5 ms·
>some of them will die within perhaps a few years of starvation. We can be fairly sure that before a group of humans die of starvation, they die of violence. E
by automatic6131 2y ago
>some of them will die within perhaps a few years of starvation.
We can be fairly sure that before a group of humans die of starvation, they die of violence. Either from another desperate band of humans also starving, or trying to take those humans' land. This is certainly the pattern for hunter-gatherers living on marginal land in the last millennium. Presumably, this was also the case when they were hunter gatherers on prime land too - before they were forced out of it by more numerous, and better organized, agriculturalists.
There's no _good_ way of ever going back to a hunter-gatherer society, unless you want to kill 99/100 people (or tell those 99 they can never have children - and enforce it through child murder or sterilization). There's no _good_ way of going back to a pre-industrial society, unless you want to kill/sterilize 9 out of 10 people. Not saying you suggested these - but it should be pointed out.
- eru 2y ago> We can be fairly sure that before a group of humans die of starvation, they die of violence. I'm not completely sure about that, but that doesn't alter the argument in my comment. It's just that violence would be the short-term trigger of their death, with a lack of calories being the underlying cause. Yes, I agree with your second paragraph.