The dawn of civilization

[T0 Th3 M4X]

https://indianexpress.com/article/cities...s-experts/

Title: Lack of prey pushing leopards into cities

"Forest department officials and experts maintained that two leopard deaths, within 48 hours, confirmed that the big cat was looking to move out of Hastinapur Sanctuary — that spans over Ghaziabad, Meerut and Jyotiba Phule Nagar — due to lack of prey."

(Whole story is linked)

[The Grand Nudger]

Lack of prey wasn't a problem in the neolithic...already commented on this.

[Anomalocaris]

Uncle Ogg didn't actually do much digging, either.  No spade.  They were limited to antler picks and small bone shovels.  Most pit or fall traps would have been naturally occurring.

Since when do you need a spade to dig?  Think man, think.  Do you really think it's that hard for someone to dig a hole without a special tool?

You'll spend more time crying about how something can't be done, rather than just going out and finding a way to do it.

Dude, judging from your avatar, you play a lot of video games where you are the macho post apocolyptic lone wolf who lives by easily blowing things away, never wondering how long you will last in the closest possible real life scenario where the entire purpose of the world is not to keep you interested by stroking your ego.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

That's hardly the same thing.  The leopards in the story were loosing prey grounds to human beings.  There's a helluva lot of difference between 21st century India and 15000 BCE.

Malthus explains that left to themselves, predator/prey populations will maintain a stasis.  Outside influences (Malthus' point was geometric human expansion in the modern era) destroy that stasis.  The world population today is (roughly) 7 thousand times what it was in the late Paleolithic.  Uncle Ogg and his tribe weren't a significant factor in the lions' food supply.

Boru

edit:  ninja'd

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Uh huh. Well after this discussion, I would assume you would be too lazy to pick up a book and check because it might be too hard, and therefore impossible for you. *rolls eyes*

But hey, it's not illegal to wrap yourself in a blankie with a juice box in your hand and watch everybody else accomplish things.  To each his own.

---

Full reference?

'An Essay On The Principles Of Population', by Thomas Malthus.

Boru

Malthus seems to be suggesting something quite different.  The population will reach a point at which time it will be subject to various forms of distress.  So it would actually be the opposite of what you're suggesting.  This is from his essay:

The way in which these effects are produced seems to be this. We will suppose the means of subsistence in any country just equal to the easy support of its inhabitants. The constant effort towards population... increases the number of people before the means of subsistence are increased. The food therefore which before supported seven millions must now be divided among seven millions and a half or eight millions. The poor consequently must live much worse, and many of them be reduced to severe distress. The number of labourers also being above the proportion of the work in the market, the price of labour must tend toward a decrease, while the price of provisions would at the same time tend to rise. The labourer therefore must work harder to earn the same as he did before. During this season of distress, the discouragements to marriage, and the difficulty of rearing a family are so great that population is at a stand. In the mean time the cheapness of labour, the plenty of labourers, and the necessity of an increased industry amongst them, encourage cultivators to employ more labour upon their land, to turn up fresh soil, and to manure and improve more completely what is already in tillage, till ultimately the means of subsistence become in the same proportion to the population as at the period from which we set out. The situation of the labourer being then again tolerably comfortable, the restraints to population are in some degree loosened, and the same retrograde and progressive movements with respect to happiness are repeated.

— Malthus T.R. 1798. An Essay on the Principle of Population. Chapter II, p 19 in Oxford World's Classics reprint.

---

That's hardly the same thing.  The leopards in the story were loosing prey grounds to human beings.  There's a helluva lot of difference between 21st century India and 15000 BCE.

Malthus explains that left to themselves, predator/prey populations will maintain a stasis.  Outside influences (Malthus' point was geometric human expansion in the modern era) destroy that stasis.  The world population today is (roughly) 7 thousand times what it was in the late Paleolithic.  Uncle Ogg and his tribe weren't a significant factor in the lions' food supply.

Boru

edit:  ninja'd

You're making stuff up.  Already read what Malthus suggested and it's counter to your claims.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

'An Essay On The Principles Of Population', by Thomas Malthus.

Boru

Malthus seems to be suggesting something quite different.  The population will reach a point at which time it will be subject to various forms of distress.  So it would actually be the opposite of what you're suggesting.  This is from his essay:

The way in which these effects are produced seems to be this. We will suppose the means of subsistence in any country just equal to the easy support of its inhabitants. The constant effort towards population... increases the number of people before the means of subsistence are increased. The food therefore which before supported seven millions must now be divided among seven millions and a half or eight millions. The poor consequently must live much worse, and many of them be reduced to severe distress. The number of labourers also being above the proportion of the work in the market, the price of labour must tend toward a decrease, while the price of provisions would at the same time tend to rise. The labourer therefore must work harder to earn the same as he did before. During this season of distress, the discouragements to marriage, and the difficulty of rearing a family are so great that population is at a stand. In the mean time the cheapness of labour, the plenty of labourers, and the necessity of an increased industry amongst them, encourage cultivators to employ more labour upon their land, to turn up fresh soil, and to manure and improve more completely what is already in tillage, till ultimately the means of subsistence become in the same proportion to the population as at the period from which we set out. The situation of the labourer being then again tolerably comfortable, the restraints to population are in some degree loosened, and the same retrograde and progressive movements with respect to happiness are repeated.

— Malthus T.R. 1798. An Essay on the Principle of Population. Chapter II, p 19 in Oxford World's Classics reprint.

Right, but that wasn't the case in the time under discussion. Malthus was talking about the modern era, not Stone Age hunter-gatherers.


Boru

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Malthus seems to be suggesting something quite different.  The population will reach a point at which time it will be subject to various forms of distress.  So it would actually be the opposite of what you're suggesting.  This is from his essay:

The way in which these effects are produced seems to be this. We will suppose the means of subsistence in any country just equal to the easy support of its inhabitants. The constant effort towards population... increases the number of people before the means of subsistence are increased. The food therefore which before supported seven millions must now be divided among seven millions and a half or eight millions. The poor consequently must live much worse, and many of them be reduced to severe distress. The number of labourers also being above the proportion of the work in the market, the price of labour must tend toward a decrease, while the price of provisions would at the same time tend to rise. The labourer therefore must work harder to earn the same as he did before. During this season of distress, the discouragements to marriage, and the difficulty of rearing a family are so great that population is at a stand. In the mean time the cheapness of labour, the plenty of labourers, and the necessity of an increased industry amongst them, encourage cultivators to employ more labour upon their land, to turn up fresh soil, and to manure and improve more completely what is already in tillage, till ultimately the means of subsistence become in the same proportion to the population as at the period from which we set out. The situation of the labourer being then again tolerably comfortable, the restraints to population are in some degree loosened, and the same retrograde and progressive movements with respect to happiness are repeated.

— Malthus T.R. 1798. An Essay on the Principle of Population. Chapter II, p 19 in Oxford World's Classics reprint.

Right, but that wasn't the case in the time under discussion.

Boru

Make up your mind.  You're the one who cited it.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Do you good to read the entire book.

Boru

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Uncle Ogg didn't actually do much digging, either.  No spade.  They were limited to antler picks and small bone shovels.  Most pit or fall traps would have been naturally occurring.  Big game would have been darted, small game snared...but..mostly, they just ate plants.

Auntie Oggle harvested shellfish. We know from middens in Neanderthal caves.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Do you good to read the entire book.

Boru

Do you good to read any of it, because you obviously didn't.  He said something very different than you claimed.  No need to lie.  Come up with a valid source if you think you have something.  If not, don't waste people's time with stupid claims that hold no weight.