-
Australia also used to be a lot smaller and wetter and covered in water or vegetation too, but we're changing that very rapidly.
-
I believe the jury is still out as to the extent that the introduction of humans was responsible for the disappearance of the megafauna as well as the transformation of the landscape. Remember, this was probably during an ice age, so there has been major climatic change since, and unscrambling what caused what is very difficult.
-
Didn't the indigenous invaders barbecue the megafauna?
-
I think the current view is - maybe!
There is no smoking gun, and it would depend on circumstantial evidence as to the relative timing of the human migration and the extinction - and proving either timing is very difficult; the preserved fossils of the megafauna are a tiny, tiny, fraction of the total population, and the initial settlements of the first humans woould have been on the shore - and sea level has risen substantially since, so almost all the evidence of the first settlers is undersea, and most likely to never be seen.
-
I wasn't referring so much to the megafauna (as we humans most likely didn't have much to do with their loss), but instead to how we altered the flora in the landscape. In much of the country we now have vegetation that is adapted to burn more readily and requires 'prescribed burning off' for it to sustain itself effectively. The plants (big and small) that couldn't adapt to this new fire regime perished. One of the big differences between humans and most other species is that we alter our environment to suit ourselves, rather than the other way around. The world would most likely be better off without so many of us on it!
-
Certainly agree that humans are in plague proportions and the Earth would be better off with fewer of us. Disease and wars have controlled our numbers in the past, but now we are causing the destruction of the resources we need to thrive, so that will bring us down in time.
