Don’t agree so much with the conclusions of the new research though. Numerous studies have shown how numerous climatic (e.g., humid v arid), hydrological (shallow water v deep water) and geomorphological (size/shape of lake or swamp) factors influence fungal abundance, concentration and preservation. These issues have not been considered at all in the new work.

Also, they argue for a mass extinction at 41 ka. If that’s correct, then how come the fungus increases to near all-time highs again at 30 ka??? The authors explain it as some extant kangaroos coming into the area…. but why can’t they be megaherbivores??? Or vice versa- why can’t the earlier spikes just be regular kangaroos??? How can you tell the difference between fungus on a steaming pile of giant wombat turd, versus that from a growing over the dung of a kangaroo, or a koala, or a rat for that matter (note that the dung fungus is also found lots of small mammals, as well as birds and reptiles!).

Finally, that there is no climate change at or after 40 thousand years ago is a furphy. There is a massive dataset that shows that there were huge droughts at that time; the summer monsoon retracted significantly; and El Nino became super intense.

I’m not supporter of either the ‘humans did it’ or ‘climate change’ extinction ideas, I’m just saying that these scientists need to be honest about the existing datasets and what the data actually say.

It’s certainly true that Aboriginal cultures among others place a lot of emphasis on the need to conserve nature (with strict limits on hunting and so forth), but this imperative must have come from somewhere, and I like to imagine that once upon a 40,000-year-old campfire a conversation went something like: “So where have all the diprotodon gone?” “Oh, yeah. Whoops. Maybe we should have been more careful.”

I should point out that even an aboriginal culture which already had a strong emphasis on conserving nature would not be immune to causing such an ecological catastrophe. Proper ecological management requires in depth knowledge of the specifics of the ecology, and every ecology is unique. For a culture that has newly arrived on a hithertoo unknown and virgin land, whose ecology is in some ways very different and vulnerable in different ways from what they had previously known, there is great danger for causing much damage simply from lack of knowledge. All the traditional knowledge they bring with them would have applied to the old ecology they came from, but may not apply to the new one. There is even danger that activities that actually help in the old ecology would prove disastrous in the new. And as it takes many generations to acquire such knowledge, it may have come too late to reverse the inadvertent damage done in the early phase of arrival.

When human migrations contribute to mass extinctions, it is often attributed to naive animals not having prior experience with human pressure and failing to adapt fast enough. But one must not forget that the arriving humans are also naive themselves to the new ecology they find themselves in, and thus may not successfully adapt fast enough to living sustainably in the new ecology, even if that had been their intent.

The reason I find this narrative satisfying is because I firmly believe that the single most noble thing you can say about any culture is that it has learned from its mistakes. For that reason, I can’t imagine a viewpoint that respects Aboriginal culture more. I mean, look at us: we’re having trouble with that.