The high cost of mountain biking!
On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 21:59:58 -0500, "EdwardDolan"
"John B." wrote in message
Such places as you describe have not been settled for the reasons you point
out, but that does not mean they have not been thoroughly explored. I
assure you that no area of the earth(except Antarctica) has not been
thoroughly explored by the natives living near by no matter how hostile to
human settlement. When homo sapiens left his birthplace (Africa), it was not
long before the entire earth was explored, if not settled. Certain areas had
to wait for perhaps a land bridge, but by the time the Europeans discovered
the New World, if was if not 100% settled
most assuredly 100% explored. You seem not to understand the nature of man.
In jungles, for example, there is very little to eat, very few animals
that can be hunted and while there are birds they are way up there in
top of the trees and very, very hard to get to.
In fact the strategy that the British used successfully against the
Communists guerrilla in Malaysia was to deny them access to towns
where food could be obtained.
Of course in desert regions there isn't any water (I suppose that's
why they are "deserts"). And while it is perfectly logical, sitting
home in front of the T.V. to imagine one's self trudging through the
deserts in search of the Queen of Shiba's gold, it doesn't work well
If, instead of sitting home watching the T.V. you actually traveled to
any of these remote regions you would find that the bulk of the poor
primitive people are located along rivers and streams where there is
an abundance of water and at least fish to eat. And even the Danu
people, a stone age culture, in West Guinea who live as high as 3,000
- 4,000 ft. above sea level and depend on agriculture for survival
live along streams and rivers.
The kind of agriculture practiced in New Guinea was not capable of
supporting a large population, but even so, the land was being fully
occupied given the kind of economy that was available to them. Any
elementary course in anthropology will explain why primitive peoples live
where they live, but you were claiming that there are areas of the earth
that were untrod by man. That is what I am disputing, not that some areas
were difficult, if not impossible to settle. Only Antarctica was relatively
untrod by man.
My goodness Dooley, first I say that there is not much to eat in
jungles and note that in jungle areas the population is centered
And now you astound us by telling us that "the land was being fully
occupied given the kind of economy that was available to them". One
does like original thinking.... even when it is wrong.
Unless you somehow think that subsistence agriculture is an economy.
For your edification:
Economy - "the system of production and distribution and consumption".
One can only speculate whether raising sweet potatoes and then eating
them actually constitutes "distribution", although I suspect that you
will argue that it does as if you don't you will look even more
foolish than you usually do. Or perhaps you feel that the expression
"from hand to mouth" actually describes a distribution system.
When the Europeans came to the New World, every square inch of the New
was already inhabited by man, even the forbidding Amazon rain forest. The
natives had to be gotten rid of in order to have European settlement. This
was mostly accomplished by disease, but it was still amazing that Cortez
could overcome the Aztecs with such a minimal number of soldiers.
Your imagination is running away with you.
"The population figure for indigenous peoples in the Americas before
the 1492 voyage of Christopher Columbus has proven difficult to
establish. Scholars rely on archaeological data and written records
from settlers from the Old World. Most scholars writing at the end of
the 19th century estimated the pre-Columbian population as low as 10
million; by the end of the 20th century most scholars gravitated to a
middle estimate of around 50 million"
50 million people on a land mass of 34.93 million square
kilometers....28% of the world's land mass? That is an average
population of 1.4 per square kilometer.
Your thesis is not very reliable.
The New World was settled to the max according to how those native peoples
were making a living off the land. You only get huge populations when you
have an economy that is based on intensive agriculture. If the economy is
based on hunting and gathering or very primitive agriculture, you will not
normally be able to support a large population. The New World was fully
populated prior to Columbus. It is very curious to me that you think vast
areas of the world were never thoroughly explored by mankind. Only
Antarctica fits that description.
You argument is noted, and ignored as stupidity.
You argue that what were essentially small groups of hunter gatherers
explored the entire surface of the U.S.
The conterminous U.S. covers an area of some 3,119,884 square miles
and we know that the "Indians" as they were termed actually lived in a
very small part of the land. And, just as in New Guinea today, if you
went tramping around and entered an area claimed as part of another
tribe's territory, they killed you.
The actual population sizes of the original "Indian" population is
difficult to find. One study states that " even semi-accurate
pre-Columbian population figures are impossible to obtain" and I read
estimates for "the number of indigenous people in N. America prior to
1492" ranging from 2.1 to 18 million. A variation of 850% ? Scientific
I did come across a study of the Cherokees, who were forcibly removed
from their native homelands. The article states, in part, that in 1835
"The vast majority of the Cherokees, however, remained in their
ancestral homelands". In 1838 the U.S. Army forcibly remove the
Cherokees from their homelands and moved them to the West. The article
goes on to state that "Approximately 20,000 Cherokees were marched
west over what would soon be known as the "Trail of Tears."
So essentially the "vast majority" of a large Indian tribe was about
The Battle of the Little Big Horn is pretty well documented and the
most definitive estimate I can find is "from 1,500 to 2,500 Indian
warriors". Custer's Crow scouts told him it was "the largest native
village they had ever seen". Other sources refer to it as "the largest
Indian gathering in history".
I can't find details of Western Indian family life in the 1800's but
I suspect that a family of husband, wife and two children might be a
reasonable average, If so than the size of the "largest Indian
Gathering in history" would have been in the neighborhood of from
6,000 to 10,000 people.
It would appear, at least from an very quick analysis of two large
Indian gatherings that the indigenous people were actually rather few
in number when compared with the enormous spaces that you seem to
believe that they were scampering about exploring.
In short, Dooly, you have no facts to back up your assertions and to
paraphrase someone or another, A verbal claim is as good as the paper
it is written on.
Again you speak without knowledge. In fact there aren't many people in
New Guinea. No where that I worked, in roughly 5 years in the country,
was there a town or village. The Danu, one of the largest tribes seem
to have about 90,000 members, and the entire populating of W. New
Guinea is estimated at 3.6 million and the population density seems to
be 10 per sq. Km. Anthropologists describe the people as primarily
living in villages along the rivers.
New Guinea, like every other area of the world, was fully populated in
accordance with the economy that prevailed there. An island the size of New
Guiana with millions of people will have examined every square inch of that
island. The brute fact of geography itself will determine how many people
the land will support. Tropical areas only look rich and fertile, but they
are not. New Guinea was supporting as many people as it could support.
Besides reading some anthropology you should perhaps read Malthus, although
I think primitive people were better at controlling their population than we
Well, if you believe that exposing female babies so they die and an
overall infant morality of 12.5% (during the period I was there) as
population control than I guess you are right.
In short Doolie you are talking rubbish. Not facts. Not even educated
conjecture. Or one might say, no knowledge and a vivid imagination.
Everything I have stated is based on facts which are well known to every
anthropologist. No imagination was required. The only absurd statement that
has been made here is by you - that there are areas of the earth which have
never been trod by man. Only Antarctica fills that bill.
You claim that every notion that pops into your mind is "based on
facts which are well known to every anthropologist". You may as well
claim that your every thought is direct "from God's lips to your
ears", and given the proof you provide equally as believable.
But then, as Dr, Gobbels said, "tell a big enough lie and tell if
often enough and people will believe it". And it does typify you
arguments, "Everyone knows"; "it stands to reason"; "all the
authorities agree"; "the facts are well known". All spoken in a loud
authoritative voice and all without a shred of any proof, except, of
course, "Doolan says so".
I am reminded of a quote that seems to typify your posts"
'"He was one of those who have an opinion on everything. Unfortunately
they disappear when held up to the light."
Mountain bikes have wheels. Wheels are for roads.
Trails are for walking. Whatís the matter? Canít walk?
The usual Dooley battle cry is "Content! Content!" which obviously is
not applicable to his posts.
Ed Dolan the Great Ė Minnesota
Doodles, you missed a word there. The word "Pretender" is necessary
following the word "Great" to preserve the veracity of the statement.