You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

gwern comments on [link] Back to the trees - Less Wrong Discussion

85 [deleted] 04 November 2011 10:06PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (44)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: wedrifid 14 November 2011 08:16:16AM *  3 points [-]

The canonical example is, I think, the aborigines of Tasmania after they were cut off from the mainland. Over the 8000 years of isolation, the ~10,000 Tasmanians lost most of their technology - fishing, the ability to make fire or bone tools, etc.

The story, as I read when visiting relevant sites in Tasmania (and confirmed on wikipedia) is one of "necessity is the mother of invention" in reverse - Tasmania being a veritable paradise compared to most of the mainland. Fishing traps for scaled fish were not especially important given the effort they required compared to eating shellfish and seals while environmental changes and increasing tribal territory sizes made hunting land animals even easier. They also never lost fire.

This example isn't especially strong evidence that technology loss is caused by a 10k population size.

Comment author: gwern 14 November 2011 08:36:01AM 5 points [-]

And why didn't Malthusian limits encourage them to maintain their technology? (I also didn't say they lost fire, but the ability to make it.)