3 ms·
I would need to see a source for this, because it doesn't sound plausible to me. Populations were lower of course, but look at how much of the population is co
by nerdponx 4y ago
I would need to see a source for this, because it doesn't sound plausible to me. Populations were lower of course, but look at how much of the population is concentrated in city centers today.
I would hardly be surprised if rural population density was significantly higher than in the past, with more farms as well as more grazing herds, even if they were much smaller than what we have today.
But I also don't really know if this squares with the sheer amount of meat and dairy that modern humans consume. How much does factory farming offset the need for open grazing land?
Basically, this is a subject area where intelligent clever people get themselves into trouble by thinking they know more than they do. I'd rather see what the experts say.
- towaway15463 4y agoYou’d be surprised how small the human population was. Estimates for 1 AD are somewhere between 150 and 300 million people in the entire world. Our historical impact on the surface of the earth is tiny compared to what we do now but even our modern efforts are often lost within the sheer vastness of the earth. The world 5000 years ago was mostly devoid of human life.
- ncmncm 4y agoThat is assumption backed by the most patchy evidence. The fact is that we have no idea what population was in the absence of major construction or seashell middens left behind, in almost all places. Recent decades have seen population estimates forced to be raised by orders of magnitude in many places.
- towaway15463 4y agoThey were still small especially compared to everything within the last 150 years. You’re going to have to back up your claims if you are going to propose a much higher number.
- ncmncm 4y agoWhich part of "The fact is that we have no idea what population was" are you having trouble with?