4 ms·

During this period there was a much lower population of humans.

by nl 5y ago

londons_explore 5y ago
All it takes is some tribal chief to say "the person with the most rhino horns on their armour is the strongest", and suddenly even a small group of practiced hunters can quickly kill all the rhino...
- animal531 5y ago
  But at that time humans were on foot and probably didn't range that far in general.
  - eggsmediumrare 5y ago
    I have walked 30km in 8 hours and it wasn't even that hard. A tough as nails hunter gatherer who has been walking and hunting and sleeping rough his entire life could probably cover hundreds of kilometers in a hunting trip.
    - animal531 5y ago
      Sure, and you spent how much of that time looking out for predators, unfamiliar terrain, only on animal trails, other non-friendly groups of people etc? We all know humans can run all day long, but the point is that it wasn't as easy then, and if it wasn't necessary then they probably wouldn't have taken the risk.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    Bipedal movement is highly efficient. Over a multi-day period humans on foot are close to the fastest land animal when we want to be (dogs are slightly better/worse depending on the breed).
- nl 5y ago
  There are estimates that the population of humans in the entire world dropped as low as 10,000 - 75,000 humans[1]. In general, subsistence level tribes are just surviving, nor hunting excess animals. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > In general, subsistence level tribes are just surviving That’s the definition of “subsistence-level”, yes.
  - Retric 5y ago
    That wiki article has a lot of counter evidence to that theory. Also, a generic bottleneck doesn’t mean the population before or after it was very low for very long. At even 1% growth rate per year 50k humans become 1 billion humans in 1,000 years. Suggesting any event based bottleneck lasts less than 1,000 years.
- elzbardico 5y ago
  Not that likely without modern weapons. Hunting big animals was because of that a collective endeavor that involved most of the tribe for a long stretch of time. Hunting is time and energy extensive, not to forget the danger. Before meat preservation techniques AFAIK developed around 5000 BCE, there wouldn't be a logic for this kind of tradition to develop, as it would surely reduce survival fitness for the tribe that adopted it.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    Exactly. Neolithic people had pretty bad food security. To intentionally reduce overall efficiency of the system would be folly and everyone would know it. After the third time you dump a rhino into the tribe's food processing pipeline and waste half of it before it can be eaten there will be a new directive or there will be a new chief.
    - londons_explore 5y ago
      Knowing you have lots of people with the skill to kill a rhino could be good for food security. When other food sources are scarce, you can go use those rhino killing skills to feed yourselves, while other tribes who don't have experience fail to catch a rhino. This assumes that learning and practicing a skill is easier when food is abundant, and that skill can then be used in harder times. Armies do the same when they spend all day long practicing without actually going to war. By your argument that would be a waste of resources, but history shows that well trained armies win wars.
      - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        Don't get me wrong, if they're looking for antelope and see a rhino they'll be all over the rhino. But they're not gonna waste good opportunities to get the food they need in order to go looking for a rhino. Just like everything else in life it's a bajillion variable tradeoff with potential second and 3rd order effects. I think it suffices to say that the guy in charge of the hunting party isn't gonna risk his team getting hurt going after a rhino unless there's a damn good reason to make that gamble.
AbrahamParangi 5y ago
But the evidence we have available to us is that even a small founding population introduced to a new ecosystem will result in the fairly rapid extinction of megafauna.

During this period there was a much lower population of humans.

by nl 5y ago

During this period there was a much lower population of humans.

All it takes is some tribal chief to say "the person with the most rhino horns on their armour is the strongest", and suddenly even a small group of practiced hunters can quickly kill all the rhino...

animal531 5y ago
But at that time humans were on foot and probably didn't range that far in general.
- eggsmediumrare 5y ago
  I have walked 30km in 8 hours and it wasn't even that hard. A tough as nails hunter gatherer who has been walking and hunting and sleeping rough his entire life could probably cover hundreds of kilometers in a hunting trip.
  - animal531 5y ago
    Sure, and you spent how much of that time looking out for predators, unfamiliar terrain, only on animal trails, other non-friendly groups of people etc? We all know humans can run all day long, but the point is that it wasn't as easy then, and if it wasn't necessary then they probably wouldn't have taken the risk.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Bipedal movement is highly efficient. Over a multi-day period humans on foot are close to the fastest land animal when we want to be (dogs are slightly better/worse depending on the breed).
nl 5y ago
There are estimates that the population of humans in the entire world dropped as low as 10,000 - 75,000 humans[1]. In general, subsistence level tribes are just surviving, nor hunting excess animals. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > In general, subsistence level tribes are just surviving That’s the definition of “subsistence-level”, yes.
- Retric 5y ago
  That wiki article has a lot of counter evidence to that theory. Also, a generic bottleneck doesn’t mean the population before or after it was very low for very long. At even 1% growth rate per year 50k humans become 1 billion humans in 1,000 years. Suggesting any event based bottleneck lasts less than 1,000 years.
elzbardico 5y ago
Not that likely without modern weapons. Hunting big animals was because of that a collective endeavor that involved most of the tribe for a long stretch of time. Hunting is time and energy extensive, not to forget the danger. Before meat preservation techniques AFAIK developed around 5000 BCE, there wouldn't be a logic for this kind of tradition to develop, as it would surely reduce survival fitness for the tribe that adopted it.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Exactly. Neolithic people had pretty bad food security. To intentionally reduce overall efficiency of the system would be folly and everyone would know it. After the third time you dump a rhino into the tribe's food processing pipeline and waste half of it before it can be eaten there will be a new directive or there will be a new chief.
  - londons_explore 5y ago
    Knowing you have lots of people with the skill to kill a rhino could be good for food security. When other food sources are scarce, you can go use those rhino killing skills to feed yourselves, while other tribes who don't have experience fail to catch a rhino. This assumes that learning and practicing a skill is easier when food is abundant, and that skill can then be used in harder times. Armies do the same when they spend all day long practicing without actually going to war. By your argument that would be a waste of resources, but history shows that well trained armies win wars.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      Don't get me wrong, if they're looking for antelope and see a rhino they'll be all over the rhino. But they're not gonna waste good opportunities to get the food they need in order to go looking for a rhino. Just like everything else in life it's a bajillion variable tradeoff with potential second and 3rd order effects. I think it suffices to say that the guy in charge of the hunting party isn't gonna risk his team getting hurt going after a rhino unless there's a damn good reason to make that gamble.

AbrahamParangi 5y ago

But the evidence we have available to us is that even a small founding population introduced to a new ecosystem will result in the fairly rapid extinction of megafauna.