John W Redelfs wrote: > >> Starvation and War have, historically, made no impact on the >> growth of population - probably they even had the opposite effect. >> And disease should be quite devastating - like AIDS in Africa - >> to have a significant effect. > > Well, when you consider that mankind has been around during > historical times for over 6,000 years, and when you consider that > accurate census data has only been available for a little of a > hundred years, and when you consider that such data has been > available only in those parts of the world where there are accurate > censuses taken, I find it hard to take your above assertion > seriously. How could you or anyone possibly know? > Archeological data, taxation data, etc. *** Of course *** there are errors, but you can't expect human sciences to be error-free when even exact sciences are filled with measurement errors.
> I may be wrong, > because I do not have a lot of confidence in history, > I can see that. > but it is my > understanding that the One Hundred Years War that took place in > Europe following the Protestant Reformation had a huge impact on the > population of Europe for many decades. > _The_ One Hundred Years War happened much earlier, between the Crusades and the Renaisance. Those wars that followed the Protestant Reformation were not collectively named, except for the 30 Years War in (now) Germany. > Historical records seem to > indicate that the Black Death of the 14th Century had an enormous > impact. > Yes, it had. But for only a short period. If you plot population data of Europe over the years, you will see a drop caused by War and Pestilence. But if you "erase" those years and try to fit a projecting line, it's as if those years were "normal". The meaning of this is clear: as soon as the cause for the drop vanishes, population repleshes with a vengeance, resuming its growth _as if there were no Wars or Pestilence_. > Some reputable paleoanthropologists who have made a life's > study of prehistoric America now believe that when Europeans made > first contact with the natives of America, that smallpox preceded > them everywhere they went and was responsible for the relative > emptiness of the Americas which actually had a much larger > population than has been previously thought. But you may be right. > I just have no confidence that you are. > I may be wrong - that's how science works, and we aren't exactly scientists [we have no data!]. But look at the Americas: even if this effect in the Native Population is real [I think so, but let's be skeptic], it was only a short-time effect, and, when Europeans came, they filled all the niches emptied by Natives with a corresponding explosion. Maybe in 30 or 50 years, after AIDS eliminates most Africans, Africa will be occupied by 1 billion chinese and 1 billion indians. But I'm almost sure that the population of Africa will not keep going down for a long time. Alberto Monteiro _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
