3 ms·
That logic doesn’t quite follow because even if overall population is higher, high density living situations are not new. I imagine the inside of a long house i
by dexwiz 3y ago
That logic doesn’t quite follow because even if overall population is higher, high density living situations are not new. I imagine the inside of a long house in the early evening would have been filled with animal, child, and work sounds. Definitely louder than my modern single family kitchen.
- randomdata 3y agoThe context specifies a world average, though. Back then cities were more dense and, as well, individual households were more dense. It is possible, maybe even likely, that those pockets would measure louder than anything we're accustomed to today. But, at the same time, you would also have more places completely free of human activity to balance that out and then some when computing an average.
- watwut 3y agoPeople had a lot more kids and those kids were around all the time. Just cry from babies and toddlers must have been around much more then today - today you barely ever hear it and many adults are unable to handle hearing it.
- mdp2021 3y ago> That logic doesn’t quite follow No, it is that you assumed "typical environment". 8 billion today vs one third of a billion one thousand years ago: the place has gotten crowded. Which also means, must have been much easier in the past to isolate oneself, within reasonable horse distance. Nowadays, many countries are simply clogged with presence and to find a "desert" is almost impossible (also considering air traffic).
- watwut 3y agoThe limit on isolation was your survival. As in, it was not easy to survive isolated. Pretty much any land you go to belonged to someone who has own opinions on land use. And also, horses were expensive.