[Moonman62]

Their origins and genetic makeup would mean that these people were suited to coastal life, but not to the demands of living inland. This would have prevented large population growth as the coasts could only sustain a certain number of people.

Most major cities and most of the world's population still lives along the coasts.

[Smokin' Joe]

Maybe someone can throw in a timeline which would put that idea in perspective, but I wonder how much of this was related to the development of technology which enabled more efficient hunting of upland animals, herd forming herbivores, and possibly domestication of dogs for hunting partners and guards.

It could be something as simple as the development of improved hide tanning methods and better shoes.

I know that may seem a stretch, but new horizons become available to those who adapt, and the most simple seeming technologies often make that possible.

[kidd]

There is no obvious archaeological event that would explain why this sudden expansion in the human population occurred.

Walmart ran out of $9 birth control?

[Teacher317]

Previously Unknown Population Explosion of Human Species 40,000 Years Ago --Discovered

[preacher]

Doubts over 'out of Africa' theory

[John O]

However, once their genetic makeup was suited to these new environments,

Genetic makeup doesn't change. Either they were homo sapiens or they weren't. Adaptation to a new environment does not require genetic change.

[darth]

I always thought it was the invention of new technologies.

Using an atlatl a man can chunk a dart 100 yards or so. Add a poison, e.g., aconite from monkshood flowers and you can kill megafauna such as mammoths, giant sloths, sabertooth tigers, etc.

With an easy, plentiful food source people could multiply rapidly as they ranged farther and farther to find new herds.

That’s why the megafauna died out while smaller, more nimble game, e.g., deer, survived. Atlatls are not accurate enough to kill deer at long range.