×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Spanish Conquest May Have Altered Peru's Shoreline

Unknown Lamer posted about 6 months ago | from the accidental-retaining-wall dept.

Earth 94

sciencehabit (1205606) writes "The Spanish conquest of the Inca had a profound effect on Peru's indigenous people, but a new study reveals that it also had an unexpected impact on the land itself. Before the Spaniards arrived, inhabitants of the arid northern Peruvian coast clad massive sand dune-like ridges with an accidental form of 'armor': millions of discarded mollusk shells, which protected the ridges from erosion for nearly 4700 years and produced a vast corrugated landscape that is visible from space. This incidental landscape protection came to a swift end, however, after diseases brought by Spanish colonists decimated the local population and after colonial officials resettled the survivors inland. Without humans to create the protective covering, newly formed beach ridges simply eroded and vanished."

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

Weren't the Peruvians altering the coast? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47042369)

Weren't the Peruvians altering the coast (in a way that would not be allowed in US wetlands) and when the Spanish came the coast was returned to nature?

Re:Weren't the Peruvians altering the coast? (5, Insightful)

sunking2 (521698) | about 6 months ago | (#47042411)

It's ok when it's done by the indigenous people. It's only when the white man does it that it's bad.

Re:Weren't the Peruvians altering the coast? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47042473)

Is your entire purpose just to make the first post with something inflammatory you don't necessarily even believe, solely so that more people will comment, and make it seem like Slashdot is still a thing? If not, then you're just an asshole.

Re:Weren't the Peruvians altering the coast? (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 6 months ago | (#47046565)

The indigenous peoples didn't get the permission of regulators appointed by politicians elected by giant concrete canyon cities choking with people desirable of dictating what happens in states and regions that do not belong to them because yay democracy.

If this brutally honest description upsets, oh well.

Re:Weren't the Peruvians altering the coast? (4, Informative)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 6 months ago | (#47042491)

Nothing against the white man, and full disclosure would reveal that my mother actually married one, but I'm just simple.

Anthropogenic anything is still nature's, and the universe's, hand at work...

Our super-sized egos aside, we are not separate from the rest of existence.

Re:Weren't the Peruvians altering the coast? (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 6 months ago | (#47042641)

Our super-sized egos aside, we are not separate from the rest of existence.

Now you've done it...

Me, I'm waiting for the ABE (Anthropogenic Beach Erosion) crowd to scream and belittle "deniers" who will question the assertion that those evil Spaniards were actually at fault, or if they just introduced better foods...

Re:Weren't the Peruvians altering the coast? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47042661)

It is so rare to find a fellow person that sees life in any sort as a rapid pace universal evolution machine.

I was asked by my niece, what the meaning of life was. My response was akin to, "to change the world around you are you will."

Re:Weren't the Peruvians altering the coast? (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 6 months ago | (#47042879)

Yes, and I find it fortuitously absurd that life in the form of us is at the front of the pack as far as we can tell.

Infiltrate yourself into every little nook and cranny that can sustain you.

And, if evolution has given you the right mix of large brain and clever hands, you can alter the nooks and crannies to suit you.

Re:Weren't the Peruvians altering the coast? (1)

swillden (191260) | about 6 months ago | (#47045285)

And, if evolution has given you the right mix of large brain and clever hands, you can alter the nooks and crannies to suit you.

It's worth extending this thought a bit further to recognize that virtually all human life is based on altering the nooks and crannies. If you were to require humans to live in the world as-is -- no buildings, no farms, heck, even making clothing is arguably altering the environment to make it more livable -- there's very, very little area of this planet that could support human life. And even in the few regions that could support human life, that life would be harsh, dangerous and unpleasant.

We live by altering the world to suit us. Period. That doesn't mean we should alter it thoughtlessly, nor that there isn't value in preserving some areas unaltered. But anyone who thinks our goal should be to avoid altering our environment really hasn't thought it through, because the only way to achieve that goal is for us to cease existing.

Re:Weren't the Peruvians altering the coast? (1)

Tanktalus (794810) | about 6 months ago | (#47045437)

But anyone who thinks our goal should be to avoid altering our environment really hasn't thought it through, because the only way to achieve that goal is for us to cease existing.

There are people who believe that those espousing "avoid altering our environment" have thought it through, and their goal really is for humans to cease existing. I'm currently leaning toward believing these people.

Re:Weren't the Peruvians altering the coast? (1)

swillden (191260) | about 6 months ago | (#47046227)

But anyone who thinks our goal should be to avoid altering our environment really hasn't thought it through, because the only way to achieve that goal is for us to cease existing.

There are people who believe that those espousing "avoid altering our environment" have thought it through, and their goal really is for humans to cease existing. I'm currently leaning toward believing these people.

If there are any such people, it would seem appropriate for them to start by removing themselves. I don't wish anyone ill, but it would be the logical step.

Re:Weren't the Peruvians altering the coast? (1)

OakDragon (885217) | about 6 months ago | (#47046549)

But anyone who thinks our goal should be to avoid altering our environment really hasn't thought it through, because the only way to achieve that goal is for us to cease existing.

There are people who believe that those espousing "avoid altering our environment" have thought it through, and their goal really is for humans to cease existing. I'm currently leaning toward believing these people.

If there are any such people, it would seem appropriate for them to start by removing themselves. I don't wish anyone ill, but it would be the logical step.

See, they know you won't follow through after they're gone. That's why only they can be trusted to manage the process.

Re:Weren't the Peruvians altering the coast? (1)

swillden (191260) | about 6 months ago | (#47046775)

See, they know you won't follow through after they're gone. That's why only they can be trusted to manage the process.

But how do I know they will follow through?

Actually, I probably don't have to worry about that, since their ability to survive without supermarkets and the global supply chains which stock them is basically zero. They'll die even if they change their minds. So, I suppose I have to bow to their logic. Except that they can bite me, of course.

Re:Weren't the Peruvians altering the coast? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47044747)

I was asked by my niece, what the meaning of life was. My response was akin to, "to change the world around you are you will."

And I take it her response was akin to "But Uncle, Dear, that makes no grammatical sense. I'm going to go ask Mom."

Re:Weren't the Peruvians altering the coast? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47043443)

When men of any color start using fossil fuel powered machines to move earth and alter coastlines, the results are usually catastrophic for sea life anywhere near the work area, at least for decades afterwards, sometimes much longer.

When a village throws hand harvested oyster shells out on the beach after they are locally consumed, it's a much slower process that will usually not harm the ecosystem.

Re:Weren't the Peruvians altering the coast? (1)

kwbauer (1677400) | about 6 months ago | (#47043509)

isn't the point of the article that it was altering the ecosystem? Now how do we differentiate between harm and alter?

Re:Weren't the Peruvians altering the coast? (1)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | about 6 months ago | (#47044537)

How DARE you bring logic and reason into an environmental/anti-man screed! Don't you know we have hand-wringing to do?

Re:Weren't the Peruvians altering the coast? (1)

AF_Cheddar_Head (1186601) | about 6 months ago | (#47048725)

I agree with your premise but will say this regarding human alterations to the environment:

-- Slow changes allow the local flora and fauna to adapt, aka the oyster shell accumulation occured likely over many decades if not centuries allowing different plants to make their way in and establish themselves resulting in an environment that animals can then inhabit.

-- Fast changes are more likely to cause local flora and fauna to disappear, aka plowing up the prairie in North America in the space of a few decades resulted in the loss of many native plants and animals without the opportunity for replacement or adaption, unless you consider corn and wheat a suitable replacement for the prairie plants.

Man altering the environment slowly results in a more stable adaption versus quick alteration.

Re:Weren't the Peruvians altering the coast? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47042497)

Who said anything here about OK or bad?

Re:Weren't the Peruvians altering the coast? (1)

BadPirate (1572721) | about 6 months ago | (#47042713)

Despite the research it doesn't seem conclusive that man made "Costal Change" is anything other than a liberal misinformation conspiracy. Yes, some beach ridges have vanished or eroded, but the same thing happened during natural ice ages.

Re:Weren't the Peruvians altering the coast? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47043503)

Yep. Just like diversity is good unless it's white people (aka "gentrification", "conquest", "colonization", etc) which is bad.

Re: Weren't the Peruvians altering the coast? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47044367)

When did Slashdot get invaded by racists? What's next, you're gonna cry white genocide because someone is criticizing the actions of people you choose to identify with?

Colonization is one of the most awful things white people have ever done.

Re: Weren't the Peruvians altering the coast? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47044869)

Liberating the slaves in Alger in 1830 was an awful thing? Wait, slavery is only bad when white people do it to non white people ergo abolishing slavery is bad when it forces non white people to liberate their slaves. Got it.

Re: Weren't the Peruvians altering the coast? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47045871)

Even the slaves who ended up in North America started out as slaves who had been captured by their fellow black Africans before being sold to Arab slave traders, before being sold again ( if they were lucky) to the slave traders who transported then to America.

Re: Weren't the Peruvians altering the coast? (1)

James Buchanan (3571549) | about 6 months ago | (#47046351)

Au contrair Mon fear. Colonization a white person invention? That's racist. Colonization was a Arab ormesopitian proclivity, as well, even Egyptians practiced it. As far back as we can see, it was practiced. Each race,each city group, each family or clan practiced it. I know you are referring only to the English version of it, but the baddest ass of every group practiced colonization, taking over the next territory, or clan to improve their livelihood or survival ability. So back to your little ivory tower and spew more claptrap.

Re: Weren't the Peruvians altering the coast? (1)

OakDragon (885217) | about 6 months ago | (#47046571)

When did Slashdot get invaded by Anonymous Cowards?

Re: Weren't the Peruvians altering the coast? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47049037)

Why do ignorant bigots always assume that whites are responsible for everything bad? Don't you know that Chinese slave traders had by law to ensure that their stock had been neutered before being imported into China, to prevent the establishment of a non-Chinese race on Chinese soil? Or that slavery was endemic in Africa for thousands of years before the whites arrived, continued up until the white colonial regimes stopped it, and then started up again as soon as they left? And those poor Crimean Tatars who are being so ruthlessly oppressed by the nasty Russkies? They are the remnants of an Islamic people who just happened to spend three centuries hunting their Christian European neighbours on horseback, herding them like animals, raping the women and children and carting off over three million of them to the slave markets of the Ottoman Empire. Or that the Ottoman special forces (Janissaries) were entirely made up of Christian slaves that had been taken during raids on European lands and then, in a triumph of perversity, sent off to kill their own people and take yet more slaves?

Even the concept of "colonialism" is, as you would expect with the left, one laden with anti-white bigotry. Non-whites were invading each others' countries throughout history, driving each other out, settling each others' lands, forcibly converting each other, but it's only when whites did it that it was "colonialist" and bad? The British Empire was a cess-pit of colonialist evil but the Islamic empire in al-Andalus was a beacon of civilisation and learning? Well only if you mean "learning" how to do regular slave-runs in the north of the peninsula and the south of France and exporting them to the rest of the Islamic world. And wasn't al-Andalus just a little bit, oh I don't know, *colonialist*? The Mogul Empire in India? -- A Turkic elite! The Chinese in Tibet? The Chinese and the Japanese in Manchuria? The Golden Horde? The ethnic cleansing of the Christian societies along the eastern and southern Mediterranean littoral by their Arab conquerors?

Leftists fantasise that they are the educated ones, the "nice" people, but in reality they are the intolerant fascists who love the idea of having a group of people who can be safely ridiculed and defamed -- feeling good about themselves while giving in to every hateful and spiteful impulse against people who they think won't fight back. Thank goodness for evolution's other boot -- selection: it's leftists' babies that get disproportionately aborted.

Re:Weren't the Peruvians altering the coast? (1)

tomhath (637240) | about 6 months ago | (#47042445)

Good point. The conquistadores put a stop to whatever babble this guy is talking about:

They also altered anthropogenically modulated processes of shoreline change that had functioned for millennia.

Re:Weren't the Peruvians altering the coast? (1)

CWCheese (729272) | about 6 months ago | (#47042627)

One can only imagine how pristine the coastline would have been without this civilization despoiling the dunes. Seems the researcher is building his case that humankind has been disastrous for the earth for as long as it has existed.

Re:Weren't the Peruvians altering the coast? (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 6 months ago | (#47042937)

Disastrous - well, that's a loaded term. One organism's disaster is another's dinner. The world / universe just is.

But humans, along with all sorts of other plants and animals, have been changing the environment for a very long time.

For quite a bit more detail on South America, read 1493 [npr.org] and some of his other books.

TL;DR - there is no such thing as purely 'natural'.

Re: Weren't the Peruvians altering the coast? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47044383)

Yes, nothing is natural, but balance if nature still exists, and our behavior can have negative consequences on our and many other species' existence.

Re: Weren't the Peruvians altering the coast? (1)

James Buchanan (3571549) | about 6 months ago | (#47046385)

So they were stabilizing dunes,after the party, with shells. How neat. Stop the dunes from the inundation of their village. Wow, geoengeering at the lowest form. Cool.

Re:Weren't the Peruvians altering the coast? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47042991)

Weren't the Peruvians altering the coast (in a way that would not be allowed in US wetlands)

"Wetland" covers a range of terrains, some coastal and some not.
By definition, some types of wetland cannot form along coats.

Re:Weren't the Peruvians altering the coast? (2)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | about 6 months ago | (#47044549)

By definition, some types of wetland cannot form along coats.

You clearly have not been out in a good strong rain in Seattle. That wet land most definitely can form along - and through - coats.

Re:Weren't the Peruvians altering the coast? (1)

fellip_nectar (777092) | about 6 months ago | (#47045029)

Posting to undo incorrect moderation

Re:Weren't the Peruvians altering the coast? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47043937)

Weren't the Peruvians altering the coast (in a way that would not be allowed in US wetlands) and when the Spanish came the coast was returned to nature?

Just hold on there! Are you saying the Latin Catholics weren't originally from this place? They came from Europe and took it from the natives? This is an outrage!

Quit misusing decimated! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47042451)

You sound like a moron when you write 'kill one of ten" when you mean "kill most of."
I could accept the changing use of the word if the damn prefix for one-tenth iwasn't part of it!

Re:Quit misusing decimated! (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 6 months ago | (#47043009)

Ten how about dekamate? Kills 10 of every 11?

Re:Quit misusing decimated! (1)

mark_reh (2015546) | about 6 months ago | (#47044749)

Sounds more like having sex with 10 out of 11 to me.

The Spaniards probably did that, too.

Clue: We don't use Latin anymore ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47043149)

You sound like a moron when you write 'kill one of ten" when you mean "kill most of."

Actually the moron in these posts is the person using the obsolete Latin definition of the word rather than its modern definition in English when reading something in modern English.

Look, I realize you just read something about how if a unit in the ancient Roman legions displayed cowardice they would be order to draw lots and 1 in 10 would be killed by their comrades, thereby learning the literal latin definition of the word. I understand the inner geek excitement at this. However please refrain from calling others morons if they do the sensible thing and use modern English rather than Latin. Find a different way to share your new found knowledge.

Re:Clue: We don't use Latin anymore ... (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 6 months ago | (#47053071)

Devastate is a perfectly good word.

Re:Quit misusing decimated! (1)

Wycliffe (116160) | about 6 months ago | (#47043533)

You sound like a moron when you write 'kill one of ten" when you mean "kill most of."
I could accept the changing use of the word if the damn prefix for one-tenth iwasn't part of it!

September, October, November, and December must drive you nuts then.

For some unknown reason, my favorite though is the divergence of Awful and Awesome.

Completely offtopic but I think 13 months each exactly 4 weeks long (or practically anything else)
would make more sense than what we currently have. We could just have the extra day or two
fall on a holiday so that the months/days/weeks always stay lined up.

Re: Quit misusing decimated! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47045977)

Me, I think a non linear clock and a matching calendar would be best. Think of the beauty of a clock that whisks on through those morning and afternoon time spans but lingers slowly over lunch hour. An interactive "speed up" button could even be provided on clocks in meeting rooms.

For the calendar, extended summer months (weather permitting) could enhance vacation scheduling. For people who get four weeks annual vacation, those long 9 day weeks in late July and August would be blissful.

I agree. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47042519)

http://www.pensu.com

Hey that's not bad.... (1, Insightful)

Rick Zeman (15628) | about 6 months ago | (#47042529)

This incidental landscape protection came to a swift end, however, after diseases brought by Spanish colonists decimated the local population

Can't be too bad since decimate means reduce by a 10th....

Re:Hey that's not bad.... (1)

Opyros (1153335) | about 6 months ago | (#47042891)

decimate means reduce by a 10th

Not necessarily. [oup.com]

Re:Hey that's not bad.... (2)

Rick Zeman (15628) | about 6 months ago | (#47042925)

decimate means reduce by a 10th

Not necessarily. [oup.com]

People could say "decimate" means "blue" but that still doesn't make it right, nor contravene its etymological origins. Hard to get around "deci" in there.....

Re:Hey that's not bad.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47042987)

Tell that to people who celebrate their three week "anniversary"

Re:Hey that's not bad.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47043023)

Actually, if enough people use "decimate" to mean "blue" such that it's commonly understood that when you say "decimate" you mean "blue", then it would indeed make it right! Likewise, if someone were to say that "decimate" means "reduce by a tenth" when it is almost never used that way, that person would be incorrect. Language is defined by usage.

I mean, unless you value language more for its ability to serve as a class/racial/national marker than its ability to facilitate communication.

Re:Hey that's not bad.... (1)

Rick Zeman (15628) | about 6 months ago | (#47052779)

Actually, if enough people use "decimate" to mean "blue" such that it's commonly understood that when you say "decimate" you mean "blue", then it would indeed make it right! Likewise, if someone were to say that "decimate" means "reduce by a tenth" when it is almost never used that way, that person would be incorrect. Language is defined by usage.

I mean, unless you value language more for its ability to serve as a class/racial/national marker than its ability to facilitate communication.

And if half the people mean "blue" and the other half don't? What does that do for communication?

Re:Hey that's not bad.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47043065)

Fuck your pedant ass to death, faggot. Fuck it with a stick and die of infection, leaving a bloated bloody-assed corpse for your family to find and cry over when they finally realize you haven't come out of the basement in weeks.

Its not 1/10th in modern English ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47043163)

decimate means reduce by a 10th

Not necessarily. [oup.com]

People could say "decimate" means "blue" but that still doesn't make it right, nor contravene its etymological origins. Hard to get around "deci" in there.....

Actually its quite easy, use a dictionary. The word's Latin origin is noted and its Latin definition is offered and noted as "obsolete". Its modern English definition merely means a great portion of.

Re:Hey that's not bad.... (1)

Wycliffe (116160) | about 6 months ago | (#47043545)

decimate means reduce by a 10th

Not necessarily. [oup.com]

People could say "decimate" means "blue" but that still doesn't make it right, nor contravene its etymological origins. Hard to get around "deci" in there.....

You mean like September, October, November and December? Words change.

Re:Hey that's not bad.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47046169)

I agree. Having 10% off the beach coast altered is really not significant at all' LOL.

Re:Hey that's not bad.... (1)

allcoolnameswheretak (1102727) | about 6 months ago | (#47044197)

Are you sure? In latin, "decima" means 1/10, so I figured to decimate means to reduce TO 1/10, so BY 9/10.

Re:Hey that's not bad.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47048111)

Are you sure? In latin, "decima" means 1/10, so I figured to decimate means to reduce TO 1/10, so BY 9/10.

Yes, he is right about the origin of the word. It comes from the practice of the Roman army; if the army did not fight to the standards of their leaders, they would select one soldier of every ten to execute.

However, he is wrong about the meaning of the word. Modern usage of decimate does not refer to a literal reduction by one-tenth, but a major reduction with catastrophic consequences.

Oh, I get the meme . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47042553)

Europeans bad.
Savages good.
Thanks for clearing that up.

Re:Oh, I get the meme . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47045729)

Somehow this is George Bush's fault.

The Spanish Inquistion (4, Funny)

Irate Engineer (2814313) | about 6 months ago | (#47042575)

I bet they weren't expecting that.

Re:The Spanish Inquistion (4, Informative)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 6 months ago | (#47042949)

That event was a more notable for historical and cultural reasons to European history. However, most of the deaths were caused by diseases and civil war.

While numbers are unavailable, Spanish records indicate that the population was so devastated by disease that their forces could hardly be resisted. However, whether the illness of the 1520s was actually smallpox has been contested; a minority of scholars claim that the epidemic was actually due to an indigenous illness called Carrion's disease. In any case, a study by N. D. Cook, the results of which were published in 1981, show that the Andes suffered from three separate population declines during colonization. The first was of 30–50 percent during the first outbreak of smallpox. Then, when smallpox was followed with the measles, another decline of 25–30 percent occurred. Finally, when smallpox and measles appeared together, which occurred from 1585 to 1591, a decline of 30–60 percent occurred. Collectively these declines amounted to a decline of 93 percent from the population pre-contact in the Andes region.[15]

When Pizarro arrived in Peru in 1532, he found it vastly different from when he had been there just five years before. Amid the ruins of the city of Tumbes, he tried to piece together the situation before him. From two young local boys who he had taught how to speak Spanish in order to translate for him, Pizarro learned of the civil war and of the disease that was destroying the Inca Empire.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]

Re:The Spanish Inquistion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47046429)

I've seen similar estimates (>90%) for North America as well.

It's stunning and horrifying to think about. Especially in North America, the narrative tends toward the idea that we colonized mostly empty lands and drove the few existing natives out with our superior culture and technology, or else assimilated them.

But just imagine. Look around as you sit at your desk or walk down the street or when you go to lunch. Every ten people you see, imagine nine of them dead or dying, and the tenth guy probably sick as well. Imagine what that would do. Civilization would collapse. We wouldn't be able to handle it. All of our institutions would break down. Hospitals couldn't handle it, the police couldn't handle it, the government couldn't handle it, even the little day-to-day stuff. We would collapse. Nobody would be around to run power plants, stock grocery stores. There would be panic and fear. We'd lose all faith in what we hold dear, whether it be science or God or both. They'd have abandoned us, left us to die. International relations would dissolve into chaos. Refugees would destabilize anyone (so far) unaffected.

And then the invaders come, hardly touched, in comparison, to the death that strikes down everyone you love.

Frankly it's incredible to be that the wars against the native Americans lasted as long as they did and consumed as many resources as they did. The world would be a very different place without those plagues. If the Americas had not been depeopled by disease, the native cultures not teetering on the brink, we Europeans could never have colonized America. Relations would have been restricted to trade, diplomacy, and a slow commingling. Wars would have been inevitable, but we would have never been able to establish a major foothold in the Americas, especially as natives adapted to European technology.

Not saying it was wrong - it is what it is - but it's really amazing.

Re:The Spanish Inquistion (1)

Nosretep1 (3620103) | about 6 months ago | (#47047651)

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Visible from Space (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47042589)

Protip: If you are going to submit an article about something "visible from space", you should have a picture of said something taken from space.

Re:Visible from Space (2)

sumdumass (711423) | about 6 months ago | (#47042669)

Show me a satalite that was around back then and I will find you a pick. Wait...

--=-..-=-- There is an artist's rendition for you.

Re:Visible from Space (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47042881)

Since you can get a readable snap of a license plate from space with the appropriate satellite I'd say odd are pretty high "visible from space" is accurate.

Re:Visible from Space (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 6 months ago | (#47042945)

Since you can get a readable snap of a license plate from space with the appropriate satellite I'd say odd are pretty high "visible from space" is accurate.

Yeah, that phrase doesn't really mean much these days. Basically anything that is macroscopic.

Re:Visible from Space (2)

Livius (318358) | about 6 months ago | (#47043053)

But visible from space in the 16th century was *very* impressive.

Re: Visible from Space (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47043195)

My farts are visible from space. Now, *that's* impressive!

Re:Visible from Space (1)

swillden (191260) | about 6 months ago | (#47045299)

you can get a readable snap of a license plate from space with the appropriate satellite

Cite?

Not Possible! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47042651)

Global Warming did it.

Now I'm conflicted (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47042675)

I've been trained to loath dirty Europeans and their expansionist ways.... yet here they can claim allegiance to Gaia by stopping the coastal disruption of thoughtless natives altering the land for their own benefit.

What's a libtard to do!?

Loath everyone. As usual.

Re:Now I'm conflicted (1)

Irate Engineer (2814313) | about 6 months ago | (#47042821)

Now now, self euthanasia is always a politically correct option.

Re:Now I'm conflicted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47043525)

simple, stop calling yourself a libtard and start calling yourself a progressive. I mean, we love progress, right? Except certain kinds of progress. Like we arbitrarily pick a year like 1932 (because we love depressions!) and decide the temperature and industrial output should always match that. And cars are too modern so let's replace streets with bike paths. That's progress.

Re: Now I'm conflicted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47046249)

That wasn't a depression in 1932. That was a period of growth in sustainable living. Coal mining and "fossil" fuel consumption were down. And the situation was delivered to dear leader FDR who had solutions ready and waiting.

So ... (1)

cascadingstylesheet (140919) | about 6 months ago | (#47042805)

So ... the Spanish stopped them from littering?

Slashdotters to the rescue! (0, Flamebait)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 6 months ago | (#47042923)

Of their favorite meme, that is. I went to TFA expecting to see how the evils spanijzz kiled the know bull Perooveens, but it's just an article describing and showing an example of how humans alter their environment, and a change in the particular humans makes for particular effects. No kidding.Let's talk to the dutch about altering the shoreline.

Instead, the intrepid slash dotters apply their personal biases to declare a completely contrary meaning, The stoopid treehuggas, Global warming denial, leeeburuls, and more.

I just know someone is going to bring up the fact that if the Peruvians had a second amendment, they could have protected their families, or that gay marriage was the actual downfall of the Peruvians. Maybe the war on Christmas?

Directly related is "The tide comes in, the tide goes out - You can't explain that!"

Now get crackin' intrepid slash dotters!

Re:Slashdotters to the rescue! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47043675)

Dude, have a glass of wine and relax. You'll live longer (especially if it's red wine).

Re:Slashdotters to the rescue! (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 6 months ago | (#47045419)

Dude, have a glass of wine and relax. You'll live longer (especially if it's red wine).

Sorry OM, I'm Tequila fueled.

Your Tequila is showing (1)

AF_Cheddar_Head (1186601) | about 6 months ago | (#47048797)

Especially on that post.

Re:Slashdotters to the rescue! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47043987)

I just know someone is going to bring up the fact that if the Peruvians had a second amendment, they could have protected their families, or that gay marriage was the actual downfall of the Peruvians. Maybe the war on Christmas?

Chief accepts your challenge, Good sir (or Ma'am).

When the American Native started getting "illegally obtained" firearms, they started getting a little more respect; not much, but enough to suppress complete annihilation.

Re:Slashdotters to the rescue! (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 6 months ago | (#47045439)

Chief accepts your challenge, Good sir (or Ma'am).

When the American Native started getting "illegally obtained" firearms, they started getting a little more respect; not much, but enough to suppress complete annihilation.

Not bad, not bad.

Care to go for the gold and relate the Peruvian's downfall to gay marriage? 500 bonus points to be had.

Re: Slashdotters to the rescue! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47046313)

Naw, screw that. Those points are only redeemable for an NPR coffee mug.

Screw you, MeeShell Norris (Norris!) and you too, Ira Plato. (but now lets all tune in to Diane Rehm)

Re: Slashdotters to the rescue! (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 6 months ago | (#47047687)

Naw, screw that. Those points are only redeemable for an NPR coffee mug.

Screw you, MeeShell Norris (Norris!) and you too, Ira Plato. (but now lets all tune in to Diane Rehm)

I wonder whatever happened to Nina Totenbag?

I blame the mollusks (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 6 months ago | (#47043003)

I they were tasty enough that the people travelled back to the shore to eat them, the shoreline wouldn't be eroding.

Re:I blame the mollusks (2, Funny)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about 6 months ago | (#47043105)

Very shellfish of them. ...thank you, I'll be here all night, try the veal!

hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47043801)

I am only one who believes that spanish did an genocide on puropose ? I mean, they were on nazi side during the war which long long tradition to kill their own people with no mercy what so ever ? Even still today ( in year 2014 ) spanish people are torturnig it's own citisens without anyone saying anything ( not being normal in 2014 but on the side of USA is all that is asked from people nowdays, who cares about human rights anyways ... there is always north korea to be compared with ). Just day before yesterday there were news that spanish fachists beated up 6 underage persons in region of valencia because they asked local govern to protect their own language and it was not even news anywhere in Spain or outside ? I mean, Spain has sun, but it is because most people do not understand spanish.

Re: hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47043957)

Yes, you're the only one.

hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47044541)

Let me guess, you are a left-wing spanish that thinks that spain is a dictatorship without knowing anything about dictatorships or international politics. I happen to live in Spain and originally come from a real dictatorship and I tell you, you have no idea of what is fear. You are lucky, don't be stupid.

Re:hmm (1)

kaatochacha (651922) | about 6 months ago | (#47048631)

I think it might only be you.
The last time I was in Spain ( ten years ago), a bunch of drunken youths were sitting around in the town center throwing bottles, yelling loudly, and annoying everyone.I'm sure they would have fought us if we hadn't ignored all the shit we were saying as we walked by.
An older local I knew believed that nothing was done because nobody wanted to go back to the days of Franco-Fascist-Can't-Do- Anything, which everyone hated with a passion,and as a result were tending to lean too far in the direction of letting the kids do anything they wanted to.

I think it's racist (2)

MPAB (1074440) | about 6 months ago | (#47044505)

To consider what the non-white natives did worldwide as "natural" means giving them the same dignity as ants or beavers. "Then came the 'civilized human' (AKA white) and trampled it.

Re:I think it's racist (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 6 months ago | (#47045243)

To consider what the non-white natives did worldwide as "natural" means giving them the same dignity as ants or beavers. "

Beavers maybe, not ants. Even shamen (yeah that word is specific, but you know what I mean) don't claim to understand the ant mind, the world over. But what's wrong with the noble beaver? They create lakes. The natives certainly wouldn't mind the comparison, except for how you mean it.

Re: I think it's racist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47046473)

Any Minnesotan can tell you that it takes a glacier to make a proper lake. Pay no mind to those pesky beavers.

"resettled"?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47045307)

"... and after colonial officials resettled the survivors inland "

What marvelous doublespeak, "resettled". Yeah, I'm sure the Spanish were very friendly helping "resettle" those Inca to a nice new place.

That's Right, Blame the Spaniards (1)

Toad-san (64810) | about 6 months ago | (#47047871)

Since the slowing or cessation of dune / ridge formation started about 2800 years ago (according to one paper), one might want a little more evidence before blaming it all on the Conquistadors or the following Spanish occupiers.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?