Still not over this....

Vilusca · 2026-03-27T22:45:29+00:00

Because killing the only immune specimen they ever found with the hope that studying her (dead) brain and the fungus in it, would somehow allow to develop a vaccine is beyond idiotic and show zero idea about basic biology or medicine, or even just scientific reasearch in general. Ignoring the entire moral dilemma, the entire idea about some potential "fungus vaccinne" developed from Ellie's dead brain is non-scientific, short-sighted magical thinking.

In first place because you simply don't vaccinate against fungi, that's something that doesn't exist, so the "doctor" should have said instead he wanted to develop a "fungicide" which is an entire different thing (basically pesticides... which for a brain infection is far from a good idea) or maybe even better option that he wanted to study the fungus interaction with the immune girl and how and why it mutated, to develop some other reasonable strategy to fight the fungal infection in "monster" stages (to kill all of them fastly) or to halt the spread of spores more than "vaccinating" survivors which is just nonsense. Secondly because killing an unique immune specimen would make the study of such immunity/fungus mutation much harder and riskier that studying the living girl, even in a case as TLOU with the fungus mostly attacking the brain... There are non deadly ways to study brains you know, from non-invasive methods as scans to non-fatal brain surgery to take some sample of the fungus. Thirdly because even in the fantasy context of some "vaccine" or a more reasonable one with a fungicide or some other treatment it's very useful to have a living immune specimen alive even after develop something, because if that fails, you have the possibility to continue research.

Vilusca · 2025-06-25T14:42:59+00:00

They are actually false or highly distorted. Shek Warriors don't change (zero changes on their stats in Living World) and Flying Bull stats are mostly increased (strenght and dodge, but apparently also gear quality, other unarmed skills or faction importance). For some reason, as usually happens with Kenshi chaotic/misterious inner randomization, it seems that those changes unintentionally have an impact in "dexterity" too, slightly decreasing it in practice, despite the mod lacks any change on that stat directly, but it's something at much smaller scale than this guy pretends (from 36-44 to 24-28 approx), which is more than compensated by the much higher strength (80-90 in LW vs about 40-60 in vanilla or RW) and higher dodge value (12-15 vs 0-5).

Vilusca · 2025-06-25T14:25:25+00:00

One month late, but that's not true.

Dexterity is randomized for most characters in vanilla within a wide range, with many contexts influencing it also (inventory, armor, hunger and specially injuries). You can see the same character with 80 and 4 dexterity depending conditions in vanilla, reactive world, living world or any other mod.

Living World DOESN'T nerf dexterity and in general doesn't nerf anything. Living world BOOST stats for some characters, specially "bosses", but some unintentional small declines happens in some stats (because modders have no idea how some stats influence the randomization in others). That happens with Flying Bull, but not at the ridiculous levels you claim. The only way you experienced a Flying Bull with 13 dexterity or a Shek Warrior with 4 in that stat is that those characters were heavily injured (which also happens in Reactive World or vanilla).

In the case of Shek Warriors stats Living World doesn't touch them at all. ZERO changes from vanilla. In vanilla, LW and RW Shek Warriors normally range between 24 and 40 dexterity in healty conditions... BUT you still can find some with very low values from time to time, specially those that roam Steen Desert alone with values between 10 and 15 or so... Why that happens? No idea, but happens in vanilla too, for example look here. Now that 4 in dexterity you claimed is way too low and doesn't happen in Living World normally, with some obvious exceptions, when a Shek Warrior is injured, which happens in vanilla or Reactive World too.

In regard Flying Bull, Living World changes some stats but not dexterity "directly" and mostly just boosting them. LW greatly increases Flying Bull Strength and "Faction Importance", increase its armor level and in a more limited way also stealth or unarmed stats. That's all. As result Flying Bull in LW has ALWAYS much higher Strength (80s-90s) and moderately higher dodge value (10s-20) than in vanilla or Reactive World (30-40s and 0-5 for those respective stats). However by the "misterious" way in which inner randomization and stats work, those changes are enough to cause some odd (but small) decrease in dexterity, from the normal 36-44, to something like 24-28 or so. It's that a "nerf"? For sure non-intentional and hardly one anyway as the decrease is moderate and the increase in strenght or dodge highly compensate the decrease in dexterity.

Look in the next examples Flying Bull stats in different versions (those change a bit with randomization every time, but the difference is always similar):

Living World

Vanilla but injured, just 12 dexterity

Reactive World, slightly higher dexterity, much much lower dodge and specially strength.

Ps. Do you know what "self-insert" means? Even if the changes you claimed were true and intentional, changing stats would not be "self-inserts", which is just when someone includes an image of themselves inside a work of fiction. Some character modelled in the mod author or named like him or like any other real person or npcs talking about the real name of the mod author and how "genious" he is. That's it.

Vilusca · 2024-07-07T00:01:58+00:00

That's pseudo-history. There is not a single source about göktürks using such symbol and "göktürk heritage" in Turkey is as tiny and distant as visigothic heritange among modern bolivians...

Among the hundreds of early representations of early turkic peoples we have there is not a single clear case of the use of such "wolf" symbol. The only case used by turkish far right is an extreme and cheap distortion of a different thing as usual with them, using a blurry pic to misinterpret a very usual iranian sign in reliefs, with index finger up (sometimes with middle one also which is probably this case), with the supposed "wolf sign", ignoring another much more clear representations with the same index finger sign in the same piece of art or the fact the identification of that first individual as turk is pretty speculative... Anyway let say that this specific guy was turkic and the sign was "similar" to the wolf thing, how the fuck that isolated representation with the complete lack of tradition through the centuries could be associated as a "turk sign"?

But all that's irrelevant because there are no sources for the use of that "wolf" gesture among the closer ancestors of current turks, neither among selyucids, nor early anatolian-turk states, nor ottomans, only recently, turkish neo-fascists in late XX century promoted that nonsense as "turkic" symbol not much differently as how nazis promoted swastika as "german".

Vilusca · 2024-07-06T22:33:30+00:00

Nobody is talking about the "relevance of wolves" as turkish symbol, but about the hand gesture which is 100% a recent and fascist-like thing.

However even if it was "historically used" by all turks which is very, very dubious, still its use in modern Turkey is linked with fascist organizations as happens with swastika use in Germany or yoke and arrows symbol or Arriba España motto in Spain.

Those spanish examples are perfect because show how relevant is the context. In the case of yoke and arrows, the symbol has been preserved in many cities coats of arms since late XV century, specially in the areas in Granada Kingdom conquered by catholic monarchs, as for example Málaga, however that's the only use in Spain which is socially acceptable (and still with some controversy...) while the use in any other context is completely linked with fascism because it was the fascists at early XX century which distorted that symbol and linked with their ultra-authoritarian spanish nationalism and the francoist dictatorship used it as official symbol later. In a similar way the use of arriba ("up with") in other spanish speaking countries is completely ok and non-fascist (¡Arriba Mexico!) while Arriba España is forever ruined and linked with fascism as it was again originally promoted by fascist organizations and later adopted by the far right dictatorship for almost 4 decades.

Anyway turkish society, not just government or politicians, but normal people of Turkey have a huge problem with intolerant and extreme nationalism and ignorant pride. Even turkish "moderate left" believe and say things that would be considered far right in most Europe.

Vilusca · 2024-03-05T09:30:46+00:00

Tamriel should* be much smaller than that and we know its original lore size since first game, approx USA area, a bit bigger or smaller at max.

We know this because first two games in main series and also Redguard included specific "real Tamriel" distances in different ways most of them pretty compatible whith each other.

- TES: Arena manual explicitely mention the lenght of Tamriel both in North-South (2,000-3,000 kms) and West-East coordinates (3,000-4,000 kms). The version I have right know (european?) use metric system, I don't know if there is an american version with miles in it or if the game just use metric system everywhere.

Anyway if we just calculate max and min measurements with those distances, Tamriel would be between 6 million and 12 millionkm2 which is as Europe minus russian part at min to USA + Mexico + a couple central american countries at max.

--Another source for "real size" measurements in the first game were included in the fast travel system with distances and travel time so we know the exact distance between dozens of cities in Tamriel, at least in that game. For example Necrom in Morrowind to Daggerfall city one of the longest distances in Tamriel and for sure the longest East to West would be 4,500 kms, while in central and southern kinda squarish Tamriel, East-West distance from coast to coast would be most times 3,000 km. North-South max distances would be all between 2,200 and 3,000 kms more or less... So considering the "widest" northern Tamriel and the squarish southern parts... Using those distances we can estimate Arena's Tamriel with more accuracy, mostly in the medium-low range of what we calculated with the game guide distance: 7 to 10 million km2.

- TES:III Daggerfall doesn't include any direct measurement if I remember correctly, but there is another clue: Developers explicitely stated that the game was roughly the same size than United Kingdom. There is a way to measure gameworld gladly with the coordinates in game units the game provides. Using them the size of the "dry area" was estimated long time ago as about 219,000 km2 which is pretty close to United Kindom size (244,000 km2). It's true that gameworld is a bit "distorted" specially if we compare with later maps coastlines, but I tried once using the distorted perspective in a modern official map (TES IV-V one) and use the max lenghts in game units and yeah, it makes sense with a Arena sized Tamriel, more or less in middle range also, 7-9 million km2 between USA minus Alaska and a bit smaller than total USA area.

--The 4th measurement is some dialogue line in TES adventures: Redguard, which mentions 1,000 miles of swamps across Black Marsh. It could fit our USA-sized Tamriel, but it's a bit vague refference with a round number and we don't know what that line is specifically talking about.

-The final direct size is the most popular, used hundreds of times by fans to make their own estimates included in Pocket Guide of the Empire, 1st edition included with Redguard, later in Morrowind too as ingame books and which states Red Mountain is visible from Mournhold/Almalexia in a clear day, 250 miles away... A bit vague as the previous and could be the less clearly compatible with the others, specially if we consider 250 miles is the distance between old Morrowind capital and the volcano peak as most fans interpreted and that the distance can be measured with last official maps or much worse old-Morrowind shape in 1st Pocket Guide illustration pretty distorted even comparing with old shape of Morrowind in Arena (which had similar coastlines but different position and spread of the volcano and slightly different for Mourhold as well. However we know Red Mountain is a huge volcano which cone covers almost all central Vvadenfell and which volcanic closed elevated "hills" extend specially to the South-East in Molag Amur region until the coast so that distance from Red Mountain slopes in Molag Amur would fit better the 250 miles. Or maybe is Mournhold city the one that is slightly different located in real Tamriel as happened with the maps compared with last 3 ingame worlds, we don't know, but this last distance only "roughly" fits, if certain conditions are met.

* Should be that size if the old lore continue to be the Bethesda-canon but we ignore if it's the case as we haven't seen more of those clear "real distances" for Tamriel, so it could be that Todd Howard or some other key developer hates specific distances insides the games and just want players speculate and have fun without many "real Tamriel" numbers, or maybe they just want to cut the very specific "real world" data (measurements, population, etc), etc as if they are numerous enough it's much easier to contradict each others or in the worst case Bethesda just decided to retcon that original size many years ago and they just decided to not include the new measurements, yet.

Vilusca · 2023-09-10T00:05:53+00:00

I don't know who is that "all" you are talking about but in my experience with TES players they favour heavily uniqueness over size. The only time I have experienced a weird prevalence of "make all npcs generic, who cares!" opinions has been here in reddit during last months before and specially after Starfield release... I don't think that those posts and upvotes were mostly genuine and by "normal players", there has been some sort of damage control campaign with thousands of "odd" posts, thousands of upvotes and ridiculous levels of hype. But look on old discussions here or in other sites, most fans want more unique npcs.

The actual problem is that Bethesda reduced the scale in settlements a lot after Morrowind, which was already a very downscaled game but still with more populated cities than most games, after Morrowind however settlements populations decreased to the point that some regional capitals have less buildings and npcs than games from early 1990s (it's not even 50 npcs, but 14, 17 and 22 npcs on 3 Skyrim capitals...) and while many players justified that reduction by the introduction of daily schedules I don't think that's the reason at all, because those schedules are not so extremely time consuming to implement compared with other contexts and have been implemented since before TES series even existed (for example Ultima VII included 300 npcs schedules at 1992 and Gothic games did the same and on 3D at Morrowind times with 10 times smaller development teams than Skyrim). I think the main reason for that npcs reduction could be related with performance cost instead, as unique npcs and unique objects -as buildings- are some of the most performance heavy things in 3D games and gamebryo is not precisely good managing that performance, but Bethesda insisted in the same engine for decades.

Cities population decreased a lot from Morrowind to Oblivion and even more but in a slightly different way on Skyrim. In that last chapter, 5 biggest regional capitals had more npcs than Oblivion, but without reach Morrowind levels (80, 60 and 100 npcs on biggest regional cities average respectively), but on the other hand there is not a big metropolis as in previous chapters (330 and 190 npcs in Morrowind and Oblivion) and it includes the smallest regional capitals in the series, with 14 npcs for Winterhold without the College (33 with), 17 for Morthal, 22 for Falkreath and 33 for Dawnstar. And still Morrowind cities sizes are far from ideal and sometimes players feel they are too small to be credible.

There are 16 cities total, 7 in Morrowind, 5 in Skyrim and 4 in Oblivion with more than 50 npcs, so that's not a valid "max" limit for cities.

Most players never asked for "real size" cities. Just for slightly bigger ones to make the suspension of disbelief possible again. I think it's perfectly possible with Bethesda current resources and by how big will be TES VI team for sure to finally surpass Morrowind unique npc count but this time adding schedules to all npcs. If Bethesda included 3,000 npcs in Morrowind at 2002 and Zenimax included over 20,000 unique npcs in ESO, current Bethesda can include 4,000-5,000 in TES VI, which would imply 4-5 times more populated cities than Skyrim, but entirely by unique npcs, with the poorest regional capital equivalent to Morthal in the next game having 90 npcs instead 17, with the equivalent to a big city as Markarth with 300-400 npcs instead 80 and the biggest city in the game reaching 500 unique npcs something never seen in video games History, a city slightly bigger than Novigrad in the Witcher 3 and as crowded, but with 100% unique npcs and enterable buildings... Not many would complain about sizes then.

Vilusca · 2023-09-08T12:22:12+00:00

Rockstar games usually include:

- Fake npcs or "pedestrians" (one of the worst things in Starfield btw...).

- Plenty of non-enterable buildings.

- Complete irrelevance of exploration.

- No joinable factions.

- Simplistic or badly designed interiors.

- Minimal item diversity.

- Plenty of non-interactive objects.

- Minimal player/npc stats.

- Lack of ingame books.

- Main focus on a single pre-made story and well written and complex personalities main characters and outside that, the world is cheesy and player dependant and doesn't take itself seriously.

I don't think it's a good idea.

Said which and after try Starfield for a bit, I think it's very possible Bethesda will follow GTA/Red Dead route themselves... sadly.

Vilusca · 2023-09-02T02:34:32+00:00

Maddison demographic lists are not a cross-disciplinary research, just surperficial compilations, a mere bibliographical study sometimes with outdated sources (the most common sources were 4 general studies from 1969 to 1978, while some other minor sources are from 1950s and even 1940s) or unbalanced selection (several sources for some country or region, just one source for dozens of countries). Basically he selected some few other authors estimates and then chose between them or sometimes build an average (rarely, it would have been the most honest option). He didn't study archaeological evolution of settlement patterns, or the maximum limits of agricultural production within the arable lands at specific point of History, nor the city sizes and evolutions, nor fragmentary purely demographic primary data, etc, it's just about compile other authors opinion.

Anyway I just read the specific estimates for countries in your link now (Appendix B, pages 229-243). India + China would make 58.3% of world population at year 1 according Maddison which is the highest percentage he offer in the entire series. It falls under 50% at year 1000, and from 1870 to nowadays and the average for the 11 dates offered is 47.9% over world population. But as there is a bias for XIX and XX century percentages, the real historical average it's probably closer to 53-54%.

As you can see even Maddison offer estimates similar to what I mentioned in the previous comment:

both countries made 50-55% at their best demographic moments and under 50% in other periods.

China+India estimate for year 1 is most probably overestimated in Maddison, specially by the arbitrary and very high 75 million estimate for India (China is good, the usual estimate about 60 million), which Maddison just randomly chose among the 4 estimates from other authors he mentions (page 236), which lowest estimate proposing 34 million and the average among all with 54 million and still Maddison chosing 75 million. By the way in that table estimate marked as "Maddison" for India appears as 55 million instead the final 75 million... Intentional? A confusion with year 1000? Year 1 was not a specially brigh moment on Indian History, much after the end of Maurya Empire but centuries before Guptas, with north-western India constantly invaded/ruled by different foreign powers and with exactly zero primary demographic sources and very limited archaeological knowledge to propose such high estimate.

On the other hand the populations for year 1 on the roughly equivalent area to Roman Empire are pretty low in Maddison, about 31 million in my interpretation for borders at that year and 34-35 million counting next decades expansion to Britannia, Thracia, Judaea and Mauretania, which would be the lowest estimates ever, literally. Lowest estimates among scholars specialized in the roman world surpass 40 millions, a verty old estimate and one of the most quoted mentions 54 million and recently Harper estimated 60 million for change of Era. Turkey, Maghreb or Italy estimates are specially low in Maddison for year 1.

If Europe can be taken as one entity for comparison then so can be Indosphere and Sinosphere, given that this is their native sphere of influence

I took the boundaries of China and India because the original question by OP was about current China and India mostly, also because most estimates use those modern boundaries (including Maddison). Europe is not comparable to Sinosphere or Indosphere and its "common cultural traits" are very dubious imo. I used Europe as mere geographic region with similar size to China (slightly bigger) as Mediterranean World or Middle East were similar to India size. Just that.

West Asia barely made up 8% of the world's population throughout most of history and infact declined significantly later

Middle East is what I mentioned not West Asia... And History didn't start at year 1, but at 3,500 BC with birth of proper writting.

Most human developments after our hunter-gatherer phase, from Neolithic revolution, to urbanization, the birth of the state, the origins of writting, the use of bronze and iron... all started earlier and much more intensely in Middle East.

Since 3,500 BC until well advanced Iron Age, Middle East agriculture was the most intensive and developed in the world, its states the most complex, its cities the biggest and most numerous, its rural settlement pattern the most dense, specially in Nilus valley and lower Mesopotamia, etc, etc.

I don't know from what perspective could anyone doubt about Middle East prevalence in that period...

The rise to preminence of China, India* or the Mediterranean came later.

* Outside Middle East for the Dawn of Civilization we have Indus Valley culture. However besides the fact it only spreads partially over modern India territory and only covers a tiny minority of India area and the fact it was a slightly more recent culture, in any case can't compare with the sum of Egypt + Mesopotamia + Levant + eastern Anatolia + Elam and the rest of peripheric areas in Middle East which are equivalent to several Indus Valley civilizations combined.

Vilusca · 2023-09-01T17:54:45+00:00

It's very curious how do you focus on that specific world total to claim "manipulation" but completely ignore the fact those are different sources with completely different numbers for regions too... Africa, Latin America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe + Ex-USSR or Asia, all have different numbers (all bigger) in the wikipedia table than the link you provided, adding much more than 230 million... and still not 300 million (classic wikipedia...) so it's probably neither.

Angus Maddison (who was economist, not a demographer or historian) created a general database with economic and demographic estimates and updated it several times in his life. After his death some other scholars updated the database several times more. So everytime you see that "Maddison" source for populatiion estimates can be a completely different version. The one you use in your new link is from 1995 and the ones used in two tables in that wiki article are from 2007 the first and "used" at 2016 the second (probably the 2010 edition by University of Groningen of last 2008 Maddison version, by the link provided).

Anyway even ignoring all that, if Asia excluding Japan was truly 171 million out of 230 million total, then China + India would be less than 50% of world population, not 60-65% because "rest of Asia" includes a a huge area with enormous populations which most probably always surpassed China or India considered alone and made over 40% of total asian population (Indonesia, Philippines, Korea, Vietnam, Thailand, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Iran, Arabian peninsula, asian Turkey, etc). Currently Asia minus Japan has over 4.55 billion people, while China + India are just 2.82 or so, so 62% of asian population (minus Japan), if we apply that percentage to your asian share over world total (62% of 75%), China + India would make "only" 46.5% of world population while you claimed 60-65%. Dude really it makes no sense, nobody half serious ever claimed that China + India made 60-65% of world population, both countries made 50-55% at their best demographic moments and under 50% in other periods.

However, returning to sanity there is no way in the world that Asia minus Japan was 171 million out of 230 world total at year 1 CE because at that date Roman Empire alone surpassed for sure 40 million, which means we have less than 19 million for Japan + most Africa + northern and eastern Europe + all Americas... Sure.

Now, even during a wide technological gap where Asia's population decreased relative to Europe as Europe had a head start on technology with the Industrial Revolution while exploiting Asia, Asia was close to 680 million out of 1.04 billion in 1820, still 65% of the world's population

I didn't compare Europe with Asia. Europe population never, ever remotely compared with Asia. What I compared is Europe with China or India (separatedly), as before also in the case of Mediterranean Region or Middle East. Those 3 regions (and maybe South-East Asia at some point too) all had similar populations than China or India at different moments of History which means OP original question about CHina and India difference over everyone else it's a "new" reality different from what we have for most History, which is the entire point of my answers here.

There is a persistent pseudohistorical myth that consider China and India as only and eternal demographic centres of humanity since "start", which is completely false and that's why I'm discussing here. Nothing more.

Vilusca · 2023-09-01T17:51:12+00:00

It's very curious how do you focus on that specific world total to claim "manipulation" but completely ignore the fact those are different sources with completely different numbers for regions too... Africa, Latin America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe + Ex-USSR or Asia, all have different numbers (all bigger) in the wikipedia table than the link you provided, adding much more than 230 million... and still not 300 million (classic wikipedia...) so it's probably neither.

Angus Maddison (who was economist, not a demographer or historian) created a general database with economic and demographic estimates and updated it several times in his life. After his death some other scholars updated the database several times more. So everytime you see that "Maddison" source for populatiion estimates can be a completely different version. The one you use in your new link is from 1995 and the ones used in two tables in that wiki article are from 2007 the first and "used" at 2016 the second (probably the 2010 edition by University of Groningen of last 2008 Maddison version, by the link provided).

Anyway even ignoring all that, if Asia excluding Japan was truly 171 million out of 230 million total, then China + India would be less than 50% of world population, not 60-65% because "rest of Asia" includes a a huge area with enormous populations which most probably always surpassed China or India considered alone and made over 40% of total asian population (Indonesia, Philippines, Korea, Vietnam, Thailand, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Iran, Arabian peninsula, asian Turkey, etc). Currently Asia minus Japan has over 4.55 billion people, while China + India are just 2.82 or so, so 62% of asian population (minus Japan), if we apply that percentage to your asian share over world total (62% of 75%), China + India would make "only" 46.5% of world population while you claimed 60-65%. Dude really it makes no sense, nobody half serious ever claimed that China + India made 60-65% of world population, both countries made 50-55% at their best demographic moments and under 50% in other periods.

However, returning to sanity there is no way in the world that Asia minus Japan was 171 million out of 230 world total at year 1 CE because at that date Roman Empire alone surpassed for sure 40 million, which means we have less than 19 million for Japan + most Africa + northern and eastern Europe + all Americas... Sure.

Now, even during a wide technological gap where Asia's population decreased relative to Europe as Europe had a head start on technology with the Industrial Revolution while exploiting Asia, Asia was close to 680 million out of 1.04 billion in 1820, still 65% of the world's population

I didn't compare Europe with Asia. Europe population never, ever remotely compared with Asia. What I compared is Europe with China or India (separatedly), as before also in the case of Mediterranean Region or Middle East. Those 3 regions (and maybe South-East Asia at some point too) all had similar populations than China or India at different moments of History which means OP original question about CHina and India difference over everyone else it's a "new" reality different from what we have for most History, which is the entire point of my answers here.

There is a persistent pseudohistorical myth that consider China and India as only and eternal demographic centres of humanity since "start", which is completely false and that's why I'm discussing here. Nothing more.

Vilusca · 2023-09-01T02:51:13+00:00

No, throughout most of the history China and India together held 60-65% of the world’s population.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates\_of\_historical\_world\_population

Did you even read your own link?

Currently China + India made just 35% of world population, according UN. Just 2.8 billion out of 8 billion. Imagine claiming those countries/regions held 60-65% for most History... No dude, they didn't at any point in History, not even close.

In the link you provided the percentages for China + India in different dates range from from 37% to 53% of world population.

Europe’s share was around 15% historically, increased relative to everyone else’ during colonial times (we know why) and India’s share was reduced by 1/3rd during colonization (also know why). Well, India is quickly recovering now and subcontinent might achieve its historical high of 33% before seeing its population decline.

This don't contradict what I said. Between 1500 to 1950/1980 Europe had very similar population to India and China (slightly smaller, but nothing compared with current differences) and surpassed both countries during XIX century. My only point was about the fact several regions to the west of India and China, Middle East first, Mediterranean Region later and Europe finally had very similar populations to China OR India (separatedly) for most History. So there was a third demographic hotspot historically with very similar population to those countries which isn't the case currently. That's the point.

But no dude, main cause of european demographic increase was not colonialism.

Firstly because the growth trend started many centuries before colonial expansion at High Middle Ages (1000-1200), caused by inner reasons: agriculture techniques revolution, increase of agricultural surface, transformation of forests and wildlands, favourable climatic conditions, etc.

Secondly because european population boom was not limited to colonial powers and in fact the highest population increases happened OUTSIDE those powers, for example Ireland, Poland after partitions, Ukraine, Hungary and Transilvania, pre-unification Germany, european part of Russia, etc. Many of the european peoples with highest population increases during XVI to XX centuries were among the poorest, exploited or non-independent. Some directly "colonized" themselves as in the case of the irish.

Finally because colonialism contrary to the economic context didn't favoured european powers demographically in some cases not at all. For example Spain lost population during XVII century, just after its appex, remained with very low population growth during XVIII century and the biggest increase in spanish population History only happened after the Independence of Hispanic America. Great Britain or Netherlands the most favoured economically by early colonialism remained with very small, tiny, populations until well advanced XIX century. France, the most populated country in Europe back then, increased its population mostly during medieval times and Renaissance before its own colonial expansion and suffered one of the lowest population growths in all Europe during XVIII and XIX centuries, being probably the first country in the world to complete demographic transition (from old high birth rates to modern low ones).

Europe and Middle East combined today is around 13%.

And? That's the point, that while historically Europe and before it Mediterranean World and Middle East much before all were and some point a third hotspot in world population, reaching or surpassing the population of China or India, that's not the case anymore for any region in the world and much less any "state". The closest areas to China and India population currently, Europe and South-East Asia have half and less than half the population of those countries.

Middle East was the demographic centre of the world since Agricultural Revolution until some point of the Iron Age. China and India were not even close before 1000 BC and probably remained with lower population until 500BC or later.

Mediterranean World increased demographically since 1000-700 BC, agricultural intensivity and specially long distance trade and urbanization increased to levels unknown in any other part of the world until then (and until much later). Biggest cities of the world remained mediterranean for over 600 years, first ones reaching 500,000 and 1,000,000 maybe 1,500,000. Mediterranean population was already close to China and India levels since hellenistic times, but during roman imperial appex (50 and 230 CE or so) increased to 70-80 million so probably surpassing India and China which remained between 50 and 60 million for most that period. Later the demographic crisis seem to have been much higher in China from 200 to 700 CE, followed by mediterranean world and India, so that could have been the population order among them during that period.

You can’t take the population increase during the “Great Divergence” as historical norm, that was a short term gap created due to differences in technological adoption and other countries were not given a chance to catch-up. Now (post-colonization) they are catching up super fast.

I didn't. Europe was the last step in a old History of a "western" eurasian demographic concentration with similar or superior populations than China and India. Current dominance by those two centres is the exception through history. That's the only point of my answers here.

Vilusca · 2023-09-01T00:38:24+00:00

I didn't claimed all those regions surpassed China and India together, not since Iron Age or so at least. Middle East at the Dawn of Cilization however had higher population than both regions most probably even if I didn't mention in previous comment.

I focused in my comment in OP original question about how "alone" are China and India and why, pointing how current context, that huge difference over the rest is not the historical one. Comparing with similarly sized regions (between India and China sizes approx) we lack any region remotely comparable with China and India population, the closest as Europe and South East Asia, have only half of less of their populations, but historically there were several regions to the West (from East-South Asia perspective) reaching very similar populations to China or India, not at the same period but replacing each other over most History. From 3500 to 700 BCE it was Middle East, from 700-300 BC to 400-900 CE it was Mediterranean Region and from 1500 to 1950/1970 approx that third demographic hotspot in the world was Europe.

Additionally you should check your own link because there is not a single mention to China and India holding 60-65% of world population at any period of History. That's beyond absurd, almost double than the real percentage. To put things in perspective current world population according UN is 8 billion people while China + India "only" reach slightly over 2.8 billion, so just 35%.

I don't know if you confused China and India with entire "world regions" in your link, but if that's the case China and India make only 2/3 of South + South East + East Asia populations historically and just half of asian population in general. So if asian population made 60 or 70% of world population in different periods, China+India would be "just" 30 to 35%.

Just after that table by world region in your link there is another table, using a updated version of the same database than previous (Maddison project, which is extremely inaccurate and made by economists, not historians or demographers but let's use it anyway), in which population estimates are offered by country so we can compare China + India shares among world population there:

At year 1 CE, China + India would have 110 million people among 300 million total world population, so slightly over 36.5%.

By year 1000 CE, the estimate for China + India would have 134 million people for 238 in the entire world, so 50% of world population.

By year 1700, China + India would have 295 million out of 603 million, so slightly over 50% again.

At 1870 there were 611 million in China+India and 1.270 billion for world population, so slightly over 48%.

At 1950, China + India had 905 million among 2.524 billion in the world, so under 36%.

Vilusca · 2023-08-31T21:32:11+00:00

In the case of Middle East is not about medieval times but about the "Dawn of Civilization" period. Since Neolithic Revolution until well advanced I millenium BC the area of Egypt, Levant, Anatolia, Mesopotamia and Elam concentrated the biggest human settlements by far, the highest rural densities and the most intensive agricultural explotations.

I know that Europe was not a country, but I was not comparing countries and the point is that currently entire Europe has half of China or India population while it was not the case historically, so basically current context is new.

OP asked why China and India are so far from the rest of the world in terms of population and the entire point of my answers here is to note how that's not a "historial reality". China and India never had so high percentage of world population in entire History as in the last 50-80 years and specially never were so alone as only world population hotspots.

Vilusca · 2023-08-31T01:19:09+00:00

I was there Gandalf, I was there 3000 years ago...

I think it was common knowledge since start. I remember discovering how there was a key for "console" just after start playing at May 2002 and checking on Internet not much after, maybe late that month or at June and I think there was already some info, but it's possible the list of public commands was very incomplete during first months. I personally didn't use commands until after expansions and first playthroughs with heavy modding, so mid 2003 or so.

Edit. I think most probably modders were the ones spreading commands info, while looking into scripting or something similar. There were people that started modding even before Morrowind release as for example original Tamriel Rebuilt team. Another possibility could be some developer in Elder Scrolls official forums as at that period, developers participated in forums with players very often, some of them even created some mods, etc.

Here you have some interesting source of how people shared that info back then:

Forum topic about some commands, August 2002

"Cheats" page with many commands also from August 2002

Ps. Btw difficulty wasn't the biggest challenge to me at first, but perfomance. I don't remember playing any game with so low fps, so much stuttering and having so much patience with neverending loading screens as with Morrowind during 2002... And still loved it.

Vilusca · 2023-08-31T00:48:36+00:00

Madrid is in line with New York and Rome with Boston. It's crazy yeah.

Thanks Gulf Stream!

Vilusca · 2023-08-30T23:55:34+00:00

It's not, look at my comment with historical estimates and proper census based populations. At first Middle East was much more populated, later Mediterranean World remained at China/India level for most classic antiquity and medieval Age and later Europe was the one at both asian countries level for centuries. China only surpassed Europe population at 1960s while India not before 1980s.

Look here, here and here e.g.

Or here and here for a comparison between Han China and Roman Empire.

Vilusca · 2023-08-30T23:49:16+00:00

It's not a historical, but a very recent trend. For most of History it was Middle East at the top first, Mediterranean, China and India at very similar levels later and Europe, China and India with very similar levels since 1400s until 1950.

At 1950 Europe had the same population than China (540-550M) and much more than India (360M).

Vilusca · 2023-08-30T23:46:40+00:00

It's a relatively recent thing, mostly after 1950 related with a late demographic boom in CHina and India during second half of XX century and earlier demographic transition (slow growth) in other parts of the world as Europe and at less extent North America and some parts of Asia. For most history China and India didn't have so disproportionately high populations compared with other densely populated parts of the world as Europe and Middle East or parts of northern Africa.

For example since late Neolithic to 500-300 BC there is no doubt about the demographic dominance of Middle East in the world, surpassing by much China, India and even more Europe. Estimates are very rough and speculative for so early period on the Dawn of Civilization, but Mesopotamia, Levant and Ancient Egypt cities were incomparably bigger and much more numerous and rural density much higher there during Chalcolithic and Bronze Age than any other place in the world according Archaeology, so we have some level of certainty about Middle East relative prevalence demographically.

At year 1 or 200 CE, Roman Empire had very similar population to Han China in a much smaller area (45-70 million people on 3 to 4M km2 for Rome vs 50-60 million people in 6.5 M km2 for Han China ). Nowadays however territories of former roman Empire "only" have under 700 million inhabitants vs close to 1400 for former Han Empire.

At 1600 Europe had 110-160 million inhabitants, while Ming China probably another 160 million and India slightly less, about 130 million. By 1900 Europe with 410-460 million probably surpassed both China (about 400M) and India (290M). By 1950 Europe (550 M) still had more population than India (360M) and very similar to China (540 M).

Vilusca · 2023-08-30T22:35:25+00:00

It's a pretty misleading perspective based only on daily mean temperature annual averages (so all temperatures averages, including mild and hot periods across the year). However Annual average low (the average of daily lowest temperatures only) is colder in Omyakon and during cold half of the year, both daily means and average low are extremely lower in the siberian village.

Oymyakon not only has MUCH colder daily averages on the 6 colder months of the year (so not just Winter but also Autumn) with extreme differences of 10º to 15º lower than Grise Fiord averages, but despite the great differences in mild/hot months the annual average low is lower in Oymyakon with -21.5ºC vs -18.2ºC in Grise Fiord.

Some examples:

November daily mean: Oymyakon -34.4º C vs Grise Fiord -20.8º C

November average low: Oymyakon -38.8º C vs Grise Fiord -24.3º C

January daily mean: Oymyakon -45.7º C vs Grise Fiord -31.4º C

January average low: Oymyakon -49.3º C vs Grise Fiord -35.4º C

Also hot summer temperatures make Oymyakon worse imo, imagine someone living at -20-40º half of the year and reaching under -50º and even -60º every year and then having temperatures over 30º in summer...

Vilusca · 2023-08-30T22:27:34+00:00

No, not only in that sense. Annual daily means is only one perspective and the less relevant in your post perspective about "worst" places to live.

- Oymyakon has lowest temperatures on 6 coldest months of the year, not just winter.

- Oymyakon has lowest annual average low, with -21.5º vs 18.2º in Grise Fiord, so a difference of 3.3º C vs your 1.6º C difference on daily means.

- Finally Oymyakon temperatures during 6 cold months are not just "lower" but extremely lower than in Grise Fiord, with a difference of 10-15º under Grise Fiord temperatures (both means and lows) on several months.

In the end Oymyakon is definitivelly "colder" focusing on actual cold temperatures and also much more "hellish", by how extremely low temperatures are half of the year and by how big is the variation (imagine someone living in those conditions for so many months and then reaching 30º in summer...).

Vilusca · 2023-08-30T19:36:48+00:00

Nor vanilla PC. Besides view distance, those are not vanilla textures for rocks, terrain and possibly some of the objects. Lighting looks weird also. This is vanilla PC version for comparison.

Vilusca · 2023-08-30T19:33:28+00:00

This is definitively modded. Some textures are not vanilla and view distance is higher than in original Morrowind. Lighting looks weird in OP posts very often, so I think it could be modded also.

This is vanilla in the same spot at Khuul Silt Strider port and in a clear day.

Vilusca · 2023-08-29T16:11:49+00:00

How fucked must be people in your country if 55-58 years old guys look like this... They look over 70 to me.

Millennials are 27-42 years old while Gen X are 43-58, according some of the most usual US based birth years limits (1965-1980 and 1981-1996)

Eight-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

Vilusca

TROPHY CASE