Option A: In the 3+ million years that, as a minimum, modern humans have inhabited the planet (since the paleolithic, according to the officially accepted dating), surely many technologically-enabled civilizations should have appeared and disappeared. Their remnants are gone because material evidence cannot survive such timescales. It took us merely 6000 years to develop technology by ourselves. There are many possible 6000 years slots in the 3.3 My interval. Since ancient humans had higher brain volume and proved to be able to survive in harsh climates, we must conclude they were as intellectually capable as us and with a high probability developed technology, which enables populational growth. We know that the current civilizational cycle started from a very reduced population, therefore a regulating mechanism must already exist that caused those ancient populations to decrease to our initial cyclic level, and our malthusian elites don't need to do anything.Option B. Humans are incapable of developing technology themselves. For 3.3 My our ancient equivalents proved themselves unable to do so, as no technological device has been found from the most part of that interval. Therefore humans attaining technology merely 6k years ago must be the product of an external actor that wanted to increase population numbers and kickstarted civilization bu giving us tech. This (possibly superhuman) external actor was already controlling population and would act if there was a real populational crisis. Therefore our malthusian elites don't need to do anything.
>>17427590>Option A: lost civilizations without any evidence>Option B: Alien technology without any evidenceThese possibilities are not mutually exclusive, and neither has anything to do with Malthusianism.
>>17427590Malthus was always wrong, nowadays people are worried about the opposite problem and that there will be a population collapse in the near future.
>>17427590>In the 3+ million years that, as a minimum, modern humans have inhabited the planetStopped reading there, 3 million years is going back to australopithecus.
>>17427605>and neither has anything to do with MalthusianismThey do, because tech is THE enabler of population growth.(You can also count certain crops as tech. They are basically machines to extract nutrients).
>>17427650>3 million years is going back to australopithecusThat is the officially acepted dating for the so called "paleolithic". I'm using their own scientific narrative against them, even though it is very likely incorrect.
>>17427690Paleolithic doesn't mean "modern humans", you absolute retard. You're making up a lalaland timeline based on your misunderstanding of a term.
>>17427590>Option A: In the 3+ million years that, as a minimum, modern humans have inhabited the planet (since the paleolithic, according to the officially accepted dating)Where are you getting this from? Homo sapiens are estimated to be around 300,000 years old.>surely many technologically-enabled civilizations should have appeared and disappeared. Their remnants are gone because material evidence cannot survive such timescales. It took us merely 6000 years to develop technology by ourselvesWhy are you so sure about that? It's entirely possible that there are some hard barriers to overcome in order to make great technological advancements (such as agriculture paving the way for permanently settled cities and food surpluses which in turn pave the way for educated specialists, trade etc) and the conditions are not always right to overcome these barriers, such as the previous ice age causing the planet's climate to be unsuitable for agriculture. There's a perfectly reasonable explanation why it took us this long to become advanced, it's "climate improve > neolithic revolution > compounding knowledge over generations"
>>17427590Here's why Malthus was wrong1. Population is a function of resource availability2. Animals adapt to their environment (crucially, Malthus wrote his essay decades before Darwin publish On the Origin of Species and introduced the concept of adaptation) breeding more when resources are abundant and less when they are scarce3. Humans are also animals sensitive to their environment and therefore will adapt their mating strategies accordinglyThe historical record proves this btw, Western Europe saw population increase during the Medieval Warm Period due to increased crop yields and a dip in births during the Black Plague.That's because people give birthday more when times are Good and less when times are bad. Duh. Population overshoot won't happen because can tell when resources are scarce and will simply breed less in response.
>>17427677 Ancients had the tech for steam engines Tech is not suffiecient condition for population growth
>>17427760Nta but that's not really true, they were capped by inadequate metallurgy.
>>17427770but the technology itself was lost even when metals and coal were available, until it was reinvented point is the neverending scientific and technological progress is a recent and unique phenomenon that couldn't happen before
>>17427699The particular interval length doesn't matter as long as it is significatively greater than 6000 years. You can plug in any other "first modern human" date if you so wish. Homo heidelbergensis is from 800,000 to 200,000 years ago. 800,000 divided by 6,000 equals 133 possible civilizational cycles.
>>17427708>(such as agriculture paving the way for permanently settled cities and food surpluses which in turn pave the way for educated specialists, trade etc)In our current cycle all those things appeared around the same time, which points to option B.
>>17427820Heidelbergensis is not modern human. Also the 6k figure is nonsense, you need to use at the very least like 12k. Furthermore, progress is hardcapped until people who have no reason to do selective breeding somehow accidentally create plants that have enough yield to make agriculture somewhat viable.
>>17427728>and a dip in births during the Black PlagueWhich was the result of technological advancements in maritime travel. Otherwise animals are immunized against the most common pathogens in their environment.Diseases can also be engineered in labs by external or internal actors.
>>17427836>somehow accidentally create plants that have enough yieldImagine believing this. Those crops were most likely engineered precisely to support large populations. That would totally be option B.People living in cities also means that economies of scale are at play when it comes to harvesting cereals. Smaller populations don't go well with agriculture, since people move out and get sick, becoming unavailable for the harvest.
>>17427828>In our current cycle all those things appeared around the same time, which points to option B.No, it doesn't. It's perfectly explained by the example I provided. The climate improved, agriculture was now possible and as a result cities emerged and with them compounding knowledge.
>>17427903Climate is cyclical and agriculture was always possible under normal weather conditions.
>>17427963Was agriculture a viable method of securing food during the previous ice age?
>>17427876>Those crops were most likely engineered precisely to support large populations.Yeah that small nomadic group was probably like >we need to create gmo crops even though we don't even know such a thing is possible in order to live in a way we know nothing about, all the while training our comfy lifestyle for a lifestyle of endless backbreaking toillmao
>>17427972I said under normal conditions.Climate is cyclical so mild climates occour multiple times in a sufficienlty long time interval.
>>17427987You pretty much answered your own point. Nomadic hunter-gatherer is the optimal state for humans. Agriculture must have been given by an external actor with questionable intentions.
>>17427590Low quality discussion of an interesting subject.Regardless, I will answer the core of the underlying question: Imagine complaining about elites culling anyone when you move about. The only real issue (and I agree on that) it's that the wrong guys are getting culled.
>>17427590Point A: Firstly, anatomically modern humans are three hundred thousand years old. Not three Million, the first hominids are three million years old. Secondly, you seem to ignore that industrial civilization is not a conspicous thing; truth is that a civilization in any way comparable to ours would be easily detectable in the archeological record, mostly due to the lack of easily accessible surface natural resources and high amounts of non biodegradable material like plastic in the environment. Among other things, like evidence of nuclear testing. As for the intelligence of those pre-historic humans: I agree, to an extent. However, you seem again uninformed on what directly lead to emergence of 'civilization'. It was not about intelligence but a favourable environment. Following from this you should know that technological progress does not enable population growth, a surplus of food does; certain technological innovations enable larger and larger food surpluses thus causing population growth which you then mistakenly link directly to the concept of technological progress.In light of these facts, I think the conclusion to point A is invalid.Cont to avoid extreme textwalls.
>>17427590Point B: Obviously the starting phrase here is false; betraying a poor understanding of technology as a concept. Crude flint handaxes are a form of technology and are ubiquitous in the pre-historic archeological record. This is without counting wooden implements and temporary structures (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06557-9) that decay with time if not well preserved in a swamp. Not to mention later structures made by human hunter gatherers.This argument also supposes that eurasian agriculture sprung out of nowhere in 4000 BC which is blatantly untrue.Considering these points, I think it is safe to dismiss the conclusions of option B.
>>17428751>>17428776You also believe that there is a unified shadowy elite convinced of Malthusianism that is hellbent on culling the majority of the population. Which I don't particularly subscribe to nowadays.
>>17427590>People back then thought that this would happen at 7 billion people.
>>17428785People tend to vastly under and overestimate how far a particular technology —in this case ammonia based fertilizers— can take civilization based on non-rational factors.
>>17428158So the answer is 'no' and you agree that we shouldn't have expected to see significant advancements until the end of the previous ice age, which is what happened.
>>17428751>in any way comparable to oursDoesn't need to be. You are assuming a whole lot there, including the resources they would extract, and the technological path they would follow. What if they skipped nuclear fission and went for another source?>you seem again uninformed on what directly lead to emergence of 'civilization'. It was not about intelligence but a favourable environmentYou can dump tons of pig food in fron of a pig population and they won't evolve a civilization. Food abundance and mild environment work against intelligence. Scarcity and harsh environment evolve intelligent races out of necessity.
>>17428776Technology is a bad thing. Naturally-adapted lifeforms don't need it. Think about that. There isn't a single environment past or present on this Earth where humans can feel at home and thrive directly off the environment. Every single other creature does this. Except the human. This is already some smoking gun.
>>17428783>turn on tv>news>we are now 8,000 gorillion! nooo, muh planetAre you blind and deaf? This ideology is everywhere. Go watch the Club of Rome conferences from the 70s.
Neither.Women's rights is the single deciding factor, regardless of science, religion or other factors.You can have the most primitive shithole and the most advanced place, but so long as women have access to other roles that aren't baby making factories. Both of them will have shitty birthrate.
>>17429919>Doesn't need to be.Ok, if there is no reason to assume these past societies where industrialized then point A remains invalid. As these past "technologically-enabled" civilizations were not comparable to ours and did nott face the same problems as we do. There is no need to assume poulation regulation mechanisms already exist. (Ignoring that the mechanism in question is mass die-off, which Malthusianism is attempting to avoid).>Food abundance and mild environment work against intelligence.Which is why agriculture emerged in the artic and not in places like the Fertile Crescent which had all the wild precursors to western grains and easily domesticable animals like goats and cattle along with climactic stability which originally enabled the HGs to settle down in one place during the ice ages. >>17429930Technology is value-neutral.
>>17427728>give birthday more when times are GoodTell that to the 45 year old grandmother of 20 living in the shanty town outside of the city.
