You’re right, i am better than me. Now accept your defecation
I feel like this is somewhat disingenuous. Pre-industrial, low population, limited understanding of engineering - if you’re simply consuming below replacement rate, you’re sustainable incidentally.
Crops started failing right before The Black Death because people still didn’t know about fertilizers and farming simply depleted the soil. If not for the plague Europe would see famine because its farming was… unsustainable.
The land use practiced by neolithic people is for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehesa Those ecosystem exist since thousands of years because they are… sustainable.
I think it’s disingenuous to talk as though you need 5 billion people to start impacting the land. One household destroys plenty. The majority of North American land was being cultivated in some fashion at the time of Spanish discovery, and the population of the continent was probably around 3 million people, 5% of modern day.
This study is about the Neolithic era, which is a period of huge earthworks. You may have heard of some of them. The idea that they were rotating crops to manage soil chemistry and practicing agroforestry 4-6000 years ago in a society known specifically for making giant fucking tombs is pretty neat when today with all the progress we’ve made we’re clear cutting the Amazon rainforest for cattle and similarly out of place monocrops.
Probably not incidental, if the population was sedentary they would probably burn through the trees faster then they would naturally grow back.
Humans, especially in northern latitudes, burn through wood pretty quickly for cooking and warmth.
Did they have the manpower or industrial uses to even harvest forests non-sustainably?
Maybe they were capable, but until the late middle ages there was no need for that much wood in Europe at least. Then the population was so big that you needed wood for everything. Building, coal and fire. In Europe at that time they almost cut down all forests and mostly replaced it with farmland. Later on they noticed they still need wood and plated back the forests.
The Romans in Egypt did not see that issue, when they built their ships from the trees there until all were gone. Which was also bad because now their very big wheat production was gone too since the climate changed without the trees and the desert took most of it.
Also Iceland was full of trees once but I think the Vikings cut them all down for ships.
When you compare the neolithic era to any of those mentioned you notice that the demand was not there. Why would you cut down a forest if don’t need the wood?
Yes, especially once agriculture comes into play and people become sedentary they burn through a lot more wood then will naturally grow if not controlled by rules and laws
If you’ve ever had a bonfire imagine how much wood you went through, then imagine having to keep that fire going, at least at a smolder, all day long to heat your home and cook your food.
Te trick to cooking on a bonfire is to let it go out then spread out the hot coals. congrats now you’ve got a cooking fire! Toss your Dutch oven in and it’ll cook great
people on the easter island had
You might be familiar with the scale of their earthworks, think pyramids that people still visit in awe today?
New study finds that Neolithic people were net zero on emissions
They had very few radiological incidents, and not a single nuclear meltdown in over 400, 000 years!
They also had zero microplastics or PFAS which was unprecedented at the time
They actually weren’t and that’s also probably why we aren’t heading towards an ice age. Due to solar cycles the earth should’ve started cooling about 7,000 years ago but it didn’t and instead we entered the warmer holocene, perhaps due to mass deforestation and early agriculture releasing tons of CO2 and methane:
https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Ruddiman2003.pdf
So we should already be near ice age if it weren’t for them? Dammit, i really like cold…!
I blame Jesus. If not for him - we’d probably still be believing in sacred forests and shit.
Eh, it’s not as if the romans were too kind to the forests. So if you’re going back in time kill Caesar too before he genocides gaul of the protectors of the forest the Celts
Correction: if not for the people who INVENTED Jesus.
Jesus, the person, existed as far as academic consensus is concerned.
Jesus, the son of God, on the other hand, only exists in the heads of the delusional.
The Christ myth theory, developed in 19th century scholarship and gaining popular attraction since the turn of the 20th century,[15][16][2] is the view that Jesus is purely a mythological figure[17] and that Christianity began with belief in such a figure.[18] Proponents use a three-fold argument developed in the 19th century: that the New Testament has no historical value with respect to Jesus’s existence, that there are no non-Christian references to Jesus from the first century, and that Christianity had pagan or mythical roots.[19][20] The idea that Jesus was a purely mythical figure has a fringe status in scholarly circles and has had no support in critical studies for more than a century, with most such theories going without recognition or serious engagement.[21][2][note 4]
David Gullotta states that modern interest in mythicism has been “amplified by internet conspiracy culture, pseudoscience, and media sensationalism”.[16]
Wasn’t Joshua (aka Jesus) a rabbi?
Jesus, the person, existed as far as academic consensus is concerned
because can you imagine what would happen to academics if academia decided jesus didn’t exist.
Jesus, the person, existed as far as academic consensus is concerned.
Yeah, the academic consensus of Christian theologians 🙄
the New Testament has no historical value with respect to Jesus’s existence
Obviously true.
there are no non-Christian references to Jesus from the first century
Or references to him form ANYONE who were alive at the same time he supposedly was, for that matter.
Christianity had pagan or mythical roots
Also factually accurate.
The idea that Jesus was a purely mythical figure has a fringe status in scholarly circles
Because guess what? The people who choose to dedicate their lives to studying theology or first century Palestine history tend to be people who believe in the myths. It’s inherent confirmation bias.
Next you’re going to tell me that it’s an undisputed fact that draconian punishment reduces crime rates, based on the testimony of cops and conservative demagogues 🙄
I recommend reading the Wikipedia page. It debunks your debunking quite thoroughly.
Christians aren’t the only people to have studied that time period.
Jesus was a man of near no economic means and no military power. The fact there’s even any historical references to him is a klaxon for his existence. I’m from an area of the world that has next to no written records for the entire peoples that lived here throughout several centuries of the early middle ages, and yet it’s not doubted they existed. It seems then pretty difficult to doubt the existence of a single man with which there’s so much written from an even earlier period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picts
If Jesus existed in modern times I’m sure there’d be conspiracies that the CIA is trying to wipe out the memory of the slave abolitionist and communist revolutionary. But because a cult of personality and religion got built around him for centuries, that is now one of the dominant philosophical and political powers in the world, the opposite view is taken. It’s all a conspiracy, maaaan!
Non-Christian sources used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus include the c. first century Jewish historian Josephus and Roman historian Tacitus. These sources are compared to Christian sources, such as the Pauline letters and synoptic gospels, and are usually independent of each other. Similarities and differences between these sources are used in the authentication process.[103][104][105][106] From these two independent sources alone, certain facts about Jesus can be adduced: that he existed, his personal name was Jesus, he was called a messiah, he had a brother named James, he won over Jews and gentiles, Jewish leaders had unfavorable opinions of him, Pontius Pilate decided his execution, he was executed by crucifixion, and he was executed during Pilate’s governorship.[107] Josephus and Tacitus agree on four sequential points: a movement was started by Jesus, he was executed by Pontius Pilate, his movement continued after his death, and that a group of “Christians” still existed; analogous to common knowledge of founders and their followers like Plato and Platonists.[108]
The fact there’s even any historical references to him is a klaxon for his existence
“He’s real because it was weird that someone made him up” 🙄
I’m from an area of the world that has next to no written records for the entire peoples that lived here throughout several centuries of the early middle ages, and yet it’s not doubted they existed
Yeah, those WILL leave traces beyond the written records. Where’s your archaeological proof of the significant carpenter?
It seems then pretty difficult to doubt the existence of a single man with which there’s so much written from an even earlier period.
Yeah, someone being written about a lot even though they’re not rich DOES prove that they’re real! Case in point:
If Jesus existed in modern times I’m sure there’d be conspiracies that the CIA is trying to wipe out the memory of the slave abolitionist and communist revolutionary
Nah, if he lived in modern day, he’d probably be murdered by the IOF, being a Palestinian from the West Bank.
But because a cult
of personalityand religion got built aroundhima bunch of different people that they turned into one like Arwen in the LotR moviesFixed it for you.
now one of the dominant philosophical and political powers in the world
Bolded the operative words.
The myth have been kept alive not by being true, but by being a tool of domination for those who have and want to maintain power.
Or to quote Eleanor Ferguson, “Christianity didn’t become a world religion because of quality of its teachings, but by the quantity of its violence”
Similarly, the Liberal Zionism-esque “compromise” of Jesus being real but not divine was established not from the preponderance of evidence or even reason, but from being overly trusting of biased authority figures.
Non-Christian sources used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus include the c. first century Jewish historian Josephus
A braggart known to exaggerate and embellish accounts to make himself and the Jewish people look good.
And he wasn’t born until the supposed Jesus had already died, making all the things he “reported” about it as an adult historian decades old hearsay at best.
As for Tacitus, that was one passage in 116 CE, a modern day lifespan after the events described where he gets names and titles wrong and doesn’t reference a source.
Hardly the irrefutable evidence you like to pretend it is.
deleted by creator
