ok I was in the worldbook and it says we've been on earth for about 2 million years?

Question

but how can you explain someone who only lived to a ripe old age of 35 years old (as a population) with less than the reported (20,000,000) for hundreds of thousand years? that would mean that #1 there was no city made of anything that would be evidence and #2 these hunter gatherers somehow maintained a perfect population growth percentage for over 800,000-2.0 million years? until recorded history?

that means that every family would have had to lose 3.9999999 out of 4 offspring every year and 3.999999 out of 4 parents passed away for like 10,000 years in a row or something....(why do the math?)

Answer 1

Look carefully as to who the worldbook defines as "we."
Do they mean apes? Cro-magnon man? Australo-lopithicus? Upright mammals?
Next, remember that evolution seems to most-often occur in sudden spurts. A population will be at rest (size-speaking) until something changes. Then, the population will react to the changing environment. Mutations that earlier were harmful and disadvantageous (wiht newborns killed, at times) will now be an advantage and help the species to evolve.

Finally, remember that this is a book full of speculation, based one a spotty focil record. Someone made a logical (or illogical) leap to suggest what happened. Take it with a T-Rex-sized grain of salt, and proceed.

Good luck!

Answer 2

It makes sense in a historical pov. In a hunting and gathering society, there wouldn't be high population. Think of the hunting and gathering societies that exist today. They all manage to have a lower population. It was common that not all of your children would live or to have miscarriages and to also not have children for sometimes 5 years between each. (There is a scientific reason for that, though I can't remember it off the top of my head. In hunter and gather societies, women sometimes don't have children for 4 years or so in between children).

I mean, think of Europe Middle Ages: there was a 50% infant mortality rate. There as its not a stretch of the mind to argue that the rate may have been even higher thousands and thousands of years ago.

Additionally, there were large population but no cities because hunter and gathers see no point in creating cities. They ruin the land and corrupt human nature. Cain was actually the first agriculturist (if you want to go by the bible) and the first to build a city. There was no reason for cities before developed agriculture.

Hunter and gatherers could easily live for thousands and thousands of years without altering their live styles. I personally am not sure if we've been here for 2 million years, but I could see how the point can be argued that we might have been.

Answer 3

You can spent your lifetime calculating the odds of the human race evolution and survival through millions of years of presence on this planet, at the end all that matters is that somehow humankind survived the odds, adapted to different climates, populated the earth beyond logical estimates, has become master of nature and beasts and odds are this 'glorified' hunter-gatherer will not survive another 2 million years on this planet.

Answer 4

Populations are limited not by their capacity to reproduce but by the ability of the environment to sustain them. When a population gets too big for its resources, starvation, disease, infertility, miscarriage, etc. prevent it from growing further and may even wipe it out. Those ancestors of ours were hunter-gatherers for most of their history. Dense human populations like we have now weren't possible until agricultural civilizations developed a few millennia back.

Answer 5

Don't worry about it... in the long run the only thing that matters is: Were you altruistic, compassionate, wise, patient, etc.?

_()_

Answer 6

Are you aware that you're rambling incoherently?