Big, dumb and tasty
now that's good eating!
In a land before time – or at least Australia about 40,000 years ago – five meter kangaroos bounded across the landscape. Some were fleeing colossal marsupial lions. Others were trying to stay out of the way of Emus twice the size of today's specimens or Diprotodon Optatum, a rhinoceros-like beastie that was the largest …
now that's good eating!
Yes but glad I never bumped into one in the dark.
Is that a reference to an Australian or a kangaroo?
Tim Flannery has been saying this for three, maybe four decades now.
It isn't politically correct to say that Austfailia's original 'custodians' wiped out more species and destroyed far more ecosystems (through the dubious practice of, um.... burning down all the trees*) than us white-bread newcomers have in the past 200 years.
Austfailia - failing since 50,000BC - continuing the proud tradition into the 20th century**.
* - the native fire-clearing served only to retain species that are fire-resistant. Before native fire-clearing Australia looked more like the Daintree across the tropics, and Wollombi across the termperate zone. The deserts are only a new thing in the past 50,000 years or so - suspiciously coinciding with the spread of the plague of homo sapiens currently infesting the planet.
** - we're a bit behind down 'ere, maaaaaayte.
Yeah, how much you want to bet this will get brushed under the carpet just like all the other studies that show that humans are humans and do dickish things to the environment and each other regardless of skin colour...
Definitely not a new theory. I actually thought it was commonly considered to be the most likely scenario. Sure, there hasn't been much direct evidence, but we think we know when humans arrived in Australia and we know that the mass extinction of Australia's large animal life happened at this time.Correlation may not BE causation, but in this case it's a pretty big red flag.
It's not politically correct to say that the early Australian aboriginals ate every big land-animal they could catch to extinction? I always thought it was pretty obvious.
The environment was dickish to us first.
Just look around Oz, everything wants to kill you, so why not kill it first with fire.
No, Tim says it was the fires that humans started that wiped out the megafauna, whereas this research suggests it was wiping out the megafauna which allowed "natural" fires to spread. This may be an academic point, but it is actually the whole point of the paper that the reduction in animals led to more grass first and then the fires as opposed to the fires which led to less grass and then a reduction in the animals.
Guess why there are no large dinosaurs left? Sure, some died out from environmental causes, but many became extinct because humans didn't like it when they came visiting.
So there were guys throwing pointy sticks at T.Rex...?
And presumably Raquel Welch was just like standing there watchiing as usual?
Clearly there are no large dinosaurs left because they were coated in crispy breadcrumbs. This was not an evolutionary advantage - everything likes crispy breadcrumbs.
I took a Creation Science module at school and I can assure you there are still large dinosaurs around. They are just really good at hiding behind hills.
Yeah, I thought we all knew that the dinosaurs were wiped out by time travelling cowboys and ranchers feeding the burgeoning population of the 23rd century.
"They are just really good at hiding behind hills."
ITYM "the furniture". Right Bob?
There's a very consistent pattern across the world - humans arrive, megafauna disappears. The Americas 15,000 years ago - giant sloths and sabre-tooths; all gone within a couple of millennia. While the Battle of Hastings was being fought, 12 foot moas were roaming the Kauri forests of NZ. Humans arrive shortly thereafter; and within a couple of centuries the moas are all gone.
Meanwhile, in Africa where the megafauna coevolved to keep out of the way of the chimps with spears, they survived until the gun was invented.
Why have people in the media started using that word when there are so many others available. It should only ever be uttered by someone under five years of age and even then only if they're from a very twee family.
I'd have excused it in this case if the Reg sub had used it as creatively as I have.
What's wrong with "Kanga"?
no he's talking poo
It means we should be able to get rid of dingos, right? ...Right?
Nah, they don't provide very good eating.
I'm sure there'll be no problem associated with eradicating other stupid species that actually taste okay... rabbits, for example.
Won't the dingos die from eating cane toads?
"Won't the dingos die from eating cane toads?"
No, they'll become venomous dingoes!
//you clearly don't understand how Australia works....
I for one would pay to ride on a five meter kangaroo!
I suppose it takes all kinds to make up a world <sigh>
Most people would be happy just to roll up at the local whorehouse.
there does seem to be a human frailty that distorts science - 'Not our fault'.
People are still desperately trying to find a meteor or meteorites that wiped out the megafauna in the americas. Despite the fact there are bones with spear points buried in them.
maybe we stabbed the bodies after the meteor killed them?
come on stop undermining our defence case. if jesus comes back and finds we killed all the animals he's going to be furious
Followed by marsupial lions.
Now where's the "WANT" icon ?
... is most often described as something like a grumpy-looking Wombat the size of a Humvee.
I think that would be great!
Also can we bring back the Thylacine?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017