Easter Island story

[T'ai Chi]

So is it:

1) religious craze led to making lots of stone statues led to using all the trees led to soil erosion led to extinction by ecocide

or

2) disease brought by outside populations, and rats, led to demise

or

3) next decades' story which will probably contradict both of these

 

[ImaginalDisc]

So is it:

1) religious craze led to making lots of stone statues led to using all the trees led to soil erosion led to extinction by ecocide

or

2) disease brought by outside populations, and rats, led to demise

or

3) next decades' story which will probably contradict both of these

Tai, none of these precludes the other.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Tai, none of these precludes the other.

Each hypothesis also puts forth a different time frame, and different population numbers as well.

OK, then you vote

4) some mix of both

 

[CFLarsen]

So is it:

1) religious craze led to making lots of stone statues led to using all the trees led to soil erosion led to extinction by ecocide

or

2) disease brought by outside populations, and rats, led to demise

or

3) next decades' story which will probably contradict both of these

As ImaginalDisc has pointed out, these are not mutually exclusive. You, with your background and education in math and statistics should know this. Which leads me to suspect that you have - as usual - a hidden agenda. And I am not wrong all that often.

What is your point? If you want to point out that the scientific explanations change due to new evidence, you are not exactly surprising anyone.

 

[Kopji]

Pirates

 

[Zep]

They stole the statues, Cap'n!

Arrrrgh!

 

[T'ai Chi]

Maybe the rat-squirrel, that was thought to be extinct for millions and millions of years but wasn't, had something to do with it.

 

[Mojo]

Maybe the rat-squirrel, that was thought to be extinct for millions and millions of years but wasn't, had something to do with it.

Laos is an awful long way from Easter Island.

 

[CFLarsen]

Maybe the rat-squirrel, that was thought to be extinct for millions and millions of years but wasn't, had something to do with it.

Answer the question:

What is your point?

 

[Psiload]

So is it:

1) religious craze led to making lots of stone statues led to using all the trees led to soil erosion led to extinction by ecocide

or

2) disease brought by outside populations, and rats, led to demise

or

3) next decades' story which will probably contradict both of these

If by 'extinction' you're referring to the human population of the island, then the answer is None of the above... because the human population never went extinct. The descendants of the original island settlers still live on the island to this very day. As far as what caused the collapse of Easter Island's society in the late 1600's/early 1700's...

- 1) Fits the bill, but it's is not the sole exclusive cause of the collapse. Extinction due to overutilization of many of the local bird species was also a factor.

- 2) Is highly improbable, because the fist contact with "outside populations" (1722) didn't occur until AFTER the collapse had already taken place.

- 3) No! Stop! Bad! Bad, T'ai Chi! We'll have no more of this behavior!

Stop being naughty, and get thee to a library.

Collapse : How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed
by Jared Diamond

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/01...f=pd_bbs_1/002-8355176-1294419?_encoding=UTF8

 

[Nyarlathotep]

OMG! Science changes its conclusions when new evidence comes to light.

Bad science! Bad! Why can't you bemore like your brother, religion, and never change no matter what? No cookie for you.

 

[Mojo]

OMG! Science changes its conclusions when new evidence comes to light.

Bad science! Bad! Why can't you bemore like your brother, religion, and never change no matter what? No cookie for you.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Laos is an awful long way from Easter Island.

True dat.

 

[T'ai Chi]

OMG! Science changes its conclusions when new evidence comes to light.

How can we go with what you say, since your conclusion above may change when new evidence comes in.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

How can we go with what you say, since your conclusion above may change when new evidence comes in.

So its better to, once an opinion has been formed, stick with it in the face of all evidence to the contrary? To never admit to being wrong about anything? To never change or modify one's views based on expereince.

Not in my book but whatever floats your boat.

 

[CFLarsen]

That would be "deceit".

 

[Rolfe]

No, you should never have an opinion at all, about anything, because if you're truly open-minded you have to admit you might be wrong....

Rolfe.

 

[CFLarsen]

No, you should never have an opinion at all, about anything, because if you're truly open-minded you have to admit you might be wrong....

Rolfe.

Exactly.

 

[Psiload]

"People should get beat up for stating their beliefs."

They Might Be Giants

 

[catbasket]

The spokesunicorn for the fifty three invisible pink unicorns who claimed to be tap-dancing naked on my dining table has now stated that they were in fact fifty three visible pink horses in fancy dress pogoing fully clothed on my dining table.

In light of this factual update I still assert that T2 is assuming more.

T'ai, sorry mate, I thought you ran away. Obviously you just forgot to answer.

Pot, meet kettle, meet T'ai, meet BHG.

ETA - Look what I just found on my desktop -

"Um, let's look at this T'ai Chi chap's performance. First, he's had at least 4 nics, those being T'ai Chi, Whodini, JZS, and Statisticool. Second, he's reknowned for taking things out of context, malicious misunderstanding, outright misstatement of others positions, and the like. Third, he has nothing positive to say, and appears to emerge mostly to indirectly attack or incite other posters." - jj