• 12 Posts
  • 2.01K Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: December 28th, 2023

help-circle




  • Oh man.

    First time round you said “The aboriginal people were the first of Homo Sapiens to leave Africa.” I merely responded that might be misleading.

    it’s not disputable that Aboriginals were in the first wave of humanity to leave Africa.

    No one is disputing that Aboriginals, along with every other race, descended from the first wave of humanity to leave Africa. That’s what the article you linked from the smithsonian says. Well done.

    You’re conflating being the first to become Isolated (in Australia and New Guinea) with being the first to leave Africa.

    But they did have to sail across the open ocean and did have to construct vessels that would allow them to do that.

    Aboriginals migrated to Australia via land bridges and short sea crossings over the course of many thousands of years. If you want to call a hunter in a dug out canoe a technological achievement then you’re welcome to.

    they lived with them for 17,000 years.

    This claim is derived from the existence of a single fossil. As you’re no doubt aware, this is a subject of hot debate. Wikipedia says:

    the main mechanism for extinction was human burning of a landscape that was then much less fire-adapted; oxygen and carbon isotopes of teeth indicate sudden, drastic, non-climate-related changes in vegetation and in the diet of surviving marsupial species. However, early Aboriginal peoples appear to have rapidly eliminated the megafauna of Tasmania about 41,000 years ago (following formation of a land bridge to Australia about 43,000 years ago as Ice Age sea levels declined) without using fire to modify the environment there, implying that at least in this case hunting was the most important factor. It has also been suggested that the vegetational changes that occurred on the mainland were a consequence, rather than a cause, of the elimination of the megafauna.














  • While it’s correct to say that wikipedia is not an “original” source, it’s disingenuous and / or hyperbole to suggest that “it’s a bunch of nerds creating a version of reality”.

    The vast majority of hours invested into wikipedia are provided by volunteers who believe in the freedom of accurate, factual, unbiased information.

    Of course the quality or balance of information is threatened by bad actors, but significant resources are invested in mitigating that threat. This post is a great example of cautious, transparent editorial decisions.



  • This has always been a complex dynamic.

    For example, is it wrong for me to buy Tuna tinned in South East Asia? The people working there have few rights and are paid a pittance for their work. That said, it’s a highly sought after job because the other jobs available in the area are far worse.

    Really we’re talking about labor arbitrage. Whether or not the labor actually happens locally or in a foreign jurisdiction, laborers residing in a poorer jurisdiction are selling their labor to people in a wealthier one.

    I think the answer to whether or not it’s “ok” is firstly a personal one, (maybe I’m ok with it while others aren’t), but also dependent on the degree of difference.

    It might be ok to buy tinned Tuna from a company that invests in foreign communities and pays employees a living wage with good terms, but probably not ok to buy tinned Tuna from a company that chains employees to machines for 16 hours a day before allowing them to return to their cage-box.

    What I’m saying is, I’m ok with foreign workers being paid less provided that it’s not exploitative, which is subjective.