4 ms·

How many past events of rapid, steep population decline have we seen in the historical/archaeological record? Assuming that, historically speaking, travel isn'

How many past events of rapid, steep population decline have we seen in the historical/archaeological record? Assuming that, historically speaking, travel isn't what it is today, I would expect such cases to be localized, but still I think it can go some distance to answering your question. We see instances of civilizations falling apart, but I'm certainly not aware of any where a top of your range disease was considered a reasonable possibility. Of those that come within your range, the only instances I can think of were in combination with other pressures... a large portion of the population gets very sick while at the same time the society comes under attack from outside peoples. How many times do we see this sort of thing in nature? We do see infestations, like beetles destroying forests, but I'm not so sure we have many cases where we expect viral infections to be the likely candidate. Of all the disease related scenarios I'm worried about, none match your scenario. I do think in some ways humans are "tuned" to apocalyptic thinking moreso than is perhaps is helpful. I think we're more prone to accept emotional arguments than we should be, causing us to possibly be more a danger to ourselves in the face of a terrible disease than the disease itself. I'm much more afraid of what we'll do to each other and ourselves, willingly, under pressure, than I am about even the most deadly viruses will do. Having said all of this: it's all opinion and none of it comes from expertise. Others may point out evidence to the contrary.

systemvoltage 7y ago
Isn’t this is literally survivorship-bias? There are a lot of events that can happen in future which has no precedence. But I generally agree with you, it’s hard to speculate.
- sbuttgereit 7y ago
  I don't think it is; assuming the questions of the original commentator asked can be read as a "how likely" sort of thing. I'm not saying look at the people here and you have your answer (aside from extinction level epidemics, which we can exclude because we are here), but complex life has existed for quite a while and even humans have on a relative basis. If the sort of thing the commentator is thinking is at all likely, it very well is likely to have happened before (assuming viruses more easily evolve than more complex lifeforms do). I'm saying that we should be able to learn from what isn't here, from what didn't survive... not from what did. When we look back at what didn't make it, I don't know of many (any) cases where we say that the sudden appearance of an extremely virulent pathogen likely did in this species or that civilization. This isn't to say its impossible, but unlikely... if you perform a historical study of random individuals that play the lottery, you'll find that it's just parting a sucker from their money... yet there is nonetheless usually a winner.
nwatson 7y ago
The Americas saw this rapid decline with arrival of Europeans. The diseases killed 90% of indigenous people ... Guns, Germs, and Steel, PBS adaptation ... "When the Europeans arrived, carrying germs which thrived in dense, semi-urban populations, the indigenous people of the Americas were effectively doomed. They had never experienced smallpox, measles or flu before, and the viruses tore through the continent, killing an estimated 90% of Native Americans." That far outstrips what we're likely to see in absolute numbers in this coming year worldwide from COVID-19.
notahacker 7y ago
The Black Death probably falls into that category, being thought to have killed 30-60% of the population of Europe, and followed up by multiple subsequent related plagues over the ensuing centuries. The Plague of Justinian might have wiped out a similar proportion of the population a few hundred years before that. Modern medicine and hygiene would have significantly increased survival rates, especially since many of the most deadly plagues are thought to have been bacterial and transmitted by flea bites. The other big difference is transport of course; historically extremely virulent and deadly diseases in many parts of the world had limited ability to spread beyond that particular ill-fated town or city, and rats and fleas were more necessary as well as more effective in helping the disease spread.

systemvoltage 7y ago

Isn’t this is literally survivorship-bias? There are a lot of events that can happen in future which has no precedence. But I generally agree with you, it’s hard to speculate.

sbuttgereit 7y ago
I don't think it is; assuming the questions of the original commentator asked can be read as a "how likely" sort of thing. I'm not saying look at the people here and you have your answer (aside from extinction level epidemics, which we can exclude because we are here), but complex life has existed for quite a while and even humans have on a relative basis. If the sort of thing the commentator is thinking is at all likely, it very well is likely to have happened before (assuming viruses more easily evolve than more complex lifeforms do). I'm saying that we should be able to learn from what isn't here, from what didn't survive... not from what did. When we look back at what didn't make it, I don't know of many (any) cases where we say that the sudden appearance of an extremely virulent pathogen likely did in this species or that civilization. This isn't to say its impossible, but unlikely... if you perform a historical study of random individuals that play the lottery, you'll find that it's just parting a sucker from their money... yet there is nonetheless usually a winner.

nwatson 7y ago

The Americas saw this rapid decline with arrival of Europeans. The diseases killed 90% of indigenous people ... Guns, Germs, and Steel, PBS adaptation ... "When the Europeans arrived, carrying germs which thrived in dense, semi-urban populations, the indigenous people of the Americas were effectively doomed. They had never experienced smallpox, measles or flu before, and the viruses tore through the continent, killing an estimated 90% of Native Americans." That far outstrips what we're likely to see in absolute numbers in this coming year worldwide from COVID-19.

notahacker 7y ago

The Black Death probably falls into that category, being thought to have killed 30-60% of the population of Europe, and followed up by multiple subsequent related plagues over the ensuing centuries. The Plague of Justinian might have wiped out a similar proportion of the population a few hundred years before that. Modern medicine and hygiene would have significantly increased survival rates, especially since many of the most deadly plagues are thought to have been bacterial and transmitted by flea bites. The other big difference is transport of course; historically extremely virulent and deadly diseases in many parts of the world had limited ability to spread beyond that particular ill-fated town or city, and rats and fleas were more necessary as well as more effective in helping the disease spread.