I suspect not. To get to 50%, they would need to study an additional 37 societies, and every single one would have to have only males doing the hunting.
mindlesscrollyparrot
joined 2 years ago
You explicitly mentioned the Sentinelese. Exactly how would you go about this infrequent contact and observation with them?
In any case, let's assume that hunting is exclusively performed by males in all of those peoples. How much would that change the statistic and the overall conclusion? 79% would be 72%
You think they should have surveyed the uncontacted people?
Millions? 7 billion more like.
I would say that the bbq is already on and the ceiling is going black, and then the alarm is installed.
Formula 1 switched to semi-automatic in the 1980s. The technology has only improved over the last 40 years. If fast is what you want, driving a manual is insanity.
Although we do still need to keep an open mind. Most approaches take years to roll out. For example, Solar wasn't very efficient in its infancy, but there have been massive improvements since then. Nobody was talking about e-bikes replacing many car journeys; they might not have got anywhere if we hadn't already had big investments in battery and motor technology thanks to e-cars.
I hear what you're saying, but I think the real problem is the policy makers, who are without doubt choosing to use the least scary predictions, and pushing even those targets back when they fail to achieve them.
Have they?
"In this case, their very specific prediction was that warming of between 1.5°C and 4.5°C would accompany a doubling of atmospheric CO₂" https://theconversation.com/40-years-ago-scientists-predicted-climate-change-and-hey-they-were-right-120502
Isn't the problem more that people have been reading that and assuming that it means 3°, not 'possibly 4.5°' ?
That said, the study there seems to assume that the effects are roughly linear, ie. that there are no tipping points.
What efficient means: switching from ecologically expensive foods like beef to lower impact vegetarian diets.
What efficient does not mean: using vast quantities of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides.
You would need to be in luck. Let's assume that they studied all 200 uncontacted tribes. To bring the overall rate to 50%, you would need 119 out of the 200 to be exclusively males hunting - 60% of those societies. The researchers studied 63 societies and found that 20% of them were exclusively males hunting.
But what's the point anyway? The hypothesis is that males evolved to be bigger for hunting, even 50% of societies where women hunt is enough to make it implausible. In those societies, women are hunting in spite of their apparent size disadvantage.
I think you should ask yourself whether size is actually important for hunting. We don't wrestle our prey. Size doesn't matter if you're bringing down monkeys from the trees with a bow and arrow, and size doesn't matter if you're trying to bring down a mammoth.