[DanielBMarkham]

It might be interesting, and you guys might like it, but this isn't news.

Seriously. anybody really interested in environmental issues should have known years ago that all creatures that live on this planet change it -- sometimes to drastic effect. Some of the practices the article didn't go into are even more devastating, such as the use of fire-hunting, or early attempts at mining and smelting (which polluted vast areas of wetlands)

The real question is: what would we like our environment to be like today? I think people get this romantic, mushy-headed feeling that somehow it's only modern humans that have had a noticeable impact on things, and that "if it were only like it were five thousand years ago" or some such that it would idyllic. By having a slanted preconception like this, it actually hurts conversations about where we want to go by adding a lot of finger-pointing and posturing where none need exist.

(Sorry -- must have a bit of grumpiness to get out of my system today)

[scott_s]

Yes, this is news. It presents specific, new evidence of the practice. The general idea that ancient humans had negative impact on the land was recognized as not being novel in the lead: "The idea that primitive hunter-gatherers lived in harmony with the landscape has long been challenged by researchers, who say Stone Age humans in fact wiped out many animal species in places as varied as the mountains of New Zealand and the plains of North America."

I see this tendency with scientific articles a lot. An article presents a new finding within an existing framework, and someone feels compelled to point out that the existing framework is old hat. This ignores that the news in the article is the new finding, not the existing framework.

[DanielBMarkham]

It represents specific new evidence. Got me there.

My point, somewhat rhetorically put, was that the framework itself is what is new for most readers here, not the specific piece of information. And that's sad.

[derefr]

Actually, this might just be an important point in the discussion of what exactly "does or doesn't belong" on HN. It seems like all the highly-voted, well-liked, and highly-commented articles tend to discuss some sort of revelation of pattern, not revelation of fact. In other words, hackers like to read about new, effective abstractions (for seeing the world in general, not just for code.)