[Frobenius]

...Human population was pretty stable at something less than one billion people for most of human history; until industrial agriculture and modern medicine combined with the subsistence mentality of most the world to produce our worlds six billion people.

Yes, I understand but 0.02% average growth over that 70,000 year period is about as "stable" as you can get -

E.g., 0.02% growth with a thousand people results in only 1221 people at the end of a thousand years (according to my trusty HP12C :) 0.02% growth is incredibly small.

If the average was 0.02% per year, then there had to be huge time spans of absolute negative growth - entire populations dieing out etc.

Interesting to think about - that's all.

[allmendream]

But populations do not usually respond like that at all.

2,000 people given the entire earth with no people on it and a robust enough food gathering or producing culture would be 4,000 people in 20 years; 8,000 people in 40 years, 16,000 in 60, 32,000 in 120.

They most certainly wouldn't be only 2,442 people after one thousand years. A single village of 2,000 people, limited to the environs of that single village, might be only 2,442 people after one thousand years; but only if their food production techniques didn't improve much over that thousand years.