5 ms·

"The world-wide population of human beings skidded so sharply we were down to roughly a thousand reproductive adults." This is a completely mind blowing idea t

"The world-wide population of human beings skidded so sharply we were down to roughly a thousand reproductive adults." This is a completely mind blowing idea that humans were down to a count of about 1000 adults. Look at us now at 7 billion, and we just can't stop warring with our fellow relatives.

BurningFrog 9y ago
A smaller percentage of the world population than ever is fighting or suffering war these days than ever before.
- pizza 9y ago
  Those who commit war can kill a much higher multiplier of casualties than ever before, however. It would get pretty bad if there were a reason for the percentage who are fighting had a reason to broaden their scope.
- coldtea 9y ago
  "These days" being the last few decades? No sign that this is not just a temporary stop, in fact the opposite. There were periods of relative peace in world history for longer than that. In the last 100 years we had 2 world wars, 100s of millions killed, and tons of peripheral wars during the "Cold War". Besides for a lot of modern history wars didn't involve much of the citizenry (they had mercenary armies). Now civilians are almost fair game. And where they had arrows, spears and swords for most of history, we now have airforces and atomic bombs.
  - RepressedEmu 9y ago
    Yes but in the last 100 years we've also added around 6 BILLION new people. 100 million dead is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount thats been added due to advancing technology and culture.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    The world wars aren’t the top wars for percentage of living humans killed, and may not even be the top in terms of absolute numbers of humans killed. For example, the An Lushan Rebellion may have killed 10-15% of all humans alive at the time.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      >For example, the An Lushan Rebellion may have killed 10-15% of all humans alive at the time. Those numbers are highly discredited. Historians such as Charles Patrick Fitzgerald argue that a claim of 36 million deaths is incompatible with contemporary accounts of the war. They point out that the numbers recorded on the postwar registers reflect not only population loss, but also a breakdown of the census system as well as the removal from the census figures of various classes of untaxed persons, such as those in religious orders, foreigners and merchants. For these reasons, census numbers for the post-rebellion Tang are considered unreliable. Another consideration is the fact that the territory controlled by Tang central authority was diminished by the equivalent of several of the northern provinces, so that something like a quarter of the surviving population were no longer within the area subject to the imperial revenue system. So, in all, even less that 5%...
      - mikeash 9y ago
        Even the low estimate is gigantic. The high estimate for WWII is something like 3-4% of the world population.
        coldtea 9y ago
        What's actually gigantic and not just perceived as such though, also changes with the scale -- since we're talking about percentages. If the earth had just 200 people, 20 of them killed is 10%, but it's nothing that a small determined fight between two tribes can't easily achieve, without even weapons. Whereas the 3-4% of the 3 billion during WWII is a much bigger affair -- took tons of bombs, battles, war-caused famines, an extermination program, and even nuclear bombs...
  - BurningFrog 9y ago
    > There were periods of relative peace in world history for longer than that That is definitely not what I have read¹. What era are you thinking of? ¹ One quickly googled up article: https://medium.com/future-crunch/the-decline-of-war-8760f9a5b5ce https://medium.com/future-crunch/the-decline-of-war-8760f9a5...
    - coldtea 9y ago
      > That is definitely not what I have read¹. What era are you thinking of? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Romana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Romana From the article: "As the world becomes more interconnected, the powerful have ever more incentives to avoid the catastrophic economic consequences of going to war too. Conflict isn’t good for your economy in a world of dense trade networks and digital flows." The exact same argument was put forward just before WWI. Then all hell erupted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion In historical terms the decline is insignificant in duration. It just marks the point from the end of the Cold War, when there remained one sole global superpower (and most of the wars in the last 20+ years, from the Gulf, to Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc are wars where it fought or helped fuel). The article mistakes a decline in war during the end of the Cold War (when a global player emerged) for some long term trend. Obviously there are more and more signs that this is not to be so -- with other players emerging like China, tension rising in different areas, even neo-fascists coming back into play in various countries governments.
ZeroGravitas 9y ago
First suspects in a murder are usually the family.

BurningFrog 9y ago

A smaller percentage of the world population than ever is fighting or suffering war these days than ever before.

pizza 9y ago
Those who commit war can kill a much higher multiplier of casualties than ever before, however. It would get pretty bad if there were a reason for the percentage who are fighting had a reason to broaden their scope.
coldtea 9y ago
"These days" being the last few decades? No sign that this is not just a temporary stop, in fact the opposite. There were periods of relative peace in world history for longer than that. In the last 100 years we had 2 world wars, 100s of millions killed, and tons of peripheral wars during the "Cold War". Besides for a lot of modern history wars didn't involve much of the citizenry (they had mercenary armies). Now civilians are almost fair game. And where they had arrows, spears and swords for most of history, we now have airforces and atomic bombs.
- RepressedEmu 9y ago
  Yes but in the last 100 years we've also added around 6 BILLION new people. 100 million dead is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount thats been added due to advancing technology and culture.
- mikeash 9y ago
  The world wars aren’t the top wars for percentage of living humans killed, and may not even be the top in terms of absolute numbers of humans killed. For example, the An Lushan Rebellion may have killed 10-15% of all humans alive at the time.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >For example, the An Lushan Rebellion may have killed 10-15% of all humans alive at the time. Those numbers are highly discredited. Historians such as Charles Patrick Fitzgerald argue that a claim of 36 million deaths is incompatible with contemporary accounts of the war. They point out that the numbers recorded on the postwar registers reflect not only population loss, but also a breakdown of the census system as well as the removal from the census figures of various classes of untaxed persons, such as those in religious orders, foreigners and merchants. For these reasons, census numbers for the post-rebellion Tang are considered unreliable. Another consideration is the fact that the territory controlled by Tang central authority was diminished by the equivalent of several of the northern provinces, so that something like a quarter of the surviving population were no longer within the area subject to the imperial revenue system. So, in all, even less that 5%...
    - mikeash 9y ago
      Even the low estimate is gigantic. The high estimate for WWII is something like 3-4% of the world population.
      - coldtea 9y ago
        What's actually gigantic and not just perceived as such though, also changes with the scale -- since we're talking about percentages. If the earth had just 200 people, 20 of them killed is 10%, but it's nothing that a small determined fight between two tribes can't easily achieve, without even weapons. Whereas the 3-4% of the 3 billion during WWII is a much bigger affair -- took tons of bombs, battles, war-caused famines, an extermination program, and even nuclear bombs...
- BurningFrog 9y ago
  > There were periods of relative peace in world history for longer than that That is definitely not what I have read¹. What era are you thinking of? ¹ One quickly googled up article: https://medium.com/future-crunch/the-decline-of-war-8760f9a5b5ce https://medium.com/future-crunch/the-decline-of-war-8760f9a5...
  - coldtea 9y ago
    > That is definitely not what I have read¹. What era are you thinking of? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Romana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Romana From the article: "As the world becomes more interconnected, the powerful have ever more incentives to avoid the catastrophic economic consequences of going to war too. Conflict isn’t good for your economy in a world of dense trade networks and digital flows." The exact same argument was put forward just before WWI. Then all hell erupted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion In historical terms the decline is insignificant in duration. It just marks the point from the end of the Cold War, when there remained one sole global superpower (and most of the wars in the last 20+ years, from the Gulf, to Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc are wars where it fought or helped fuel). The article mistakes a decline in war during the end of the Cold War (when a global player emerged) for some long term trend. Obviously there are more and more signs that this is not to be so -- with other players emerging like China, tension rising in different areas, even neo-fascists coming back into play in various countries governments.

ZeroGravitas 9y ago

First suspects in a murder are usually the family.