vincentML
Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009 Status: offline
|
quote:
'Millions' was meant to be hyperbolic. This is not that controversial, I'd claim. It's almost, I'd argue, a standard among anthropologists. There was a famous paper by Marshall Sahlins in the 60s that made something along the lines of this claim, as have many since. Again, I don't have tuberculosis, typhus, typhoid fever, cholera, diphtheria, small pox... what's not clear is the extent to which hunter-gatherers, or even just sustainable producers more generally, also did or did not have these diseases. My point remains -- it's far, far from self-evident that we are somehow 'better off' individually or as a species than during prehistoric times. Of course, the diseases I mentioned come with crowded populations. That is why I am confident in comparing 2000 to 1900 and why a comparison to small groups of hunter/gatherers is fallacious. I don't recall making the claim we are better off as a species or individually than during prehistoric times. I said we are living better now than we have at any time in history ... not prehistory. Then I narrowed it to 1900 vs 2000. If you wish to debate my points, fine. But pls stick to them. 1900 v 2000 ... in which era were more people more comfortable? I acknowledge "comfortable" is tricky and ambiguous. I am open to a good case being made either way. I do not fear being wrong.
< Message edited by vincentML -- 6/18/2010 7:50:38 AM >
_____________________________
vML Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.
|