Close Menu
    Karten

    Veränderung in der Verteilung von indigenem Land und Altbäumen in Australien von 1788 bis zur „Gegenwart“.


    Die Gebiete Australiens sind seit 1788 stark degradiert worden. Die helleren Grünflächen, vorwiegend GRASLAND, enthielten aufgrund der regelmäßigen Abholzung durch die Ureinwohner nur wenige Bäume. Das wurde von Kolonisten verhindert. Die dunkleren Grünflächen ähnelten eher einem Regenwald, sind jetzt aber stark reduziert. In der Mitte der Karte gab es nur wenige Bäume. Es handelte sich um Grasland/Savannen.
    Erinnern: "Die Karte ist nicht das Territorium"; ein von Alfred Korzybski geprägter Satz, der betont, dass eine Darstellung (wie eine Karte) nicht dasselbe ist wie das tatsächliche Objekt oder die Realität, die sie darstellt. Dieses Konzept unterstreicht, wie wichtig es ist, die Grenzen unserer Modelle und Abstraktionen für das Verständnis der Welt zu erkennen."

    Von PermacultureKeithDJ

    View 25 Comments

    25 Kommentare

    5. sunburn95 on

      Europeans be clearing

      E: why do people get defensive over this stuff? Euros cleared about half the trees in Australia over the first 200yrs

    7. HamFistedSurgeon on

      Isnt Autralia mostly desert? the bottom left map makes it look like it was covered in trees for the most part.

      edit: Reading the replies to my comment, I see that there are indeed old growth trees in the Australian outback, such as in the Tanami desert.

    8. PageBright2479 on

      I just travelled through the Great Western Woodlands around Kalgoorlie and Norsemen. I was astonished how tall the trees were in such an arid environment. The Salmon Gums in particular were majestic.

    11. Indecipherable_Grunt on

      The map juxtaposition is strange: I suppose it’s meant to delegitimize colonialism due to its effects on the environment. But surely colonialism’s not legitimate regardless?

      I mean, if the indigenous people of an area cut down all the trees, that’s still bad, right? You don’t have to be colonizers to mess up the environment.

      And if the colonizers *preserved* all the trees, is that good or bad? What if they kept the environment better than the indigenous people?

      Strange.

    15. Electronic_Screen387 on

      I recommend people read Dark Emu if you’d like to know more about just how much Australia has been devastated.

    16. PermacultureKeithDJ on

      „…prior to British colonisation in 1788, Australia was an “unnatural” [i.e. they wouldn’t recognize a human-managed polyculture if they stepped in it, just like the Europeans in the Americas, oblivious & without a context – editoria] landscape, carefully and systematically managed by its traditional owners to ensure that “life was comfortable, people had plenty to eat, few hours of work each day, and much time for religion and recreation.”“ [https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/pre-colonial-australia-natural-wilderness-or-gentleman-s-park](https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/pre-colonial-australia-natural-wilderness-or-gentleman-s-park)

    17. ThreePointedHat on

      So obviously this is a silly and incorrect map, what does „degraded“ even mean and why is the majority of the Gondwana Rainforests considered cleared? It’s one of the largest old growth forests in the world. Also indigenous land section is disingenuously framed, indigenous Australians lived in very concentrated clusters and were likely under 1 million in population throughout the whole of Australia. If you did a map in 1850 it’d look closer to 1788 because there were way less people living in concentrated clusters despite being a settler colony.

    18. Melburnian on

      The bottom right map is very misleading, huge parts of the green areas are what most people would consider scrub or desert, with sparse small trees at best!

    19. nugeythefloozey on

      OP, just a small correction to your description. The grasslands you describe would also have been in the dark green area. The light green area is the barren desert that people associate with the Australian outback. There is still a lot of plant biodiversity out there, but not many trees

    21. sapperbloggs on

      That large „intact“ light green area is basically the [Great Sandy Desert](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sandy_Desert?wprov=sfla1).

      That region is one of the most sparsely-populated places on the planet, because it’s basically just desert. I’m sure the trees that have managed to survive there are old-growth, but also, there aren’t a lot of trees there to begin with.

    Leave A Reply