5 ms·
But that's comparing apples to oranges. You're defining society "nowadays" as being hundreds of millions of people, and society "back then" as having only two h
by enkid 6y ago
But that's comparing apples to oranges. You're defining society "nowadays" as being hundreds of millions of people, and society "back then" as having only two hundred people. That's like complaining that people are more involved in their family and their workplace than they are with people across the country. It's absurd.
I also can't think of a time period or large geographic area that's had writing being common and most people were constrained to a society of 200 people, unless they were purposefully insular.
- 411111111111111 6y agowhile you're once again correct that i'm comparing oranges to apples, my point nonetheless stands. the world population before the industrialization was in the lower hundreds of thousands. the usual town did house significantly less then a thousand people. compared to a usual town of today with >40k inhabitants.
- Pirgo 6y agoWorld population by early 19th century was already 1 billion, what are you talking about?
- 411111111111111 6y agoyes, it was. the first industrialization started in the middle 18th century though, so not sure what your point is.
- coldtea 6y agoProbably that already in the "middle 18th century" it was close to a billion people (and in any case, many more than low thousands: hundreds of millions). Heck, ancient Athens alone (a single Greek city) had a population in the "low thousands" in 500 B.C.
- detaro 6y agoThere is no point in the past 2000 years where world population is estimated to be "hundreds of thousands".
- Pirgo 6y agoBy year 1500 world population was 500 million, so my point is that your claim how "before industrialization world population was in the lower hundreds of thousands" is completely incorrect. That's my point.