If dragons were real, this is what they would look like

are you retarted?

If dragons woudl be real and it saw a skeletons group... then picrelated would happen

You mean the heroic dragonslaying abbos.

Joke's on you, my dragonids are feathered serpents and pseudo-dinosaurs. OP pic is actually one of the things their lineage has degraded into.

They made the mistake of slaying then too soon and not keeping trophies though. They would be known far and wide if they had done it while China was thriving.

>If dragons were real, this is what they would look like.

Dragons were/are real though.
Abo's literally practiced a scorched earth policy to get rid of them as they found they would rather live in a singed wasteland then live in constant fear of Dragons.
As already stated by these Anons:

Then the retarded modern Aussies killed off the Abbos

If I was a hunter-gatherer society living in the outback and there were fucking dragons, I would kill them too.

Is Aboriginal Australia like the -real- fantasy world? literal dragons, magic and murder hobos?

>the last dragon was hunted to extinction
>by fucking abbos
>that killed the entire continent in the process

Pretty much all large populations exterminate predators and competition in their environment. Its not like Aboriginal Australians are the only ones...
People are exterminating species as we speak and we should really know better.

>humanity's weakest link wiped out a race of dragons

At first I thought this was /pol/ bait, but nope, liberal wikipedia agrees, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire-stick_farming
unless one of you fucks got there first. Turns out abos were also one of the first migratory waves out of africa. Coincidence?

Aussies have been one of my favorite groups of people for a while now, suddenly I know why

For a bunch of hairless globetrotting monkeys thats probably one of our first achievments. one im slightly disapointed to not be able to see however i doubt they'd have survived much longer. Chances are at one point the oxygen levels would have decreased and so would their size.

The world weeps at its collective loss.

Following up on my wikipedia sesh
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_megafauna
>The cause of the extinction is an active, contentious and factionalised field of research where politics and ideology often takes precedence over scientific evidence
>WIKIPEDIA then proceeds to take the "abos are retarded" side
I mean, I am a left libertarian but I'm a scientist first and if the evidence says abos destroyed their verdant paradise with fire...

Now, back on topic. Wyverns are basically Pterosaurs in every way. But Dragons have six limbs, so what the fuck would they evolve from? Vertebrates have lost limbs over the years but I'm yet to see any evolutionary chains they gained limbs.

Honestly it's pretty hard to survive once your ecosystem has burned in firestorms.

If we had evolved from a different type of fish we would have 6 limbs. It's pretty easy to evolutionally lose limbs, but to gain them naw

Well, sea animals seem to gain or lose limbs at will, so maybe a species of crocodile became fully aquatic, grew two dorsal fins for stability, and then its descendants left the sea, adapting the fins as wings?

You see, no evolution happens instantly and most changes take millions of years.

Going into the sea is such a major change that we see it happen quickly

The difference is that most of us don't literally set fire to our entire landmass for fuckall value. It's no coincidence that the people currently doing this are Brazilians.

>for fuckall value
>This type of farming directly increased the food supply for Aboriginal people by promoting the growth of bush potatoes and other edible ground-level plants.
Seems like they got some value out of it

Most big changes take several hundred thousand to million years under no extreme pressure, true, but can you point to a single land vertebrate with more than 4 limbs (tail not included), while whales and dolphins have evolved dorsal fins without losing all trace of their hind legs, hence, 5 limbs.
Maybe some sort of stegosaurus with the land equivalent of dorsal fins, but I'm yet to see any reason for what is essentially a back-mounted heat sink to flap.

For hunter-gatherers who live hand-to-mouth maybe short-term value could be considered more important, but it ruined the overall climate and made the interior a parched savannah unsuitable for agriculture.

That's kinda cute.
It's actually a wyvern, though.

Australia wasn't even the first time or the WORST incident of this kind of primitive-human-induced-environmental collapse happening.

Because the worst was Easter Island.
Easter Island had a proud, successful, and easy-going population of pacific islanders, whom when landing on Easter Island deemed the land paradise: empty lands to farm, flush with natural resources, thick healthy jungles.. etc.. So they proceeded to expand, multiply, and eventually form clans, noble houses, and small but decent cities as the island became populated.
The people of Easter Island however began to compete for land with one another and being a peaceful culture they staked claims by using resources and man power to carve MASSIVE rock statues of their leaders and nobles out of the soft volcanic rock.
These statues were called "Maoi" and the people would cut down dozens of trees to quarry them, move them, and erect them in the territories they wished to claim- the entire act was meant to represent how powerful and worthy you were of this land to claim it, etc.. You might know where this is going, but eventually the islanders cut down so many trees they managed to 'shave' their entire island of any trees: they effectively turned easter island into a bald, wind-swept, rock and hadn't even realized it at the time as when it happened there were still MORE Maoi head's being quarried.
This is where things went horrible wrong.

Without trees the island couldn't hold onto it's soil and any rains that came would cause massive mudslides; making farming and large cities impossible. Without trees there were no jungles for animals to live in or fruit to grow, so foraging was impossible. Without trees they couldn't even make CANOES so they couldn't fish or even LEAVE. They were STRANDED.
When explorers finally found them, the Easter Island people had devolved into primitive cannibals: living in caves and drinking muddy water.

Yes and they view petrol as magic potions. The Australian government is trying to keep them down.
youtube.com/watch?v=s1yeBmSFkC4

Epilogue/Bonus: The soil erosion on Easter Island is so bad that the Maoi statues the island is so well known for aren't in fact "just heads", but are actually full-sized statues with bodies, arms, etc.. Some of them even had "hats".

See picture provided- they were originally meant to stand stall and proud and be visible right down to the statues crotch where they'd squat down on the ground and lay claim to the land, etc. Easter Island is in fact covered in the ruins of their cities and constructions, but were either destroyed or burried- leaving, typically, only the heads around.

Well that's going to me stuck in my head for days

This is like something out of a sci-fi/fantasy novel. Very short term cycle of human greed become human downfall. Makes you think back to that quote "Money cannot be eaten"
I mean, I'm not a paleo diet hippy who just hates the core idea of capitalism, but AnCapistan is literally the worst possible outcome for humanity, I'd take fucking communism over that.
Pic related is my /pol/. Somewhere between gas the jews and give chimpanzees human rights we will find a society that works.

The only reasonable portions on that graph are right/mildly authoritarian and right/libertarian. Everything else is completely retarded for so many reasons. While I agree anarcho-capitalism can't work, I don't think you grasp how critical the loss of property rights has been in damaging the environment. Under libertarian legal theory, private property is nearly sacrosanct, and would actually be harsher on polluters than the current "you're allowed to pollute as long as you only do so much." You polluted a portion of a river that someone owns? You either stop, shut down, or somehow manage to get the agreement of every single owner of every portion of that river to dump garbage in it.

>giving the Abbos shit for killing all the dragons
as cool as they would've been in the modern day, I honestly can't blame them. that would've been scary as fuck to deal with.

But then one person owns the river and can dump whatever they want into it and kill off all the everything
Or one person buys two meters of the river and bans anything from entering his section, blocking off agreements the other river owners made.
Right authoritarian works in any system where a decent chunk of the people are assholes who don't want to get along with society, and can manage them while keeping the rest at least semi-happy and free. Left libertarian works in any society where everyone is happy to get along. The challenge is just subdividing society into chunks small enough that everyone's happy to play by the rules set, letting simple societal pressure do most of the work, allowing hard rules to become more lax, and properly manage people changing their chunk and leaving the system, or multi-chunk businesses, or the like. Essentially an idealized version of the USA or EU (which both currently have a lot of problems coughrefugeescough), where states can be tiny and self-contained, letting people be nearly completely free in each state, while overarching regulation controls the macromanagement of the system.
I mean, I'm also of the opinion that there should be some portion of the sahara just left fallow, empty of government influence, to banish prisoners into, re-instituting exile as a punishment, because exile sounds like it just worked, before somebody owned every scrap of land. I'm an idealist in many ways, but an ideal society should be striven towards IMO.

>But then magically one person owns all the property
>But then one guy decides to be an enormous asshole against his own interests, earning the serious hatred of all his neighbors

While no system is flawless, it's telling that the "examples" of problems with strict property rights are outrageous hypotheticals that would either rapidly correct themselves or in all likelihood never happen.

Decentralization is not left-libertarianism, that's just general libertarianism. I heartily agree, by the way - decentralization is the way to go. Of course, I disagree about overarching governments for the simple reason that those will ALWAYS centralize and screw everything up for everyone. This is what I call the Yankee Problem. The Yankee is not necessarily a New Englander in this context, the Yankee is the eternal busybody. The Yankee cannot be content with governing himself, and simply MUST govern his neighbor as well.

The Yankee desires strict gun control, and so he and his Yankee neighbors ban firearms. All seems to be well. But wait! The Yankee sees that another group has not banned firearms in their community, and this infuriates him. Fortunately, he has the Central Government to turn to! Instead of being content to ban firearms within a community of his fellow Yankees, the Yankee feels compelled to demand that this other community ALSO follow his rules, even though this community was perfectly fine with the Yankee community governing itself differently.

Decentralization and local sovereignty will always be preferable to a "benign" central power, for the simple reason that the Yankee will always exist and insist on foisting his rules on everyone else, absolutely certain of his moral superiority and justification in violating the restrictions on the central government.

>Under libertarian legal theory, private property is nearly sacrosanct, and would actually be harsher on polluters than the current "you're allowed to pollute as long as you only do so much."
That sword cuts both ways, omae. Now you can't build wind turbines too close to anyone's property, because the nose pollution violates the NAP. Same thing goes with Nuclear plants, but due to idiotic paranoia rather than noise pollution.

There are a hell of a lot of things that are obviously the right thing to do, but could never be done under extreme right libertarianism. Not so surprising, seeing as libertarianism is basically Prisoner's Dilema, the political system.

I need more stories of shitty primitive humans

Well, you know how one of the key reasons Native Americans didn't have the kinds of farming the rest of the world did is becaise they didn't have domesticatable animals? Well, when their Siberian ancestors came over to North America, there were tons of horses and camels and other cool animals that could have eventually been domesticated, but those fuckers thought that they were tasty and ate them all.

That's also why they all died of smallpox, by the way. Animal husbandry does wonders for the immune system.
By comparison, African natives had a bunch of animal husbandry. That's why, when the colonials went there, THEY were the ones dying by the droves due to disease.

This is like The Man Who Planted Trees, but in reverse.

By the way, if none of you have read The Man Who Planted Trees, do that. You can also watch it here.
youtube.com/watch?v=KTvYh8ar3tc

>I need more stories of shitty primitive humans

Primitive Humans were notoriously lazy, dumb, and uninspired.
They had little respect for their environment or understanding of resource management as they had never gone without as caveman times were flush with resources: the average working day of a caveperson was about 3-6 hours after all.
In some instances: Humans would be so successful that they simply wouldn't leave a territory until they were literally pushed out by their fucking garbage.

Middens are such an example. Middens were/are large refuse heaps composed of thousands, MILLIONS of shells thrown away by cavemen whom lived by the sea. They would literally just collect clams, mussels, oysters, etc.. Cook them up and then toss the shells away- These piles would grow so large, that some still persist today.

See the pic provided.
The soil has been washed away by the tide and has exposed that about 3-5 inches underneath the grass- exists an entire layer of shells discarded by humans.

>mfw I will never hunt a dragon with my tribe of brother and feast on its flesh.
I suspect the destruction of the giant komodo was less out of necessity and more for glory.
Lots of Aboriginal art and lore suggests they have a good,understanding of what permanent extinction is. X-ray Art in particular is created to ensure that the animals they hunt will continue to exist.
They also engage in the act of strategic brush fires. After centuries of observing/setting them off and noticing which fires burned the worst, they figured out the best time to set fires to ensure that the destruction is reduced.
Check out the Gagudju documentary on YouTube, it has a ton on info on Aboriginal lore (for their tribe at least).

>Humanity EXTERMINATUS'D dragons.

>We did it Bindi! We killed the dragons

>Abbos
>Human

I remember anecdotal studies that they were a H. Erectus Admixture, much like Caucasians with H. Neanderthalensis and Mongoloids with (Denisovans?)...

weirdasianews.com/2010/02/05/shanghai-wonderbridge-trash-collapses/

This is mostly false. Shell middens are legitimate and are present all over the coastal south, but they aren't necessarily just trash. The shell mounds were oriented in cosmologically important directions, and placed in places in settlements that form the focal point, which would be for ritualistic function, not just trash. Granted, it was all made out of literally their trash. Their trash was really good for building. For instance, the Colusa probably ate about 35% oyster (which they built ceremonial mounds out of), and the Spanish settlers in St Augustine ate 0% coquina (which they built forts out of). It's less like building with pizza crust and more likely making crafts out of pizza boxes. (I say mostly because there are some shell mounds that legitimately have no possible purpose.)

this is really badly formatted but it's 3:41 where I am, forgive me

...

>If they didn't then there totally would've been rulers who used them as mounts during their conquests.

if dragons were crawling out of the brush and eating their children i certainly wouldn't call that a paradise. there were only two options, burn it all down or leave.

man, what a terrifying vision of life.

Sure, but nobody in the history of ever could possibly be expected to say to himself "I may be in constant threat of death because of the things that hide in the woods, and I would eat better if I burnt all this shit down anyway, but I shouldn't because someone might invent agriculture in a few thousand years and want better land."

rare.us/rare-news/crime-and-punishment/florida-man-gets-naked-and-does-some-pretty-crazy-things-in-this-tampa-bay-area-backyard/

which was fine because the abbos weren't farmers you dipshit.

He said humans, not Florida "Men."

That would actually make sense, I wouldn't be surprised at all if it were true, but talking too much about the biodiversity of the human species is a good way to lose your funding. I doubt we'll ever see real studies done.

Imagine if things had gone just a little bit different and Abo's dominated the world on the backs of the literal dragon steeds instead of devolving into petrol huffers.

I mean imagine breeding them for size and ferocity and going against them in wars before guns existed, just ripping enemy soldiers and horses to shreds, hissing all the time.

despite what people might tell you, its incredibly hard to domesticate most animals.

If it doesn't have 6 limbs: 4 legs and 2 wings, it's not a dragon.

Your flying lizard is no dragon.

Well most people I talk to don't bring up the difficulties of animal husbandry but I'm just imagining it like a mongol/horse relationship, though probably through a whole lot more trial and error.

Maybe giant lizards COULD be trained if a good chunk of your society was based around domesticating and using them. It wouldn't be a cake walk but I bet an army of giant armored lizard riding warriors would be a pretty imposing fear tactic.

Instead we got horses, elephants and the odd ostrich for war animals, things could have been way more interesting.

Florida is standing atop the grave of some Old God.

>That time an unidentified giant eye washed up on a beach there.

>t. Radical Centrist

How could they have predicted that?

Sadly not. This is why you don't delegate work to convicts and expect a good job to be done.

> tfw if abos hadn't ever existed, and the Crusades had gone through India, Indonesia and even further south, we might very well have dragon riders today

>Giant eye washed up on a beach
Jesus christ Florida you scary

>The only reasonable portions on that graph are right/mildly authoritarian and right/libertarian. Everything else is completely retarded for so many reasons. While I agree anarcho-capitalism can't work, I don't think you grasp how critical the loss of property rights has been in damaging the environment. Under libertarian legal theory, private property is nearly sacrosanct, and would actually be harsher on polluters than the current "you're allowed to pollute as long as you only do so much." You polluted a portion of a river that someone owns? You either stop, shut down, or somehow manage to get the agreement of every single owner of every portion of that river to dump garbage in it.

God, that is retarded. This is what an Ancap really believes, and the failure of logic is so mind-blowing.

What happens when one gets rich enough to buy the river, kiddo? Assuming every one starts anew with 0 money in a perfect ancap society (this won't happen), it'd take ~2 years for someone to get rich enough to buy the river. That's what happened time and time again in real life when you didn't care about common sense, monopoly laws, or such shit. Some rare people get rich really fast and amass huge capital, most get poorer really fast.

And then everyone is fucked forever when that guy buy the river and decide to drop uranium in it because he is rich enough to buy unpolluted water somewhere else. The poor people who actually need the river? Well, what do you believe will happen?

Privatizing the environment is always a disaster, because private properties are used to make money, and if killing all the animals and plants make more money, that's not your problem. Just look at a fucking history book, you mongoloid.

those are just Kraken eyes.
Old gods don´t exist, especially not in Florida.

How the world has changed.

When I was a wee lad if someone had said it's just a Giant Squid eyeball people would have laughed them out of the building. Giant Squids/Kraken aren't real, it's just sailor stories to impress gullible idiots. Sure there's a pickled tentacle in Manchester museum but that's hardly proof of anything but one freak squid with gigantisms.

And all those eye whiteness accounts down the years? Uneducated pleb men without letter before or after their names and so they were mildly retarded, probably drunk because working class and borderline criminal because lower than middle class.

Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. We live in a new age of wonders/weirdness.

This.

Free market is like the idea of human (democratic) freedom. Both are great ideas, but have to be regulated by laws so they won't turn into complete shitshow very fast. Just like laws which prevent stealing and vandalism aren't considered bad to your freedom, laws which regulate the free market and force money holders to play nice are a must to ensure everything goes smoothly.

Of course you can go too far with those regulations, resulting in a totalitarian society or a centralised market focused on redistribution of goods, but the key to both free and safe citizens and a free prosperous economy is having the right amount of laws on the right subjects, to support the system without breaking it.

In short: many people are shit and need to be forced to play nice.

why though? you're assuming they're dinosaurs, and not an earlier offshoot of synapsid than mammals.

why can't dragon's be monotremes?

The people that say this don't realize how different currently domesticated animals were before generations upon generations of domestication.

Counterpoint, pretty much every society in the world started with "hey these tall leafy things might be useful for building literally every single part of our civilization" Wood is the single most important material in human history. The aboriginals decided to instead burn literally all of it down instead of making anything of worth

The rest of humanity looked at giant deadly creatures like mammoths and tigers and bears and shit and thought "hmm, sure would be nice if I had a long pointy thing to stab it with instead of my bare hands" The aboriginals decided to ruin their ENTIRE CONTINENT because they'd survive in a shitty world rather than just hunt them. That's like responding to a home invasion by shooting literally everything in your house except the burglar in the hopes that he won't survive the house collapsing.

You're not fooling anyone, Shoggoth.

We'll find the secrets of your slumbering masters.

For more extinction fun - if mammoths hadn't gone extinct, climate change wouldn't have been so fast, because mammoths would have kept the methane clouds frozen under the tundras in Siberia and Canada trapped under the grass by stomping all over the place and grazing.

Also, if you want people taming "dragons" you're better off with birds or crocodiles. They're a lot smarter than varans. Hell, the Cuban crocodile is smart enough to recognize its own "name".

>Charlemagne will never ride a white dragon into battle.

I don't think the big issue with 1984 was so much the socioeconomic model or even the fact that it was a surveillance stat. The real scary part was the government's manipulation or even outright denial of the truth and facts in fervor of their propaganda. My opinion is "fake news" and "alternative facts" hit closer to home with 1984's theme, which is something both sides of that socioeconomic divide can be guilty of. It's just a certain some one takes it to whole new levels.

But from when is that? Because Megalania were extinct like 40-50 thousand years ago. Maybe after fucking up the environment the abos learned how to control that.

Not that far fetched since komodo dragons are one of the smartest reptiles, next to crocodiles and tengu. They can note the difference between peole and I'm unsure if they know how to open a door but I have heard about it.

Giant ones would no doubt be at least a bit smarter and with enough training and breeding well...

>I'm yet to see any reason for what is essentially a back-mounted heat sink to flap.
Same reason we shiver.

The book even spells it out. The party just happens to be socialist. But the party doesn't care if it is socialist, socialism is just a tool, not a goal. The party could just as easily had been capitalist or fascist.

The goal of the party is absolute power.

>If OP was real, this is what they would look like.

Kek

They died before Abos could get to them during the late megafauna extinction events that killed almost all megafauna species outside of Africa.
Evidence:
- No kill/hunting sites/overlap with tools, marks of butchering on bones
- Massive and continued climate changes resulting in the Saharan desert
- 'Fire Stick Farming' was not practiced to later by Abos (as a method to deal with the changed, less fertile and more fire prone climate)

Fucking aussies ruining everything again.

...

Do you guys not know how deserts work?

>Its not like Aboriginal Australians are the only ones...

But muh racisms

There's a real good pseudo-documentary called "A Dragon's World" (IIRC), which nicely justifies why dragons would look the way they normally look.