Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kichwas" data-source="post: 1650579" data-attributes="member: 891">You're wrong about the food, but see my response to your second quote for that.Actually no to what you presumed of me, and what you said in response. Not because you're wrong (you're correct), but because you're making a point about B, when I'm talking about A.I'm not talking about the causes of low density - I'm using the Inuit to show what kind of society low density gives. If you have low density, it means you're spread thin. If you're spread thin you're nomadic and low tech at best.Actually, you'd be amazed at how rich Nunavut is in resources. Those few Inuit are sitting on the largest herds of herbavores in the world, the second largest ever (buffalo once topped them). They've also got massive fishing stocks, diamonds, and oil.It's Africa, the Middle East, an unlimited fish market, and American Cattle all in one place under the control of some 29,000 people who look like Sunny Bono...  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool    :cool:"  data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" /> In the southern half they've probably got a lot of lumber as well, but I didn't see that in my research on them back when I wrote them into a term paper...And they're largely doing absolutely nothing with all of it... just waiting for global warming to get to the point where everybody else invades in 300 years...Population density in Nunavut could get high on the natural resources... but its so dangerous living there that it never did. The Inuit can easily dispatch Carribu and fish, but even a rifle often loses the fight with a Polar Bear - and one swipe from it will leave you, if not dead, soon to be so in the cold.If the dangers aren't enough to explain it I can't really say why it never did get high, but I can say what the low density resulted in.For this discussion we don't need why it was low, we need what that low results in - a lack of a 'civilization infrastructure'.Look to the plains Indians of North America. They also had very good resources, but until they had horses they were no better a predator than the wolves. Once they had horses they underwent a population explosion that was only checked when the Americans came in and killed off the Buffalo, and then the children.Given another hundred years to grow, they would have outpaced the ability of the buffalo to support them, and had to move out and settle down - adopting their mountain camps most likely into full year round towns, but who can say.'Civilization' and high density are linked to each other. You -CAN- have high density with a low population over a large area, it just means they're not really over that large area, but rather concentrated into a small part of it like the USA mostly is if you look at it in whole rather than parts.Look at just New England and it's dense. Add it in the great plains and it looks low density, but it really isn't because you've just added a region claimed but not settled [until recently].</blockquote>

Verification