romans thought the britons to be an uneducated rabble.

Are you suggesting there is ANY similarity in the way the Romans managed their Empire with the way the British did here? The Romans brought peace and wealth to the British and other defeated people so they were happy to be part of the Roman Empire. We just stole and killed off the locals, often just for the fun of it.

Are we responsible for the sins of our ancestors, if so none of the hatreds that cause genocide will change

No but we should acknowledge the injustices created, and bear that in mind when mocking a people already down.

ChrispenEvan said:

Many species have survived far longer with little or no adaptation for quite a long time.

usually because the niche they use doesn’t change in the important aspects and so there is no need to adapt.

That’s likely correct, yes.

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

The pre-colonial aborigine way of life is irrelevant now.

Sadly true and change is a universal constant and if you don’t adapt you die out

Adaptation isn’t always as necessary as all of that. Many species have survived far longer with little or no adaptation for quite a long time.

I was thinking the other way around. We need to adapt our crops and livestock better to the Australian environment, but not abandon them and go to a completely different lifestyle.

roughbarked said:

poikilotherm said:

roughbarked said:

Again. Please provide references or stop saying it. It is more likely that climate change did it than the arrival of the aborigine.

“Simultaneous extinction of Genyornis at all sites during an interval of modest climate change implies that human impact, not climate, was responsible.”

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/283/5399/205.short

suck it.

One species?

No.

“All Australian land mammals, reptiles, and birds weighing more than 100 kilograms, and six of the seven genera with a body mass of 45 to 100 kilograms, perished in the late Quaternary.”

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/292/5523/1888.short

ChrispenEvan said:

Link

New evidence links humans to megafauna demise

Friday, 22 January 2010

A new scientific paper co-authored by a University of Adelaide researcher reports strong evidence that humans, not climate change, caused the demise of Australia’s megafauna – giant marsupials, huge reptiles and flightless birds – at least 40,000 years ago.

In a paper published today in the international journal Science, two Australian scientists claim that improved dating methods show that humans and megafauna only co-existed for a relatively short time after people inhabited Australia, adding weight to the argument that hunting led to the extinction of large-bodied species.

more at link

There was also the fact that many of them had either outlived their time or were simply too clumsy. http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/10/16/4107528.htm

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

It is extremely disappointing in the way certain people here mock the Aboriginal. Don’t you realise we devastated these people for our own benefit, stole their land and killed their way of life. Then we introduced them to drugs and alcohol, take away their half-caste children and lock them up in missions to keep them out of our way. Are you really surprised at the way many have turned out, yet some still have a more healthy way at looking at life than the vast majority of white people.

When Europeans first arrived in Australia and even today we could have learnt so much from them about this country, but we in all our ignorant, uneducated and arrogant manner considered them uneducated rubbish on the same level as other native animals. And yet, and yet, we still have the same ignorant, uneducated and arrogant attitude towards towards them today, it is not surprising that some feel so bitter towards us, due to the lives we have forced them to live. If it were me and my ancestors had been treated in the way they have, I doubt if my contempt for the British would have been so well contained.

I think you’re not getting what people are saying. The aborigines lived in a sustainable way through keeping a low population, being mobile, and using technology limited to stone tools and fire-stick farming. This is all fine and good, but we don’t live that way. In finding a sustainable way to live with our large, settled population and high technology we have to look to some other solution. We can’t go back to having a small mobile, low technology situation as the answer to living sustainably in the Australian environment. The pre-colonial aborigine way of life is irrelevant now.

This is not an argument about going back or reinstating a different way of living, it is about acknowledging the dreadful way these people were treated and to learn from what we did. But to continue to mock them today, means you have learnt nothing.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Are you suggesting there is ANY similarity in the way the Romans managed their Empire with the way the British did here? The Romans brought peace and wealth to the British and other defeated people so they were happy to be part of the Roman Empire. We just stole and killed off the locals, often just for the fun of it.

Are we responsible for the sins of our ancestors, if so none of the hatreds that cause genocide will change

No but we should acknowledge the injustices created, and bear that in mind when mocking a people already down.

Yes but I don’t mock them

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

It is extremely disappointing in the way certain people here mock the Aboriginal. Don’t you realise we devastated these people for our own benefit, stole their land and killed their way of life. Then we introduced them to drugs and alcohol, take away their half-caste children and lock them up in missions to keep them out of our way. Are you really surprised at the way many have turned out, yet some still have a more healthy way at looking at life than the vast majority of white people.

When Europeans first arrived in Australia and even today we could have learnt so much from them about this country, but we in all our ignorant, uneducated and arrogant manner considered them uneducated rubbish on the same level as other native animals. And yet, and yet, we still have the same ignorant, uneducated and arrogant attitude towards towards them today, it is not surprising that some feel so bitter towards us, due to the lives we have forced them to live. If it were me and my ancestors had been treated in the way they have, I doubt if my contempt for the British would have been so well contained.

I think you’re not getting what people are saying. The aborigines lived in a sustainable way through keeping a low population, being mobile, and using technology limited to stone tools and fire-stick farming. This is all fine and good, but we don’t live that way. In finding a sustainable way to live with our large, settled population and high technology we have to look to some other solution. We can’t go back to having a small mobile, low technology situation as the answer to living sustainably in the Australian environment. The pre-colonial aborigine way of life is irrelevant now.

This is not an argument about going back or reinstating a different way of living, it is about acknowledging the dreadful way these people were treated and to learn from what we did. But to continue to mock them today, means you have learnt nothing.

Who mocks them?, dickheads that are probably not nice people

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

Are we responsible for the sins of our ancestors, if so none of the hatreds that cause genocide will change

No but we should acknowledge the injustices created, and bear that in mind when mocking a people already down.

Yes but I don’t mock them

Unless they let their cats run rampant…

PermeateFree said:

This is not an argument about going back or reinstating a different way of living, it is about acknowledging the dreadful way these people were treated and to learn from what we did. But to continue to mock them today, means you have learnt nothing.

That’s the whole point. There is nothing to learn.

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

This is not an argument about going back or reinstating a different way of living, it is about acknowledging the dreadful way these people were treated and to learn from what we did. But to continue to mock them today, means you have learnt nothing.

That’s the whole point. There is nothing to learn.

A good example of what is wrong with the attitude of so many in this country.

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

This is not an argument about going back or reinstating a different way of living, it is about acknowledging the dreadful way these people were treated and to learn from what we did. But to continue to mock them today, means you have learnt nothing.

That’s the whole point. There is nothing to learn.

A good example of what is wrong with the attitude of so many in this country.

What is there to learn, that we can’t figure out for ourselves and probably arrive at a better understanding of through science?

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

those attitudes seem to go with any conqueror though. i’m sure the romans thought the britons to be an uneducated rabble.

Are you suggesting there is ANY similarity in the way the Romans managed their Empire with the way the British did here? The Romans brought peace and wealth to the British and other defeated people so they were happy to be part of the Roman Empire. We just stole and killed off the locals, often just for the fun of it.

You spout complete and utter bullshit at times.

roughbarked said:

poikilotherm said:

PermeateFree said:

Culture is the way a people live their lives, their attitude and the way they look at things around them, which when compared with the pre-European Aborigine vs the later European is vastly different. Their lifestyle was sustainable and lasted over 40,000 years, whilst ours is not sustainable and our future is problematic.

Weren’t so sustainable with the mega fauna it would appear…

Again. Please provide references or stop saying it. It is more likely that climate change did it than the arrival of the aborigine.

You provide the references for that then.

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

That’s the whole point. There is nothing to learn.

A good example of what is wrong with the attitude of so many in this country.

What is there to learn, that we can’t figure out for ourselves and probably arrive at a better understanding of through science?

p_p it is science that is leading the way. What we need is better Bogon understanding, rather than myth making.

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

A good example of what is wrong with the attitude of so many in this country.

What is there to learn, that we can’t figure out for ourselves and probably arrive at a better understanding of through science?

p_p it is science that is leading the way. What we need is better Bogon understanding, rather than myth making.

What do you mean ?

• Why are cats able to run rampant?

I blame the parents. No discipline…

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

A good example of what is wrong with the attitude of so many in this country.

What is there to learn, that we can’t figure out for ourselves and probably arrive at a better understanding of through science?

p_p it is science that is leading the way. What we need is better Bogon understanding, rather than myth making.

That doesn’t answer the question.

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

those attitudes seem to go with any conqueror though. i’m sure the romans thought the britons to be an uneducated rabble.

Are you suggesting there is ANY similarity in the way the Romans managed their Empire with the way the British did here? The Romans brought peace and wealth to the British and other defeated people so they were happy to be part of the Roman Empire. We just stole and killed off the locals, often just for the fun of it.

You spout complete and utter bullshit at times.

If I do spout bullshit jjust moi, at least I would know I was, you on the other hand don’t know the difference.

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

Are you suggesting there is ANY similarity in the way the Romans managed their Empire with the way the British did here? The Romans brought peace and wealth to the British and other defeated people so they were happy to be part of the Roman Empire. We just stole and killed off the locals, often just for the fun of it.

You spout complete and utter bullshit at times.

If I do spout bullshit jjust moi, at least I would know I was, you on the other hand don’t know the difference.

Just keep watching the PR machine PF.

jjjust moi said:

roughbarked said:

poikilotherm said:

Weren’t so sustainable with the mega fauna it would appear…

Again. Please provide references or stop saying it. It is more likely that climate change did it than the arrival of the aborigine.

You provide the references for that then.

The link provided suggesting that the changes were anthropogenic, gives absolutely no proof that this happened. Simply states that it was possible.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/292/5523/1888.short The timing and causes of these extinctions remain uncertain. We report burial ages for megafauna from 28 sites and infer extinction across the continent around 46,400 years ago (95% confidence interval, 51,200 to 39,800 years ago). Our results rule out extreme aridity at the Last Glacial Maximum as the cause of extinction, but not other climatic impacts; a “blitzkrieg” model of human-induced extinction; or an extended period of anthropogenic ecosystem disruption.

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

What is there to learn, that we can’t figure out for ourselves and probably arrive at a better understanding of through science?

p_p it is science that is leading the way. What we need is better Bogon understanding, rather than myth making.

That doesn’t answer the question.

Doesn’t it? I tend to think that is the problem.

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

You spout complete and utter bullshit at times.

If I do spout bullshit jjust moi, at least I would know I was, you on the other hand don’t know the difference.

Just keep watching the PR machine PF.

That is a good one coming from you, but DO probably gave you a ‘get out of jail free’ card.

roughbarked said:

jjjust moi said:

roughbarked said:

Again. Please provide references or stop saying it. It is more likely that climate change did it than the arrival of the aborigine.

You provide the references for that then.

The link provided suggesting that the changes were anthropogenic, gives absolutely no proof that this happened. Simply states that it was possible.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/292/5523/1888.short The timing and causes of these extinctions remain uncertain. We report burial ages for megafauna from 28 sites and infer extinction across the continent around 46,400 years ago (95% confidence interval, 51,200 to 39,800 years ago). Our results rule out extreme aridity at the Last Glacial Maximum as the cause of extinction, but not other climatic impacts; a “blitzkrieg” model of human-induced extinction; or an extended period of anthropogenic ecosystem disruption.

Apply Occams Razor then.

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

If I do spout bullshit jjust moi, at least I would know I was, you on the other hand don’t know the difference.

Just keep watching the PR machine PF.

That is a good one coming from you, but DO probably gave you a ‘get out of jail free’ card.

Obsessed much?

jjjust moi said:

roughbarked said:

jjjust moi said:

You provide the references for that then.

The link provided suggesting that the changes were anthropogenic, gives absolutely no proof that this happened. Simply states that it was possible.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/292/5523/1888.short The timing and causes of these extinctions remain uncertain. We report burial ages for megafauna from 28 sites and infer extinction across the continent around 46,400 years ago (95% confidence interval, 51,200 to 39,800 years ago). Our results rule out extreme aridity at the Last Glacial Maximum as the cause of extinction, but not other climatic impacts; a “blitzkrieg” model of human-induced extinction; or an extended period of anthropogenic ecosystem disruption.

Apply Occams Razor then.

Not sharp enough.

PermeateFree said:

>>Why are cats able to run rampant? A significant reason is the lack of balance that now characterises our ecosystems. A crucial step is likely to be returning native top predators, in particular dingoes and Tasmanian devils, to landscapes, so that they can resume their important ecological roles. Scientific research (pdf) is strongly suggesting that dingoes not only kill cats but also instill fear in them, which means that they avoid areas and times where dingoes are active. Hence dingoes can provide a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week, cat control service.

If we want to conserve our iconic and globally unique wildlife then we need to work with, rather than against nature, and supporting more positive management of dingoes and returning Tasmanian devils to mainland Australia for their biodiversity benefits (pdf) would be one of the best and most cost effective things policy-makers could do now. Non-government conservation organisations such as the Australian Wildlife Conservancy are already leading the way.

In 1995 the USA and Canada worked together to reintroduce wolves to Yellowstone for their ecosystem benefits. The success of this bold step is now the stuff of legend. Isn’t it time we had our ‘Yellowstone moment’ and began restoring Australia’s ecosystems to some of their former glory?<<

More:
http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2014/10/14/4106012.htm

Why are cats able to run rampant?
Because they can?

roughbarked said:

jjjust moi said:

roughbarked said:

Again. Please provide references or stop saying it. It is more likely that climate change did it than the arrival of the aborigine.

You provide the references for that then.

The link provided suggesting that the changes were anthropogenic, gives absolutely no proof that this happened. Simply states that it was possible.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/292/5523/1888.short The timing and causes of these extinctions remain uncertain. We report burial ages for megafauna from 28 sites and infer extinction across the continent around 46,400 years ago (95% confidence interval, 51,200 to 39,800 years ago). Our results rule out extreme aridity at the Last Glacial Maximum as the cause of extinction, but not other climatic impacts; a “blitzkrieg” model of human-induced extinction; or an extended period of anthropogenic ecosystem disruption.

It says lots of things.

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

p_p it is science that is leading the way. What we need is better Bogon understanding, rather than myth making.

That doesn’t answer the question.

Doesn’t it? I tend to think that is the problem.

What am I missing out on by not learning about aboriginal culture pre British settlement? What great insight did they possess that we haven’t figured out yet?

PermeateFree said

> It is extremely disappointing in the way certain people here mock the Aboriginal.
<<<

I must have missed that bit

> Don’t you realise we devastated these people for our own benefit, stole their land and killed their way of life.
<<<<

If the British hadn’t settled here first, then the dutch, or spanish would have, so it was simply inevitable.

> Then we introduced them to drugs and alcohol
<<<

every single other nation & culture has been introduced to drugs and alcohol. They could say no, or have they no self control?

> take away their half-caste children
<<<

stolen generation in a myth

> and lock them up in missions to keep them out of our way
<<<

Missions were set up in the 19th century, usually by clergy, to house, protect, and ‘Christianise’ local Aboriginal people. Using Christian texts to guide and justify their actions, missionaries encouraged Aboriginal people to move into mission settlements and join small European Christian communities.
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/nswcultureheritage/Missions.htm

I think you have a somewhat distorted & romanticised view of aboriginal life before white settlement.
It was harsh & brutal & they lived from day to day.

And although whites in some cases were responsible for some regrettable acts, we have tried very hard for some time to improve their situation.

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

That doesn’t answer the question.

Doesn’t it? I tend to think that is the problem.

What am I missing out on by not learning about aboriginal culture pre British settlement? What great insight did they possess that we haven’t figured out yet?

p_p there is so much, that you will have to do some reading for yourself, it cannot be summed up in a few lines. It is disappointing that you have to ask such a question.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said

> It is extremely disappointing in the way certain people here mock the Aboriginal.
<<<

I must have missed that bit

> Don’t you realise we devastated these people for our own benefit, stole their land and killed their way of life.
<<<<

If the British hadn’t settled here first, then the dutch, or spanish would have, so it was simply inevitable.

> Then we introduced them to drugs and alcohol
<<<

every single other nation & culture has been introduced to drugs and alcohol. They could say no, or have they no self control?

> take away their half-caste children
<<<

stolen generation in a myth

> and lock them up in missions to keep them out of our way
<<<

Missions were set up in the 19th century, usually by clergy, to house, protect, and ‘Christianise’ local Aboriginal people. Using Christian texts to guide and justify their actions, missionaries encouraged Aboriginal people to move into mission settlements and join small European Christian communities.
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/nswcultureheritage/Missions.htm

I think you have a somewhat distorted & romanticised view of aboriginal life before white settlement.
It was harsh & brutal & they lived from day to day.

And although whites in some cases were responsible for some regrettable acts, we have tried very hard for some time to improve their situation.

It reads like your Global Warming stuff. Totally lacking in every dimension. Your twin brother was just here, sorry you missed him as you could have compared notes.

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

Doesn’t it? I tend to think that is the problem.

What am I missing out on by not learning about aboriginal culture pre British settlement? What great insight did they possess that we haven’t figured out yet?

p_p there is so much, that you will have to do some reading for yourself, it cannot be summed up in a few lines. It is disappointing that you have to ask such a question.

Can you give just one or two examples?

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

What am I missing out on by not learning about aboriginal culture pre British settlement? What great insight did they possess that we haven’t figured out yet?

p_p there is so much, that you will have to do some reading for yourself, it cannot be summed up in a few lines. It is disappointing that you have to ask such a question.

Can you give just one or two examples?

They knew how to look after the country to the benefit of the entire ecosystem and did so for thousands of years.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/292/5523/1888.short

is 2001. the link i supplied is 2010.

Living off welfare does Aboriginals no favours, it must be soul destroying to think thats your lot in life.
Its a complicated problem and chucking money at it is the easy option

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

p_p there is so much, that you will have to do some reading for yourself, it cannot be summed up in a few lines. It is disappointing that you have to ask such a question.

Can you give just one or two examples?

They knew how to look after the country to the benefit of the entire ecosystem and did so for thousands of years.

What proof exists of this though, tribal living would be far less damaging to the environment but it wouldn’t be much fun living day to day and probably stiffles advancement in most areas of life.

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

p_p there is so much, that you will have to do some reading for yourself, it cannot be summed up in a few lines. It is disappointing that you have to ask such a question.

Can you give just one or two examples?

They knew how to look after the country to the benefit of the entire ecosystem and did so for thousands of years.

But they didn’t know how to do it whilst also including growing crops and grazing domesticated animals, settled populations and large-scale water management. The knowledge of looking after the country without these things is of no benefit to us looking for a way to do it with. Their knowledge is obsolete because we live differently.

Cymek said:

Living off welfare does Aboriginals no favours, it must be soul destroying to think thats your lot in life.
Its a complicated problem and chucking money at it is the easy option

I think you need to look deeper. I don’t like it either, but some people have had a lot to contend with, which is not an excuse but an explanation.

ChrispenEvan said:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/292/5523/1888.short

is 2001. the link i supplied is 2010.

Well, this one is from 2012 so :P

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6075/1483.short

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

Can you give just one or two examples?

They knew how to look after the country to the benefit of the entire ecosystem and did so for thousands of years.

What proof exists of this though, tribal living would be far less damaging to the environment but it wouldn’t be much fun living day to day and probably stiffles advancement in most areas of life.

Your knowledge is deplorable, for goodness sake go and do some reading on the subject, but there again you are not interested are you? Just content to wander though life with your limited concepts..

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

Can you give just one or two examples?

They knew how to look after the country to the benefit of the entire ecosystem and did so for thousands of years.

But they didn’t know how to do it whilst also including growing crops and grazing domesticated animals, settled populations and large-scale water management. The knowledge of looking after the country without these things is of no benefit to us looking for a way to do it with. Their knowledge is obsolete because we live differently.

Again, not worth discussing with you as your level of understanding is primary school level.

damn you poik!!!! foiled again

shakes fist.

;-)

ChrispenEvan said:

Are we responsible for the sins of our ancestors, if so none of the hatreds that cause genocide will change

no, though some societies find it hard move on. ireland was one, croatia and the serbs were another. israel and palestine. events that happened centuries ago are still fought over.

Many of our “sectarian wars” are fought over who thinks who should have inherited the land. Religion is a measure of ethnicity in these instances.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

They knew how to look after the country to the benefit of the entire ecosystem and did so for thousands of years.

What proof exists of this though, tribal living would be far less damaging to the environment but it wouldn’t be much fun living day to day and probably stiffles advancement in most areas of life.

Your knowledge is deplorable, for goodness sake go and do some reading on the subject, but there again you are not interested are you? Just content to wander though life with your limited concepts..

Did aboriginal people develop science, architecture, etc whilst living a tribal existence?
Who are you to say they managed the environment sustainably what proof do you have

poikilotherm said:

roughbarked said:

jjjust moi said:

You provide the references for that then.

The link provided suggesting that the changes were anthropogenic, gives absolutely no proof that this happened. Simply states that it was possible.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/292/5523/1888.short The timing and causes of these extinctions remain uncertain. We report burial ages for megafauna from 28 sites and infer extinction across the continent around 46,400 years ago (95% confidence interval, 51,200 to 39,800 years ago). Our results rule out extreme aridity at the Last Glacial Maximum as the cause of extinction, but not other climatic impacts; a “blitzkrieg” model of human-induced extinction; or an extended period of anthropogenic ecosystem disruption.

It says lots of things.

Not saying it doesn’t but it also doesn’t say a lot of things as well.

poikilotherm said:

ChrispenEvan said:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/292/5523/1888.short

is 2001. the link i supplied is 2010.

Well, this one is from 2012 so :P

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6075/1483.short

I note Tim Flannery wasn’t part of that report.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

What proof exists of this though, tribal living would be far less damaging to the environment but it wouldn’t be much fun living day to day and probably stiffles advancement in most areas of life.

Your knowledge is deplorable, for goodness sake go and do some reading on the subject, but there again you are not interested are you? Just content to wander though life with your limited concepts..

Did aboriginal people develop science, architecture, etc whilst living a tribal existence?
Who are you to say they managed the environment sustainably what proof do you have

Stop trying to bring facts into the debate Cymek. You’ll be classed as a DO sycophant like me next.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said

> It is extremely disappointing in the way certain people here mock the Aboriginal.
<<<

I must have missed that bit

> Don’t you realise we devastated these people for our own benefit, stole their land and killed their way of life.
<<<<

If the British hadn’t settled here first, then the dutch, or spanish would have, so it was simply inevitable.

> Then we introduced them to drugs and alcohol
<<<

every single other nation & culture has been introduced to drugs and alcohol. They could say no, or have they no self control?

> take away their half-caste children
<<<

stolen generation in a myth

> and lock them up in missions to keep them out of our way
<<<

Missions were set up in the 19th century, usually by clergy, to house, protect, and ‘Christianise’ local Aboriginal people. Using Christian texts to guide and justify their actions, missionaries encouraged Aboriginal people to move into mission settlements and join small European Christian communities.
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/nswcultureheritage/Missions.htm

I think you have a somewhat distorted & romanticised view of aboriginal life before white settlement.
It was harsh & brutal & they lived from day to day.

And although whites in some cases were responsible for some regrettable acts, we have tried very hard for some time to improve their situation.

It reads like your Global Warming stuff. Totally lacking in every dimension. Your twin brother was just here, sorry you missed him as you could have compared notes.

and your response is just like your global warming stuff

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

They knew how to look after the country to the benefit of the entire ecosystem and did so for thousands of years.

But they didn’t know how to do it whilst also including growing crops and grazing domesticated animals, settled populations and large-scale water management. The knowledge of looking after the country without these things is of no benefit to us looking for a way to do it with. Their knowledge is obsolete because we live differently.

Again, not worth discussing with you as your level of understanding is primary school level.

Typical activist’s conceit. If someone disagrees with your position the only possible explanation is because they are stupid.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

What proof exists of this though, tribal living would be far less damaging to the environment but it wouldn’t be much fun living day to day and probably stiffles advancement in most areas of life.

Your knowledge is deplorable, for goodness sake go and do some reading on the subject, but there again you are not interested are you? Just content to wander though life with your limited concepts..

Did aboriginal people develop science, architecture, etc whilst living a tribal existence?
Who are you to say they managed the environment sustainably what proof do you have

did they invent a wheel?

We can learn such things as bush medicine from Aboriginal people, but their way of life from before settlement will no longer work.

• did they invent a wheel?

No one invented the wheel. It simply “is”…

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

What proof exists of this though, tribal living would be far less damaging to the environment but it wouldn’t be much fun living day to day and probably stiffles advancement in most areas of life.

Your knowledge is deplorable, for goodness sake go and do some reading on the subject, but there again you are not interested are you? Just content to wander though life with your limited concepts..

Did aboriginal people develop science, architecture, etc whilst living a tribal existence?
Who are you to say they managed the environment sustainably what proof do you have

They survived for tens of thousands of years, developed their culture that included the welfare of Australia, apparently something we cannot understand. Sorry but I have had enough of your questions that are something like a little kid which has learnt the word “why” and is for ever using it. I think you are just trying to be annoying rather than with any genuine interest in the facts.

The_observer said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Your knowledge is deplorable, for goodness sake go and do some reading on the subject, but there again you are not interested are you? Just content to wander though life with your limited concepts..

Did aboriginal people develop science, architecture, etc whilst living a tribal existence?
Who are you to say they managed the environment sustainably what proof do you have

did they invent a wheel?

No and didn’t many tribal socities stay at a certain level of development for centuries or longer, that’s neither good or bad its just a fact. They could have been treated far better by those who invaded/settled their land but you can’t claim they had a better way of life or had some secret wisdom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_Hair_Tampons

Are we all being nice in this thread?

Bubblecar said:

Are we all being nice in this thread?

Even the cats are being treated well.

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

But they didn’t know how to do it whilst also including growing crops and grazing domesticated animals, settled populations and large-scale water management. The knowledge of looking after the country without these things is of no benefit to us looking for a way to do it with. Their knowledge is obsolete because we live differently.

Again, not worth discussing with you as your level of understanding is primary school level.

Typical activist’s conceit. If someone disagrees with your position the only possible explanation is because they are stupid.

I don’t argue with children because they need to reach a certain level of basic understanding to appreciate what is said. You do not appear to have reached that level yet.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Your knowledge is deplorable, for goodness sake go and do some reading on the subject, but there again you are not interested are you? Just content to wander though life with your limited concepts..

Did aboriginal people develop science, architecture, etc whilst living a tribal existence?
Who are you to say they managed the environment sustainably what proof do you have

They survived for tens of thousands of years, developed their culture that included the welfare of Australia, apparently something we cannot understand. Sorry but I have had enough of your questions that are something like a little kid which has learnt the word “why” and is for ever using it. I think you are just trying to be annoying rather than with any genuine interest in the facts.

This is a science forum or pretends to be and no questions are sacred, it’s not a racism debate if thats what you think, we are discussing if pre-settlement Aboriginal people looked after the land better than we currently do.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Your knowledge is deplorable, for goodness sake go and do some reading on the subject, but there again you are not interested are you? Just content to wander though life with your limited concepts..

Did aboriginal people develop science, architecture, etc whilst living a tribal existence?
Who are you to say they managed the environment sustainably what proof do you have

They survived for tens of thousands of years, developed their culture that included the welfare of Australia, apparently something we cannot understand. Sorry but I have had enough of your questions that are something like a little kid which has learnt the word “why” and is for ever using it. I think you are just trying to be annoying rather than with any genuine interest in the facts.

The Aboriginals were here for 40 thousand years before white settlement.
In that time they did not advance at all.
You may believe that their way of life was good for the environment, but the state of their environment was not the reason for their technical stagnation.

Some people seem to think that the probability that aboriginals contributed to extinctions as some sort of personal insult. I guess it doesn’t accord with a noble savage hippy curater of the land spiel.

The_observer said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Your knowledge is deplorable, for goodness sake go and do some reading on the subject, but there again you are not interested are you? Just content to wander though life with your limited concepts..

Did aboriginal people develop science, architecture, etc whilst living a tribal existence?
Who are you to say they managed the environment sustainably what proof do you have

did they invent a wheel?

They had no use for one as there were no animals to pull a vehicle.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

Did aboriginal people develop science, architecture, etc whilst living a tribal existence?
Who are you to say they managed the environment sustainably what proof do you have

They survived for tens of thousands of years, developed their culture that included the welfare of Australia, apparently something we cannot understand. Sorry but I have had enough of your questions that are something like a little kid which has learnt the word “why” and is for ever using it. I think you are just trying to be annoying rather than with any genuine interest in the facts.

This is a science forum or pretends to be and no questions are sacred, it’s not a racism debate if thats what you think, we are discussing if pre-settlement Aboriginal people looked after the land better than we currently do.

It is clear that though the aboriginal population never reached levels such as ours that they lived a full and productive life on the land without destroying the soil fertility, the soil flora and fauna, the soil structure or indeed as many as 400 species within a couple of hundred years.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

Cymek said:

Did aboriginal people develop science, architecture, etc whilst living a tribal existence?
Who are you to say they managed the environment sustainably what proof do you have

did they invent a wheel?

They had no use for one as there were no animals to pull a vehicle.

you probably have never seen a wheel barrow, although you’re good at pushing one

The_observer said:

The Aboriginals were here for 40 thousand years before white settlement.
In that time they did not advance at all.
You may believe that their way of life was good for the environment, but the state of their environment was not the reason for their technical stagnation.

This is quite an uninformed opinion.

AwesomeO said:

Some people seem to think that the probability that aboriginals contributed to extinctions as some sort of personal insult. I guess it doesn’t accord with a noble savage hippy curater of the land spiel.

not a problem in my camp. I know full well what the aboriginal people did to survive.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

Cymek said:

Did aboriginal people develop science, architecture, etc whilst living a tribal existence?
Who are you to say they managed the environment sustainably what proof do you have

did they invent a wheel?

They had no use for one as there were no animals to pull a vehicle.

Humans pulled and pushed wheeled contraptions before animals were harnessed.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

did they invent a wheel?

They had no use for one as there were no animals to pull a vehicle.

you probably have never seen a wheel barrow, although you’re good at pushing one

You have obviously never been in the bush (except on paths) have you Observer.

roughbarked said:

AwesomeO said:

Some people seem to think that the probability that aboriginals contributed to extinctions as some sort of personal insult. I guess it doesn’t accord with a noble savage hippy curater of the land spiel.

not a problem in my camp. I know full well what the aboriginal people did to survive.

I am not saying that is wrong though just that it probably happened

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

Again, not worth discussing with you as your level of understanding is primary school level.

Typical activist’s conceit. If someone disagrees with your position the only possible explanation is because they are stupid.

I don’t argue with children because they need to reach a certain level of basic understanding to appreciate what is said. You do not appear to have reached that level yet.

It is equally possible that the person who disagrees with you has a greater understanding than yours, and has formed an opposite view arising out of that understanding. Perhaps they once thought as you did but then had to abandon those ideas.

Dingoes are an invasive species introduced by humans fairly recently in the scheme of things.

Bubblecar said:

Are we all being nice in this thread?

No. Piss off.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

The Aboriginals were here for 40 thousand years before white settlement.
In that time they did not advance at all.
You may believe that their way of life was good for the environment, but the state of their environment was not the reason for their technical stagnation.

This is quite an uninformed opinion.

what I’m trying to say is, they did not make a conscience decision – not to advance their technology – because that advancement might harm their environment.

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

Typical activist’s conceit. If someone disagrees with your position the only possible explanation is because they are stupid.

I don’t argue with children because they need to reach a certain level of basic understanding to appreciate what is said. You do not appear to have reached that level yet.

It is equally possible that the person who disagrees with you has a greater understanding than yours, and has formed an opposite view arising out of that understanding. Perhaps they once thought as you did but then had to abandon those ideas.

It is not MY view p_p, but of Anthropologists and Archaeologists that have studied to subject for most of their lives. But to you that is as nought, because you cannot grasp the situation.

dv said:

Dingoes are an invasive species introduced by humans fairly recently in the scheme of things.

correct.

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

The Aboriginals were here for 40 thousand years before white settlement.
In that time they did not advance at all.
You may believe that their way of life was good for the environment, but the state of their environment was not the reason for their technical stagnation.

This is quite an uninformed opinion.

what I’m trying to say is, they did not make a conscience decision – not to advance their technology – because that advancement might harm their environment.

How do you know that? What makes you so sure it is factual?

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

Are we all being nice in this thread?

No. Piss off.

I’ve not insulted anyone, everyone’s opinion is valid even if I don’t agree. Insults show you are annoyed because someone may have rattled your beliefs or made a valid point. Its also a bit hard to provide evidence pro or con to your belief from events centuries ago.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

They had no use for one as there were no animals to pull a vehicle.

you probably have never seen a wheel barrow, although you’re good at pushing one

You have obviously never been in the bush (except on paths) have you Observer.

mountain biking

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

Are we all being nice in this thread?

No. Piss off.

everyone’s opinion is valid even if I don’t agree.

No.

dv said:

Dingoes are an invasive species introduced by humans fairly recently in the scheme of things.

But they occupied a niche that had been occupied by the Thylacine and Tasmanian Devil, therefore became an integrated part of the ecosystem very quickly.

Humans pulled and pushed wheeled contraptions before animals were harnessed.

or travois were used before wheels.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

This is quite an uninformed opinion.

what I’m trying to say is, they did not make a conscience decision – not to advance their technology – because that advancement might harm their environment.

How do you know that? What makes you so sure it is factual?

Hmmm; you tell me; did they advance in any measurable way other than adapting the best they could to survive?

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

Are we all being nice in this thread?

No. Piss off.

I’ve not insulted anyone, everyone’s opinion is valid even if I don’t agree. Insults show you are annoyed because someone may have rattled your beliefs or made a valid point. Its also a bit hard to provide evidence pro or con to your belief from events centuries ago.

Could also be that some peoples questions are completely stupid and are of such common knowledge that they should have known.

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

I don’t argue with children because they need to reach a certain level of basic understanding to appreciate what is said. You do not appear to have reached that level yet.

It is equally possible that the person who disagrees with you has a greater understanding than yours, and has formed an opposite view arising out of that understanding. Perhaps they once thought as you did but then had to abandon those ideas.

It is not MY view p_p, but of Anthropologists and Archaeologists that have studied to subject for most of their lives. But to you that is as nought, because you cannot grasp the situation.

Precisely, it is of academic interest only but has very little practical benefit in the modern world.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Dingoes are an invasive species introduced by humans fairly recently in the scheme of things.

But they occupied a niche that had been occupied by the Thylacine and Tasmanian Devil, therefore became an integrated part of the ecosystem very quickly.

A fair rejoinder. Is there no native whose niche is now occupied by the cat?

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

you probably have never seen a wheel barrow, although you’re good at pushing one

You have obviously never been in the bush (except on paths) have you Observer.

mountain biking

And what if that path was not there, then how would you go?

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

You have obviously never been in the bush (except on paths) have you Observer.

mountain biking

And what if that path was not there, then how would you go?

chainsaw

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

It is equally possible that the person who disagrees with you has a greater understanding than yours, and has formed an opposite view arising out of that understanding. Perhaps they once thought as you did but then had to abandon those ideas.

It is not MY view p_p, but of Anthropologists and Archaeologists that have studied to subject for most of their lives. But to you that is as nought, because you cannot grasp the situation.

Precisely, it is of academic interest only but has very little practical benefit in the modern world.

God, what a dreadful way of looking at the world. No wonder we stuff up so much of the environment.

• chainsaw

Burning seems popular too…

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

No. Piss off.

I’ve not insulted anyone, everyone’s opinion is valid even if I don’t agree. Insults show you are annoyed because someone may have rattled your beliefs or made a valid point. Its also a bit hard to provide evidence pro or con to your belief from events centuries ago.

Could also be that some peoples questions are completely stupid and are of such common knowledge that they should have known.

That’s your opinion though, what do you think the solution is to giving Aboriginal people a better lifestyle similar to what they enjoyed in the distant past and do the majority in actual fact want that lifestyle. A tribal way of living can’t be applied to a large techological advanced society.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Dingoes are an invasive species introduced by humans fairly recently in the scheme of things.

But they occupied a niche that had been occupied by the Thylacine and Tasmanian Devil, therefore became an integrated part of the ecosystem very quickly.

A fair rejoinder. Is there no native whose niche is now occupied by the cat?

Thats the problem isn’t it, cats are pretty effective predators especially when their prey has no prior experience of anything similar.

Cymek said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

But they occupied a niche that had been occupied by the Thylacine and Tasmanian Devil, therefore became an integrated part of the ecosystem very quickly.

A fair rejoinder. Is there no native whose niche is now occupied by the cat?

Thats the problem isn’t it, cats are pretty effective predators especially when their prey has no prior experience of anything similar.

wild cats scare me; there pure evil

• wild cats scare me; there pure evil

Well, come on, its been ages since Tiny Pinder played…

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Dingoes are an invasive species introduced by humans fairly recently in the scheme of things.

But they occupied a niche that had been occupied by the Thylacine and Tasmanian Devil, therefore became an integrated part of the ecosystem very quickly.

A fair rejoinder. Is there no native whose niche is now occupied by the cat?

The cat is such an intelligent, persistent and artful hunter, plus it will eat most living things, so it spreads over many niches. Also being able to consume most things it can survive droughts etc, being better than most animals like reptiles that would otherwise survive.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Dingoes are an invasive species introduced by humans fairly recently in the scheme of things.

But they occupied a niche that had been occupied by the Thylacine and Tasmanian Devil, therefore became an integrated part of the ecosystem very quickly.

yes.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Dingoes are an invasive species introduced by humans fairly recently in the scheme of things.

But they occupied a niche that had been occupied by the Thylacine and Tasmanian Devil, therefore became an integrated part of the ecosystem very quickly.

A fair rejoinder. Is there no native whose niche is now occupied by the cat?

No.

mtDNA evidence suggests dingoes were introduced about 5000 years ago and that there were no significant further introductions to the set of dogs in Australia prior to European settlement.

There are remains of humans in Australia from approximately 45000 years ago but it has not been demonstrated that those people are in any way connected to modern aboriginal Australians. DNA evidence suggests there were at least two major waves of settlement in Australia prior to European settlement that influenced the modern set of aboriginal Australians: one prior to 15000 years ago, and another around 5000 years ago. The 5000 year influx appears to have been by people connected to modern southern Indians (from Y-chrom evidence). This ties in well with certain cultural and technological changes that occurred around that time, and also with estimates of the date of the parent language of the Pama-Nyungan language family, and of course to the introduction of the dingo.

The_observer said:

Cymek said:

dv said:

A fair rejoinder. Is there no native whose niche is now occupied by the cat?

Thats the problem isn’t it, cats are pretty effective predators especially when their prey has no prior experience of anything similar.

wild cats scare me; there pure evil

I remember seeing a documentary on two Aboriginal women who tracked them down and ate them

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

But they occupied a niche that had been occupied by the Thylacine and Tasmanian Devil, therefore became an integrated part of the ecosystem very quickly.

A fair rejoinder. Is there no native whose niche is now occupied by the cat?

The cat is such an intelligent, persistent and artful hunter, plus it will eat most living things, so it spreads over many niches. Also being able to consume most things it can survive droughts etc, being better than most animals like reptiles that would otherwise survive.

I had a boxer once called Samantha. Unfortunately she like to dine on blue tongues.
For some reason though she would never eat their tails?

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

I’ve not insulted anyone, everyone’s opinion is valid even if I don’t agree. Insults show you are annoyed because someone may have rattled your beliefs or made a valid point. Its also a bit hard to provide evidence pro or con to your belief from events centuries ago.

Could also be that some peoples questions are completely stupid and are of such common knowledge that they should have known.

That’s your opinion though, what do you think the solution is to giving Aboriginal people a better lifestyle similar to what they enjoyed in the distant past and do the majority in actual fact want that lifestyle. A tribal way of living can’t be applied to a large techological advanced society.

You just do not understand. There is no way pre-European conditions could ever be returned.

Cymek said:

The_observer said:

Cymek said:

Thats the problem isn’t it, cats are pretty effective predators especially when their prey has no prior experience of anything similar.

wild cats scare me; there pure evil

I remember seeing a documentary on two Aboriginal women who tracked them down and ate them

They also ate dingo puppies.

It does not appear that the humans that existed in the early stages of settlement were good “managers” of the environment at all. The sheer scale of the megafauna exinction tragedy is mindblowing, so many tremendous and wonderful species driven to extinction.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

A fair rejoinder. Is there no native whose niche is now occupied by the cat?

The cat is such an intelligent, persistent and artful hunter, plus it will eat most living things, so it spreads over many niches. Also being able to consume most things it can survive droughts etc, being better than most animals like reptiles that would otherwise survive.

I had a boxer once called Samantha. Unfortunately she like to dine on blue tongues.
For some reason though she would never eat their tails?

Dogs often mimic their owners, or perhaps it is the owners who mimic their dogs. Either way the results are the same.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The cat is such an intelligent, persistent and artful hunter, plus it will eat most living things, so it spreads over many niches. Also being able to consume most things it can survive droughts etc, being better than most animals like reptiles that would otherwise survive.

I had a boxer once called Samantha. Unfortunately she like to dine on blue tongues.
For some reason though she would never eat their tails?

Dogs often mimic their owners, or perhaps it is the owners who mimic their dogs. Either way the results are the same.

oh yeh?

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Could also be that some peoples questions are completely stupid and are of such common knowledge that they should have known.

That’s your opinion though, what do you think the solution is to giving Aboriginal people a better lifestyle similar to what they enjoyed in the distant past and do the majority in actual fact want that lifestyle. A tribal way of living can’t be applied to a large techological advanced society.

You just do not understand. There is no way pre-European conditions could ever be returned.

I do understand, what’s your proposal for giving them a more fulfilling lifestyle. I see the ramifications through my job of Aboriginals living in remote communities and they seem very unpleasant places to live, are they chucked there to be forgotten or do those living there try to recapture a past that no longer works.

dv said:

It does not appear that the humans that existed in the early stages of settlement were good “managers” of the environment at all. The sheer scale of the megafauna exinction tragedy is mindblowing, so many tremendous and wonderful species driven to extinction.

As I have repeatedly said, any new arrival (especially a top predator) is not going to be good for the establish ecosystem.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

That’s your opinion though, what do you think the solution is to giving Aboriginal people a better lifestyle similar to what they enjoyed in the distant past and do the majority in actual fact want that lifestyle. A tribal way of living can’t be applied to a large techological advanced society.

You just do not understand. There is no way pre-European conditions could ever be returned.

I do understand, what’s your proposal for giving them a more fulfilling lifestyle. I see the ramifications through my job of Aboriginals living in remote communities and they seem very unpleasant places to live, are they chucked there to be forgotten or do those living there try to recapture a past that no longer works.

Cymek, the welfare of Aborigines is not part of this thread, particularly contempary ones. I don’t know, nor have I ever been involved, my interest is in their history and culture as it relates to environmental matters.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

It does not appear that the humans that existed in the early stages of settlement were good “managers” of the environment at all. The sheer scale of the megafauna exinction tragedy is mindblowing, so many tremendous and wonderful species driven to extinction.

As I have repeatedly said, any new arrival (especially a top predator) is not going to be good for the establish ecosystem.

No and to put it bluntly then weren’t the English who settled Australia the top predator and not good for the established ecosystem which included Aboriginal people, if Aboriginal people needed time to gain wisdom and live in better harmony with nature then so do we.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Could also be that some peoples questions are completely stupid and are of such common knowledge that they should have known.

That’s your opinion though, what do you think the solution is to giving Aboriginal people a better lifestyle similar to what they enjoyed in the distant past and do the majority in actual fact want that lifestyle. A tribal way of living can’t be applied to a large techological advanced society.

You just do not understand. There is no way pre-European conditions could ever be returned.

But you’re advocating taking a pre-European approach to the environment.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

It does not appear that the humans that existed in the early stages of settlement were good “managers” of the environment at all. The sheer scale of the megafauna exinction tragedy is mindblowing, so many tremendous and wonderful species driven to extinction.

As I have repeatedly said, any new arrival (especially a top predator) is not going to be good for the establish ecosystem.

No and to put it bluntly then weren’t the English who settled Australia the top predator and not good for the established ecosystem which included Aboriginal people, if Aboriginal people needed time to gain wisdom and live in better harmony with nature then so do we.

True, but we seem to be very slow on the uptake.

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

That’s your opinion though, what do you think the solution is to giving Aboriginal people a better lifestyle similar to what they enjoyed in the distant past and do the majority in actual fact want that lifestyle. A tribal way of living can’t be applied to a large techological advanced society.

You just do not understand. There is no way pre-European conditions could ever be returned.

But you’re advocating taking a pre-European approach to the environment.

I was referring to the time of the pre-European period. I was advocating nothing, just pointing out the facts.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

As I have repeatedly said, any new arrival (especially a top predator) is not going to be good for the establish ecosystem.

No and to put it bluntly then weren’t the English who settled Australia the top predator and not good for the established ecosystem which included Aboriginal people, if Aboriginal people needed time to gain wisdom and live in better harmony with nature then so do we.

True, but we seem to be very slow on the uptake.

where would you like to start to make a difference PF?

Cats?

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

No and to put it bluntly then weren’t the English who settled Australia the top predator and not good for the established ecosystem which included Aboriginal people, if Aboriginal people needed time to gain wisdom and live in better harmony with nature then so do we.

True, but we seem to be very slow on the uptake.

where would you like to start to make a difference PF?

Cats?

It would really help if we could stop the cats but it has probably gone on too long.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

As I have repeatedly said, any new arrival (especially a top predator) is not going to be good for the establish ecosystem.

No and to put it bluntly then weren’t the English who settled Australia the top predator and not good for the established ecosystem which included Aboriginal people, if Aboriginal people needed time to gain wisdom and live in better harmony with nature then so do we.

True, but we seem to be very slow on the uptake.

Yes but that’s because money is involved and we all know the lows humans stoop to acquire it.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

True, but we seem to be very slow on the uptake.

where would you like to start to make a difference PF?

Cats?

It would really help if we could stop the cats but it has probably gone on too long.

would it be possible to rid the environment, all of Australia, of cats?

surely the answer is yes?

how ruthless are we willing to be?

how much money would we be willing to spend to get rid of cats in australia?

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

True, but we seem to be very slow on the uptake.

where would you like to start to make a difference PF?

Cats?

It would really help if we could stop the cats but it has probably gone on too long.

How do they compare to us cutting down the bush for housing and industrial development

A cat specific virus, registered and owned cats get an innoculation.

AwesomeO said:

Do aboriginals have more culture than any other group of people? What does culture mean in this context?

Not more, just very different. Culture in this context means the social and economic structures of the society being discussed.

Civilised, communal societies that developed with the advent of agriculture in first the middle east, then China, and later on in Mesoamerica has structures that are skewed towards the individual as a cog in a larger economic machine. Legal structure were dominated by the state and people knew their place based on class and clan.

Aboriginal culture on the other hand was dominated by family and kinship groups that had rules that are very alien to western thinking. Complex language and secret knowledge was used to govern male and female gender roles while group elders practiced communal law that was used to govern social and political questions as well as providing a means for the settling of disputes.

AwesomeO said:

A cat specific virus, registered and owned cats get an innoculation.

It would have to be quick acting and not cruel, a modified feline AIDS perhaps

Rampant pussies everywhere

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

You just do not understand. There is no way pre-European conditions could ever be returned.

But you’re advocating taking a pre-European approach to the environment.

I was referring to the time of the pre-European period. I was advocating nothing, just pointing out the facts.

So what’s your point then? You’ve dominated the last 100 posts in this thread bemoaning the fact that Europeans have destroyed the environment while the aborigines lived in some sort of ecological balance (eventually). If you’re just here to agree to stated facts then this thread would have been over in a dozen posts.

Dropbear said:

Rampant pussies everywhere

Who?

The myth of the noble savage died decades ago. The first humans in Australia wiped out the mega-fauna completely

Cymek said:

Dropbear said:

Rampant pussies everywhere

Who?

PF. He’s a total grub

Cymek said:

AwesomeO said:

A cat specific virus, registered and owned cats get an innoculation.

It would have to be quick acting and not cruel, a modified feline AIDS perhaps

give me a hat
made from a cat

oh yes, I’d like that.

give me a mat
made from a cat

oh yes, I’d like that.

make me a bat
made from a cat (whack whack)

oh yes, I’d like that.

no no, not from a rat

but a cat, a cat

and thats that

Dropbear said:

Cymek said:

Dropbear said:

Rampant pussies everywhere

Who?

PF. He’s a total grub

Bit of a cat lover are we Fallingbear?

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

But you’re advocating taking a pre-European approach to the environment.

I was referring to the time of the pre-European period. I was advocating nothing, just pointing out the facts.

So what’s your point then? You’ve dominated the last 100 posts in this thread bemoaning the fact that Europeans have destroyed the environment while the aborigines lived in some sort of ecological balance (eventually). If you’re just here to agree to stated facts then this thread would have been over in a dozen posts.

I think you live in a world of your own making p_p.

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

I was referring to the time of the pre-European period. I was advocating nothing, just pointing out the facts.

So what’s your point then? You’ve dominated the last 100 posts in this thread bemoaning the fact that Europeans have destroyed the environment while the aborigines lived in some sort of ecological balance (eventually). If you’re just here to agree to stated facts then this thread would have been over in a dozen posts.

I think you live in a world of your own making p_p.

I think you aren’t very good at expressing your point in writing in a way that is easily understandable.

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

So what’s your point then? You’ve dominated the last 100 posts in this thread bemoaning the fact that Europeans have destroyed the environment while the aborigines lived in some sort of ecological balance (eventually). If you’re just here to agree to stated facts then this thread would have been over in a dozen posts.

I think you live in a world of your own making p_p.

I think you aren’t very good at expressing your point in writing in a way that is easily understandable.

You need to have some basic knowledge, which you don’t appear to have. Therefore everything I say you misinterpret or do not understand the point being made.

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

I think you live in a world of your own making p_p.

I think you aren’t very good at expressing your point in writing in a way that is easily understandable.

You need to have some basic knowledge, which you don’t appear to have. Therefore everything I say you misinterpret or do not understand the point being made.

Are you saying it’s my problem now?

party_pants said:

PermeateFree said:

party_pants said:

I think you aren’t very good at expressing your point in writing in a way that is easily understandable.

You need to have some basic knowledge, which you don’t appear to have. Therefore everything I say you misinterpret or do not understand the point being made.

Are you saying it’s my problem now?

It always has been.