Originally Posted by Otter

Where do you get that?

Originally Posted by Otter

Everything I've read suggests that it was a combination of overhunting, deforestation and possibly exceeding the local carrying capacity combined with a 200 year drought. Some have postulated epidemic disease and a peasant revolt as well.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Originally Posted by Sunshine
The Maya didn't destroy the ecosystem. Far from it. They only lived on one little corner of the earth. The Maya destroyed their OWN system because they thought their use of the natural resources was immoral. I'm sure they must have had their own version of Al Gore...........



You ask: "Where do you get that ?"

Where does Sunshine get what ?

The plain as day fact that They only lived on one little corner of the earth. ?

That it's very likely that they must have had their own version of Al Gore........... ?



So, Everything [you']ve read suggests these things you tell us.

and

Some have postulated.....

Tell us;

What is it about YOU'RE theory and opinion on this that is better and/or more credible than Sunshines ?

Originally Posted by John Drake

No, the supposition that they destroyed themselves because they thought the use of natural resouces was immoral. Where did he get that? I've NEVER heard that idea advanced in regard to the Maya.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Originally Posted by Sunshine
The Maya didn't destroy the ecosystem. Far from it. They only lived on one little corner of the earth. The Maya destroyed their OWN system because they thought their use of the natural resources was immoral. I'm sure they must have had their own version of Al Gore...........



You ask: "Where do you get that ?"

Where does Sunshine get what ?

The plain as day fact that They only lived on one little corner of the earth. ?

That it's very likely that they must have had their own version of Al Gore........... ?



So, Everything [you']ve read suggests these things you tell us.

and

Some have postulated.....

Tell us;

What is it about YOU'RE theory and opinion on this that is better and/or more credible than Sunshines ?

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Yes, however just because you or I haven't heard of it makes it no less valid a supposition than any of the others.

None of us were there so can only theorize and suppose what caused their downfall really.

Who knows exactly how and what they thought. Maybe they DID think the use of natural resouces was immoral somehow, who knows ?

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Yes, however just because you or I haven't heard of it makes it no less valid a supposition than any of the others.

None of us were there so can only theorize and suppose what caused their downfall really.

Who knows exactly how and what they thought. Maybe they DID think the use of natural resouces was immoral somehow, who knows ?

Originally Posted by Otter

I don't personally have a theory on what caused the Mayan civilisation to fall, however, what I've read of other peoples research is that it was a combination of factors, including local deforestation, drought (possibly driven by deforestation), depletion of large game, and possibly disease. I was asking if she had some reason for the statemet that they thought their use of the natural resources was immoral, since I had never run across that hypothesis.

Do *you* have some other source of illumination on the topic to share, or are you just blowing smoke here?

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

I don't think that Mr. Drake has probably heard the "theory" that the Maya had their own George Bush and Dick Cheney who brought about the end of that civilization either, so this must also be no less valid than any other supposition, correct? The fact that we weren't there doesn't mean that some suppositions aren't fatuous.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

That is certainly true.

To say something like "the Maya had their own George Bush and Dick Cheney" is completely silly though.

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Besides the myriad of converging ecological and environmental problems that cause any and all complex cultures based on agriculture to fade away, nobody ever seems to give any credence to the possibility that the Maya in one way or another simply decided that it was not worth it, so they went back to a more ancient way of living that had never disappeared from their view.... its possible they just walked away from it...
Andrew

Originally Posted by Otter

I don't personally have a theory on what caused the Mayan civilisation to fall, however, what I've read of other peoples research is that it was a combination of factors, including local deforestation, drought (possibly driven by deforestation), depletion of large game, and possibly disease. I was asking if she had some reason for the statemet that they thought their use of the natural resources was immoral, since I had never run across that hypothesis.

Do *you* have some other source of illumination on the topic to share, or are you just blowing smoke here?

Originally Posted by Otter

People who make it thair lifes work to study their culture, and to excavate and analyse the riuns, and the pollen, bones and artifacts associated with them. Conveniently, they write this stuff up and publish it. So, yes; something supported by researc *is* more valid than some idea pulled out of an orifice. I'm not saying that Sunshine's supposition is not supported by any data, just inquiring what the source it it might be. Why does that bother you so much?

Originally Posted by Otter

Where do you get that? Everything I've read suggests that it was a combination of overhunting, deforestation and possibly exceeding the local carrying capacity combined with a 200 year drought. Some have postulated epidemic disease and a peasant revolt as well.

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Right, but to say that they had Al Gore is not.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Yes, however just because you or I haven't heard of it makes it no less valid a supposition than any of the others.

None of us were there so can only theorize and suppose what caused their downfall really.

Who knows exactly how and what they thought. Maybe they DID think the use of natural resouces was immoral somehow, who knows ?

Originally Posted by apwells

Actually he did read your post, and we are still warming. The current la nina which began in 2007 and is expected to finish in 2008 will give cooler average temperatures for those years but then el nino will kick back in with a vengence. Even though there was a la nina in 2007 it was still the 8th hottest year on record... without la nina it probably would have been 1st or 2nd.

Also global warming is expected to increase the strength and frequency of el nino and weaken la nina.

It has been satisfying to see the number of GW skeptics dwindle over the last 5 or 10 years, 90% of europeans agree that GW is a major problem, thanks to the missinformation and scientific tampering of Bush only 75% of American's do... but that number is steadily increasing.

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Besides the myriad of converging ecological and environmental problems that cause any and all complex cultures based on agriculture to fade away, nobody ever seems to give any credence to the possibility that the Maya in one way or another simply decided that it was not worth it, so they went back to a more ancient way of living that had never disappeared from their view.... its possible they just walked away from it...

Andrew