Is the Amazon Forest a man made place?

[Barnabas]

by the way, the incas used head hunting amazonian archers as mercenaries, would have been a much better "military unit" for the civ game, than the chasqui, who was just a professional runner postal worker

[Odin]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride

It was in (the territories of) Argentina in the south and the usa in the north + caribean islands, where the non farming cultures were located, which is funny since the missisipi plains and the pampas are 2 of the 3 most fertiles areas in the world.

Probably because of the lack of plows and animals to pull said plows.

[Barnabas]

no one else had them, they didnt use llamas to pull the plows

[Bosh]

I find it hard to believe that advanced agriculture was wiped out in Amazonia when it wasn't in places like Mesoamerica and Peru, where the European impact was more drastic.

Amazonian climate + malaria = lotta dead people. With the amount of malaria that became prevalent in the Amazon after the Europeans showed up, large-scale civilization would've become largely impossible.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
no one else had them, they didnt use llamas to pull the plows

I ment that farming in temperant grasslands requires plows to bust through the sod, not that you require plows to farm, period.

[Colonâ„¢]

It does make you wonder about the long-term sensibility of conservationism. I'm broadly pro protecting nature, but I'm far less sure about the wisdom in preserving landscapes in a certain state because that would happen to be the "original" one.

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
@Maniac: You're implying that the fact the planet is very cool and dry by the standards of the last half-billion years isn't a reason to put NYC under 50m of water?

I read a pretty interesting opinion not so long ago (can't remember from who) that stated America will sooner or later have to deal with the consequences of putting major cities at geographically dangerous spots. The biggest cities in Europe (Paris, Moscow, Berlin...) are all located on spots relatively save from natural disasters, which isn't the case in the US (New Orleans, San Francisco...), and the reason of this is that civilisation in Europe is much older and already experienced which spots weren't viable. (Yeah, I know civilisation in America is also pretty old, but that got wiped out and along with it its past experiences)

[Kuciwalker]

Doesn't Europe have less "unsafe" geography? It doesn't seem to have as many earthquakes or hurricanes...

[Colonâ„¢]

There's still low-lying areas, swamps and floods. Very few of the major cities lie in any such area. (Holland being the main exception, but maybe they'll have to deal with the consequences as well?)
The guy citied Galveston as an example. The destruction of it led to the rise of Houston, which obviously is situated in a far less risky place.

Trying to find where I read this theory though.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Colon
It does make you wonder about the long-term sensibility of conservationism. I'm broadly pro protecting nature, but I'm far less sure about the wisdom in preserving landscapes in a certain state because that would happen to be the "original" one.

Another problem is that global warming is going to cause climate and vegetation belts to shift poleward. It's going to be a disater for many national parks.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Colon
Holland being the main exception, but maybe they'll have to deal with the consequences as well?

Sea level rise = the Netherlands (and Venice) is f*cked.

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by Odin


Sea level rise = the Netherlands (and Venice) is f*cked.

Even without global warming, you can question the viability of having the major population centers beneath sea level.

[VetLegion]

Interesting read Oerdin. What is this pottery based farming method called, I'd google more about it?

Originally posted by child of Thor
What i think we can't discount is that what ever size the amazon is/has been - it is very much an area of the world that is the lungs of the planet and getting rid of it is pretty stupid.

This is a myth actually. The Amazon forest consumes almost all oxygen it produces. So it's in no way the lungs of anything.

[Jon Miller]

it is actually the oceans (and the plankton and kelp there) which does most of the oxygen producing on the planet

JM

[Sava]

yeah, water does a lot to change the air

trees and plants don't do ****

logging companies