I blame Jesus. If not for him - we’d probably still be believing in sacred forests and shit.
Entombed
Submitted 2 days ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/0ed88cda-4dc1-47db-bada-e78e1bba70d5.jpeg
Comments
ivan@piefed.social 2 days ago
Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
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
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
Correction: if not for the people who INVENTED Jesus.
Zombie@feddit.uk 2 days ago
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]
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
I think monotheistic messianic religions were kind of unavoidable seeing how in every part of the world they have been the most successful religions once societies become more complex and interconnected.
Tudsamfa@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
Only if you define Buddhism as more successful than Hinduism and Confucianism, and define pre-Buddhism India and China as simple or isolated.
Tudsamfa@lemmy.world 1 day ago
ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip 2 days ago
Did they have the manpower or industrial uses to even harvest forests non-sustainably?
Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
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.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Te trick to cooking on a bonfire is to let out go out spread out the hot coals, congrats more you’ve got a cooking fire! Toss your Dutch oven in and it’ll cook great
iocase@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
New study finds that Neolithic people were net zero on emissions
Agent641@lemmy.world 1 day ago
They had very few radiological incidents, and not a single nuclear meltdown in over 400, 000 years!
Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
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:
Jtotheb@lemmy.world 1 day ago
You might be familiar with the scale of their earthworks, think pyramids that people still visit in awe today?
Johanno@feddit.org 1 day ago
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?
Tiger_Man_@szmer.info 1 day ago
people on the easter island had
LodeMike@lemmy.today 1 day ago
Is that Robert Pattinson?
Karjalan@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I don’t miss so Robert Pattin is and I’m not your son
Generous1146@beehaw.org 1 day ago
You’re right, i am better than me. Now accept your defecation
Ostrakon@lemmy.world 2 days ago
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.
Jtotheb@lemmy.world 1 day ago
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.
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Also human race has committed atrocities against the environment since our earliest days.
Back in prehistoric times hunter parties used to create wildfires to hunt animals, completely disregarding the environmental damage of burning great amount of lands.
Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
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.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 1 day ago
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 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehesa Those ecosystem exist since thousands of years because they are… sustainable.
BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Yeah, but what’s the profit margin?