Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

243 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

frist (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39165893)

frist!!!!

Advanced as They Were (5, Funny)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39165895)

They hadn't yet mastered their world woth "cap and trade" or the Prius.

That's why they were doomed, and we are assured.

Re:Advanced as They Were (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166007)

Just wait when the Climate Change is coming from the left at the 21st of December! You have to run to the right to avoid the ripping jaws of the Climate Change. But do watch out for the changing directions as it might surprise you from the back. We all should keep our Priuses running to make that quick getaway when the action gets hot.

Re:Advanced as They Were (3, Interesting)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166047)

The gist of the article is that a succession of droughts over several years meant that they no longer had enough water to support their population numbers. Which caused resource wars between different city states, resulting in the self destruction of the civilisation.

Now, for sure, droughts are not that in frequent an occurrence in the current era, and AGW will change the areas that are affected by droughts. But most of the developed wold won't care because they aren't in the worst areas, and it's mostly poor black people affected.

What will affect the developed world more is peak oil, with the result of their not being enough oil for the population. Or at least not the amount of oil they are used to. That's what's going to cause your near future resource wars. And indeed the Iraq war has been a forerunner of that.

Re:Advanced as They Were (1, Interesting)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166281)

Your information is out of date.

Thanks to shale oil, the very concept of "peak oil" has been debunked. Add in the fact that bio-diesel forms of fuel are up and coming, and we will have no shortage of fuel sources for the foreseeable future.

As the droughts have affected Saskatchewan and US mid-west farmers over the past few years, I fail to see how "it's mostly poor black people affected." Such a statement implies there is a racist mission where there is none. The simple fact is that as long as people can get their discount crap at the local stores, they really don't give a damn about the poor and starving in any nation.

It's not racism.

It's indifference and self-centeredness.

Re:Advanced as They Were (1, Insightful)

Internetuser1248 (1787630) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166317)

Thanks to shale oil, the very concept of "peak oil" has been debunked. Add in the fact that bio-diesel forms of fuel are up and coming, and we will have no shortage of fuel sources for the foreseeable future.

This is only partly true. It just softens the peak a lot. The theory still stands, what was debunked is the theory that peak oil means running out. We will not run out of oil, but the price will still rise, and it will get very high. This also means the wars will still happen.

It's not racism.

It's indifference and self-centeredness.

Don't forget imperialism

Re:Advanced as They Were (5, Informative)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166459)

The theory still stands, what was debunked is the theory that peak oil means running out.

Peak oil never meant running out. Right from the coining of the term in the 1950s by Hubbert, it was always about peak of oil production, not the end of oil.

Re:Advanced as They Were (0)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167411)

but now oil has many substitutes, since we have centuries of fossil fuel supply, there will not be peak of fossil fuel. so "peak oil" theory is useless and of no import.

Re:Advanced as They Were (3, Interesting)

superwiz (655733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166641)

This is only partly true. It just softens the peak a lot.

Nah. At the current levels of energy consumption, natural gas from fraking alone satisfies all energy needs for the next 150 years. The technology for converting large fleets to liquid gas is already available. Personal autos will get there as an afterthought.

Re:Advanced as They Were (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166331)

What he wanted to say is peak cheap-oil, the oil right out there at the surface of the earth, fields moisted in oil. Today they find new oil reserves at 3-4 km under sea. Do you know how much oil it takes to get that oil out? And with our demand growing exponentially we have a problem.

Re:Advanced as They Were (3, Interesting)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166363)

Your information is out of date.

Thanks to shale oil, the very concept of "peak oil" has been debunked.

What a bunch of nonsense. There's a limited amount of oil in the ground anyway, even if shale oil increases the amount. That changes absolutely nothing about peak oil, except perhaps by postponing it by a little bit.

Also, things like shale oil are energy intensive to extract. Oil is only convenient because so far getting it has been easy. If you need to spend 2 gallons to dig up and progress 1 gallon, then it doesn't matter how much there is.

Re:Advanced as They Were (5, Insightful)

mathmathrevolution (813581) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167231)

Last friday Brent Crude Oil was trading at $126/barrel [bloomberg.com] . This is near the all time high in modern history [wtrg.com] . We are already at the point where oil supply has become much less responsive to the price and price spikes are commonplace. It's a curious time for somebody to be declaring peak oil "debunked".

Oil is finite and the price of oil is getting exponentially more expensive as was predicted decades ago. Meanwhile, solar technology has been benefiting from a Moore's Law rate of advancement [oreilly.com] and the price of solar energy is plummeting exponentially. Even without cap-and-trade, the price of solar energy is projected to achieve grid parity by the end of this decade. Given prevailing trends, we can expect that people will use energy to make petrochemicals synthetically from the carbon in the air, using Green Freedom [nytimes.com] or some other such technology in the next 20 years.

Solar is the power source of the near future. If we embrace that fact now we can begin to adapt and avoid a huge amount of economic dislocation and suffering. Or we can get dragged into the future kicking and screaming and burdening the human race with massive ecological damage.

Re:Advanced as They Were (1)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167279)

Oil is running up because of the multiple trillions of dollars dumped into world currency markets by central banks over the last two months.

Oil priced in gold is steady, and BELOW AVERAGE [barchart.com] for the last100+ years.

Re:Advanced as They Were (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39167409)

Solar is the power source of the near future.

If and only if we can create an efficient means of power storage. otherwise Solar power is a
daytime thing only. A severe handicap, making solar a third rate solution. Some nontrivial things
can be done now, but there is nothing "renewable and green" that saves the day. We need to keep looking,
while working as best we can with what we have.

Re:Advanced as They Were (1)

Shimbo (100005) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166425)

Your information is out of date.

Thanks to shale oil, the very concept of "peak oil" has been debunked. .

That's a ridiculous overstatement: shale oil makes an insignificant difference to the concept of peak oil. It might push it back a few decades: if you're a market analyst that can't think beyond the next bonus, maybe that makes a difference to you. For everyone else, it's just a question of when.

Re:Advanced as They Were (1)

Leolo (568145) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166463)

Correction, the fact it is now economically viable to extract shale oil is proof that we are in peak oil. Peak oil does not mean NO MORE OIL! It means OIL SUPPLY STABLE. Combine a stable supply with rising demand and you get rising prices. And hey, look, we are at/near all time highs for crude oil prices.

Re:Advanced as They Were (5, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166439)

Your information is out of date. Thanks to shale oil, the very concept of "peak oil" has been debunked.

Nonsense. There's nothing new about shale oil. It's been known about and extracted in small quantities for centuries. It's extremely inefficient to extract. The very fact that the oil industry has begun to turn to that old crap source of oil is a demonstration that we're passing the peak. Shale oil is a source used on the way down the slope, after the peak, when high oil prices make it worthwhile.

Bio-fuels are outside of peak il theory, but are not a solution to it. The amount of vegetable matter that you need to produce the massive amounts of oil that humans use, would take up all the worlds arable land,leaving us nowhere to produce food for the every expanding population.

As the droughts have affected Saskatchewan and US mid-west farmers over the past few years, I fail to see how "it's mostly poor black people affected."

Broaden your fucking horizons. World news doesn't mean the 50 states. Think Africa.

Re:Advanced as They Were (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39167149)

The very fact that the oil industry has begun to turn to that old crap source of oil is a demonstration that we're passing the peak.

Was opening of fields in the North Sea proof that we were running out of oil in the 70's? Is the opening of fields in the South Atlantic proof that we are running out of oil now?

Re:Advanced as They Were (2)

chrb (1083577) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167277)

The amount of vegetable matter that you need to produce the massive amounts of oil that humans use, would take up all the worlds arable land,leaving us nowhere to produce food for the every expanding population.

Indeed. Sustainable energy without the hot air [cam.ac.uk] contains the figures. It doesn't look good even for the "promising" plants:

For comparison, world oil consumption is 80 million barrels per day, which, shared between six billion people, is 23 kWh/d/p. So even if all of Africa were covered with jatropha plantations, the power produced would be only one third of world oil consumption.

The only thing that seems potentially viable is algae grown in water enriched with co2 captured from industrial plants. But obviously that requires some advanced carbon capture technology. It would also require land, though not as much as other biofuel ideas.

What about algae?

Algae are just plants, so everything I’ve said so far applies to algae. Slimy underwater plants are no more efficient at photosynthesis than their ter- restrial cousins. But there is one trick that I haven’t discussed, which is standard practice in the algae-to-biodiesel community: they grow their algae in water heavily enriched with carbon dioxide, which might be col- lected from power stations or other industrial facilities. It takes much less effort for plants to photosynthesize if the carbon dioxide has already been concentrated for them.

In a sunny spot in America, in ponds fed with concentrated CO2 (concentrated to 10%), Ron Putt of Auburn University says that algae can grow at 30 g per square metre per day, producing 0.01 litres of biodiesel per square metre per day. This corresponds to a power per unit pond area of 4 W/m2 – similar to the Bavaria photovoltaic farm.

If you wanted to drive a typical car (doing 12 km per litre) a distance of 50 km per day, then you’d need 420 square metres of algae-ponds just to power your car; for comparison, the area of the UK per person is 4000 square metres, of which 69 m2 is water (figure 6.8).

Please don’t forget that it’s essential to feed these ponds with concentrated carbon dioxide. So this technology would be limited both by land area – how much of the UK we could turn into algal ponds – and by the availability of concentrated CO2, the capture of which would have an energy cost (a topic discussed in Chap- ters 23 and 31). Let’s check the limit imposed by the concentrated CO2. To grow 30 g of algae per m2 per day would require at least 60 g of CO2 per m2 per day (because the CO2 molecule has more mass per carbon atom than the molecules in algae).

If all the CO2 from all UK power stations were captured (roughly 212 tons per year per person), it could service 230 square metres per person of the algal ponds described above – roughly 6% of the country. This area would deliver biodiesel with a power of 24 kWh per day per person, assuming that the numbers for sunny America apply here.

A plausible vision? Perhaps on one tenth of that scale? I’ll leave it to you to decide.

Re:Advanced as They Were (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166673)

Debunked? Um. No. I understand that there's a spate of little happy-talk articles out now in the mainstream media. If you believe them, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. For a numerate discussion of what we're facing, start with the book referenced here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil [wikipedia.org] .

Peak oil is complicated, and those new to the idea think it's all about quantity of oil left. It's a bit more than that. It's about being able to produce enough oil that's energetically and economically profitable enough to sustain the world's supply chains, particularly those most important supply chains, the ones that support the discovery, extraction, refining and distribution of petroleum. Feedback is a particularly nasty bitch here. When that one collapses, we're done with oil as a significant energy player, even as little stripper wells keep cranking out 1 barrel or two a day for a century.

And of course, if the energy supply chains collapse, so does everything else, more or less, until the folks who aren't starving bang what's left into something useful.

The two arguments against this, of course are: "Gee. We're so wonderful and smart, we'll think of something" or "There's a gazillion more barrels of oil out there. The [insert govt. agency or investment institution here] just said so in a *report!* Alas, innovation rarely happens on schedule and there are diminishing returns on technology. Notice that your PC hasn't sped up this last decade? As for government and investment company numbers... "Hey, I've still got that bridge right over here!" :)

Re:Advanced as They Were (2)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166911)

Thanks to shale oil, the very concept of "peak oil" has been debunked.

- yeah, like the concept of gravity has been debunked thanks to the hot air balloons.

The simple fact is that as long as people can get their discount crap at the local stores, they really don't give a damn about the poor and starving in any nation.
It's not racism.
It's indifference and self-centeredness.

- it's called pragmatism and life.

Re:Advanced as They Were (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39167225)

Thanks to shale oil, the very concept of "peak oil" has been debunked

That's absurd. The concept that the extraction of a finite resource will peak at some point has not been debunked. Even shale oil will peak at some point. Bio-diesels and other alternative fuels does nothing to change the concept that at some point oil extraction will peak. Whether it's from extracting most of it or switching to another fuel it will peak.

Re:Advanced as They Were (1)

haruchai (17472) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167351)

The phrase "shale oil" is both incorrect and misleading. You don't actually have any oil until it's converted and extracted. Under present circumstances, this is not very economical, is very wasteful of water if suing aboveground processing and produces a lot of waste that isn't easy to dispose of.

Re:Advanced as They Were (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166509)

Which "peak oil" are you talking about? The one that was predicted in the 1930s? Or the one in the 1950s? Or the mid 70s? Or today's?
(Note, since 1975 we've used 3x the known oil reserves in the mid 1970s, and our reserves REMAIN greater still.)

Re:Advanced as They Were (2)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166575)

US oil peaked in the early 1970s. North Sea oil peaked in the 90s. World oil production has been peaking since 2005. Saudia Arabia is probably peaking right now.
Yes there is/was more than one peak. Go read about Hubbert theory.

Re:Advanced as They Were (2)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166559)

In the last 1200 years people have become more mobile. Back then in addition to suffering drought they were also surrounded by territorial cannibalistic slave-taking peoples with significant cultural differences and a lack of diversity appreciation training.

Re:Advanced as They Were (4, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166603)

And yet mankind's ability to wage war over resources hasn't diminished one bit.

Re:Advanced as They Were (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166689)

Warmist.

Re:Advanced as They Were (0)

khallow (566160) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166807)

But most of the developed wold won't care because they aren't in the worst areas, and it's mostly poor black people affected.

The question that should be asked here is does this alleged climate change make things worse? The "worst areas" are that way not because they're particularly vulnerable to climate changes, but because they're vulnerable to everything including the mere ticking of the clock.

Re:Advanced as They Were (2, Informative)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167349)

The question that should be asked here is does this alleged climate change make things worse? The "worst areas" are that way not because they're particularly vulnerable to climate changes, but because they're vulnerable to everything including the mere ticking of the clock.

The Republican 9 Step Global Warming Denial Plan

1) There's no such thing as global warming.
2) There's global warming, but the scientists are exaggerating. It's not significant.
3) There's significant global warming, but man doesn't cause it.
4) Man does cause it, but it's not a net negative.
5) It is a net negative, but it's not economically possible to tackle it.
6) We need to tackle global warming, so make the poor pay for it.
7) Global warming is bad for business. Why did the Democrats not tackle it earlier?
8) ????
9) Profit.

Re:Advanced as They Were (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166725)

Indeed they didn't. What they also forgot to do it watch their self confidence levels, imagining they're oh so advanced.

The South will rise again! (4, Funny)

TWX (665546) | more than 2 years ago | (#39165899)

From the article:

The Yucatan is apparently highly sensitive to water reductions, a hypothesis supported by current data, and that means that reduced tropical storm action was likely enough to trigger the downfall of the Mayans, thanks to a quickly-depleting water supply.

With the massive increase in severe tropical storms, the Yucatan will have some of the wettest weather in history, The Mayans will reemerge, and will take over the Americas again!

Not the South normally expected to rise...

Re:The South will rise again! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166333)

"The Mayans will reemerge, and will take over the Americas again!"

The new Mayan chief will be heard to ask, "What year is it?" Followed by, "Dang!"

as opposed... (1)

w.hamra1987 (1193987) | more than 2 years ago | (#39165903)

... to they killed the hell out of themselves?

Re:as opposed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166621)

As someone who actually fucking walked around Tikal in the 70's, I have to say my opinion is the psychopathic Aztecs were an expanding force to be reckoned with, and they basically killed the Mayans, put their heads on sticks and chased the rest of them out into the fuckin Jungle, where they either got killed off by the wildlife, or now show up in Guatemala, Antigua, etc.

But you know, go ahead and give your sovergnity, rights, and money away to the globalist banks, globalist government. Just remember green-tards when you come knocking on my door, demanding a globalist carbon tax, I will put your fucking heads on sticks.

Re:as opposed... (2)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167307)

I don't think you have your timeline right. The Nauhatl didn't arrive in Tenochtitlan until well after the start of city-state abandonment in the Mayan Regions.

A more likely scenario to me seems that the high priests promised that they could bring back the rains if they were able to give enough blood and living hearts to the Gods. Eventually, the people would rebel against this bloody treatment, and, after slaughtering the priest class for the lying mass murderers they were, abandon the temple complex cities.

Make all the comparisons to modern day "environmentalists" you like. Many of them will be true. They aren't lying when they say they are lead by the spirit of Maya.

Source? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39165927)

I hate when people cite academic papers and don't provide a link to it...

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6071/956.full

Re:Source? (1)

PRMan (959735) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167015)

Because then it would be too easy for you to debunk the obviously PC-inspired paper...

Served them right (5, Funny)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 2 years ago | (#39165935)

Driving hummers, flying all over the place spewing carbon out the wazoo. Fools.

Re:Served them right (2)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166263)

Driving hummers, flying all over the place spewing carbon out the wazoo. Fools.

So the truth is finally out. What ended the Mayans? The SUV.

Re:Served them right (5, Funny)

Zorque (894011) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166353)

Specifically, the Pontiac Aztek.

Duh. (4, Insightful)

rs79 (71822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39165963)

This happened in Mesopotamia too. It's called "biological succession" - forest gives way to grassland which gives way to scrub which becomes desert. It happened all over Africa and Mesopotamia is now called Iraq. Environmental biology 101.

We haven't been screaming for people to take care of the soil, flora and fauna for nothing. But carry on.

Re:Duh. (3, Informative)

Krojack (575051) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166153)

That's why we started crop rotation [wikipedia.org] .The great Dust Bowl [wikipedia.org] woke us up to that in the early 1930's.

Re:Duh. (1)

Internetuser1248 (1787630) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166387)

Crop rotation has been around for hundreds of years

Re:Duh. (3, Insightful)

a_n_d_e_r_s (136412) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166653)

Thousands of years actuallty. As far back as the roman empire - or maybe even earlier then that - mankind has used crop rotation.

But as always, those that dont learn from history will repeat the mistakes. So its been forgotten many times.

Re:Duh. (5, Interesting)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166157)

In different climates the biological succession works the other way. For instance, right now, in New England, if you leave bare rock undisturbed, it starts growing lichens. The lichens eventually trap enough material to make the wetter spots suitable for mosses which move in next. Then come the grasses, which turn the place into a field. Eventually, the field builds up enough soil that shrubs and pioneer tree species can show up. And finally, the larger canopy trees move in, and you have a forest again. This process actually happened over about 150 years, as the farming that used to happen in New England moved westward leaving land behind.

Re:Duh. (2)

istartedi (132515) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166735)

In Virginia it's even faster. When I was a kid they cleared a piece of land for development. Then they stopped the process for a few years. By the time they were actually ready to break ground for construction some of the sapplings were 10 feet high. Maples are particularly aggressive there. If you don't clean your gutters for two years, 3 foot maples will sprout and thrive on the moist leaf litter.

Re:Duh. (1)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166949)

I just want to point out that what the parent was talking about was the changeover of most the flora of an ecosystem, not how fast it takes a tree to grow in fertile ground.

I live in Virginia, and there are grassy plots over a hundred years old (historically grazing land) that haven't accepted shrubs or trees thanks to thin topsoil.

Re:Duh. (1)

mc6809e (214243) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166249)

We haven't been screaming for people to take care of the soil, flora and fauna for nothing. But carry on.

Taking care of the soil isn't going to prevent changes in the the tilt of the earth's axis [independent.co.uk] .

Re:Duh. (1)

aynoknman (1071612) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167355)

We haven't been screaming for people to take care of the soil, flora and fauna for nothing. But carry on.

We will!

We don't need to worry (1)

arcite (661011) | more than 2 years ago | (#39165979)

We have the WHEEL! Those silly Mayans didn't have the wheel! If they had the wheel they could have just hopped on their cart and quickly roll away in the opposite direction of climate change, walking just isn't fast enough.

Jared Diamond (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166003)

New? Wasn't this described in "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed" by Jared Diamond years ago?

They could move to Las Vegas! (1)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166023)

They could move to Las Vegas! They have plenty of ... Wait http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4719473.stm [bbc.co.uk] No, they shouldn't go to Las Vegas.

Re:They could move to Las Vegas! (5, Funny)

ibsteve2u (1184603) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166143)

Who the hell goes to Las Vegas to drink water?

Re:They could move to Las Vegas! (1)

NFN_NLN (633283) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166327)

They could move to Las Vegas! They have plenty of ... Wait http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4719473.stm [bbc.co.uk] No, they shouldn't go to Las Vegas.

"Right now, 6,000 people a month are moving to this valley because the weather is good, the taxes are low and there are plenty of jobs," she said.
Mr Van Ee laments that the town he arrived in some 20 years ago is now the fastest growing urban area in the country.
- Friday, 29 July 2005

Little did they know a couple years later their urban expansion problems would be solved. Who says Las Vegas isn't lucky :)

Evil Climate Change (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166043)

Climate change caused by Big Oil works back in time to kill Mayas. Mayas prophecy will kill us all.

Sanity, where art thou?

Killed off all the mayans. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166059)

Perhaps "Caused the collapse of their civilization".
Given the millions of mayas who still live in the area.

Not a new idea at all. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166093)

I recall reading in Jared Diamond's "Collapse" that this idea has been tossed around for quite some time.

And when you have a hammer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166113)

Every problem looks like it can be resolved with a nail...

Ok, ok, we're dead (1)

lolococo (574827) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166145)

sorry for the inconvenience

The Mayans were not "killed off" (5, Insightful)

Kohath (38547) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166165)

The Mayans are still there, living in the land their ancestors lived in. They were not "killed off". Any study that suggests they were "killed off" can be ignored as propaganda.

The Mayans made a transition from living in large, centralized cities to a more dispersed, less organized society. This is likely because their centralization was expensive and only supportable based on specific agricultural conditions and faith in their leaders to be able to sustain them. When those conditions changed, that faith could no longer be justified and the expense could no longer be afforded.

When your society is built on the idea of all-powerful mystic kings, then your society falls when the population loses faith in those kings' power.

Re:The Mayans were not "killed off" (2)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166251)

Propaganda [wikipedia.org] from Wikipedia: "Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position."

Ok, I'll bite. Why would there be motivation to spread propaganda about the Mayans being killed off?

Re:The Mayans were not "killed off" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166367)

Shut the fuck up, pig-face.

Re:The Mayans were not "killed off" (3, Insightful)

tomhath (637240) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166393)

Why would there be motivation to spread propaganda about the Mayans being killed off?

See references to AGW, poor black people, and peak oil up above. Everybody has an agenda

Re:The Mayans were not "killed off" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166405)

Propaganda [wikipedia.org] from Wikipedia: "Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position."

Ok, I'll bite. Why would there be motivation to spread propaganda about the Mayans being killed off?

It suggests that a once prominent people were wiped out by climate change. Its supposed to scare you into buying a smaller car and buying products marked as environmentally friendly.

Re:The Mayans were not "killed off" (1, Insightful)

khallow (566160) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166667)

Ok, I'll bite. Why would there be motivation to spread propaganda about the Mayans being killed off?

Three incentives off the bat: protecting an ideological sunk cost, status signalling, and money/power.

Re:The Mayans were not "killed off" (2)

TWX (665546) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166351)

Same can be said for the Romans, the Byzantines, Mongols, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, and every other major collapsed empire that had thousands upon thousands in cities that were lost to time or to diaspora.

If my descendants live in a country that is no longer the United States of America, even if they live in the same geographical area as I live now or anywhere else within the extant borders, they're no longer Americans. Their nation and culture define that encompassing label, and if that nation or culture goes away, then the label no longer applies.

Re:The Mayans were not "killed off" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166521)

The Mayans are still there, living in the land their ancestors lived in. They were not "killed off". Any study that suggests they were "killed off" can be ignored as propaganda.

So what is a comment to Slashdot called, pretending that a study says exactly what a story on a non-scientific website says? Also propaganda? Can it be ignored, or does on have to point out what is being done, just in case not everybody notices?

Re:The Mayans were not "killed off" (0)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166551)

So in other words, it destroyed their civilization.

"Killed off" is mostly incorrect (I doubt their societal collapse was bloodless...especially considering they liked to sacrifice people to the gods when times were hard) but the point stands.

Also centralization and organization are more efficient and cheaper per-person...I think you mean urbanization which requires high resource concentration. I could call your post propaganda over this minor wording error but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Re:The Mayans were not "killed off" (4, Insightful)

mathmathrevolution (813581) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166647)

"Killed off" is a broadly accurate term. Nobody has ever suggested that 100% of the Mayan population died. It is sufficient that the vast majority of the Mayan population died while the rest were forced to abandon the ruins of their cities to eek out a primitive existence in the jungle.

Re:The Mayans were not "killed off" (1)

Kohath (38547) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167087)

Centralization and organization are cheaper and more efficient except when they're not. When a farmer can't harvest enough for his family to eat, he isn't going to be too eager to save a share for his king.

Same thing (1)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166171)

Took out Angkor Wat.

Climate Change: is there ANYTHING it can't do ??? (5, Interesting)

Salgak1 (20136) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166185)

Nobody bothered to notice that the time of fall of the Maya segues into the Medieval Optimum ??? If you look at this graph [wikipedia.org] , you'll see that the temps start their rise around 800AD, and the Optimum is well established by 950AD.

In other words, a planetary climate change contributed to the fall of the Maya. Which just goes to prove a point: climate is NOT a fixed value, but a variable with a substantial-enough range to cause major ecological changes in relatively short periods of time. . . .

Re:Climate Change: is there ANYTHING it can't do ? (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166531)

Correlation, especially single variable correlation when the data is on an entirely different continent, doesn't imply causation.

Further the word 'optimal' in the phrase "Medieval Optimum" usually refers to temperatures in Europe. Whatever caused warmer temperatures in Europe might well create droughts in the Yucatan peninsula. Then again, it might not.

Re:Climate Change: is there ANYTHING it can't do ? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166555)

Who said it was fixed?

Re:Climate Change: is there ANYTHING it can't do ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166855)

Who said it was fixed?

Good question. Sceptics argue that statist enviros are selling their schemes with arguments that have as implicit the assumption of some optimum climate. Should we fail to preserve this optimum climate by rapidly arresting any human induced changes the biosphere on which we depend will collapse. The truth is that the biosphere is very capable of withstanding change, as it has many times.

Re:Climate Change: is there ANYTHING it can't do ? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167369)

The biosphere sure is, human civilization, not so much. There is an optimum range for human civilizations.

Re:Climate Change: is there ANYTHING it can't do ? (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166591)

If it is everywhere; wouldn't it be connected to everything?

these peak oil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166215)

posts and climate-change nutjob posts are funny as shiite! boy, Slashtard has really gone down the tubes in the last 15 years! where in the heck you do all dredge up these OWS nosepickers?

How is that new? (1)

loufoque (1400831) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166217)

Hasn't this been public knowledge for decades?

Re:How is that new? (1)

zootie (190797) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166335)

Second parragraph (in essence, putting numbers to the "amount" of climate change):

That’s been posited for some time, but this report adds the twist that the change in question amounted to about a 40 percent drop in rainfall. Researchers argue that, if that’s indeed what set up the final blow, the Mayans succumbed to climate change that was much less severe than previously expected

Therefore (1)

AdamJS (2466928) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166247)

Human-influenced global warming is fake and Ron Paul is immediately president. Take THAT, Fartbongolibs.

Re:Therefore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166313)

Human-influenced global warming is fake and Ron Paul is immediately president. Take THAT, Fartbongolibs.

I am flatulated by your brilliance.

Bullshit headline. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166289)

Headline: "Climate Change-Induced Drought Caused the Mayan Collapse"
Body: "The authors are quick to note that climate change isn’t the only factor in the Mayan collapse, but it likely played a role."

Al Gore can save them. (2, Funny)

BobandMax (95054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166319)

If we can find a way to send Al back in time, he can save the Mayans from climate change. PLEASE find a way.

Don't piss off the Becabs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166519)

The fact that one can stand at the bottom of the stairs of Chichen Itza and hear rain falling (from people going up the steps) indicates that they really pissed off the Becabs, and Chac in particular. After that no rain, Loraine. http://www.ocasa.org/MayanPyramid2.htm

Re:Al Gore can save them. (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166597)

If we can find a way to send Al back in time, he can save the Mayans from climate change. PLEASE find a way.

If that works with Al, then we can send the rest of the politicians back in time. Way back in time. Like before oxygen atmosphere time.

Re:Al Gore can save them. (2)

irtza (893217) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166931)

so they can take credit for the oxygen atmosphere?

Re:Al Gore can save them. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166935)

Better to send Al to the future, where he can't mess with the present.

Re:Al Gore can save them. (1)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167359)

They tried that, he wound up destroying the universe, and was then forced to play D&D for eternity.

It didn't kill off the Mayans (2)

Fieryphoenix (1161565) | more than 2 years ago | (#39166523)

It just wrecked their civilization.

We need to get off this planet. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166525)

That way we can exploit other worlds. There are just too many people living here today. With 6 Billion plus people, how is it that we could not affect the global climate. Now whether that is a good thing or a bad is another story. I personally think the Earth could be a few degrees warmer. These liberals all want another ice age. Either way, it will work out in the end. If the climate changes, and we can no longer support everybody, that will mean there will just be less climate change, and the status quo will return. I just can't fathom why liberals want to do away with every modern convenience so that we can go back to the way things were 1000 years ago. I say fuck mother Earth. She hasn't done anything for us except give us earth quacks and typhoons. It is about time we started taking the fight to her. We need to probe deep into her bowls, so that we can extract all her juicy oil. Make her our bitch instead of the other way around. Plain and simple mother Earth will not respect humanity, unless we can shove her around a bit. Then she will show us her gapping chasms just waiting to be plumbed. Or we can just continue to be liberal whiners, and she will leave you for some other species, that isn't afraid to get down and dirty.

I

Mod parent "Poe's Law" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39167339)

...it's a beautiful instance of the archetype: Poe's Law [rationalwiki.org]

Salination too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166681)

Not sure if this applies to the Mayans, but I seem to recall that some of the advanced South American tribes figured out how to irrigate. What they didn't figure out was how to prevent the accumulation of salts in the soil due to irrigation coming from slightly saline sources. As a result, irrigated fields became unproductive and were abandoned. Presumeably civilization moved, fought wars and/or collapsed in some way.

I think we understand this problem now; but i'm, not so sure if we're actually doing anything about it. I've heard California's highly productive central valley might be vulnerable.

omg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166693)

If that happens to me i'll no longer be able to walk to my hunting grounds from my yurt and kill wild buffalo. Quick, all power to statist enviros.

Mayans exhaled (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39166889)

Damn Mayans were exhaling CO2. It's their own fault.

just look at our current civilization (2)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167169)

agriculture totally depends on petroleum, to make fertilizers, herbicides & insecticides, from beginning to end the entire process of modern industrialized farming depends on oil, if something happens to either the supply of oil or just a few bad growing seasons for one reason or another it could cause a big chunk of civilization to starve, and if that happens it wont be pretty, (i sure dont want to be around to witnesses it)

"New study"? It was published in 2001! (1)

SysKoll (48967) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167283)

Some new study. It was "new" when it was first published in Science in 2001? http://www.sciencemag.org/content/292/5520/1367.short [sciencemag.org]

This is one of many papers showing that 1. The Mayan empire was subject to a series of droughts that finally offed them, and 2. That variations of solar activities caused these droughts.

It doesn't "suggest" anything, it forcibly affirms it with tons of data to accompany it.

Advanced as they where (1)

Old Wolf (56093) | more than 2 years ago | (#39167285)

From TFA:

As our study suggests, the TCP rainfall reductions where not of catastrophic proportions,

Their proof-reading is the only catastrophic thing here. There's no "h" anywhere near "w" or "e" so it can't be a typo (unless they have a dvorak keyboard?)
This error didn't exist in the 1980 and 1990s, it seems to have started up more recently than that.

Mayan's are not Dead!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39167413)

I was born in Mayan land and grew up speaking a Mayan language quiche to be exact. The freaking Popol Vuh [wikipedia.org] was written in that language. I moved to USA at the age of 16 and ever since I been hearing of my people's disappearance I even argued once in school about it with one of the history teachers, and putting myself as evidence.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>