Have you ever wondered why we have to go all the way to Africa to see a safari? For Africa is the land of 13000 lb elephants and 18 foot tall giraffes.
But what many do not realize is that 40,000 years ago, the whole World looked like an African safari. North America and Eurasia were home to Pachystruthio dmanisensis, a flightless bird that stood 11.5 feet tall and weighed nearly a 1000 lbs.

North America was also home to the short-faced bear which stood up to 14 feet tall, weighed about 1700 lbs, and could run up to 40 miles per hour. And of course who could forget the 13000 lb mammoth, which lived on every continent except Australia.
Scientists call these giant animals “megafauna” (mega = big, and fauna = animals). We still have megafauna in the world, but there used to be a whole lot more of it. In fact, it appears that having a large number of large-bodied animals in an ecosystem is actually the normal state for our planet, at least for the geologic era we are living in today, the Cenozoic (or “Age of Mammals”) . But sometime in the past 50,000 years (very recent geologically), everywhere except for Africa, most of those large animals became extinct. And we still aren’t sure why!
Some scientists think megafauna survived in Africa because humans evolved there so large animals had more time to adapt to us. However members of the genus Homo have been living outside Africa for 2 million years, so Eurasian megafauna had time to adapt to us too. Another theory is that megafauna were killed off by the extreme climate changes that megafauna endured outside Africa.
But in asking why megafauna went extinct everywhere except Africa, politically correct scientists are forced to ignore the elephant in the room (pun intended): HBD. If Arthur Jensen was correct about the black-white IQ gap being genetic, perhaps Africans simply hadn’t evolved the intelligence to hunt large game.
But that can’t be the whole story. If racial differences in IQ evolved because we needed more intelligence to survive the non-tropics, how were Australian aboriginals (who retain a tropical phenotype) able to kill off 100% of their giant mammals? Migrating from Africa to Australia means their ancestors must have spent some time in the non-tropical ice age Middle East. Was this enough time for them to evolve the intelligence to hunt big game or was the big game in Australia simply easier to hunt because it had not had the time to evolve ways to avoid humans?
If cold climate selected humans were especially evolved for hunting big game, and if the big game on continents where humans had never been were especially bad at evading human predators, then these two factors predict the biggest megafauna massacre of all should have occurred in the Americas where both conditions were met: cold adapted hunters (humans entered the Americas from Siberia) entering a continent where humans had never been.
And indeed that seems to be the case. Paleo-biologist Rebecca Terry at Oregon State University says “pretty advanced weaponry was definitely present, and the extinctions in the New World in North America and South America were really extreme as a result.”
11,000 years ago (shortly after modern humans entered the New World), the average weight of a non-human mammal in North America was about 200 pounds compared to only 15 pounds today.
That’s a stretch to say humans, at least before the 20th century, could domesticate their environment on such large a scale that we see the extinction or domestication of such a significant portion of megafauna.
That simply can’t be the case. It’s such a bizarre theory on your part, Pumpkin. I would be surprised if there was any actual evidence to support this theory.
The reason why megafauna in Africa hasn’t changed rapidly is because the climate has been the most stagnant. Occams Razor. Duh.
It’s understandable that you’d deny humans were a force of nature before the industrial revolution, however others argue the real revolution occurred 50,000 years ago:
https://stanfordmag.org/contents/suddenly-smarter
if this thing is REAL it will show up as the spanish flu showed up. despite the containment measures it will show up in italy at least.
Love how most of your recent writing is based off a false premise.
Yeah. Pumpkin thinks big gam hunting requires more intelligence which should more or less show case how ignorant he is of Anthropology.
Never mind the fact that asking why big game hunters were better at hunting big game than small game hunters is just stupid to begin with.
You’re stupid to begin with. Obviously the ability to drive large animals to extinction shows intelligence which is why it didn’t occur until the emergence of behavioural modernity. The megafauna extinction marks the start of the anthropocene; the transformation of humans from just another large mammal to a geological force! How can you not know this?
I never said it didn’t show intelligence. It just doesn’t prove they were more intelligent than their African counterparts. It’s a vast oversimplification.
Even then, humans have been behaviorally modern for about 100,000 years and that doesn’t mean their intelligence suddenly increased 200,000 years later after their first appearance. That’s just another fallacy.
I never said it didn’t show intelligence. It just doesn’t prove they were more intelligent than their African counterparts. It’s a vast oversimplification.
And I didn’t say it proved it, but it would be cool if these silly little IQ tests could help explain the global pattern of Paleolithic geological events.
Even then, humans have been behaviorally modern for about 100,000 years and that doesn’t mean their intelligence suddenly increased 200,000 years later after their first appearance. That’s just another fallacy.
Humans can evolve both biologically and culturally so it’s hard to know whether behavioural modernity was caused by the former or the latter
“but it would be cool if these silly little IQ tests could help explain the global pattern of Paleolithic geological events.”
This is puppys major philosophical problem. He thinks that if something sounds great then the whole world must be shoved into the theory to make it fit.
A more interesting question is why humans evolved to preserve endangered species.
Pill, are you saying it’s not important to do that? Do you even know why people think it is?
I support it and am pro animal rights. Im just saying its a bit strange a species having empathy for other competitor species or species that are not even in the same food chain.
Do you think empathy is the only reason people support it?
There’s obviously people profiting from it but that doesn’t mean that’s the main reason people support it.
Pumpkin, you are so fucking cynical it’s ridiculous. You automatically look for the catch in everything rather than a primary motivator that usually has a positive factor involved.
Loaded, financial motives were not what I was getting at.
It takes more calories to stay warm in the extreme cold. So maybe staying in climates that are warm needs less effort to go hunt. You lose calories/food/wild game more often in places in more extreme cold. Preditor Megafauna becomes a competition in extreme cold. Not so much hot weather I hypothesize.
Eskimos, for example, have a higher BMR than Caucasians due to their higher protein diet (since protein has the highest thermic effect out of all of the macros at 20%, if I recall correctly. When they were matched calorically, BMR wasn’t higher for Eskimos. Shivering, though, does increase caloric intake. I’ll go in depth and leave more references later. This literature is really interesting.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK232851/
“Shivering, though, does increase caloric intake”
Basal metabolic rate, not caloric intake necessarily, but one would look for more food.
With proper clothing, the effect of cold, per se, on caloric requirements and appetite does not seem to be very important.
Military studies are solid here—and there is a ton of literature on the matter (in Arctic and high-altitude conditions).
the apparent contradiction in rr’s bullshit is “calorie” means two things.
1. energy released at constant temperature and pressure when carbs, fat, protein, alcohol are converted to their metabolic products or carbon dioxide, water, urea.
2. this energy may be released in the form of heat rather than in the form of doing chemical work in the body.
It’s clear what I mean.
Why do you guys that disagree with Pumpkin on virtually everything even read his blog?
People like to challenge others. You never heard of hatewatching? Or maybe they care about Pumpkin and they don’t want him to get to the wrong conclusion.
We don’t disagree with everything. Well at least I don’t. We’re just the most vocal when we do disagree
Pumpkin has issues but everyone does. I like his blog, simply because it’s one of the better HBD ones. It’s not overtly racist, or idiotic…most of the times
You’re right. PP should just keep an echo chamber and not approve critical comments
The better question is why do people believe the BW IQ gap is genomic if they don’t believe in CWT?
Puppys blog is not racist enough. Thats the problem has. He pulls his punches rather than saying the truth.
off-topic, but this article was linked to from Greg Cochran’s West Hunter website: https://fs.blog/2015/12/e-o-wilson-how-science-works/
i thought it was very interesting for a layman without much of science background. but it states that EO Wilson’s IQ was (somewhat surprisingly in my opinion) 123. but im even more curious about the 130 figure for Charles Darwin…how was that even derived?? i heard that Darwin was not much of a mathematician but i wanna know the basic for the 130 estimate…
There were no IQ tests in Darwin’s day. It’s just a crude estimate based on his achievements.
The folly of IQ numerology—thinking that “eminent person A” should have high IQ X and that IQ Y is too low.
Pingback: Why didn’t megafauna go extinct in Africa? — Pumpkin Person – Truth Troubles
Could it be because of Neanderthal and Denisovan genes that non-africans acquired on their journey? That is:
1) Africans people being mainly plant eaters, most of calories for Bushmen etc. comes from root tubers, honey (look afor: Honeyguide bird !). Tiger nuts are one of the plants that is suspected to encourage apes to move outside of the forest, it’s a very invasive species of the savannah, and is a sweet food (addictive).
2) Neanderthals, Denisovans etc. being mainly predatory carnivores with inborn behaviors and skills leading to hunting, and inherited by modern humans (eg. excellent pathfinding skilsl of both low-iq Aboriginals and normal-iq Inuit).
I highly doubt it. The amount of neanderthal/denisovan admixture is very small
Large enough to account for the difference between races, give humans the intellectual power to accomplish things, and code for many many “important” traits we have today.
No the admixture explains very little important differences. Look at white people who are 5% black. You can’t even tell. Same with the tiny percent of neanderthal/denisovan admixture
Well that’s because blacks and whites are homo sapiens while Neanderthal and Denisovan are different species. That extends the difference dramatically since youre involving novel genes.
If that were true we could tell just from looking at people who has the most Neanderthal admixture. You can’t because the amounts are so small
Don’t need to kill all of them. The short faced bear for instance wasn’t hunted into extinction, rather because of a lot of changes including the end of the ice age, it couldn’t procure the calories needed to sustain it. Some of it could have come from human competition, but it wouldn’t have been a yuge factor. Something like the last straw that breaks the camel’s back.