[ExI] Genetic Evidence Overrules Ecocide Theory of Easter Island

[Keith Henson]

Now, please understand that I have no first-hand knowledge, so what I
know if from Google searches, like

https://www.sciencealert.com ›
scientists-closer-to-understanding-what-wiped-out-easter-island-society

"Scientists Are Closer to Understanding What Wiped Out Easter Island ...

"The Polynesian culture, called Rapa Nui, settled the island around
1200 AD, and the population is estimated to have been around 15,000 at
its peak.  But by the time Europeans settled the island in 1722, the
population had declined to a couple of thousand, and by the 1860s, the
entire culture was nearly entirely wiped out, with just over 100
individuals remaining."

"By the time of European arrival in 1722, the island's population had
dropped to 2,000–3,000 from a high of approximately 15,000 just a
century earlier."[34]  (Wikipedia)

Does this make sense?  The founding stock (from somewhere) is guessed
to be 20 people.  At a generation time of 4 per century, by 1600 they
would be expected to grow 2^16 based on doubling every generation.  It
only takes 10 doublings to reach 20,000.

Another way is to estimate agricultural productivity.  The whole
island is 164 square km. That is around 16,000 hectare.  Much of the
island was used to grow sweet potatoes and is "mulched" to this day
with rocks.

"sweet potatoes are the most efficient staple food to grow in terms of
farmland, yielding approximately 70,000 kcal per hectare (28,000/acre)
/ day.[84]"

A human is about 100 W, on a per day basis, about 2160 kcal.  So a
hectare would feed (eating nothing but sweet potatoes) 32 people.
16,000 people would take 500 hectares, around 1/32th the area of the
island.

Not proof, of course, but the numbers are not out of line.

If you are going to argue for a much smaller number, then you need to
suggest something that kept the population down.

Keith

On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 3:41 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
> On Sep 11, 2024, at 12:25 PM, Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The problem with "debunking" is that the story just makes sense.  It's
> > no problem at all to generate a math model that fits the observed
> > facts, such as the destruction of trees, the known facts like the
> > abrupt end of making the statues, and the relatively small population
> > the Europeans encountered.
> >
> > But what do I know?
> >
> > Keith
>
> Well, how do you know there was a huge population there to begin with? I recall someone (you?) here stating there were 20,000 people on the island. But estimates based on archaeological data seem to place the highest population level well under 10,000 and probably something like 4,000 at its height.
>
> There’s also no evidence of a collapse through violence — much less a collapse through ecological catastrophe. Yes, the rats probably ate up young trees and the islanders were trapped them and then wiped out local ground birds, but they adapted. It appears the Rapa Nuians were steadily growing in population until Europeans showed up and started raising for slaves and spreading diseases that the islanders had little resistance to. So what data do you have to support your view?
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat