Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The US Census bureau predicts the following populations of regions of Europe and Africa in 2050 relative to their population in 2014. Northern europe will maintain population at a slightly higher rate because of immigration. Southern Africa will not increase because of AIDS and violence. Eastern Asia will lose population because of the birth control policies of China in the last three decades. Immigration and the increasing use of birth control in Catholic Latin America will balance out so that the increase in population in Northern Americas (USA& Canada) will be about the same as Latin America and the Caribbean.
110% Northern Europe
100% Southern Europe
98% Western Europe
86% Eastern Europe
.
224% Eastern Africa
218% Western Africa
201% Middle Africa
154% Northern Africa
104% Southern Africa
.
143% Western Asia
137% South-Central Asia
127% South-Eastern Asia
95% Eastern Asia
.
132% Oceania
.
129% Central America
125% Northern America
121% South America
112% Caribbean
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrandviewGloria
It does seem that sudden, drastic depopulation can confer a number of benefits. Something that would kill ninety percent of the world's population within a couple of years would probably save the planet.
Comments like this make me a little nervous, because there is an extreme danger that the shocking death rates in Africa will be seen as basically necessary for the survival of the world.
I have to agree with most other posters. The Renaissance would still have occurred, I believe some sources suggest that it was already beginning to happen in parts of Italy prior to the Bubonic Plague. However, the massive epidemic that plagued the continent jolted the people into new ways of thinking and practices.
The Renaissance probably would have been a lot slower had the plague not happened.
I have to agree with most other posters. The Renaissance would still have occurred, I believe some sources suggest that it was already beginning to happen in parts of Italy prior to the Bubonic Plague. However, the massive epidemic that plagued the continent jolted the people into new ways of thinking and practices.
The Renaissance probably would have been a lot slower had the plague not happened.
Gothic cathedral building already started in Europe before the Black Death, so technology and the arts were already starting to awaken, similarly, the first European universities in Oxford, Bologna and elsewhere were also founded before this plague.
The usual story is that bubonic plague was the cause of the Black Death, but that is only a theory. Some historians doubt that bubonic plague could have spread as quickly as the Black Death did or been as devastating and suspect it might have been something else like the Ebola.
Gothic cathedral building already started in Europe before the Black Death, so technology and the arts were already starting to awaken, similarly, the first European universities in Oxford, Bologna and elsewhere were also founded before this plague.
The usual story is that bubonic plague was the cause of the Black Death, but that is only a theory. Some historians doubt that bubonic plague could have spread as quickly as the Black Death did or been as devastating and suspect it might have been something else like the Ebola.
Really? I had not heard that side before. Genuine lack of hygiene does encourage both the Bubonic Plague and Ebola however, could be some truth to that.
Were it not for the great plague the Black Death which hit Europe in the mid 14th century, would we have seen the great Renaissance in Europe over the next few hundred years? Discuss and explain, I'm curious to see what other people think.
Despite the enormous volume of yes votes coming from the heart, the vast majority of historical scholars concur that it would not have happened without the black death. While I wish it could have happened in happier times, not a single person on this forum has the expertise of the scholars that already settled this issue. It was a terrible event, but having people with inadequate knowledge of history defy those with immense educations will not change the reality of the world.
How meaningful is an opinion in 2014 regarding the Renaissance? Any opinion I might have is worthless in the overall scheme of life, history and the pursuit of happiness.
Despite the enormous volume of yes votes coming from the heart, the vast majority of historical scholars concur that it would not have happened without the black death. While I wish it could have happened in happier times, not a single person on this forum has the expertise of the scholars that already settled this issue. It was a terrible event, but having people with inadequate knowledge of history defy those with immense educations will not change the reality of the world.
The US Census bureau predicts the following populations of regions of Europe and Africa in 2050 relative to their population in 2014. Northern europe will maintain population at a slightly higher rate because of immigration. Southern Africa will not increase because of AIDS and violence. Eastern Asia will lose population because of the birth control policies of China in the last three decades. Immigration and the increasing use of birth control in Catholic Latin America will balance out so that the increase in population in Northern Americas (USA& Canada) will be about the same as Latin America and the Caribbean.
110% Northern Europe
100% Southern Europe
98% Western Europe
86% Eastern Europe
.
224% Eastern Africa
218% Western Africa
201% Middle Africa
154% Northern Africa
104% Southern Africa
.
143% Western Asia
137% South-Central Asia
127% South-Eastern Asia
95% Eastern Asia
.
132% Oceania
.
129% Central America
125% Northern America
121% South America
112% Caribbean
Comments like this make me a little nervous, because there is an extreme danger that the shocking death rates in Africa will be seen as basically necessary for the survival of the world.
Progressives were behind eugenics before and still push the agenda. They feel a need to save the planet. It did fine before they were here.
But plague = social upheaval?
So then, what have the threat of nuclear weapons caused? World peace?
Yes....plaque begot social changes, indeed. When the masses lost faith in The Church...whole diff paradigms of thought emerged.
(Oops, will I be asked to prove that! Haha)
Whisperings of, Maybe the Sun doesn't revolve us...
Maybe we could find a New World to populate and not be under The Church's rule... I think it may have influenced Luther and Calvin, yes.
It certainly would have influenced MY Christian thinking about Church and God back then!
Nuclear weapons, having exploded or the mere threat...you think that has not influenced us?
They brought about a whole generation of peace lovers, flower children, mind/drug exploration,
asceticism, let alone the influx and receptivity of Eastern spirituality...because what we knew
was not bringing us happiness...that was clear.
Despite the enormous volume of yes votes coming from the heart, the vast majority of historical scholars concur that it would not have happened without the black death. While I wish it could have happened in happier times, not a single person on this forum has the expertise of the scholars that already settled this issue. It was a terrible event, but having people with inadequate knowledge of history defy those with immense educations will not change the reality of the world.
Hang on there. I have exactly the credentials required for this debate, and I've been following this thread because it's fun to see what people think, but this comment strikes me as silly.
Part of the point of studying history is that we don't know what would have happened. We never will. So, no question is ever fully resolved. The process of asking these kinds of big questions reveals as much about our own selves as it does about the past - the example of this thread is that people are debating without a clear definition of what "the Renaissance" really was. Scholars define it in many ways - historians of economics, politics, art, literature, science, religion and so on all see different things in this question. There's no one answer, because the Renaissance would simply have been different without the plague - if I assigned this question to my university students, it would not be a yes or no debate: the question would be "in what ways would the Renaissance have been different without the plague?"
History isn't multiple choice or yes/no; it's a discussion that never ends. That's also the point of the "immense educations" in the quote above: not to end debates with quick answers, but to help others see that the questions themselves are infinitely complicated and interesting.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
