Humans have been steadily eating most other animals to death(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Humans have been steadily eating most other animals to death
https://twitter.com/emollick/status/1505349066259058698
6 comments
Do I understand correctly; that humans ate first the bigger animals to extinction and moved to next smaller ? Isn't this counterintuitive? Bigger animals need better traps and (killing) tools while smaller ones can be catched by hand and can be choked ?
If I had to choose between a moose and a rabbit to hunt, I would go for the cute little bunny.
But don't take my choice as guidance, I grew up and lived in city.
If I had to choose between a moose and a rabbit to hunt, I would go for the cute little bunny.
But don't take my choice as guidance, I grew up and lived in city.
A moose would feed your tribe a lot longer than a rabbit. Once you have established a solid harvesting process, it is much more efficient to sustain a population from larger animals.
Tribes, harvesting aren't those sound more like possible with modern social structures? I expect them to form in the latter part of the 1.5 million years period. In the graph from the tweet shows delicacy(!) was elephant around 1 million years ago.
Monkeys can be said to live in "tribes", and "harvesting" was just my polite euphemism for "bloody slaughter".
Seems likely that destruction of habitat is to blame not eating them.
Same difference I suppose
Same difference I suppose
Climate models are pieces of software written in Fortran that contain 500,000 lines of code. Models are run backwards to measure how closely they match the "observation" above. Stock market algorithms use a similar method of backtesting data. The problem with stock market models is they are only accurate with the historic data they are based on. Future price movement can simply not be predicted by using a few of the millions of variables that exist in the market.