They know that it should be the opposite to save their island but the king and his court won’t listen to them. The king’s whole lineage cut down as much as they wanted, so he’s having a tantrum that it’s not working out the same for him. He’s doing it anyway. Entitlement can do that to a fellow.
That’s very likely a myth. Other things that were going on at the same time include European slave-taking, new diseases, and the introduction of rats that ate the tree seeds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Island#Criticism_of_the_Ecocide_Theory
Everyone’s always blaming the rats
That doesn’t make it any better though, colonization is the same as kings being shitheads.
It may not make it better, but its an argument against the validity of your shower thought.
I think it’s still valid though. Audubon made *certain kinds of birds go extinct because it was fun to shoot them. Humans are weird and selfish when they’re in power. Colonization is the same thing as a king cutting down the last tree, they wanted the resources.
Except it isn’t “the same thing”.
The point of the myth of Rapa Nui ecocide wasn’t “watch out for ecological damage”, it was “primitive barbarians are too stupid to manage their own resources, even when it kills them; we civilized people have to protect them by taking their island away from them and turning it into a park.”
It was a pro-colonialism meme.
When, y’know, in reality those resources, and the people, were being stolen by slavers.
So the lesson really should be “slavers are bad” … which we already knew.
primitive barbarians are too stupid to manage their own resources, even when it kills them
I legitimately never thought of it in those terms. To me what happened, I was told, is what would happen to any group.
That’s exactly one of the premises in this paper: Deforestation and world population sustainability: a quantitative analysis.
Some say, the easter island model doesn’t scale worldwide but I don’t see a reason why it wouldn’t.
I agree that it would scale. If you think of it as oligarchs and corporate CEOs=kings, it tracks. It’s tough because the older generations have a lot of people trying to save the planet, but they have and had no power either. You can live like we’re doomed and do your part or live your best life and do your part. Maybe the younger generations will have the power to make change, I hope the older generations vote for the good ones.
I don’t believe a CEO or King is necessary for short sighted action. Humans are just very bad at sustainable long-term decisions.
I know a guy who owns a small forrest and when wood prices were skyrocketing due to supply chain disruption, he was tempted to sell more wood than planned. So he couldn’t sell as much in the following years. He has no boss, is not rich and makes his own decisions.
It’s a simple mechanism of supply and demand. I can’t see a reason why people wouldn’t cut down more trees than can grow back when demand is ultra high, other than force/legislation. And then people get angry because they won’t realize that they’d destroy their own business in the long run. A worldwide life-threatening situation won’t change that.
Well first off there are about 190 governments vs that one that had 1.
wouldn’t make that consent even harder? or imply wars?
e.g. Brazil. Imagine they got the last lumber on earth, they’d have to choose between preserving their last trees and incredible wealth by selling it. I can’t imagine a poor country to choose the former.
Thailand has been making bank regulating Teak wood.
The time for thinking has ended. It is time to follow them into the fires or douse the flames with their corpses. Choice is your’s.
