thinking differently

May 09, 2011 11:21

I'm reading and enjoying an ecological history of Australasia, _the Future Eaters_ by Tim Flannery. I'm only halfway through at this point, just reaching the point of initial human habitation; to date much of the book has been about ecological adaptations to the hard conditions provided by Australia's nutrient poor soils and seas. Kangaroos? ( Read more... )

australia

Leave a comment

Comments 16

ferrouswheel May 8 2011, 23:39:06 UTC
By "Australasia" does it also include New Zealand? 'cause our ecological history is pretty fascinating too with the lack of mammals (apart from bats) before human settlement ;-)

Reply

rivet May 8 2011, 23:43:17 UTC
It includes NZ, New Caladonia, and New Guinea as well. NZ ecology is just as interesting, but fundamentally rich (though not in mammals). I'm currently fascintated that Australian ecology is all a response to its environment sucking.

Reply

t_c_da May 9 2011, 00:00:30 UTC
Yeah, Australia has a really weird environment...

e.g.
Lake Eyre is called a lake, but you'd have to fall over to drown in it, even when it has rained recently.
For large parts of the continent, the population &/or stock density is measured in square Kilometres per head rather than the other way around.
The Birdsville track is clearly marked on maps, yet is barely a pair of wheel ruts in the sand for much of its 'length'.
etc. etc.

Reply

rivet May 9 2011, 01:07:05 UTC
that's exactly what I'm finding fascinating. It's a rubbish environment for survival, and the physical adaptations required are quite significant.

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

rivet May 8 2011, 23:52:50 UTC
no, not at all. That's a story I understand. I haven't got very far into human habitation yet, but from the fossil record Australia apparently sucked from the get-go. Very seismically stable, so the soils are very poor and don't get renewed by upthrust of richer soils, and the whole laddering effect never really got going.

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

rivet May 9 2011, 00:08:05 UTC
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. It was almost certainly ecologically superior prior to european contact. But what *looked* quite lush was the delicate result of coevolution under very lean conditions.

Reply


qarl May 8 2011, 23:47:57 UTC
Civilizations by Felipe Fernando-Armesto has a lot about how people are shaped by their environment, as well as the other way around. The parts of the book are divided by environment type (so all the Tundra based civilisations are looked at together, for example).

Reply

rivet May 9 2011, 01:08:23 UTC
I'm not familiar with the work, I'll check it out.

Reply


This is almost completely off-topic bmused May 9 2011, 21:35:11 UTC
But I just wanted to say that I miss you, and I love reading your ruminations in here. =c) Seeing your "voice" reminds me of how wonderful it always was to listen to you discussing whatever you were thinking/studying at the time I happened to see you.

Reply

Re: This is almost completely off-topic rivet May 10 2011, 06:38:55 UTC
::beams:: Thank you. I look forward to seeing you on the playa (I hope)

Reply


wildilocks May 22 2011, 01:16:03 UTC
...and of course the combination of sucky to start with + massive numbers of humans destroying that balance = flee to NZ. Well, for some of us ;)

Reply


Leave a comment

Up