Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: GourmetDan

“Unless a population size grows at least somewhat steadily, it’s completely worthless to try to use population size as a way of measuring time.”
Are you saying the article tried to do that? Show me where.”

—Here is what the article said:
“Human population growth. Less than 0.5% p.a. growth from six people 4,500 years ago would produce today’s population. Where are all the people? if we have been here much longer?”

—Why ask “where are all the people?” unless you’re assuming that a population is usually growing? Why is it even an issue?

“”And while it is true that agricultural societies usually grow, sometimes rapidly, such things aren’t generally seen in non-agricultural societies.”
Did the article say that? Where was that said?”

—Unless it was assuming that the human population was usually growing during pre-agricultural times, there would, again, be no reason to ask “where are all the people”. And the “where are all the people” is a link to here:
http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people
which has a section which asks “What if people had been around for one million years?”. It also argues against the Australian Aborigines as having been around for 60k years (a nonagricultural people) based on the fact that they only numbered about 300k people.


101 posted on 06/04/2009 12:31:12 PM PDT by goodusername
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies ]


To: goodusername
"—Why ask “where are all the people?” unless you’re assuming that a population is usually growing? Why is it even an issue?"

OK, so the article didn't say that. That's what I thought.

"—Unless it was assuming that the human population was usually growing during pre-agricultural times, there would, again, be no reason to ask “where are all the people”."

OK, so the article didn't say that either. That's what I thought.

"It also argues against the Australian Aborigines as having been around for 60k years (a nonagricultural people) based on the fact that they only numbered about 300k people."

These statements addressed your issue, "Now there is no way that a mere 300,000 people had exhausted the plenty of this large country so as to account for a long period of very low population growth. If we allow for one-third of the land area as desert, it means that there was only one person for every 18 square kilometres (7 square miles) of habitable land area—hardly overpopulated, even for a subsistence existence."

110 posted on 06/04/2009 2:43:04 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson