3 ms·

This happens at scale too. European colonists brought their diseases to the Americas, resulting in deadly epidemics amongst the locals. The Europeans had built

by jl6 5y ago

This happens at scale too. European colonists brought their diseases to the Americas, resulting in deadly epidemics amongst the locals. The Europeans had built up their own immunity after centuries of exposure. Complete isolation (e.g. closing borders) feels like an unsustainable strategy, as the local population would fall behind in the human-germ immuno-arms race, risking total wipeout when the borders inevitably become porous. So, ironically, while a high degree of global population mixing may be responsible for pandemics like Covid, it's probably healthy for the species in the long run.

BurningFrog 5y ago
What I've read is that Europeans lived in bigger and dirtier cities that the Native Americans, which is why they were carrying far deadlier germs, and when the "biomes" met, the Americans ended up with a 80-95% death rate, while the Europeans only got syphilis in the exchange. Bad enough, but an annoyance rather than a civilization ender. Reversely, Europeans were always militarily superior to Africans, but they could not survive the malaria and other African diseases until the late 1800s. Which is why Africa was colonized much later. One speculation is that since humans are native to Africa, that is where nature has evolved our worst enemies. But I may on thin scientific ice here.
- lifeisstillgood 5y ago
  >> Europeans were always militarily superior to Africans, So this covers a big time span - say 1520s to 1920s - and at other points in human civilisation it was the reverse. Pretty much the whole Ethiopian Empire thing for example. But one big reason the Sahel regions were militarily inferior by say 1880 was that in the 1500s Europeans started taking slaves from the Sahel regions because Africans had that immunity against the diseases in the Americas - we shipped so many at such a profit that Africa was losing populations at such a rate they could not develop - constant war feeding a population shifting off continent. It's an interesting open question what would have happened if Slavery had been banned in the 1500s say.
  - BurningFrog 5y ago
    Sure, "always" is overly broad. You touch on a fascinating and little known thing: The transatlantic slave trade arose in part because both European and enslaved native plantation workers tended to die off from Malaria after a few years. Many Africans has some immunity to Malaria - which as I understand it was also brought to the new world by Europeans - so importing them turned out to be a more sustainable solution. And yeah, the dynamics of living on a continent where one of the main industries for centuries is hunting your neighbors to sell to foreigners arriving on ships is very hard for me to imagine.
    - lifeisstillgood 5y ago
      Sorry I started a reply but it tried to steer between massively simplified and book-length and I gave up. This is a fascinating history with huge ramifications - and that malaria connection is the certainly under-researched that I know of.

by jl6 5y ago

BurningFrog 5y ago

What I've read is that Europeans lived in bigger and dirtier cities that the Native Americans, which is why they were carrying far deadlier germs, and when the "biomes" met, the Americans ended up with a 80-95% death rate, while the Europeans only got syphilis in the exchange. Bad enough, but an annoyance rather than a civilization ender. Reversely, Europeans were always militarily superior to Africans, but they could not survive the malaria and other African diseases until the late 1800s. Which is why Africa was colonized much later. One speculation is that since humans are native to Africa, that is where nature has evolved our worst enemies. But I may on thin scientific ice here.

lifeisstillgood 5y ago
>> Europeans were always militarily superior to Africans, So this covers a big time span - say 1520s to 1920s - and at other points in human civilisation it was the reverse. Pretty much the whole Ethiopian Empire thing for example. But one big reason the Sahel regions were militarily inferior by say 1880 was that in the 1500s Europeans started taking slaves from the Sahel regions because Africans had that immunity against the diseases in the Americas - we shipped so many at such a profit that Africa was losing populations at such a rate they could not develop - constant war feeding a population shifting off continent. It's an interesting open question what would have happened if Slavery had been banned in the 1500s say.
- BurningFrog 5y ago
  Sure, "always" is overly broad. You touch on a fascinating and little known thing: The transatlantic slave trade arose in part because both European and enslaved native plantation workers tended to die off from Malaria after a few years. Many Africans has some immunity to Malaria - which as I understand it was also brought to the new world by Europeans - so importing them turned out to be a more sustainable solution. And yeah, the dynamics of living on a continent where one of the main industries for centuries is hunting your neighbors to sell to foreigners arriving on ships is very hard for me to imagine.
  - lifeisstillgood 5y ago
    Sorry I started a reply but it tried to steer between massively simplified and book-length and I gave up. This is a fascinating history with huge ramifications - and that malaria connection is the certainly under-researched that I know of.