Scandinavia and the World
Scandinavia and the World

Comments #9499161:


sagas

0
Brexit to the right 2 7, 4:44am

'@ThorsomeTarmukas'
"I just gave you two examples where it has happened in most recent history."

No you listed two places that have a lot more people now than before. And then that was it.

Have you literally never taken a statistics class in your entire damn life lol.

"Do you know that the number of estonians in Estonia at present is only 2-3x higher than that it was before the industrial revolution? About 3,6x more than at 1340 AD."

Estonia is a backwater location regardless of period of history, the sort of urban population explosions aren't really a factor when the country was never producing mega cities, or having huge bumper crop style agriculture. Nevermind both. It's like being surprised that West Virginia didn't become as populated and normal Virginia.
Even so where are you even getting statistics for early Estonian population? The farthest back I can find is the 1880's, which would have been after industrialization.

"As you can see, some populations try to manage to live within the carrying capacity of local ecotopes, while others don't."

Estonia is a sparsely populated forest, but yeah ok sure, your barren cold woods are totally an overpopulated calamity like Bangladesh. Your country is like at least three times as large as my state, and we have three times your population. Meanwhile Karen is from a country even more sparsely populated by FAR then Estonia. So lol at aiming this argument at her like she just doesn't understand frail little Estonia's dilemma.

"The idea of a linear correlation between wealth and birth rate is demonstrably false."

Its not wealth exactly, more industrialization. Huge population booms are associated with developing countries which initially keep up patterns of large families, but lose the constant child/baby death. The transition to developed country partly follows along that old way of family life also dying out to match the new reality. The vast majority of the world has followed this population boom pattern, in fact the literal world has followed this pattern. This is the reason you see earth population charts that suddenly explode once you reach the industrial revolution. But in the developed world population is slowly shrinking rather than growing. It's not a linear trend, because almost nothing sociological is ever linear. It is a completely accurate and heavily substantiated general trend.
Your random patch of cold forest with borders not exactly following that trend don't mean shit. And the idea that it was some conscious choice prepared for a post-industrialized world is insane.

"The Middle East has had better education that estonians since 11 000 BC to about 1650 AD."

Probably not for the vast majority of Middle Easterners. The vast majority of nowhere was educated for most of history. And this isn't even relevant on its own or pre-industrialization anyway.

"Wealth is relative. Hunter-gatherers lived in balance with their environment. "

She's saying that pre-industrialization most societies lived by having large families. They also however had high mortality rates and were mostly agricultural where large families were benefits.
Increased urbanization and decreased child mortality....not immediately being accompanied by smaller family size...equals population KABOOM.