3 ms·

People have lived in California since at least 17,000 BCE, according to archaeological excavation. It had about a third of the native population of what is now

People have lived in California since at least 17,000 BCE, according to archaeological excavation. It had about a third of the native population of what is now the USA.

dredmorbius 12y ago
Source? The total precolumbian population of the Americas (north, south, and central) was ~40-112 million. Less than 1/6 to 1/3 that of the present US and only slightly more than California today at the low end. See Charles C. Mann's 1491, pp. 104-109, among others.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  "something approaching one third of all Native Americans living within the present-day boundaries of the continental United States - which is to say, more than three hundred thousand people - are estimated to have been living within the present-day boundaries of California." http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-IXp7of_QxIC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=third+of+native+americans+lived+in+california http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-IXp7of_QxIC&pg=PA13&lpg=... The 17,000 BCE may a bit early (that was based off stone flakes rather than direct evidence of human remains), but there are 14,000 year old human coprolites in Oregon and evidence of boat use in California 12,000 years ago. http://www.nature.com/news/ancient-migration-coming-to-america-1.10562 http://www.nature.com/news/ancient-migration-coming-to-ameri... My point was that there were quite a lot of people considering it worthwhile to live in what is now California, long before Europeans got there, let alone any army engineers. There are now a lot more people and it is stretching the water use, but there are a lot more people in most places, not just California. And saying that markets will build any necessary irrigation projects and that the state shouldn't build them is an interesting position to take, given the historic link between irrigation planning and central government. You could make the argument that government wouldn't even exist in the present form, if it were not for the history of managing irrigation.
  - dredmorbius 12y ago
    Starr's quote isn't what you'd said. The precolumbian population of California was less than one tenth the present total, and equivalent to a large town, not even a city. Say, Stockton.
    - lotsofmangos 12y ago
      Are you sure? I said: It had about a third of the native population of what is now the USA. Which to me means, take what is now the USA, find out what the native population was, and then find a third of that. I wasn't saying that it was anything close to the population of modern California, just that California is not inhabited because of the irrigation, but that the irrigation is there because it is a place that people want to inhabit. At the time Columbus landed London only had ~100,000 people. For the time, California was pretty busy and if Europeans had not taken over the western USA, I am pretty sure there would still be massive irrigation networks in California today.
      - dredmorbius 12y ago
        Yes. I'm sure. At best you were grossly ambiguous. And really, attempting to argue this point is beyond childish.
        lotsofmangos 12y ago
        I was actually just trying to work out what you thought I had meant. I can be pretty childish, but I wasn't doing anything other than stating what I meant by that sentence. You don't have to tell me what you thought I had meant but it would be nice.
  - dredmorbius 12y ago
    Starr's quote isn't what you'd said. The precolumbian population of California was less than one tenth the present total, and equivalent to a large town, not even a city. Say, Stockton.

People have lived in California since at least 17,000 BCE, according to archaeological excavation. It had about a third of the native population of what is now the USA.

dredmorbius 12y ago

Source? The total precolumbian population of the Americas (north, south, and central) was ~40-112 million. Less than 1/6 to 1/3 that of the present US and only slightly more than California today at the low end. See Charles C. Mann's 1491, pp. 104-109, among others.

lotsofmangos 12y ago
"something approaching one third of all Native Americans living within the present-day boundaries of the continental United States - which is to say, more than three hundred thousand people - are estimated to have been living within the present-day boundaries of California." http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-IXp7of_QxIC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=third+of+native+americans+lived+in+california http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-IXp7of_QxIC&pg=PA13&lpg=... The 17,000 BCE may a bit early (that was based off stone flakes rather than direct evidence of human remains), but there are 14,000 year old human coprolites in Oregon and evidence of boat use in California 12,000 years ago. http://www.nature.com/news/ancient-migration-coming-to-america-1.10562 http://www.nature.com/news/ancient-migration-coming-to-ameri... My point was that there were quite a lot of people considering it worthwhile to live in what is now California, long before Europeans got there, let alone any army engineers. There are now a lot more people and it is stretching the water use, but there are a lot more people in most places, not just California. And saying that markets will build any necessary irrigation projects and that the state shouldn't build them is an interesting position to take, given the historic link between irrigation planning and central government. You could make the argument that government wouldn't even exist in the present form, if it were not for the history of managing irrigation.
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  Starr's quote isn't what you'd said. The precolumbian population of California was less than one tenth the present total, and equivalent to a large town, not even a city. Say, Stockton.
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    Are you sure? I said: It had about a third of the native population of what is now the USA. Which to me means, take what is now the USA, find out what the native population was, and then find a third of that. I wasn't saying that it was anything close to the population of modern California, just that California is not inhabited because of the irrigation, but that the irrigation is there because it is a place that people want to inhabit. At the time Columbus landed London only had ~100,000 people. For the time, California was pretty busy and if Europeans had not taken over the western USA, I am pretty sure there would still be massive irrigation networks in California today.
    - dredmorbius 12y ago
      Yes. I'm sure. At best you were grossly ambiguous. And really, attempting to argue this point is beyond childish.
      - lotsofmangos 12y ago
        I was actually just trying to work out what you thought I had meant. I can be pretty childish, but I wasn't doing anything other than stating what I meant by that sentence. You don't have to tell me what you thought I had meant but it would be nice.
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  Starr's quote isn't what you'd said. The precolumbian population of California was less than one tenth the present total, and equivalent to a large town, not even a city. Say, Stockton.