Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: First Nations, Science and Politics (Read 5236 times) previous topic - next topic - Topic derived from Trumpled (Alternative...
0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: First Nations, Science and Politics

Reply #15 –
Quote from: DJC – on
Quote from: Thryleon – on
Imho there's a population issue with the claim of length of time indigenous people claim to be here.

They should have much larger populations than they do.  The world populations exploded around 1800.  By contrast the population here is so much smaller.

It doesn't quite marry up the way you would expect from a growth rate nor rate of change perspective.

Where do you get your population figures from Thry?

The archaeological evidence indicates a significant increase in the Aboriginal population around 5,000 years ago.

I know most about southeastern Australia so I’ll focus on that.

The Aboriginal population of Victoria in the 1830s is estimated to have been somewhere between 25,000 and 50,000 and that population had been ravaged by smallpox that preceded the colonists spreading out from Sydney.  By the late 19th century, the Aboriginal population had dropped to less than 1,000.

The population can’t exceed the carrying capacity of the environment and that is determined by both the resources in the environment and the technology available to that population.  A population increase in industrial England does not mean that the populations of nomadic African cattle herders, slash and burn Melanesian farmers or Amazonian hunter-gatherers will increase.



looked it up on some statistical websites and found one that showed population change across the globe.  On a conservative level, globally up until 1800 Oceania as a continent were miles behind everyone else, so either they weren't counting properly, there's gaps in statistical analysis for obvious reasons, or population growth here was significantly smaller in indigenous cultures than it was across the globe.  Perhaps it was more of the nomadic hunter gatherer lifestyle that did this rather than settling and building cities, but its a very stark contrast when compared with global figures.

It's probably on par with native Canadian populations without having the challenge of overcoming freezing temperatures.

"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: First Nations, Science and Politics

Reply #16 –
Quote from: Thryleon – on
It's probably on par with native Canadian populations without having the challenge of overcoming freezing temperatures.

I think you underestimate the troubles that come with living in Australia.
Everything can kill you.

Might not get the cold, but you'll get the heat. Drought. Fires etc.

Re: First Nations, Science and Politics

Reply #17 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
Quote from: Thryleon – on
It's probably on par with native Canadian populations without having the challenge of overcoming freezing temperatures.

I think you underestimate the troubles that come with living in Australia.
Everything can kill you.

Might not get the cold, but you'll get the heat. Drought. Fires etc.

Not exactly.  According to the rate of change in populations globally being conservative over 65000 years, you would see a compounding effect in population growth.  Even starting from a low base, and looking at maybe 10 people as a starting point 4 thousand years ago, how does doubling every 10 years look in terms of population growth?

After 80 years its 2560, right?

So expand that out over time, accounting for a black death or two, the only real variance i can see is farming and animal husbandry (which might be enough by itself) but populations aren't huge today to support 65000 years of first nations continuous living.  Maybe there is a claim to historic people's that died out (say early humans, or a variant of Neanderthal or somethign) that is being attributed to first nations people and generally speaking shouldn't be.  That being said where are the bodies if the place is that dangerous too. I know it's a large country but I'm simply raising questions without making wide sweeping allegations or accusations either.  Im just not sure they've been asked.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: First Nations, Science and Politics

Reply #18 –
I’ve spent a few nights out in the open in central Australia. Not exactly balmy!
Reality always wins in the end.

Re: First Nations, Science and Politics

Reply #19 –
Whilst I cant contribute anything to the discussion, I find all this informative and educational, thankyou muchly to all you knowledgable, expert folk.
2021-Pi$$ or get off the pot
2022- Real Deal or more of the same? 0.6%
2023- "Raise the Standard" - M. Voss Another year wasted Bar Set
2024-Back to the drawing boardNo excuses, its time
2025-Carlton can win the 2025 AFL Premiership

Re: First Nations, Science and Politics

Reply #20 –
One fact that is often overlooked is that Australia and New Guinea have always been separated from Southeast Asia by significant sea barriers; the Wallace, Weber and Lydecker Lines in biogeographical terms.  They mark the limits of distribution Australasian and Southeast Asian fauna.

The First Australians and the First Melanesians had to cross those sea barriers to reach Australia and New Guinea, or Sahul as the two land masses are called when they were one.  Regardless of whether the route was via Sumatra and Timor or Borneo and Sulawesi, those sea barriers had to be navigated, and they have always been large enough to prevent the land on the other side to be seen.  In other words, there was no guarantee of making landfall on the other side.

The First Australians and the First Melanesians managed to make those crossings but how they did it is unknown.  They could have been aboard rafts used for coastal fishing that were washed away in a storm as was once depicted in a diorama at Museum Victoria.

What is known is that the next people to cross those sea barriers were the Lapita people who were ancestral to today's Polynesians and Micronesians.   They arrived around 3,500 years ago and their relatively sophisticated watercraft coped well with the sea barriers and subsequent voyages of discovery and settlement across the Pacific as far as Easter Island and probably South America.

As with the arrival of the First Australians and the First Melanesians, the Lapita People's story is well-documented through the archaeology, material culture, physical anthropology, linguistics and DNA.

To recap, people left Africa around 70,000 years ago and travelled through Southeast Asia to the Sahul landmass by around 60,00 years ago, crossing significant ocean barriers to do so.  The ancestral Melanesians settled in New Guinea and the Ancestral Aboriginal people continued on to occupy the southern part of Sahul.  They were the first and last colonists to occupy Sahul when it was one land mass.  Higher global temperatures cause sea level rises that separated mainland Australia from New Guinea and Tasmania and increased the size of the ocean barriers that have always separated Australia and New Guinea from Southeast Asia.  No other humans successfully crossed those ocean barriers until the Lapita People around 3,500 years ago.  The Lapita People colonised island Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia but only made occasional visits to Australia. 

It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: First Nations, Science and Politics

Reply #21 –
Quote from: DJC – on
However, there is incontrovertible evidence that the Aboriginal people who arrived in Australia around 60,000 years ago and those who saw the First Fleet arrive are one and the same people.  DNA doesn’t lie!
No disputing that, but I'm not sure if it supports your case or mine.

I questioned 40000 years of apparent nothing, on the figures you provide they made an egress from Africa starting 72000 years ago, getting to Australia 60000 years ago, a 12000 journey, it seems reasonable. Then it's 60000 years of nothing after that, little mingling, nobody decided they liked it better where they came from, no significant visitors.

We read stories of great Polynesian explorers, crossings of seas hundreds of kilometres wide and open ocean thousands of kilometres, but we are asked to accept almost nothing in 60000 across regions largely trafficable by foot, no boat needed. I suppose someone will claim it was too good here, God's country, so why leave? But that only leads into Thry's population question, if life was so good, where is everybody? They aren't silly questions, they don't disrupt the evidence but they are explained by the received wisdom either.

I'm not questioning the evidence, it's fine, it is the gaps full of human collusions and rhetoric defending connected hypothesis that seems rubbery at best. FWIW, a lot of the Out of Africa hypothesis is rubbery too, not the general premise, I think it's not questionable, just that some seem unable to colour within the lines.

When a surface is trafficable, travel tends to be in many directions, Australia being a dead-end would never stop a wave of humanity having a bounce, but in 60000 not so much as a stone throw! ;)
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: First Nations, Science and Politics

Reply #22 –
Quote from: LP – on
Quote from: DJC – on
However, there is incontrovertible evidence that the Aboriginal people who arrived in Australia around 60,000 years ago and those who saw the First Fleet arrive are one and the same people.  DNA doesn’t lie!
No disputing that, but I'm not sure if it supports your case or mine.

I questioned 40000 years of apparent nothing, on the figures they made an egress from Africa in starting 72000, getting to Australia 60000 years ago, a 12000 journey, it seems reasonable. Then it's 60000 years of nothing after that.

I'm not questioning the evidence, it's fine, it the gaps full of human collusions and rhetoric defending connected hypothesis that seems rubbery at best.

When a surface is trafficable, travel tends to be in many directions, Australia being a dead-end would never stop a wave of humanity having a bounce. But in 60000 not so much as a stone throw! ;)

Look at a map. Look at the direction of travel out of africa.
Where are you expecting people to go?

I think it should be pointed out that people probably went in other directions, but its hard to survive on small islands over a millenia.

So the fact people haven't set up shop from your extended stretch, doesn't mean they didn't try (and fail) inbetween.

Re: First Nations, Science and Politics

Reply #23 –
Quote from: Thryleon – on
looked it up on some statistical websites and found one that showed population change across the globe.  On a conservative level, globally up until 1800 Oceania as a continent were miles behind everyone else, so either they weren't counting properly, there's gaps in statistical analysis for obvious reasons, or population growth here was significantly smaller in indigenous cultures than it was across the globe.  Perhaps it was more of the nomadic hunter gatherer lifestyle that did this rather than settling and building cities, but its a very stark contrast when compared with global figures.

It's probably on par with native Canadian populations without having the challenge of overcoming freezing temperatures.

You can't expect consistent human population growth across the globe.  Even today we have some countries with negative population growth, some with migration providing modest population growth and some with booming birthrates.  India had a population growth rate of around 2.3% for decades in the 20th century.  It's now below 1%.

Technology and the carrying capacity of the environment are limiting factors.  The Fertile Crescent would have had a much greater population growth in 4,500BCE than that of the San hunter-gatherers in the Namib Desert.  Greenland was most likely unoccupied and no-one knew that New Zealand existed.  Tierra Del Fuego probably always had a relatively low population until the Indigenous folk were exterminated and replaced by a mainly Caucasian population.  It now has an annual population growth rate of around 3%.

There's also the post-colonisation Indigenous population crash that occurred in Australia and with most colonised peoples throughout history.
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: First Nations, Science and Politics

Reply #24 –
Quote from: DJC – on
You can't expect consistent human population growth across the globe.  Even today we have some countries with negative population growth, some with migration providing modest population growth and some with booming birthrates.  India had a population growth rate of around 2.3% for decades in the 20th century.  It's now below 1%.
With a billion people that would be resource limited.

I'm not sure in the previous 60000, based on fossil records, that you could argue Australia was resource limited, probably abundant would be a better description.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: First Nations, Science and Politics

Reply #25 –
Quote from: LP – on
Quote from: DJC – on
However, there is incontrovertible evidence that the Aboriginal people who arrived in Australia around 60,000 years ago and those who saw the First Fleet arrive are one and the same people.  DNA doesn’t lie!
No disputing that, but I'm not sure if it supports your case or mine.

I questioned 40000 years of apparent nothing, on the figures you provide they made an egress from Africa starting 72000 years ago, getting to Australia 60000 years ago, a 12000 journey, it seems reasonable. Then it's 60000 years of nothing after that, little mingling, nobody decided they liked it better where they came from, no significant visitors.

We read stories of great Polynesian explorers, crossings of seas hundreds of kilometres wide and open ocean thousands of kilometres, but we are asked to accept almost nothing in 60000 across regions largely trafficable by foot, no boat needed. I suppose someone will claim it was too good here, God's country, so why leave? But that only leads into Thry's population question, if life was so good, where is everybody? They aren't silly questions, they don't disrupt the evidence but they are explained by the received wisdom either.

I'm not questioning the evidence, it's fine, it is the gaps full of human collusions and rhetoric defending connected hypothesis that seems rubbery at best. FWIW, a lot of the Out of Africa hypothesis is rubbery too, not the general premise, I think it's not questionable, just that some seem unable to colour within the lines.

When a surface is trafficable, travel tends to be in many directions, Australia being a dead-end would never stop a wave of humanity having a bounce, but in 60000 not so much as a stone throw! ;)

I have answered your questions with reference to the best and most compelling scientific evidence.  It's not rubbery.  It's rock solid, apart from the Wallace and Weber Lines that constituted an impenetrable barrier to travel to Australia, New Guinea and Oceania for over 50,000 years.

As my T-shirt says, "Science doesn't care what you believe!"
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!
 

Re: First Nations, Science and Politics

Reply #26 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
Look at a map. Look at the direction of travel out of africa.
Where are you expecting people to go?
A massive journey, exceptional.

The regional map and climate and were quite different 60000 years ago, even dramatically different 15000 years ago, vastly different from what we know now due to the last glacial period. By comparison it's journeys on a postage stamp compared to the travel 12000 years before that.

Limited to this region, you could hike to islands and peninsulas where we now take a plane or boat.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: First Nations, Science and Politics

Reply #27 –
Quote from: DJC – on
It's rock solid, apart from the Wallace and Weber Lines that constituted an impenetrable barrier travel to Australia, New Guinea and Oceania for over 50,000 years.
Isn't that a confusion of speciation versus geography, unless of course there is an assertion of more than one species in humanity?

The last glacial age isn't speculation, land bridges aren't myths and legends, and Australia based on the fossil record was a relative food bank, the evidence is in those solid rocks.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: First Nations, Science and Politics

Reply #28 –
Quote from: LP – on
I'm not sure in the previous 60000, based on fossil records, that you could argue Australia was resource limited, probably abundant would be a better description.

What fossil records?  

Have you spent much time in arid or semi-arid Australia?  It would be a doddle to support a rapidly growing population there.  ::)

The archaeological record shows that the Aboriginal population density was much higher in more resource rich areas like the coastal fringe, the Murray Valley, southwestern Victoria.  But you also get evidence of stress in the form of chronic anemia, and other skeletal manifestations.  These probably relate to periods of drought.

As I'm sure you know, many settlers took up land on the basis of Mitchell's glowing reports.  Unfortunately, he had witnessed the tail end of a La Niña and the return to more usual weather patterns meant the loss of stock and failed crops.  The abandoned town of Farina in South Australia is a classic example of how European Australians misjudge the harshness of the climate.

Anyway, that's it from me.  You've formed an opinion that flies in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary and you're not going to be convinced even if we could produce a time machine so you could witness the last 70,000 years for yourself.


It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: First Nations, Science and Politics

Reply #29 –
Quote from: LP – on
Quote from: DJC – on
It's rock solid, apart from the Wallace and Weber Lines that constituted an impenetrable barrier travel to Australia, New Guinea and Oceania for over 50,000 years.
Isn't that a confusion of speciation versus geography, unless of course there is an assertion of more than one species in humanity?

The last glacial age isn't speculation, land bridges aren't myths and legends, and Australia based on the fossil record was a relative food bank, the evidence is in those solid rocks.

And what are these land bridges that you speak of?  Australian and New Guinea were one land mass but have always been separated from Southeast Asia by significant areas of open sea that form the basis for the Wallace and Weber Lines.

You could have walked from Southeast Asia to Sahul 60,000 years, but only if you had an underwater breathing apparatus  ::)
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!