Episode 20 Late Middle Age Disasters: Climate and Plague

The Middle Ages Around the World

Dr Joyce E Salisbury

Film Review

Climate change (the Little Ice Age) and the plague brought an end to the (culturally rich) High Middle Ages by unraveling the basic structure of society.

Crops failed worldwide between 1300-1450 AD owing to heavy rainfall that devastated harvests. During the medieval warming period, agriculture had expanded to marginal lands that couldn’t support crops in a colder climate. In Europe, landed gentry reduced peasants’ access to common pasture lands (to increase cultivated crops), leading to the slaughter of one-third of all domestic animals and a big drop in both fertilizer and protein intake.

Without reliable access to food, there was a big increase in vagabonds, begging and rural crime. Malnutrition led to an epidemic of respiratory and gastrointestinal diseases even before the plague started.

According to Dr Salisbury, there were two types of plague: bubonic and pneumonic. The former was transmitted by fleas from black rats, produced “buboes” (inflammation of the lymph nodes and had a 50% fatality rate.

Pneumonic plague was an airborne infection with a 95% fatality rate.

The plague started in Asia and spread quickly along busy trade networks as far north as Scandinavia and as far south as Ethiopia. It was a great equalizer. With feudal lords dying at the same rates as their serfs, peasants began questioning their loyalty to their masters. The ensuing labor shortage not only led to higher wages, but a series of rebellions starting in China in 1351.*

In numerous European cities, workers rebelled against manufacturers and the unrest quickly spread to the countryside. In France in 1358, a peasant rebellion known as the Jacquerie broke in which peasants killed and ate their lords and set fire to their manor houses.

In 1381, English peasant leader John Ball called for complete reform of the social order in which everything would be owned in common. Although he was eventually defeated and executed, his followers successfully burned all the records of manorial duties peasant owed their masters. The revolt ultimately ended the law binding peasants to the land where they were born, allowing peasants to rent and, in some cases, own the property they farmed.

Labor shortages also led to technological innovations, including water pumps to remove water from mines, new salting techniques (allowing fewer fishing vessels to stay at sea longer) and improved ship building technology that produced larger ships manned by smaller crews.

The first wave of plague abated in 1353, only to return in 1361, 1390 and every few decades until the early 18th century. It only disappeared when brown Norwegian rats (who have thicker fur and are more resistant to flea bites) replaced black rats as the predominant species.

*The Chinese Red Turban Rebellion eventually overturned the Yuan dynasty and replaced it with the Ming Dynasty in 1351.

Film can be viewed free with a library card on Kanopy.

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/watch/video/13172786/13172829

Geopolitical changes and the reconfiguration of economic architecture towards the Global South, under the rapidly-growing influence of BRICS+ (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) on the global stage are driving majority of African States to move away the United States draconic hegemony, its hidden ambiguity and obscurity, as well as rules-based political order combined with authoritarianism. Without much doubts, African States are increasingly showing skyline interest in BRICS+, primarily due to its distinctive-focused objectives including global peace, the strategic development paradigms, food and energy security directions in the 21st century and beyond.

Ultimately, African States are shrugging off relations with the Western and European world, alternatively settling for better beneficial economic cooperation and targeting to tap existing opportunities with countries in the Global South. Researchers and policy experts have argued that the main aim within the association is to create conditions for the sustainable development for BRICS+ member countries and their people. There are other several factors or reasons, but for Africa the central question remains what concretely these countries wanted to gain from BRICS+ association. This article explores some of the driving reasons:

Exemplary Leadership

At least, Africa is in search for an exemplary leadership for the next decade. What is really needed is statesmanship, leaders who understand and recognise clearly the basic principles of shaping the future of global collaboration, particularly in the economic architecture. Generally Africa views China, Russia, India and other members of BRICS upholding and advocating for the principles of equality in political participation, respect for sovereignty and integrity as well as complete fairness both in bilateral and multilateral cooperation. That however, the exceptionally poor choice of new BRICS members (Ethiopia and Egypt) in Johannesburg has increasingly wretched the BRICS pursuit of global peace and security. The destructive ill-discipline of two new members was observed when BRICS foreign ministers abruptly closed a meeting in New York in late September 2024, due to Egypt and Ethiopia crashing over UN Security Council reforms, as they apparently considered South Africa and Nigeria would be unsuitable choices as non-veto-voting permanent members. (See further reports on Ethiopia and Egypt’s blatant conflict over Somaliland, in the Horn of Africa).

Beneficial Economic Cooperation

Acknowledging the current low levels of development, African leaders have consistently been forging a broader relations with external powers, on one hand. On the other hand, African States expressed absolute frustration over economic exploitations, foreign multinational financial institutions’ stringent conditions and Western hegemony. As an alternative step, majority are now consolidating their positions based on a balance of interests, and simultaneously prioritizing economic cooperation and partnerships with BRICS, particularly China and Russia. According to information sources monitored, many African countries in the continent have expressed the desire ascend and ready to strictly adhere to the principles outlined by BRICS+ association. Applications filed by African countries conform to the agreed guiding principles, standards, criteria and procedure for BRICS membership expansion. With optimism, it is however expected approx. 15 African States’ applications for membership would be approved during the late October summit – under the motto “Strengthening Multilateralism for Equitable Global Development and Security” – in Kazan, capital city of Republic of Tatarstan. In practical terms, BRICS’ unique enlargement will, in the near future, embrace potential new members from the Global South and Global East.

Despite the challenges, African States have high hopes and will explore the possibility of taking concessionary loans, and/or securing adequate funding through BRICS’ New Development Bank (NDB) which was established in 2015. For the NDB is in steady evolutionary process, but hopes to forge economic partnerships within BRICS+, and facilitate access to diverse markets, enhance trade and investment opportunities across emerging economies. At its annual board meeting, from August 29 to 31, 2024, in South Africa, the NDB restated its insights to offer a more inclusive and flexible approach to financing, support the reshaping long-term development goals, better suited to the unique needs of BRICS members and other developing countries.
BRICS Cooperation with Africa: An Economic Platform for China and Russia.

Cooperation with the “Global South”

In addition, BRICS+ has set significant task to ensure a fairer interconnectedness between states, and enlist their active participation in the reconstruction of global economic architecture away from existing unipolarity. In order to realize this, BRICS plans to introduce new financial payment systems. The concept of ‘de-dollarization’ and the term ‘multipolarity’ are now admired by majority of developing countries in the Global South. An appreciated driver for this process is BRICS platform created to resonate broader common objectives, to engage in steadfast reforms and no doubt, to roadmap better alternative socio-economic and political directions.

While African States continue to forge alternative economic and governance structures that challenge the the Britton Woods institutions, multinational financial system, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund with their existing dynamical network still operate in nearly all countries across Africa. Egypt and Ethiopia (both BRICS members) are engrossed with funding from IMF and the World Bank. For example, Egypt, struggling with economic challenges, recently secured an $8 billion bailout from the western-dominated International Monetary Fund, while Ethiopia, facing financial strain and internal crises of its own, also turned to the IMF for a $3.4 billion loan. This suggests that a significant departure from dollar reliance and existing financial institutions remains a distant prospect. According to June report from the World Bank, Africa’s real GDP growth, which dropped to 3.1 percent in 2023 from 4.1 percent in 2022. Looking forward, however, the economic outlook is more positive, with growth expected to increase to 3.7 percent in 2024 and 4.3 percent in 2025, highlighting the strong resilience of African economies, as it targets access to new markets, investment and technology.

Meanwhile among current members of BRICS, China with a cutting-edge maintains the most admirable robust economic relations with Africa, especially under its policy flagship the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) which it started in 2013 to establish beneficial economic relations and equal opportunities and foster cooperation in the different parts of the world. China’s private sector is now likely to lead trade and investment in Africa, while new initiatives like the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) will promote the growth of region. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), this amounted to a record $282 billion in total trade volume in 2023. Trading largely in military arms and weaponry, Russia has a meagre $25 billion trade statistics with Africa.

Africa’s Security Expectations

An analysis and monitoring show that Africa in dire need of peace and of security, an ingredient for development. Further analysis also highlights African countries’ divergent interests in politics, economy and social spheres. The same applies to their foreign policies with external partners, while majority still pursues a multi-alignment strategy, engaging with both the U.S. and the other major powers.

The current Commander of the U.S. Africa Command, Michael E. Langley, stated that the purpose of the command is to work alongside African military personnel to support their military operations. The White House official documents categorically stated that Africa Command “will strengthen our security cooperation with Africa and create new opportunities to bolster the capabilities of our partners in Africa. Africa Command will enhance our efforts to bring peace and security to the people of Africa and promote our common goals of development, health, education, democracy, and economic growth in Africa.”

Over the past decades, Africa’s security objectives have remained fragmented, and in many countries the United States African Command (AFRICOM), responsible for U.S. military operations, including fighting regional conflicts, has terribly failed to attain their purpose of creating military bases on the continent. It has huge yearly budget for sustaining military relations with 53 African States.

With the changing geopolitical tides, African Union (AU) and individual African States now envision to re-align with BRICS+ to address peace and security questions throughout the continent. BRICS+ has become Africa’s salvation. Russia has contributed immensely towards the expulsion of Europeans, particularly France out of French-speaking States in West Africa. These included Burkina Faso, Malian Republic and Niger. The Horn of Africa is still in delicate fragile situation. In a few other places such Mozambique, Guinea and Chad partially get financial support for military operations from Europe and the United States.

The Declaration adopted at the XV BRICS Summit held in South Africa, reiterated absolute commitment to inclusive multilateralism towards supporting peace and security in Africa. It underscored “commitment to the peaceful resolution of differences and disputes through dialogue and inclusive consultations in a coordinated and cooperative manner and support all efforts conducive to the peaceful settlement of crises.”

It finally stressed commitment to multilateralism and to the central role of the United Nations which are prerequisites to maintain peace and security. And for this, it is imperative to refrain from any coercive measures not based on international law and the UN Charter.

Critical Weak Points

In reaction at the first stage in deciding whether to expand, BRICS has to guide against its internal instability and possible negative influence. The association should seriously consider the importance of reviewing and working on its basic instruments, instead of making any hasty decisions. BRICS is looking to the Global South – developing countries with sharp disparities but together account for 40 per cent of the world’s GDP and 80 per cent of its population.

Many analysts have made powerful narratives that BRICS policies may not bring any real change because of diverging interests in politics, economy and culture. Many have different perceptions about the essence of what often referred to as a multipolar world. While expressing readiness to leverage unto BRICS platform which is largely considered symbolic in the current geopolitical situation, there are many practical things that are difficult to promote. Notwithstanding that, new BRICS members have multiple domestic issues to settle and still have to traditionally rely on western institutions. Shifting their alliance away from these institutions implies driving a sharp-edged dagger into the dynamics of their economic development. Russia has made an economic impact especially in Africa and Asian countries, in addition to China and India, despite the fact that its agenda is dominated by the Ukraine war.

BRICS Under Russia’s Presidency

Today, new players representing the Global South and Global East have stepped onto the international political stage. The geopolitical ambitions of the new global players are buttressed by their economic potential. Their numbers are growing, according Foreign Affairs Minister Sergey Lavrov, and to support his argument, he made reference to President Vladimir Putin who said at the G20 extraordinary summit on November 2023, that a “significant portion of global investment, trade and consumer activity is shifting to the Asian, African and Latin American regions, which are home to the majority of the world’s population.”

At the Primakov Readings held in Moscow, Sergey Lavrov further remarked “the trends shaping the multipolar order are new realities. The unbalanced and unfair model of globalization is becoming a thing of the past. The emergence of new global development centres, the increasing self-awareness of many developing countries and their refusal to blindly follow former colonial powers.

As often understandably described, BRICS countries represent about 46% of the world’s population and over 36% of global GDP, according to recent estimates by global financial institutions. As an informal association, its aim is to amplify the voice of major emerging economies to counterbalance the Western-centered global order and related structured institutions. In a nutshell, BRICS, as a symbol of multipolarity, overlooks its role in highlighting the huge deficiencies and enormous challenges of the existing international framework. It was founded in 2006 by Russia, Brazil, India and China, with South Africa joining in 2010. In January 2024, it expanded to include Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

[…]

Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/african-states-joining-brics/5870379

by David Turver

Over the past few months, the newswires have been hot with stories about the large-scale data centres that will be required to meet the needs of the forthcoming revolution in Artificial Intelligence (AI). How much electricity will these new data centres consume and what does that mean for the electricity demand forecasts underpinning the plans for Net Zero?

Recent Date Centre Announcements

To give a flavour of the scale of data centre developments that are coming, it is helpful to look at recent announcements from large tech companies. Back in March, it was announced that Amazon had bought a 960MW data centre that is powered by an adjacent nuclear power station. In April, Mark Zuckerberg CEO of Meta that owns Facebook and Instagram said energy requirements may hold back the build out of AI data centres. He also talked about building data centres that would consume 1GW of power.

Last month, Oracle chairman Larry Ellison announced that Oracle was designing a data centre that would consume more than 1GW that would be powered by three small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). Then Microsoft also got in on the act when it announced it had done a deal with U.S. utility Constellation to restart the 835MW Three Mile Island (TMI) Unit 1 nuclear power plant to power its data centres. Anxious not to be left out, Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google said they too were working on 1GW data centres and saw money being invested in SMRs.

Finally, Sam Altman of OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT has trumped them all by pitching the idea of 5GW data centres to the White House. Altman has been heard talking of building five to seven of these leviathans.

Bloomberg, usually a driver of the Net Zero band wagon, has reluctantly admitted that there’s not enough clean energy – nuclear or otherwise – to satisfy AI’s voracious appetite and gas will have to fill the gap. America’s national security and energy security is eclipsing climate concerns.

This admission is important because it acknowledges that such important infrastructure cannot rely upon the vicissitudes of the weather. These data centres need a source of electricity that is reliable and always available. It would be absurd to think that a ChatGPT user will want to receive a message saying their request cannot be processed because it is not windy enough.

Scale of AI Energy Demand

When companies bandy about such large numbers it is sometimes difficult to visualise just how big they are. For context, consider that a 1GW data centre would consume 8.76TWh of electricity each year. Seven of Altman’s enormous 5GW data centres would consume 306.6TWh. According to DUKES data (Table 5.6) the UK generated 292.6TWh in 2023. The plans for ChatGPT alone would consume more electricity in a year than the U.K., the sixth largest economy in the world, managed to generate. Now consider what the total demand is going to be when you add in the requirements the likes of Amazon, Oracle, Microsoft, Meta, Google and X.

Net Zero Electricity Plans

Clearly, AI energy demand is going to be huge and if we want to compete in this new industry, we are going to need cheap, reliable and abundant energy. However, the plans for U.K. electricity use in 2050 are tiny by comparison. The Royal Society assumed 570TWh of annual demand in its report on long term storage. In their latest FES report, the NG ESO assumed a total 615-719TWh of demand across Industrial & Commercial, Residential and Transport sectors in their pathways that achieve Net Zero by 2050. The RS report relies solely on wind and solar renewables plus hydrogen storage whereas the FES report supplements renewables with BECCS, gas with carbon capture, together with some nuclear and hydrogen. It is easy to see how the AI revolution could consume an extremely high proportion, or even all the electricity that is being planned for 2050. It is difficult to see how there is going to be enough electricity to go around.

We are already way off-track to deliver the renewables capacity for both Labour’s 2030 target and the Royal Society’s 2050 plan. There is precious little chance of accelerating delivery to meet electricity demand that might easily be twice the current estimates. Of course, they are also relying upon what they euphemistically call Demand Side Response, otherwise known as turning off companies and domestic appliances at times of high demand or in plain terms energy rationing. A rickety power system where data centres can be turned off at short notice (even if they are paid to do so) will not be robust enough for the AI industry, which is why so many of them are talking about nuclear power. However, only last week we learned that an appointee to the DESNZ Board of Commissioners is actively opposed to nuclear power.

This all puts in doubt Blackstone’s recently agreed deal to invest £10 billion in a new data centre complex in Blyth. With the Government recently announcing we have the most expensive industrial electricity costs of the 28 countries covered by the IEA, there has to be a significant risk that the project does not go ahead. Remember, the same Blyth site was once earmarked to manufacture energy-intensive EV batteries and that deal fell through.

We can see that plans for expensive, scarce energy are not only damaging existing industries, they are also hampering our ability to compete to host the industries of the future. We need to radically change our energy policy before it is too late. As the Amazon and Microsoft investments demonstrate, nuclear needs to play a much bigger role in our future energy mix. We need much more of it and we need it now.

[…]

Via https://dailysceptic.org/2024/10/14/open-ai-wants-to-build-data-centres-that-would-consume-more-electricity-per-year-than-the-whole-of-the-u-k/

The Deep State is the permanently entrenched bureaucracy that really runs a country.

It is THE establishment.

While the Deep State concept is commonly associated with the US government, many other countries have their own versions.

Looking at what happens in those countries when an outsider comes to power can help us better understand what the Deep State might do in the US.

If an outsider somehow comes to power, there are three possible outcomes:

1. The Deep State kills the outsider.
2. The outsider succeeds in crippling the Deep State and can implement an independent agenda.
3. The Deep State co-opts the outsider.

Numerous examples of this dynamic have played out in different countries in recent history.

Outcome #1: The Deep State Kills the Outsider

A prominent example of the Deep State killing an outsider is the assassination of JFK.

In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi was an outsider. However, Morsi did not break the back of the Egyptian Deep State, which swiftly overthrew him. Morsi later died in prison of a “heart attack.”

Economic Hit Man John Perkins claims the Deep State assassinated Jaime Roldos and Omar Torrijos, independent leaders of Ecuador and Panama after they resisted being co-opted.

Outcome #2: The Outsider Cripples the Deep State

In Cuba, Fidel Castro’s revolution was able to prevail because he crippled the old Cuban Deep State. Had Castro left the old Cuban Deep State intact, it likely would have overthrown and killed him.

In Iran, there was the Islamic Revolution in 1979 that threw out the US-backed Shah. It succeeded because Khomeini broke the back of the old Iranian Deep State through violent purges of the military and security agencies.

In Russia, it seems Putin was able to tame the old Russian Deep State to a large degree by successfully taking on the oligarchs and making an example out of Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

In Turkey, Erdogan was once considered an outsider. Erdogan came within minutes of losing his life during a military coup in 2016 and was lucky to survive. After that coup failed, Erdogan seems to have tamed Turkey’s Deep State by purging and restructuring the military and intelligence agencies.

In El Salvador, Bukele was a genuine outsider. He successfully broke the old El Salvador Deep State, which the US Deep State really ran. He did this by neutralizing the violent gangs, which would have been the primary way the Deep State would have destabilized Bukele.

Outcome #3: The Deep State Co-Opts the Outsider

Trump’s first term is an excellent example of how the Deep State co-opted an outsider.

There are supposed outsiders in Europe like Giorgia Meloni in Italy or Geert Wilders in the Netherlands. However, they displayed no intent or capability to take on the Deep State in Europe and were easily co-opted by it.

It seems that Fico in Slovakia was too independent for his own good. He barely survived an assassination attempt. I suspect he received the message and will get in line.

A Potential Trump Second Term

The main takeaway from these examples is that an outsider will not succeed in implementing an independent agenda unless he can take on the Deep State and win.

That is a dangerous proposition because there is a good chance the Deep State will kill him first.

Few leaders are willing to take that kind of gamble with their lives. Even fewer succeed.

That’s why many outsiders conclude it’s better to play ball with Deep State.

There is a decent chance Trump could return to the White House in a matter of months.

It’s important to keep this dynamic about the Deep State in mind as we assess the investment implications of Trump’s potential second term.

Given the recent assassination attempts, which nearly succeeded, it seems the Deep State felt Trump was going to be too independent in a second term.

• Is Trump willing and able to cripple the Deep State?
• Or will he be co-opted, as he largely was during his first term?

If I had to guess, I think Trump understood the message and will be co-opted if he is elected again—which is a big if.

Here’s the bottom line.

In order for Trump to be able to implement an independent agenda, he must:

1. Survive further Deep State assassination attempts.
2. Overcome cheating, a hostile media, and other shenanigans to win an election that will be rigged against him in every way possible.
3. Make the fateful decision to take on the Deep State.
4. Succeed in crippling the Deep State.

The odds of ALL of these things happening are tiny.

Many people want Trump to be a savior, but it’s not the way to bet—at least given current circumstances.

If investors want to plan for a potential second Trump term, the base case scenario is that the permanently entrenched bureaucracy that really runs a country will co-opt him.

That means we can expect Trump in a second term to continue with the same overall agenda but with a different flavor.

The Deep State’s overall agenda seems to be focused on perpetuating the US-led world order. In other words, the US government’s unmatched global dominance it has enjoyed since the end of World War 2.

The Deep State doesn’t care if Trump implements different social policies or other inconsequential domestic pet projects, so long as he does not do anything to fundamentally alter the dominance of the US in the world—like cutting the US government down to a limited Constitutional Republic with no foreign entanglements.

For example, with a new Trump administration, we will likely see the current anti-Russian focus substituted with an anti-China one. The idea is to continue pursuing a policy of US global hegemony but with a different flavor.

A new anti-China focus means we can expect:

• Trade protectionism
• Economic sanctions
• Trade embargoes
• Disruption of supply chains

Trump has also proposed devaluing the dollar to make US exports more competitive, so we can expect more currency debasement too.

Here’s the bottom line.

With the most pivotal election on the horizon, we’ve just entered the most turbulent period in US history…

It will be more dangerous than the 1930s, the 1940s, and even the 1860s.

That’s because severe crises are brewing on multiple fronts and converging.

The whole system will have a complete reset, and soon.

[…]

Via https://internationalman.com/articles/the-deep-state-and-the-2024-election/

Rhoda Wilson

The legend of overpopulation was born in the 1960s.  Since then, population alarmists have fantasised that global overpopulation will cause mass migration, overcrowded slums and megacities covering continents, diseases and pollution, chaos and violence over energy, water and food, and humans focussed only on sustaining themselves.

Even using the guestimates of current global populations, these apocalyptic prophecies are not true.

Interestingly, the 2016 video above was sponsored by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.  Considering Gates is overly keen on vaccines which are doing more harm than good and often seen as one of the Globalists’ depopulation tools, perhaps Bill Gates is regretting he helped put out a video that debunks the overpopulation myth.

The following is the article ‘Is Overpopulation a Myth?’ published by Science Alert on 28 December 2016.

There are currently around 7.47 billion people living on our planet, a figure that’s made all the crazier when you consider that there were only 2.3 billion in 1940. But as that number continues to steadily rise, what will it mean for us as a civilisation?

Overpopulation is one of those issues that many people think might lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it. And on paper, it makes sense: if we have too many people, we will exhaust our resources, leading to famine, war, and many other devastating issues. David Attenborough certainly thinks so.

The problem here, though, is that overpopulation isn’t really that simple. The good news for us is that Kurzgesagt is back with another video (above) to break down the truth behind the hype.

As the video explains, the concern about overpopulation started back in the 1960s when a population boom – spurred on by the end of World War II – caused a bunch of doomsday hypotheses to emerge about what would happen if the Earth were covered head-to-toe in humanity. Eventually, cities would be overrun and we’d all run out of resources, right?

Kurzgesagt argues that this is a misconception because population growth is not a runaway problem. It’s controlled by a four-stage process that is intricately connected to economics, and much of the world has already been through most of the steps.

This four-step process – known as the demographic transition – is a model of how populations change over time in industrialised societies. In summary, the transition happens when economies foster better life expectancy, leading to a boom, then a slowdown, and finally an evening off of population growth.

To illustrate this, the video jumps back to the 18th century when the world wasn’t as industrialised as it is today. Back then, women had, on average, between four and six children, though only two of them were likely to make it to adulthood, meaning that a lot of people were born during this time, but many died. This is stage one.

But that high mortality rate shifted once the Industrial Revolution took place because it allowed families to flourish more than ever before. Now, instead of having only two out of five children reach adulthood, all five of them were reaching it, creating the population boom that characterises stage two.

After parents realised that children would make it through childhood, they stopped having so many, and population growth slowed – creating stage three – because parents were only having two or three children instead of the previous five or six.

Eventually, in stage four, society had advanced enough to the point that fewer people were dying and fewer babies were born every year, creating a balanced system that many industrialised nations are still maintaining to this day, according to the video.

But if this balance exists, why do we still hear the term “overpopulation” thrown around all the time? We’ll let Kurzgesagt explain in the video above, but it just goes to show that nothing is as black and white as we think it is – not even overpopulation.

Featured image: What Is the Malthusian Theory of Population? Economics Online, 29 July 2021

[…]

Via https://expose-news.com/2024/10/16/the-theory-of-overpopulation-is-ungrounded/

Episode 19 High Middle Ages in the Americas

The Middle Ages Around the World

Dr Joyce E Salisbury

Film Review

Dr Salisbury estimates the  medieval population of the Americas was about 100 million (more than all of Europe). American population growth was driven by the domestication of corn around 9000 years ago. Originating in Mesoamerica, these crops spread northward, reaching the Mississippi and Missouri River basin between 950-1000AD. For the most part early Native Americans practiced slash and burn agriculture,* with corn, beans, squash as their main the main staples. Their only domesticated animals were dogs, turkeys, guinea pigs, llamas and alpacas. Llamas and alpaca, which were also used for meat, were their only work animals.

North American Civilizations

• Mayan Empire

By 1000 AD, the great Mayan empire had fragmented through encroachment of other tribes on their territory, though several Mayan cities persisted. They were great mathematicians and astronomers and used the concept of zero centuries before the rest of the world. They practiced human sacrifice to guarantee the fertility of their crops. The Aztecs migrated into Mexico in 1300.

• Mississippian Civilization

In North America, the arrival of corn, rice and beans from Central America spurred the birth of the Mississippian civilization (along the Mississippi/Missouri River tributaries), which engaged in long distance trade along both rivers, obtaining copper from the Great Lakes and seashells from Florida. Their largest city Cahokia reached a population of 20,000-40,000 people/

In 1000 AD, warmer weather and improved food production also supported the development of the Chaco Canyon civilization by the Anastasi (ancestors of the Pueblo). Their total population reached 2,000 in 15 main complexes. Their pueblo apartment buildings were the tallest buildings in North America until the 19th century. Some were six stories tall up to 600 rooms. They practiced irrigation agricultural, using dams in nearby canyons to capture and divert rainwater. Increasing drought led inhabitants to abandon Chaco Canyon at the end of the 12th century.

South American Civilizations

• Andean Civilizations

The Andean civilizations owed their success to domestication of potatoes, which grow at altitudes up 1,000 feet and can remain in the ground up to a year – or even longer with freeze drying – without spoiling. They also ate sweet potatoes and llama and alpaca meat and grew cotton, which they mixed with alpaca and llama wool to weave into blankets and clothing, which were valuable trade items. These civilizations civilizations also smelted copper (a skill that spread to North America), as well as gold and silver.

The Chimor Empire (in modern day Peru) reached its peak in 1000 AD. Its inhabitants used irrigation consisting of “walk-in” wells and reservoirs. The Chimor capitol Chun was 2 1/2 square miles in area and had five ceremonial centers. Only elites and artisans (weavers and metal workers) were allowed to live there. Commoners lived outside the city walls. Practicing ancestor worship, they believed their king was a god. Because his mummified body continued to occupy his home and his descendants had to build new palaces of their own.

They traded with Chile and Mesoamerica. Their most high prized commodity were shells that highly paid divers pried off rocks on the ocean floor. The king used his accumulated wealth to pay armies to conquer neighboring tribes. The Empire began to fail due to a 200-year drought in 1000AD. In 1470 they were conquered by the Inca, who adopted their culture.

• Amazon Basin Civilizations

During the Middle Ages, the Amazon River basin was home to around 5 million people who built pyramids and lived in major population center.  Some took the form of villages stretching up to 20 miles along the river.

Although most Amazonian soil is too acid to be fertile, soil, around 6000 years ago, these cultures accidentally increased its fertility by burying food waste and charcoal.* Archeologists have found evidence of cultivation beds up to 1200 acres, in which indigenous resident grew manioc, squash and sweet potatoes. This was addition to the  food forests of nut and fruit trees they created

*Other sources suggest the Amazonian’s use of biochar wasn’t accidental. See https://biochar.co.nz/about-biochar

Film can be viewed free with a library card on Amazon.

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/watch/video/13172786/13172827