11 comments

  • m463 2 days ago
    > That is the only possible explanation for how fish could have populated isolated mountain lakes

    isn't that a common question?

    "How do fish appear in landlocked lakes/ponds/etc"?

    After digging a pond and letting it fill with rainwater/groundwater, fish appear. I don't think its because people carried them there.

    (don't really know the common answer though)

    • iefbr14 1 hour ago
      Fish eggs often travel long distances by sticking to the feathers or legs of waterfowl I have been told at school long ago.
    • wil421 55 minutes ago
      Mountain lakes are completely different.

      There’s fish eggs being washed everywhere during rain storms. The eggs come from upstream and wash into random places.

      • jjallen 38 minutes ago
        This doesn't provide an answer for lakes.

        But I always thought the explanation was eggs randomly getting stuck to bird feet. Or maybe a bird carries a fish with eggs up there and eats it or something. Inevitably it happens though...

        • darknavi 7 minutes ago
          "Life finds a way"

          - Dr. Ian Malcolm

      • williamdclt 41 minutes ago
        How did they appear upstream?
        • wil421 34 minutes ago
          There’s a stream in my back yard that doesn’t hold fish over the winter because it’s too shallow/cold. A large property near me has a pond that overflows into my stream. The fish survive in the deeper waters of the pond and spring rain usually washes fish eggs or even fish into my stream. They gather in the rocks in my backyard near the storm drain.

          Alpine lakes are fed by snow met. There’s not going to be fish eggs on the snowpack that melts into the lake.

    • stevenwoo 1 day ago
      In this case they have carbon dated wooden equipment for fish farming and know due to geological factors when the lake could support fish, though of course the fish might have gotten there first somehow. I thought this was interesting because it predates agriculture in the same area.
    • sejje 1 hour ago
      I've had a pond for 11 years that has not acquired fish. It existed before that, too, but I'm not sure for how long (I think several decades).

      It has lots of amphibians and snakes. Rarely any birds.

      • profsummergig 1 hour ago
        Maybe the snakes have been eating the fish eggs / baby fish?
        • sejje 1 hour ago
          The bullfrogs are the big carnivores, and sure, maybe.

          Snakes are active but I doubt they eat nearly as much as the bullfrogs.

  • moebrowne 46 minutes ago
  • fractallyte 2 days ago
    An alternative vector: "cloud seeding" (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2004/sep/09/science.rese...)

    Charles Fort collected numerous data for his famous "The Book of the Damned" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_the_Damned

    • pnut 40 minutes ago
      It rained fish in my front yard in South Carolina back in the 80's, it's definitely a real phenomenon.
  • EvanAnderson 1 hour ago
    "Someone brought the black bass to this lake from far away, changing the biological distribution of the lake."

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=5w35n0Hm_m0

  • onlypassingthru 28 minutes ago
    I wouldn't be so sure. Were there ever any ducks?

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/special-delivery-d...

  • metalman 19 minutes ago
    hmmm, I have seen big fish in much bigger birds claws, and have seen even bigger birds dive bombing other birds to force them to drop there fish plus a bird can get a fish over ANY lake in minuits, vs an all day random fish carrying hike? so to recap, I have seen many birds with fish, but zero human fish hikers
  • fred_is_fred 41 minutes ago
    Someone below mentions bird poop, but could a fish egg survive the human (or a dogs) digestive system as well?
  • honeycrispy 29 minutes ago
    > That is the only possible explanation for how fish could have populated isolated mountain lakes

    I hate how much of historical science is performed this way. Speculation is not very scientific.

  • ck2 1 hour ago
    I thought bird poop was the commonly accepted explanation

    7000 years ago is the edge of recorded human civilization

    (well 8000 years, I remember this because it's also the edge of a gamma ray burst in light years that could destroy all life on earth after traveling all that time)

    • masklinn 1 hour ago
      > 7000 years ago is the edge of recorded human civilization (well 8000 years

      The earliest pre-pottery Neolithic complexes are nearly 4000 years older than that.

      • ikidd 56 minutes ago
        Did they have writing and kept records that we've found? That's the "recorded" part.
        • 0points 21 minutes ago
          In Norway, the oldest written records are barely 1000 years old.
    • sejje 1 hour ago
      It doesn't matter if it's recorded. This is inferred, not written down.

      Hunter-gatherers aren't known for their civilizations.

  • hnd9q09qk4 37 minutes ago
    [dead]
  • spwa4 1 hour ago
    Yes. One thing that becomes very obvious if you go along "native" human villages in Africa is the reason civilization develops. When you look at villages that don't grow, but do the normal human thing. Grow, war (2 kinds: young vs old and village/tribe vs village/tribe), grow.

    It's not because of agriculture. They have agriculture (they grow maniok, and you don't need much. They have fire, weapons, ... Also the entire countryside is full of grain). It's not that they don't understand how things work. They just don't care.

    It's not because they're dumb. In fact on pretty much all measures the humans living in those villages are better, in a genetic sense, than we are. They're smarter. They're more beautiful. Every last one is in shape, even the oldest (the oldest, btw, are maybe 45, not that they even know themselves. In both villages I saw the oldest was a couple). They're even better, genetically, than the black people living in cities around them. They have no sick (maybe 1), because the sick are dead. Even sick children regularly die. They bury their dead, with respect, after a burial but to say they have a religion is overstating matters. They have noone that can't run a marathon, or is fat, or ... because if you can't hunt you don't eat. Wounds are deadly. Not because the wound is so serious, but because you're nearly guaranteed to develop fever and die. Most people die from complications with infections. They have only beautiful men and women, because if you can't participate in "evening activities" you'll go hungry or get murdered (and it's not just men: women have lovers kill other men due to "insults", or they poison someone. And regularly it doesn't take much incentive at all for a murder to happen). Sometimes they (try to) treat cities the way the treat neighboring tribes: they attack them to kill everyone (at the very least all men). That usually fails due to guns, but it's not like it never works.

    There are very few people in those villages that want to leave. And they're not about to starve. There's no need for civilization, and, frankly, they don't want to. But also, I don't care what religion or non-religion you have: you will find that way of live thoroughly immoral.

    • orsorna 51 minutes ago
      Great point until the end. None of your descriptions imply a lack of morality for living isolated from a greater civilization. If anything, such small societies inhabit a neutral position, in that they don't care, which is something you already stated.

      I think the only people arguing that the North Sentinelese are immoral are religious, for instance (hence why most attempts to visit are done by missions). The general consensus is otherwise awe for being separated from the rest of us, relatively unmolested.

      • graemep 43 minutes ago
        I do not think anyone is arguing the Sentinelese are immoral?
      • notathrowaway51 32 minutes ago
        Well, they sure are xenophobic.
      • spwa4 19 minutes ago
        They don't care and "respond strongly" to insults or territorial disputes (which involve both actual land, men, women, and children), to the point that sometimes dozens of people die in the resulting fight. They kill because of insults (which mostly involves sex). Oh and they do quite a bit for alcohol. They'll fuck visitors, just to see if their next kid is white (but, of course, if you go along with that you lose whatever protection that "outsider who maybe brings alcohol" gave you. And you're sure to lose almost any fight). Also: don't make the mistake of still visibly having any alcohol when leaving the village.

        Certainly it would be accurate to say that both the cities in the neighborhood and the central government have issues with this sort of thing. To say nothing of when cities get attacked.