Talk:Green anarchism
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Green anarchism Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Template:WikiProject banner shell User:MiszaBot/config
This statement is likely wrong, and certainly needs some support
The statement is almost certainly incorrect, and as it serves as a founding sentence to the background, needs to be addressed. "Before the Industrial Revolution, the only occurrences of ecological crisis were small-scale, localised to areas affected by natural disasters, overproduction or war." First, this is not referenced. Secondly, of the information that I am peripherally aware, it's factually wrong: (a) high lead levels have been found in Antarctic ice cores dating from the 16th century, and as early as 1200 AD, caused by mining activities in South America [1]. (b)Large declines in megafaunal abundance (large land animals in this case) are best correlated with human range expansion rather than climate variability over the period between 38,000 and 72,000 years ago - with severe ecological ramifications [2]
I'd like some additional consensus on wading into this particular argument, however, as I don't dispute that vast ecological changes, typically not improving ecological function, have occurred since, and as a direct result of, industrialization. Jed (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Jedgold: It is referenced, see Parson 2018, p. 220. As for factual correctness, you're definitely right that it's not entirely accurate. How would you recommend we reword this sentence? This section needs to communicate the great ecological changes that happened post-industrialisation, but we definitely shouldn't be implying that no great ecological damage has been done before then. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)