Carlton Supporters Club

Quote from: kruddler – on January 25, 2025, 05:33:42 pm

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.

Quote from: LP – on January 25, 2025, 05:44:40 pm

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.

20,000 years ago the coastal water around australia were 120m lower than it is now. Dramatic difference to how things are today, absolutely.

Where do people live nowadays? On the coast.
Where did people live then? Probably on the coast.

I think it was thry that asked where is the evidence and bones? Perhaps we need to check where the old coast was.....which is now completely underwater.

So lower populations were spread out over various areas that are now underwater and have 'created' islands. No stretch to think that these new islands meant resources available dwindled and so did the populations to the point it reached 0 in these areas, thus stunting the population growth rates compared to the rest of the world.

Again, when they hit australia, there was a dead end and no major lands to explore. where they spread out to is now underwater and/or was unreachable for 'technology' at the time.

I'm not sure what you expect.

Quote from: LP – on January 25, 2025, 05:44:40 pm

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.

20,000 years ago the coastal water around australia were 120m lower than it is now. Dramatic difference to how things are today, absolutely.

Where do people live nowadays? On the coast.
Where did people live then? Probably on the coast.

I think it was thry that asked where is the evidence and bones? Perhaps we need to check where the old coast was.....which is now completely underwater.

So lower populations were spread out over various areas that are now underwater and have 'created' islands. No stretch to think that these new islands meant resources available dwindled and so did the populations to the point it reached 0 in these areas, thus stunting the population growth rates compared to the rest of the world.

Again, when they hit australia, there was a dead end and no major lands to explore. where they spread out to is now underwater and/or was unreachable for 'technology' at the time.

I'm not sure what you expect.

I dont expect anything just asking questions. 

Entire populations may have shifted but we are at 1 million indigenous Australians today.

Samoa is a dot in the pacific ocean.  As of 2023, population of 225681 people and 96%.  Earliest signs of humans there is 3000 years ago.  I get it, things are or were different in Australia.

I get that 200 years ago European settlement impacted these populations, but you can't deny in a country of this size, there likely should be significantly more indigenous people given the timeline quoted.

It's not a country it's a continent, that has/had 250 nations, and 65000 years of continuous inhabitants.

The Maori people of new Zealand first arrived there in 1250 odd AD, supplanted the previous land holders (the moriori) and in 1769 when cook got there he, estimated their number at 110000 odd people.

I'm willing to accept a lot, but you have to admit it's a bit of a hole.  The Maori have reached a million people now too.  Thing is, new Zealand has the shortest history out of every country. 
https://teara.govt.nz/en/history/page-1#:~:text=A%20robust%20people&text=The%20M%C4%81ori%20population%20before%20European%20contact%20may%20have%20reached%20100%2C000.

You know it actually doesn't change anything either?  They were still here first, but maybe for not as long as asserted.

Quote from: kruddler – on January 25, 2025, 06:17:58 pm

20,000 years ago the coastal water around australia were 120m lower than it is now. Dramatic difference to how things are today, absolutely.

Where do people live nowadays? On the coast.
Where did people live then? Probably on the coast.

I think it was thry that asked where is the evidence and bones? Perhaps we need to check where the old coast was.....which is now completely underwater.

So lower populations were spread out over various areas that are now underwater and have 'created' islands. No stretch to think that these new islands meant resources available dwindled and so did the populations to the point it reached 0 in these areas, thus stunting the population growth rates compared to the rest of the world.

Again, when they hit australia, there was a dead end and no major lands to explore. where they spread out to is now underwater and/or was unreachable for 'technology' at the time.

I'm not sure what you expect.

I dont expect anything just asking questions. 

Entire populations may have shifted but we are at 1 million indigenous Australians today.

Samoa is a dot in the pacific ocean.  As of 2023, population of 225681 people and 96%.  Earliest signs of humans there is 3000 years ago.  I get it, things are or were different in Australia.

I get that 200 years ago European settlement impacted these populations, but you can't deny in a country of this size, there likely should be significantly more indigenous people given the timeline quoted.

It's not a country it's a continent, that has/had 250 nations, and 65000 years of continuous inhabitants.

The Maori people of new Zealand first arrived there in 1250 odd AD, supplanted the previous land holders (the moriori) and in 1769 when cook got there he, estimated their number at 110000 odd people.

I'm willing to accept a lot, but you have to admit it's a bit of a hole.  The Maori have reached a million people now too.  Thing is, new Zealand has the shortest history out of every country. 
https://teara.govt.nz/en/history/page-1#:~:text=A%20robust%20people&text=The%20M%C4%81ori%20population%20before%20European%20contact%20may%20have%20reached%20100%2C000.

You know it actually doesn't change anything either?  They were still here first, but maybe for not as long as asserted.

Quote from: Thryleon – on January 25, 2025, 10:48:57 pm

I dont expect anything just asking questions. 

Entire populations may have shifted but we are at 1 million indigenous Australians today.

Samoa is a dot in the pacific ocean.  As of 2023, population of 225681 people and 96%.  Earliest signs of humans there is 3000 years ago.  I get it, things are or were different in Australia.

I get that 200 years ago European settlement impacted these populations, but you can't deny in a country of this size, there likely should be significantly more indigenous people given the timeline quoted.

It's not a country it's a continent, that has/had 250 nations, and 65000 years of continuous inhabitants.

The Maori people of new Zealand first arrived there in 1250 odd AD, supplanted the previous land holders (the moriori) and in 1769 when cook got there he, estimated their number at 110000 odd people.

I'm willing to accept a lot, but you have to admit it's a bit of a hole.  The Maori have reached a million people now too.  Thing is, new Zealand has the shortest history out of every country. 
https://teara.govt.nz/en/history/page-1#:~:text=A%20robust%20people&text=The%20M%C4%81ori%20population%20before%20European%20contact%20may%20have%20reached%20100%2C000.

You know it actually doesn't change anything either?  They were still here first, but maybe for not as long as asserted.

Djc is much more knowledgeable on the topic and will provide his own answers, but you seem to be missing an important factor, or at least downplaying it's importance.

The 'white man' factor.
Disease. Genocide. Even not too long ago you talk about the stolen generation.
Indigenous people have not been treated well.

Another factor which you touched on in your comparisons is shear size.

Growth is somewhat exponential.
That growth depends on starting numbers. The more spread out you get, the more numbers are not in the original location the longer it takes those numbers to grow.
Higher growth comes from higher population density.

New Zealand, Samoa etc have a lot smaller borders and can contain a much quicker growth rate.

I think those 2 factors cannot be underestimated in the comparisons.

All in all, I don't think it's one factor, but a combination of everything that's been mentioned.

Quote from: kruddler – on January 26, 2025, 08:13:09 am

All in all, I don't think it's one factor, but a combination of everything that's been mentioned.

There may be a dozen reasons suppressing population growth.
One significant one is that it's hard to imagine a more difficult situation in which to give birth than an indigenous woman would have faced.
Time for rest and recovery may have been limited for those groups on the move in search of food.
Death in childbirth/ pregnancy and infant mortality would probably have been high.

Quote from: Lods – on January 26, 2025, 11:05:30 am

There may be a dozen reasons suppressing population growth.
One significant one is that it's hard to imagine a more difficult situation in which to give birth than an indigenous woman would have faced.
Time for rest and recovery may have been limited for those groups on the move in search of food.
Death in childbirth/ pregnancy and infant mortality would probably have been high.

Not necessarily Lods.  Pregnancy was a risky business for most women before the advent of modern medicine.  It could be argued that more active hunter-gatherer and agriculturalist women were better able to cope with childbirth than more sedentary women from industrialist societies.

I think we all know what the problem was.

Dingos were eating babies.

This discussion appears to be a battle of wits between unarmed combatants.

Quote from: Blue Moon – on January 26, 2025, 09:36:59 am

This discussion appears to be a battle of wits between unarmed combatants.

Yes, both sides of the debate have relatively weak stances, which is the point I'm trying to make about one side seemingly dominant based on hypothesis.

I have no problem with the bits of science we see, it looks good, but the extensions in understanding are at times extravagant to say the least.

I've seen too much suppression of research by academic selection to have confidence in the dominant hypothesis.

Off Topic; Today we've seen a great example of how politics influences conclusions, just ask the CIA on COVID, Scientists will argue what happened today never happens. I fear much of the indigenous debate suffers similarly from politics, I find it very disappointing, I want all the evidence not a curated version from a selected perspective.