3 ms·
Also, if you go back a few hundred years there were relatively so few people on the Earth. I bought First Wife a posey ring from 1600s England. I was interested
by kingcharles 5y ago
Also, if you go back a few hundred years there were relatively so few people on the Earth. I bought First Wife a posey ring from 1600s England. I was interested to know just how many people were around then. It was about 5% of the current population. The world was empty.
- kqr 5y agoWell. There were fewer people, yes, but they also moved around a lot more. It's only comparatively recently that we've gotten stuck in our places and social structures.
- dmurray 5y agoWhat? I can't tell if this is a joke but the average person in the 1600s moved around a lot less than the average person today. I wouldn't be surprised if 80% of them never left a ten-mile radius.
- kqr 5y agoWhich persons are you referring to? People in the Americas, in Australia, in Africa as well as probably other places I'm forgetting about easily traveled hundreds of miles and both shaped and joined communities other than the ones they were in before.
- dmurray 5y agoI'm talking about the overwhelming majority of people who did not have a nomadic lifestyle or typically travel long distances. By 1600, most of the world's 500 million people lived in what we would recognize as settled communities in modern-day India, China, Europe and the near/middle East [0]. Fewer than a million aboriginals lived in Australia and a few million in the US [1]. Nomadic lifestyles simply can't support anywhere close to the density achievable by even subsistence farming. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1600 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_populat... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_Indige...
- dboreham 5y agoPeople in 17c England didn't move much.