Assumptions about Elves

[AlexanderHowl]

Population density of agricultural societies is a bit of an illusion before TL5 because, while agriculture allows for a greater concentration of people (making them easier to control and/or defend), it does not allow for a much greater density due to the requirement for wood for construction, fuel, industry, etc. In general, an average agrarian society requires around 10 cords of wood per year per household (20 cords per urban household due to charcoal production, increased construction, increased industry, etc.). Since sustainable wood production is around 1 cord per year in temperate climes, a society that is 20% urban/80% rural would require an average of 12 cords of wood per year household, requiring 12 acres of forest per household.

In addition, before TL5, 75% of the land surface of the Earth is unsuitable for cultivation, 12.5% is only suitable for forestry, 5% only suitable for pasturage, and 2.5% is used for other purposes, leaving 5% for agriculture. With a three field system, each person requires an average of 3 acres for food production, meaning that the average household requires 15 acres of arable land. When you look at the previous numbers, you see that means that there is 300 acres per household, allowing a maximum density of ~2 households per square mile (~10 people per square mile). The population is concentrated around the arable land though, while hunter gatherers are more spread out.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Population density of agricultural societies is a bit of an illusion before TL5 because, while agriculture allows for a greater concentration of people (making them easier to control and/or defend), it does not allow for a much greater density due to the requirement for wood for construction, fuel, industry, etc. In general, an average agrarian society requires around 10 cords of wood per year per household (20 cords per urban household due to charcoal production, increased construction, increased industry, etc.). Since sustainable wood production is around 1 cord per year in temperate climes, a society that is 20% urban/80% rural would require an average of 12 cords of wood per year household, requiring 12 acres of forest per household.

In addition, before TL5, 75% of the land surface of the Earth is unsuitable for cultivation, 12.5% is only suitable for forestry, 5% only suitable for pasturage, and 2.5% is used for other purposes, leaving 5% for agriculture. With a three field system, each person requires an average of 3 acres for food production, meaning that the average household requires 15 acres of arable land. When you look at the previous numbers, you see that means that there is 300 acres per household, allowing a maximum density of ~2 households per square mile (~10 people per square mile). The population is concentrated around the arable land though, while hunter gatherers are more spread out.

You numbers say that pre-TL5 the maximum population Earth can support is about 100 million. That's about what the human population of Earth is thought to have been in about 500BC. At the start of TL5 (~1730), it was about 700 million (and most of the world at that time was not TL5). Your assumptions give a carrying capacity an order of magnitude (and/or 2-3 tech levels) low

[AlexanderHowl]

There is 50 million square miles of land on Earth. With 10 people per square mile (2 households per square mile), that translates to a maximum population of 500 million people (100 million households). That fits within the pre-1700 (TL4-) historical population figures fairly well, though there is some disagreement (the average household could be up to fifty percent bigger).

[Celjabba]

Originally Posted by Rupert

You numbers say that pre-TL5 the maximum population Earth can support is about 100 million. That's about what the human population of Earth is thought to have been in about 500BC. At the start of TL5 (~1730), it was about 700 million (and most of the world at that time was not TL5). Your assumptions give a carrying capacity an order of magnitude (and/or 2-3 tech levels) low

I think he was aiming for max population where everyone have a full calories intake and forest/land is managed in a sustainable way. (ie you regrowth forest as fast as you cut it down).
Which have almost never been the case in history once cities really started, but could be assumed for elven land ?

He makea few odd assumption like wood charcoal and three-field system while excluding other energy sources, fishing, and of course climatic variations.
But for worldwide average, he is likely close, if a bit low I think. (due to the sustainable bit probably)

[exalted]

Originally Posted by JulianLW

Again, I'm not a cultural anthropologist or an archeologist. I just know how to read reviews of books by people who are. Read the article for yourself and then write a letter to the New Yorker with your opinions - or to the professors whose books are reviewed in the article.

My point: it seems far more likely that elves wouldn't be farmers at all. That their society - again, as is described in this article - would be radically egalitarian, as hunter/gatherer societies almost certainly were. And that they would be living in a situation of greater abundance than people whose entire world-view is wrapped up in an agricultural model of humanity can recognize is possible.

Not me. Send your complaints to John Lanchester and all the academics he cites in this article. If you haven't read the article, then your disagreements are just your (probably) ill-informed opinions. Again, I'm not an expert in this, just a reader: what's your Ph.D. in?

Just some curio I found out when I read archeology a few years ago, there are basically two camps in the archeologic world about how good stone age life was. From one side (the louder and bigger one) you get the it was basiacally a good life with near utopian qualities, the others look at the evidence of starvation, strife and atrocity and go with probably not much diffrent from any early historical times that is a horror show for most modern day humans. It is really hard to understand the first group once your faced with a few examples of the laters studies and how they keep their opinion after seeing those examples.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

There is 50 million square miles of land on Earth. With 10 people per square mile (2 households per square mile), that translates to a maximum population of 500 million people (100 million households). That fits within the pre-1700 (TL4-) historical population figures fairly well, though there is some disagreement (the average household could be up to fifty percent bigger).

Gah. Sorry - at some point I lost the 'household' bit.

[(E)]

After the various dives I've done into the population calculations throughout the TLs here are a few thoughts on the current topic of conversation.

One of the factors that influences how efficiently a given area can be harvested for natural resources or farmed for equivalent resources is the population available. That leads to some circular seeming logic where a higher population density is required to support a higher population density. From memory I think there is a variation of 20%, though you need to look at instances where the population dropped suddenly to observe this in agricultural societies. There is a similar trend in hunter gatherer societies where larger groups are required to gain the efficiencies needed for a higher population densities. I think the area required scales to the .75 power of the population, but it has been a while since I read it.

One of the biggest issues is that the populations seldom get to the point where they are stretching the carrying capacity of a large area because other factors such as disease, climate or war come into play.

I am personally a bit dubious about using averages for these examples, refer back to "Every Farm is Different", if nothing else, using averages to excess removes flavour and texture from a game world.
(Herefordshire is worth investigating if you want a good example of different TL3 English medieval farming)

[Johnny1A.2]

Originally Posted by exalted

Just some curio I found out when I read archeology a few years ago, there are basically two camps in the archeologic world about how good stone age life was. From one side (the louder and bigger one) you get the it was basiacally a good life with near utopian qualities, the others look at the evidence of starvation, strife and atrocity and go with probably not much diffrent from any early historical times that is a horror show for most modern day humans. It is really hard to understand the first group once your faced with a few examples of the laters studies and how they keep their opinion after seeing those examples.

Anthropology, archaeology, etc., are infamously prone to 'fads' of one sort or another that sometimes ignore practical evidence for years on end. Archaeology, as a discipline, sometimes falls into the 'project your fantasy/politics/wishful thinking onto the past' trap, too. It's been a problem as long as archaeology has been a formal discipline.

[exalted]

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

Anthropology, archaeology, etc., are infamously prone to 'fads' of one sort or another that sometimes ignore practical evidence for years on end. Archaeology, as a discipline, sometimes falls into the 'project your fantasy/politics/wishful thinking onto the past' trap, too. It's been a problem as long as archaeology has been a formal discipline.

It seems to mostly have to do with politics for those at my university and possibly easier to fund research that affirms the group view, there was some of it when i did my masters in history but in archaeology it was way worse.

[Prince Charon]

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

Anthropology, archaeology, etc., are infamously prone to 'fads' of one sort or another that sometimes ignore practical evidence for years on end. Archaeology, as a discipline, sometimes falls into the 'project your fantasy/politics/wishful thinking onto the past' trap, too. It's been a problem as long as archaeology has been a formal discipline.

I kind of think that it was a problem even before it became a formal discipline, and just never stopped, only fading in and out and occasionally switching fads.