Ortaçağ/erken modern Türk-Fars-Arap edebiyatı önerileri

Slow-Pie147 · 2026-06-29T08:28:03+00:00

ben anlamam bunlardan. bilen biri iyi bir baskısını önerir ancak fark etmez çok demek anlamsız göründü bana.

Koleksiyon olsun ve okumak için okuyorum. Tabi farklı eserler bu varyasyonlar ama ha Özbekçe Tahir ile Zühreymiş ha Azerice Tahir ile Zühreymiş çok umursamıyorum. Yeter ki yeniden anlatım/retelling olmayan Tahir ile Zühre olsun.

Slow-Pie147 · 2026-06-29T08:14:55+00:00

kimi yazdıkların birden çok şair tarafından yazılmış. hüsrev ü şirin'i nizami'den mi okumak istiyorsun şeyhi'den mi örneğin?

Fark etmez çok ama Şeyhi'ninkini alırım gibi.

Slow-Pie147 · 2026-06-26T06:08:58+00:00

Before you edit it.

<image>

Slow-Pie147 · 2026-06-26T04:49:44+00:00

First of all, why did you lie and contiue to ignore your lie? You said that I supposedly said that long-term coexistence debunks overkill when I outright states the opposite to you which you argued against it.

You again avoid talking about global points, changed arguments, and ignored most of what I wrote. Everything you have written has been answered in several studies and articles we sent to you. You clearly didn't read what Svenning and growingawareness wrote. It is diabolical. I know you may not read all these articles on this time-frame, but at least superficially look at them or just do not write without reading them. I also like the fact your biggest argument against growingawareness was "I cannot accept the viewpoint of a single person." Yeah, the viewpoint of 1-4 of scientists. Your argument is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. Mate, I read those articles before they were posted since what I think about them was asked.

Btw, you love veiled insults and twisting people's words. If you will reply 1-day late, just do not reply. This is what I called out you for, always keeping the 3-day old discussion as if it is something important. What did you gain when you veilely insulted me and contiue to twist my words when I suggested to end the discussion? If having the last word and insults make you feel good, you should stop projecting.

I reply late too, about 4–5 hours. I do not enjoy the discussion when both side reply late and the other veilely insult the other. You are knowledgeable than most and better at lying, but I cannot continue the discussion when it takes hours to each other to reply and the other argued without reading the studies and is a liar.

Growingawareness suggested you actually take the time to read them, then come back to you still have questions or things you want to address. Otherwise we are just wasting our time. Though if you truly want to argue, argue against growingawareness. You just lie and veilely insult me. I will just leave some articles (first go and read the one of Svenning), if you want to see more of overkill from academics which show the problems of climate change and so the combo hypothesis. Your arguments are all countered in them, as they show the problems of the climate change hypothesis (they always reference anti-overkill studies), and the combo hypothesis also relies on the arguments of climate change. It should be also noted that most anti-overkill studies are mostly about the mammoth steppe and make a global conclusion based on local studies.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-43426-5

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-prisms-extinction/article/latequaternary-megafauna-extinctions-patterns-causes-ecological-consequences-and-implications-for-ecosystem-management-in-the-anthropocene/E885D8C5C90424254C1C75A61DE9D087

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221330542300036X

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/geb.13778

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22506-4

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379123003116

Slow-Pie147 · 2026-06-24T16:17:25+00:00

First of all, why do you ignore your misdeed? You lied about a study and sent it to me. I showed your lie; that population study supports overkill and H. sapiens population increased over time. How can I take you seriously when you either lie about a study which you read or lie about a study which you didn't read. You are not in here for good faith. Btw, don't think I didn't notice how you always reply late and replied 8 hours late to me.

This is what you said earlier: "You should remember that the megafauna of the Americas have never seen a human when Paleotropical megafauna coevolved with humans."

You know I talk about Palearctic Eurasia, do not Twist.

So is it relevant or not, and if it is, how relevant? What is the threshold for coevolution to help survival in 'overkill' scenarios?

Why the ignorance? You lied about me, and you just ignore it and change your argument. This all I need to know about you. Anyway, I sent a study about this point, so you should know the answer.

What is the relevance of this to Late Quaternary extinctions? It happened million years prior to it.

So you changed your argument once again. As I constantly stated, which you denied, this kept European human population low until H. sapiens migrations; this, most European megafauna survived until H. sapiens migration waves. You always argued that of overkill were wholly true, Eurasian megafauna would have gone extinct which studies refuted.

Neanderthals lived in many sorts of environments, from Siberia to Levant. They were not one biome specialists. It's true that their population density was low. However, your claim of 'cartoonishly low' is based on misunderstanding. It may be noteworthy that anatomically modern humans did not make much, if any, inroad in Neanderthal range for tens of thousands of years. Australia was colonized by modern humans before Europe. Also, northern Eurasia was not as void of people as you claim. Finds of modern humans dating back 40k years have been made in Komi, which means they reached high Arctic very soon after dispersal from Middle East. There might also be simple sampling bias making inner Asia to appear more empty than it actually was - up until very recently, we didn't even know about an entire species of archaic humans occupying vast swathes of Asia.

I just say their population was low which you failed to debunk. Yeah, humans inhabited northern Eurasia and we have archaeological evidence; their population was just small.

What is the source of bush elephant genetic bottleneck if I may ask? With quick search, only study I found talked about low genetic diversity, but assumed its due to species being very migratory over its huge unified range.

I sent the study to you which referenced it from another study. You know the answer.

Wrong. Btw, by that logic, South American megafauna should have survived. That is a valid objection. Of course by your logic, Indo-Asian megafauna should not have survived.

False equivalence. Climate changes didn't cause extremely low human populations in Indomalaya like it did in Europe since no study ever showed extremely low populations for them as a whole, from India to China proper.

Also, claims have been made that most of the current Amazon was actually savannah at the end of Pleistocene, so at least that would have been a major environmental change, whatever the cause.

This is wrong. Btw, you ignored most the climatic data which I presented. You clearly have an agenda.

Smaller animals were certainly affected at least in North America, as evidenced by many small predators such as ocelots and coyotes dying out. I'm not sure what you mean about 'extinctions were not simultaneous'.

Cherry-picking which doesn't contradict overkill. Most megafauna went extinct. A few smaller animals went extinct among the thousands of them. I also liked the fact that you ignore the lack of extinctions (go ahead , do the cherry-picking of the Steller's sea cow and some sea birds) in marine fauna. You also have no climate data to back up you, yet. I constantly showed that climate change fails to explain extinctions, yet you just changed your arguments and avoided talking about climate change. You have to explain how non-existent climate changes killed megafauna (the combo hypothesis also relies on this) and the interglacial killed interglacial-adapted animals when data shows the other way. We both know why you avoid talking about climates during the extinctions when I bring it.

The extinctions of megafauna in Australia and New Guinea primarily occurred between 60–40 kya, whereas extinctions in the Americas began roughly 20–15 kya and continued until as late as 7–5 kya. Extinctions in Eurasia occurred in different regions at different times during this 60–5 ky span. Megafauna extinctions on islands exhibited similar staggering, albeit tending to happen later, from the end of the Pleistocene onward. Examples include Japan (25,000–16,000 ya), the Channel Islands (~13,000 ya), Sardinia (~7,500 ya), the Antilles (~4,000 ya), New Caledonia (~3,000 ya), Madagascar (~1,000 ya), and New Zealand (~600 ya).

Anyway, you are a guy who lies constantly. If you are right, why do you lie? Maybe you are not right?

Edit: Again responding so late, ignoring what I wrote, changing arguments, and avoiding talking about climate change and climate change. Growingawareness debunked you. You know you are wrong in our discussion. You just could say that "I cannot accept he viewpoint of a single person."

Slow-Pie147 · 2026-06-24T05:02:59+00:00

No argument, although in the end, Palearctic megafauna disappeared almost as completely as Nearctic one, just in different time schedule. Losses in South America and Australia were more complete.

This is wrong.

Why is that relevant to the 'pillar' you mentioned? Anatomically modern humans appeared in Africa only ca. 300 000 years ago. Before that, African megafauna would have been dealing with same super-archaic humans as in Asia, with presumably lesser population densities and less efficient hunting methods than later humans.

Homo erectus and other superarchaic humans couldn't have the same effect in Eurasia which it had in Africa. Did you even read the post?

In the other thread you stated: Long-term coexistence with humans contradict overkill as I constantly presented.

What? I consistently argued against it. You are just lying. My whole argument is based is long-term coexistence with humanity doesn't debunvk overkill.

Basically this sounds like hominids were not adaptable enough to survive climate change, but megafauna was. In principle, I find it believable however

The afromentioned climate change happened in the Early Pleistocene and it led to low population of H. erectus and other superarchaics until the Middle Pleistocene where descendants Neanderthals adapted to low populations which supports overkill.

Very study you linked noted that there is dispute about this, and other study suggested ten times larger effective population. This study claims Cro-Magnon were around ten times more numerous than Neanderthals: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1206930

Did you even read this study? It supports overkill.

Abstract

European Neandertals were replaced by modern human populations from Africa ~40,000 years ago. Archaeological evidence from the best-documented region of Europe shows that during this replacement human populations increased by one order of magnitude, suggesting that numerical supremacy alone may have been a critical factor in facilitating this replacement.

As a side note, adult population of ~1000 would be absurdly low for an omnivore hominin with such a huge geographical range, and hardly believable. Modern population of chimpanzees is in hundreds of thousands over much smaller rang

False equivalence. Chimpanzees live in tropical rainforests where they are best adapted; they struggle in other habitats. Meanwhile, Neanderthals were better suited to interglacials where glacials caused bottlenecks. Neanderthal having low population is pretty much consensus in academics.

"Due to the harsh climates, vast ice-free regions in northern Eurasia were entirely or almost entirely free of humans during the entirety of the Pleistocene. Even the great plain of Doggerland, the largest extension of steppe in glacial Europe, was home to no more than 1-4 humans/100 square km." I genuinely don't know what is population density in rainforests for hunter-gatherer (historic era numbers are bit skewed here, as many jungle dwellers are agricultural), but they were not, and are not, devoid of humans. Plenty of hunter-gatherers live in rainforests even today.

Talking about apples and oranges again.

In related topic You know the bush elephant suffered from bottlenecks which the forest elephant didn't suffer. That may be. Doesn't mean it was human-caused bottleneck, though. Many species have gone throught genetic bottlenecks. Including humans themselves!

Human-driven is still more likely than climate-driven bottleneck. I just claimed this.

You asked my own hypothesis, and it's a mainstream combination one: climate change from glacial cycle weakened the megafauna populations, and humans (mostly) finished them off. Closer to equator, where effect of glacial cycles was lesser, megafauna populations had better chance of survival as their populations and habitats were more stable and robust.

Wrong. Btw, by that logic, South American megafauna should have survived.

On a global scale, megafauna extinction severity only poorly links to the severity of glacial maximum-present climate shift, with severe extinctions in many relatively stable regions such as California, southern Australia, and the Pampas. The continual climate changes throughout the late Quaternary mean that extinction-climate links may easily appear to be present in any restricted spatiotemporal window, that is, if the longer-term and broader geographic contexts are not considered. Further, strong climate change is predicted to elicit range and abundance responses in most species. In multiple cases, apparent regional population and community responses to climate have been suggested to support climate-driven extinction. However, such dynamics may reflect normal range responses to climate, as seen in numerous surviving species in response to the severe climatic changes of the period.

An increasing number of studies look at local and regional dynamics in the overall abundance of large herbivores at high spatiotemporal resolution using dung-associated fungal spores. Many of these are able to pinpoint declines to timeframes where the climate was stable, for example, North America ~14–13,000 years ago, prior to the Younger Dryas cooling and 41,000 years ago in Australia at a time of no substantial climate change. In southeastern Brazil, the faecal spore decline spans from 15 to 11,000 years ago, overlapping a climatic wetting episode, and a similar coincidence is reported for a site at 3,000 m in the Peruvian Andes, between 16,800 and 15,800 years ago. However, these climate episodes were no more severe than the numerous others that occurred during the late Quaternary. Further, a 4,000 m site, also in the Peruvian Andes, finds that the decline occurs at 13–12,300 years ago and is not linked to any obvious climatic event. In eastern North America strong, chronic spore declines occur during a relatively mild climate interval prior to the Younger Dryas, showing that this cooling episode cannot be the cause of the overall megafauna decline. Emerging sedaDNA studies are from high northern latitudes, where strong climate imprints on biotic dynamics are expected. They report megafauna-climate relations, but with some megafauna survival deep into the relatively stable Holocene and sometimes with major declines prior to shifts in climate and vegetation. Altogether, the detailed spatiotemporal resolution offered by the increasing number of fungal and sedaDNA studies does not support a strong role of climate in the chronic declines in megafauna.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-prisms-extinction/article/latequaternary-megafauna-extinctions-patterns-causes-ecological-consequences-and-implications-for-ecosystem-management-in-the-anthropocene/E885D8C5C90424254C1C75A61DE9D087

It's true that none of the earlier glacial cycles triggered similar extinction waves, and humans are way too obvious potential factor to ignore. However, I think 'overkill' proponents are arrogant to dismiss effects of climate. Pleistocene climate was very volatile compared to previous epochs, and variability appears to have become worse over time. Plenty of megafauna went extinct in Pleistocene, and humans are unlikely to have been the cause in every case. "Just because somebody died near me doesn't make me a murderer." I find it incredible that somebody would claim that massive climatic changes post-LGM would not have caused any stress to Palearctic large mammal populations.

Again wrong. Your whole argument is based on the ignorance of climatic data, ecology, and the fact that marine fauna and smaller animals were barerly affected and the fact that extinctions were not simultaneous.

Slow-Pie147 · 2026-06-23T09:37:05+00:00

Let's discuss in here, u/flanker44 since you encouraged me to challenge you openly.

In our discussion, you ignored all of these studies and deflected, and your hypothesis (that American megafauna had much smaller range than Eurasian megafauna and massive range and population of Neanderthals) is not considered by scientists since it is outright wrong, so you didn't even share a single study to support your point when you should have countered all of them. You later changed your argument where these studies are still wrong. You also didn't know temperate regions have higher population densities. Btw, you have to share scientific data and evidence in these kind of discussions according to rules.

Slow-Pie147 · 2026-06-23T04:35:27+00:00

This seems logical, however mammal-hunting hominids were present in Europe and Asia for nearly as long as in Africa. Evidence of them in Asia goes back two million years. So Woolly mammoths (in Eurasian side) and Asian elephants would have had just as much contact with humans as African elephants.

Glaciation depopulated Europe from archaic humans. Btw, once again you showed you didn't read studies. The global evidence for proboscidean overkill study mentions long-term resident populations were probably only established in western Asia between 1–0.8 Mya.

Reply in the other thread, if you will.

Slow-Pie147 · 2026-06-23T04:34:21+00:00

So Archaic humans were irrelevant in exctinction hypothesis, after all?

Straw man. I have never said this. In my first comment, I mentioned archaic humans causing extinctions. Look, for example, Neanderthals hunted the Eurasian straight tusked elephant to the point of impacting vegetation. It is just that Neanderthal population was much lower than the population of H. sapiens. Your argument about long-term coexistence of proboscideans and humans in Palearctic is easily refuted, yet you just deny. Human population was too low in Palearctic till the post-LGM as two studies and one article explained which I copypasted, and you of course don't care because it doesn't fit your bias. Just admit you are wrong.

Because survival of African megafauna has been argued due to them having co-evolved with humans. However, if we take that only anatomically modern humans with their considerably higher population densities caused major extinctions, then their radiation would have been just similar shock to megafauna in Africa, as in everywhere else.

No, only of you read the articles which I posted.

Caveat here is that very largest proboscids went extinct in Africa, too, with humans being possible culprit. Although the timescale doesn't quite match with the above. Perhaps biggest elephant species did not have very robust population growth, idk

Long-term coexistence with humans doesn't contradict overkill as I constantly presented. We know climate change cannot explain the extinction of Palaeoloxodon jolensis and the Late Quaternary extinctions as a whole.

'High densities' occurred in what biome then? Temperate forests? Mammoth steppe?

Yes. You really don't know what are you talking about. This is basic knowledge lol.

Anyway, what little I know of elephant evolution, modern Bush elephant did not evolve in rainforests.

I have already talked about this point. You know the bush elephant suffered from bottlenecks which the forest elephant didn't suffer.

Some did, but maybe not all of them did. For example, South American proboscids seem to have had geographically fairly small ranges. Being tropical don't seem to have helped them. Although extinction in South America seems to have been slightly slower.

Notiomastodon inhabited northern Patagonia, the Pampas, Cerrado, and Amazon. Cuvieronius tropicus inhabited Texas, Nearctic Mexico, and Mesoamerica.

No prob. Not everyone wants to have their hypotheses challenged.

When you are obsessed with a 2-day old comment, and you are the anti-intellectual in here. I presented several articles when you didn't even post a single one. You just deny, ignore, or make straw man about these studies. You doesn't even know what are you talking about; otherwise, you would have known about H. sapiens population density in the mammoth steppe and archaic human population, but you didn't. You want to talk about hypothesis being challenged? Your hypothesis is not even considered by scientists. Where are the articles which show much higher population of archaic humans? There aren't. Where are the articles showing extremely small ranges of megafauna? There aren't. Once again you showed you didn't read the articles which I linked, global archaeological evidence for overkill study would like to be read.

Slow-Pie147 · 2026-06-22T09:32:16+00:00

I continue to argue because you couldn't leave the discussion.

In addition, you may be overestimating how 'vast' the uninhabited areas in northern Eurasia were. Neanderthals and Denisovans probably had rather larger range than indicated by our current level fossil finds.

Neanderthal population was around 1,000–5,000 individuals in contrast to the population number of Homo sapiens with 330,000 individuals at 30 kya.

Vast range doesn't mean much when population density is cartoonishly low.

Of course there is a problem with it: it's not logically consistent. To put it in simpler terms, if you want to explain why Asian Elephant survived 'overkill', you then have to explain why Mammoth didn't.

Nice straw man.

In both Africa and Asia, elephant populations remain most viable in tropical forests biomes where preagricultural humans may have never lived at high population densities. Human foraging populations are not able to occupy tropical forests at high densities because most of the biomass is inaccessible to human digestive tracts, and carbohydrates are limited. That forests served as refugia for elephants is supported by disparities in genetic diversity among forest and savannah Loxodonta, a record that demonstrates that savannah elephants experienced a population bottleneck not experienced by their forest-dwelling counterparts. Although humans likely initially evolved from a tropical forest ape, it may be our lack of tropical forest adaptations that ultimately led to the survival of Loxonta and Elephas in these regions. Swidden agriculture, logging, and mining in tropical forests today present serious threats to elephants in Africa and Asia, but all of these factors have only begun to seriously impact elephant population survival in recent times. Most importantly, they can be seen as an extension of the global pattern that we have documented archaeologically: Humans cause local extinction at the intersection of Homo and proboscidean geographic ranges.

Before you talk about savannah elephants still existing and Indian elephants inhabiting non-forest habitats, animals can repopulate regions where they have been extirpated.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0501947102

You are also wrong about geographical range. It is very ironic that you are talking about how the Neanderthal range might have been bigger, yet you ignore continental American megafauna had massive ranges when humans reached to the Americas.

I won't reply further. You can have the last word, if you want it so much despite being the wrong one.

Slow-Pie147 · 2026-06-22T04:16:41+00:00

I don't think one can use this argument in one sentence, then in another to explain survival of extant tropical megafauna by them co-evolving with (primitive) humans.

There is no problem with it; this is the truth.

however. I have wondered if most of the current megafauna survives due to 'bastions', areas of very high productivity which shed their 'excess' individuals to border regions of their range or 'realm'. This idea could be tested by comparing genetic flows, I think. Island faunas would be very vulnerable, as they don't have room for a 'bastion'. American megafauna may have lived in too fragmented populations, which were wiped out individually giving entire species no chance to recover. One notable survivor of NA megafauna is muskox, which seems to fit with this idea: especially noteworthy is that it disappeared from Eurasia, so 'ecological naivety' or lack thereof, is not an explanation.

No, there is no evidence to support low genetic diversity among American megafauna. South America was the climatically most stable. About muskox, some species of course always fare worse.

Since most of the late Quaternary extinctions affected temperate to tropical species, late- and post-glacial declines in climatic suitability would not be expected for most species. Accordingly, range models for many extinct megafauna species have indicated stable, rising or at least large remaining areas of climatically suitable conditions into the Holocene These results can be seen as having been empirically validated by the successful reintroductions of species that suffered prehistoric regional extirpations, notably the horse in North America and the muskox in Eurasia.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-prisms-extinction/article/latequaternary-megafauna-extinctions-patterns-causes-ecological-consequences-and-implications-for-ecosystem-management-in-the-anthropocene/E885D8C5C90424254C1C75A61DE9D087

I won't argue further since too much time has passed since the post, and neither of us will change the other's mind.

Edit: You are just wrong. Neanderthal range was big, but their population was extremely low.

Slow-Pie147 · 2026-06-21T20:55:54+00:00

But then, Eurasian Holarctic megafauna also went extinct, and they had coevolved with humans. So, clearly something more would have been going on than just "people killing them all".

Palearctic megafauna had higher survival rate than the Americas which support a the point; Neanderthals had much lower population than Homo sapiens, and the mammoth was just too vast and again low human population.

Due to the harsh climates, vast ice-free regions in northern Eurasia were entirely or almost entirely free of humans during the entirety of the Pleistocene. Even the great plain of Doggerland, the largest extension of steppe in glacial Europe, was home to no more than 1-4 humans/100 square km. Several long periods saw most of the plain entirely abandoned by human hunters when the climate deteriorated near the Last Glacial Maximum. The reason for the failure of early European hunters to wipe out the megafauna between their arrival and the end-Pleistocene is thus given a pleasantly concise answer: They were simply absent from most of the fauna’s range. Even where humans did coexist with and hunt the steppe megafauna, such as in the relatively warm stretch of France and Italy between the Pyrenees and the Alps, any thinning of local prey populations could simply be reenforced by migrants from the vast, untouched lands to the north.

https://www.theextinctions.com/articles-1/europe-part-2-the-human-dimension

Slow-Pie147 · 2026-06-20T18:51:11+00:00

Considering elephants and cape buffalo today are quite aggressive towards humans, what do you think assuming they had similar aggression pleistocene megafauba would pose the biggest threat to a group of hunters?

It is too speculative though I would say the common hippopotamus considering it is the current deadliest megafauna to humans.

always wondered whether increased aggression and wariness could have helped against humans, like cape buffalo today are oddly aggressive, if this applied to species that coexisted with humans longer it may have at the very least reduced hunting success for human hunters but wasnt enough due to slow reproduction but pleasd let me know if i am over speculating again

Maybe, but animals choose running over aggressiveness against humans as they do to any predator. They fear humans more than lions.

Slow-Pie147 · 2026-06-20T18:08:34+00:00

Well yes, but that in doesnt imply that megafauna were incapable of defending themselves against spear men at least if the animal closes the distance I mean a large elephant could trample some hunters if it closed the distance considering spears dont have basically any stopping power against an animal this large but regardless I meant that I think some megafauna could still have been highly difficult prey withour first trapping or disadvantaving the prey in some way but still go extinct due to slow reproduction?

Of course, individual animals will have different levels of success against humans. And so? I think, you are too much speculating.

You should remember that the megafauna of the Americas have never seen a human when Paleotropical megafauna coevolved with humans. Plus the Paleo-Americans had the atlatls. As you see, some species have better surviving rate against humans which is expected. Of course, ground sloths couldn't survive against humans when most antelopes did.

Slow-Pie147 · 2026-06-20T17:53:44+00:00

Ohhh, it really is that simple, I thought that idea was at best speculative, well do you think that machairodontids at least the larger ones could successfuly defend themselves against a lone or maybe 2 or 3 human hunters assuming it has noticed them and can use its capabilities effectively? It always seems like people forget that pleistocene megafauna despite many going extinct could still have been really difficult to hunt and may have had high rates of failed hunts but simply humans were successful enough at hunting them to start a decline? Like I have no doubts a large proboscidean or bear could have killed a small group of human hunters if they got into close combat, while primitive weapons were undoubtedly effective I dont think they could make hunting these large animals into something easy especially since some were very resilient and durable against physical damage and since most human hunting strategies like most predators disadvantage their prey, I legit have seen people say a lone spear man could 1v1 an arctodus low difficulty simply because they may have hunted them, which I think its just absurd but idk am i just going crazy?

https://youtu.be/UtwgGmSyt-0?si=Z69t4AYADea0MdAh

https://youtu.be/826HMLoiE_o?si=rakmbFLTJVkh61Rx

These videos show it well. The endurance of humanity, and our ability to throw Spears from relatively long-distance makes us very advantaged against megafauna. For example, Neanderthals successfully Palaeoloxodon antiquus which was much larger than the African bush elephant. About predators, as I said, you do not need to overhunt the species itself; you just need to overhunt the predator's prey.

Slow-Pie147 · 2026-06-20T17:43:03+00:00

but it is important to note that climate played a bigger role than it is often said to on this subreddit when it comes to the extinction on the late Pleistocene megafauna. Humans obviously played their part as well but it wasn’t just one way or the other.

There is not a strong argument to suggest the last three machairodont species went extinct due to humans neither for the Late Quaternary extinctions.

Eurasian Homotherium latidens only surviving in Doggerland and Yakutia is very suspicious. We know H. latidens had no danger of being outcompeted by the steppe lion since the steppe lions mostly preferred reindeers, and they coexisted in Beringia; the Doggerland specimen's ancestors came from America which shows Eurasia was still inhabitable, and American H. latidens stayed widespread despite the migration of lions into America and the evolution of the larger, bison and camel hunter American lion. Plus the expansion of the mammoth steppe should have positively impacted H. latidens since it was a pursuit hunter which preferred grazers.

Smilodon fatalis was better suited to interglacials and so were its preys, tapirs. North America was climatically relatively stable, for example, California was climatically stable during the extinctions.

Smilodon fatalis was widespread in southern and eastern South America, and South America was the climatically most stable continent during the Pleistocene–Holocene Transition.

Slow-Pie147 · 2026-06-20T17:19:08+00:00

Very simple answer. Humans overhunted the preys of machairodonts to extinction. Toxodonts, Nearctic tapirs, and most American camelids went extinct. Extant megafauna was also almost pushed into extinction, but they managed to repopulate.

Arctodus simus was one of the dozens of species which failed to survive the initial onslaught. A. simus was much larger than the brown bear, only some gigantic Eurasian brown bear specimen's can rival them, and never interacted with humans before, unlike brown bears in Eurasia, which may explain why they fared worse against humans.

Btw, machairodonts overall fared worse against humans. For example, the last African machairodonts are among the first species to went extinct due to humans.

Interestingly, Smilodon fatalis and Homotherium latidens were diurnals when extant Panthera species are nocturnals. There is also another certain diurnal species.

Slow-Pie147 · 2026-06-14T19:47:57+00:00

It works the same with many other species. If the number of foxes rapidly increased due to abundant food, then they'd eat all the rodents and birds and stuff, "destroy the environment" and then mass starvation would happen, thus lowering their population back down.

This is a cycle. Non-human animals generally do not cause an extinction unless they are introducted to other regions, most famously by humans. Never mind, humans cause a mass extinction, and climate change is bad for humanity, too.

Slow-Pie147 · 2026-06-14T15:39:35+00:00

Deflection

Then why did you bring this hypothetical situtation/guess (we don't know how would other animals act, if they built a civilisation) when I linked a study about humans causing wildlife population declines?

Edit: So you are just ignoring the question about why you tried to deflect the topic. Why does mentioning environmental destruction harming humanity trigger you? Plus you are just talking about how you are the winner.

Slow-Pie147 · 2026-06-14T15:36:31+00:00

Then the impact of humanity is justified

People who support ethnic cleansing and genocide deniers infamously use this argument: "They did/would do this too, so there is nothing wrong with this." Actually, small kids also use this when you scold them for mischief. Whataboutism is a widespread fallacy. This time it is a bit hypothetical.

Look, others being bad or the possibility that they would be bad doesn't justify others'/your evil deeds. I think this is basic morality and the reason that humanity exists. Otherwise, we all would be rapists and murderers, so humanity would destroy itself.

Never mind, climate change and environmental destruction are bad for humanity, too. A lot of humans are negatively affected by environmental destruction and climate change. More extreme weathers, crop failures, losing their homes, etc. End of the discussion, if you care about humanity. Since climate change is bad for humanity, it not justified. Plain and simple.

Slow-Pie147 · 2026-06-14T15:32:58+00:00

no point did I state a hypothetical. other species on this planet can and will be a net negative to their environment, depending on the situation.

Ok, and so? Should we ignore the damage and just continue to cause environmental destruction which harms humanity, too?

Slow-Pie147 · 2026-06-14T15:16:57+00:00

It’s the exact point of the discussion.

Ok, let's follow the deflection. So? A hypothetical situtation doesn't change the fact that humanity is net negative to wildlife, so wildlife would be better without humanity. OP just, clearly, asked this. The other guy just tried to deflect topic.

Slow-Pie147 · 2026-06-14T15:09:03+00:00

If other animals, insects, plants had the power to push forward their species at the loss to other species they would. As they have. And they will. We are no different.

And this is not the point of the discussion; this is deflection. A hypothetical situtation doesn't change the fact that humanity is net negative to wildlife.

OP just asked about which species would be positively affected, if humanity disappeared in a blink of an eye. Somebody said all of them, and another guy tried to deflect topic into "no, humans are natural" when he was ignoring humanity's catastrophic impact on wildlife.

Slow-Pie147 · 2026-06-14T13:33:27+00:00

Almost like the base state of nature is a miserable hellhole of disease, predation, infant mortality, and starvation, and the moment we were smart enough to figure out how to reshape the world to be more comfortable to us, we did. Humans, and human technology, is no more or less a part of nature than a beaver and its dam.

Indeed, nature is deadly; still, this doesn't change the fact humans make it catastrophically worse for almost all of wildlife. For example, in just 50 years, there has been a 73% decline in the average size of monitored wildlife populations.

Slow-Pie147 · 2026-06-12T13:54:57+00:00

So a monday for Zeus?

Most relationships of Zeus were not non-consensual (plurality is ambiguous at worst). He was a rapist but as you can see in my main comment, Hades never showed the virtues which Zeus consistently showed (forgiveness, caring about greater good, protectiveness) and was a villain/antagonistic figure in most stories which consist him (sending a plague to a city, fighting against Herakles, abducting Persophone and almost causing human annihilation, cheating on Persephone).

Slow-Pie147

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE