Components of USA Civilian Working-Age Population
USA Civilian Working-Age Population components (recent)
plug: graphs prepared using Mariner Calc
updated: 2024-02-08
| jgo Resume | jgo Reading Room |
| jgo Econ Data | jgo Econ News Bits |
| jgo's Links | |
| jgo's Work in Progress | |
| Kermit's home page | |
| Page Bottom | |
|
"Res ipsa loquitur." (The facts speak for themselves.) |
Components of USA Civilian Working-Age Population
USA Civilian Working-Age Population components (recent)
per cent population increase from previous decennial census
USA resident population/square mile
Acres per Person
per cent increase in population density
Census bureau: data tables time-series, decennial population density text
Census bureau: data tables time-series, decennial population rate of change text
Census bureau: data tables, 2020 decennial census, population density & apportionment by state (pdf)
USA Over-Population Clock
World + USA Over-Population Clocks
Jimbo Wales's WikiPedia on World Over-Population
"The world population has experienced continuous growth since the end of the Great Famine and the Black Death in 1350, when it was near 370M."
population density
countries by population density
USA states and counties by population density
most populous counties in the USA
Business Insider: 27 least over-crowded counties in the USA in 2020
USA cities by population density
Lost Angeles, crazy California Times: neighborhood population densities in the Lost Angeles area
World Atlas: USA states by population density
USA urban areas
USA cities by area
world largest cities
world metropolitan areas by population
City Mayors: largest cities in the world by land area, population, and population density
"Even the brains of our ancestors of 2K or 4K years ago do not look identical to the brains of man today. The development of language, for example, has altered our brains' anatomical structure and cellular networks." --- Jill Bolte Taylor, Ph.D. 2006, 2008 _My Stroke of InSight_ pg13
"Roughly 100 square miles of land are needed to support a band of 25 hunter-gatherers." --- Michael Rothschild 1992 _Bionomics_ pg 6 (citing Roger Lewin 1984 _Human Evolution_ pg 96)
"To live on 10K acres in a temperate climate today is a luxury allowed only to the very rich. A family of hunter-gatherers could scarcely have survived on less. They generally required thousands of acres per person, eavn in areas that were most fertile for foraging. This suggests why the growth of human populations during periods particularly favorable to foraging may have created the basis for population crises. Because so much land was required to support a single person, the population densities of hunting-and-gathering [people] had to be incredibly sparse.
Before farming, humans were about as densely settled as bears. With minor differences, the human diet resembled that of bears. Foraging [people] depended upon food gathered from the open country-side or from nearby bodies of water. Although some gatherers were fishers, most were hunters who depended for a third to a fifth of their food upon protein from large mammals. Other than a few simple tools and objects carried around with them, hunter-gatherers had almost no technology at their disposal. They usually had no way to effectively store quantities of meat or other foods for later use. Most food had to be consumed soon after it was gathered or left to spoil." --- James Dale Davidson & William Rees-Mogg 1997, 1999 _The Sovereign Individual_ pp62-63
"Depending on climatic conditions, hunter-gatherer 'societies' have a population density from 0.1 person/square kilometer to 1 person per square kilometer, while the invention of agriculture permits densities to rise to [between] 40 people/square kilometer [and] 60 people/square kilometer." --- Francis Fukuyama 2011 _The Origins of Political Order: From PreHuman Times to the French Revolution_ pg55
"The village of Abu Hureyra, on the river Euphrates, is one of the most intensively researched Natufian settlements. For almost 40 years archaeologists have examined the layers of the village, which provides one of the best documented examples of sedentary life before and after the transition to farming. The settlement probably began around 9,500BCE, and the inhabitants continued their hunter-gatherer life-style for another 500 years before switching to agriculture. Archaeologists estimate that the population of the village prior to farming was between 100 and 300." --- Daron Acemoglu & James A. Robinson 2012 _Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty_ pg138
"Gregory Clark explains, «Life expectancy was no higher in 1800 than for hunter-gatherers; 30-35 years. Stature, a measure of both the quality of diet and children's exposure to disease, was higher in the Stone Age than in 1800. Even for the relatively wealthy, as recently as the 18th century [1700s] life was very difficult.»" --- Mark Reed Levin, J.D. 2015 _Plunder and Deceit_ pg119 (citing Gregory Clark 2007, 2008, 2009 _A FareWell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World_ (420 pages; 27MB; ISBN 9780691121352; OCLC 1322330278; PrincetonU))
"Hunter-gatherers share many traits that are directly adaptive to their rugged way of life. They form bands of 100 or less that roam over large home ranges & often divide or rejoin each other in the search for food. A group comprising 25 individuals typically occupies between 1K & 3K square km... Parts of the ranges are sometimes defended as territories, especially those containing rich & reliable sources of food. Inter-tribal aggression, escalating in some cultures to limited warfare, is common enough to be regarded as a general characteristic of hunter-gatherer social behavior. The band is, in reality, an extended family. Marriage is arranged within & between bands by negotiation & ritual, & the complex kinship networks that result are objects of special classifications & strictly enforced rules. The men of the band, while leaning toward mildly polygamous arrangements, make substantial investments of time in rearing their off-spring. They are also protective of their investments. Murder, which is as common per capita as in most American cities, is most often committed in response to adultery & during other disputes over women." --- Edward O. Wilson 1978 _On Human Nature_ pp 82-83
"Hunting usually has an important but not overwhelming role in the [hunter-gatherer] economy. In his survey of 68 hunter-gatherer societies, the anthropologist Richard B. Lee has found that on average only about 1/3 of the diet consists of fresh meat. Even so, this food contains the richest, most desired source of proteins & fats, & it usually confers the most prestige to its owners." --- Edward O. Wilson 1978 _On Human Nature_ pg 83
"[B]ands of hunter-gatherers around the world are commonly aggressive in their defense of land that contains a reliable food resource... Rada Dyson-Hudson & Eric A. Smith have noted that areas defended by hunter-gatherers are precisely those that appear to be the most economically defensible. When food resources are scattered in space & unpredictable in time, the bands do not defend their home ranges & in fact often share occasional discoveries of rich food sources." --- Edward O. Wilson 1978 _On Human Nature_ pp 107-108 (referencing Glenn E. King 1976 "Society & Territory in Human Evolution" _Journal of Human Evolution_ vol 5 pp 323-332; Napoleon Chagnon & William Irons _Evolutionary Biology & Human Social Organization_)"Upper PalaeoLithic... big-game hunters... With the on-set of neo-thermal conditions, all this changed as forest began to extend Northwards, creeping out from its Mediterranean refuge gradually to colonize the open steppe and tundra. The earliest colonizers were cold-tolerant trees like birch, willow, juniper, and aspen, followed by pine and later by hazel. With increasing warmth the broad-leaved forest dominated by elm, lime [linden/basswood], oak, and alter moved in. So, as the ice retreated the different forest zones moved progressively Northwards until, by 4KBCE, they had reached all but the extreme North of Europe. Around the Mediterranean, where pockets of forest had survived the glacial extremes, the wood-lands expanded, with pine dominating the higher regions and deciduous oak taking over much ofthe rest of the landscape.
The new vegetation cover brought with it a different fauna. Some of the herbivores of the Late Glacial period, like the reindeer and elk, were driven Northwards, while others -- the mammoth and woolly rhinocerous -- became extinct, to be replaced by smaller beasts, red deer, roe deer, elk, pig, and aurochs. In their comfortable wood-land environment [humans] had cause to move much less than their predecessors, and inhabited their territory in much smaller and more dispersed groups. This forest fauna amounted to only about 20%-30% of the total bio-mass of the herbivores that had roamed the tundra beore them... the number of known inhabited sites was many fewer, implying that the overall population had drastically declined...
hunter-gatherer groups remained small and were widely dispersed throughout the landscape. Numbers are unlikely to have exceeded 0.5 persons per square kilometre (6.25 square miles [4K acres, i.e. 1 per every 8K acres]) and may, in some parts, have been [one-100th of these densities].
The more varied the potential food resources, the greater the chances of survival. Expanses of un-interrupted forest lacked variety, but along river-banks and around the many lakes, swamps, and bogs that formed in the pock-marked surface of the North European moraines there was great diversity -- fish and eels, migrating birds, and a formidable array of nutritious plants there for the gathering, water-cress, water chestnut, water lily, and various rushes and reeds. A plant like club rush (Scirpus lacustris was particularly nutritious, its large tubers, stems, and seeds all being edible. It grew in prodigious quantities in its natural state, roducing a greater yield than the most productive cereals..." --- Barry W. Cunliffe, Ph.D. 2008, 2011 _Europe Between the Oceans 9KBCE-1KCE_ pp68-70
"If the Americas eventually came to hold hunter-gatherers at an average population density of somewhat under one person per square mile (a high value for modern hunter-gatherers), then the whole area of the Americas would eventually have held about 10M hunter-gatherers. But even if the initial colonists had consisted of only 100 people and their numbers had increased at a rate of only 1.1% per year, the colonists' descendants would have reached that population ceiling of 10M people within a thousand years." --- Jared Diamond 1997 _Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies_ pg45
"The first humans probably reached the land we would now call Europe around 800K years ago, and, although there were priods when advancing ice sheets rendered large parts of the land-mass uninhabitable, humans have remained ever since. It is a reasonable assumption that these PalaeoLithic [hunters] were the direct ancestors of the MesoLithic hunter-gatherers who expanded through Europe, moving further and further North as the last cold period ended around 9600BCE. By 7KBCE these advanced foragers had established themselves in most parts of the continent, adapting their food-gathering regimes to the different ecological niches they chose to inhabit. The gene pool of the present European population issubstantially that of the PalaeoLithic pioneers, with a smaller component contributed by in-comers from South-Western Asia in the NeoLithic period." --- Barry W. Cunliffe, Ph.D. 2008, 2011 _Europe Between the Oceans 9KBCE-1KCE_ pg19
"Over and above these gradual changes there has been a succession of minor climatic oscillations, causing cold snaps like the sharp down-turn about 6200BCE or periods of increased precipitation encouraging the growth of extensive areas of continuous bog in parts of Atlantic Europe noticeable around 1KBCE...
Human populations have always had an effect on their environments, often initiating long-term change. Hunter-gatherers who cut clearings into forests to increase new growth and so encourage animals to congregate and browse, the more easily to be captured, affected the removal of water by plants through transpiration, which, in marginal conditions, [may have] led to the formation of blanket bog.
Increased herding of sheep and goats in the mountainous fringes of the Aegean damaged vegetation cover, causing massive erosion [and fertile valley deposition], while in the Midlands of England, intensification of agriculture in the 1st millennium BCE led to large-scale deposition of alluvium in the river valleys." --- Barry W. Cunliffe, Ph.D. 2008, 2011 _Europe Between the Oceans 9KBCE-1KCE_ pg28
"From modest beginnings in the Middle East, farming was beginning its unstoppable march towards the Isles. 10K years ago in the Fertile Crescent, in that part of what is now Syria and norther Iraq that is drained by the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, people had learned how to cultivate wild grass and how to replace hunting with domestication. Farming ushered in the New Stone Age -- or Neolithic, to distinguish it from the hunter-gatherer Mesolithic -- with a whole range of new stone implements for farming...
Carbon-dates from farming sites and the comparison of different pottery styles show that agriculture spread through continental Europe by 2 principal routes. The split probably came as the first farmers reached the Balkans and the lower Danube from Turkey about 8,500 years ago, about the time that Ireland finally separated from Britain and the residents of Mount Sandel were tucking into yet another bowl of limpet soup. One group of farmers headed north to reach the great Hungarian plains, then, after a thousand-year pause, moved rapidly north towards the Baltic and the North Sea. They needed to clear thick forest to make enough space for cultivation. This they did by ring-barking and burning the dead trees and under-growth, thereby fertilizing the soil with ash. By 7K years ago they had reached northern France, southern Belgium and the Netherlands.
Meanwhile, the other group moved along the Mediterranean coast of Italy, southern France and Iberia. By 7,500 years ago they had reached the Atlantic coast of France... Neolithic farming communities lived fairly close to Mesolithic settlements and carbon-dating shows that both wee occupied at much the same time." --- Bryan Sykes 2006 _Saxons, Vikings, and Celts: The Genetic Roots of Britain and Ireland_ pp140-142
"In 1600, the Indian [Amerindian/ descendants of earlier immigrants] population in all New England was only between 7K and 100K, [William Cronon 1983 _Changes in the Land_] estimated, and 80% of those lived in the SouthernMost states where agriculture augmented hunting and fishing. Their «nature-based economy» was viable, IOW, only if population densities remained quite low. Today, the 6 New England states support around 14M inhabitants (far more if one includes New York)..." --- William Greider 2003, 2004 _The Soul of Capitalism_ pg157
"...about 10K years ago [8K BCE] there were at least 4 major populations in West Eurasia -- the farmers of the Fertile Crescent, the farmers of Iran, the hunter-gatherers of Central and Western Europe, and the hunter-gatherers of Eastern Europe. All these populations differed from one another as much as Europeans differ from East Asians today... none of these groups survives in unmixed form today...
The farmers in present-day Turkey expanded into Europe. The farmers in present-day Israel and Jordan expanded into East Africa, and their genetic legacy is greatest in present-day Ethiopia. Farmers related to those in present-day Iran expanded into India as well as the steppe North of the Black and Caspian seas. They mixed with local populations there and established new economies based on herding that allowed the agricultural revolution to spread into parts of the world inhospitable to domesticated crops. The different food-producing populations also mixed with one another, a process that was accelerated by technological developments in the Bronze Age after around 5K years ago [3K BCE]. This meant that the high genetic sub-structure that had previously characterized West Eurasia collapsed into the present-day very low level of genetic differentiation by the Bronze Age...
Analysis of ancient DNA data shows that Western European hunter-gatherers around 8K years ago [6K BCE] had blue eyes but dark skin and dark hair... The first farmers of Europe mostly had light skin but dark hair and brown eyes -- thus light skin in Europe largely owes to migrating farmers. The earliest known example of the... European blond hair mutation is in an Ancient North Eurasian from the Lake Baikal region of Eastern Siberia from 17K years ago [15K BCE]. The hundreds of millions of copies of this mutation in Central and Western Europe today likely derive from a massive migration into the region of people bearing Ancient North Eurasian ancestry..." --- David Reich & Eugenie Reich 2018 _Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA & the New Science of the Human Past_ pp95-96
"Because the modern humans of 50K years ago [as of 2014, better try 80K-150K years ago] were a tropical species, the first people to leave Africa probably crossed the southern end of the Red Sea and kept to roughly the same latitude, hugging the coast until they reached Sahul, the Ice Age continent that then included Australia, New Guinea, and Tasmania. The earliest known modern human remains outside Africa, about 46K years old, come from Lake Mungo in Australia. The modern human exodus from Africa occurred at a time when the Pleistocene Ice Age had another 40K years to run.
To begin with, hunter-gatherer bands were probably stretched out through a strip of mostly tropical climates from NorthEast Africa to India to Australia. To judge by the behavior of modern hunter-gatherers, these little groups would have been highly territorial and 'aggressive' toward neighbors [because they required about 10K acres for a 4-person family, 30K acres for a 12-person team, 1.5M acres for a 150-person tribe].
To get away from one another and find new territory, bands started moving north into the [colder] forests and steppes of Europe and East Asia. The evolutionary pressures for change on these small isolated groups would have been intense... They would have had to re-learn how to survive in each new habitat. The groups moving northwward from the equatorial zone of the first migration would have encountered particularly harsh pressures. The last ice age did not end until 10K years ago [and the last 'Little Ice Age' just about 200 years ago]." --- Nicholas J. Wade 2014 _A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, "Race" and Human History_ pp76-77
"Pre-agrarian human groups ranged in size form a few dozen to 200 or 300 persons. Groups larger than these were probably unable to coordinate their activities... Modern-day hunter-gatherer groups that grow excessively large fission into smaller groups that go their separate ways... Population densities increase with agrarianism; people no longer have contact with all members of their social group." --- Brant Wenegrat 1990 _SocioBiological Psychiatry_ pg 70 (citing G. Lenski 1970 _Human Societies_; L. Festinger 1986 "The Social Organization of Early Human Groups" in C.F. Graumann & S. Moscovici 1986 _Changing Conceptions of Crowd Mind & Behavior_)
"our social channel capacity... Robin Dunbar... So what does correlate with brain size? The answer, Dunbar argues, is group size... the larger their neocortex is, the larger the average size of the groups they live with... Even a relatively small increase in the size of a group, IOW, creates a significant additional social & intellectual burden... If you plug in the neocortex ratio for Homo sapiens, you get a group estimate of 147.8 -- or roughly 150.
'The figure of 150 seems to represent the maximum number of individuals with whom we can have a genuinely social relationship, the kind of relationship that goes with knowing who they are & how they relate to us. Putting it another way, it's the number of people you would feel embarrassed about joining uninvited for a drink if you happened to bump into them in a bar.'
Dunbar has combed through the anthropological literature & found that the number 150 pops up again & again. For example, he looks at 21 different hunter-gatherer societies for which we have solid historical evidence... & found that the average number of people in their villages was 148.4.
The same pattern holds true for military organization. 'Over the years military planners have arrived at a rule of thumb which dictates that functional fighting units cannot be substantially larger than 200 men.', Dunbar writes... It is still possible, of course, to run an army with larger groups. But at a bigger size you have to impose complicated hierarchies & rules & regulations & formal measures to try to command loyalty & cohesion. But below 150, Dunbar argues, it is possible to achieve these same goals informally...
The Hutterites (who came out of the same tradition as the Amish & the Mennonites) have a strict policy that every time a colony approaches 150, they split it in 2 & start a new one. 'Keeping things under 150 just seems to be the best & most efficient way to manage a group of people.', Bill Gross, one of the leaders of a Hutterite colony outside Spokane told me. 'When things get larger than that, people become strangers to one another.' The Hutterites... [have] been following the 150 rule for centuries." --- Malcolm Gladwell 2002 _The Tipping Point_ pp 177-181
"Robin Dunbar high-lights the role of gossip as a means to bond and has come up with a way to estimate when a switch from grooming to gossip might have occurred. He has shown that the larger the typical 'social group' of a primate species, the larger their neo-cortex ratio. By plugging values for extinct species into the formula that describes this relationship, he estimated the different group size various hominins were likely to have lived in. If correct, then the last 3M years saw a steady increase in group size from about 60 in Australopithecines to over 100 in Homo erectus and up to 150 in modern humans...
According to Dunbar, this number is the size we can keep track of, the number of friends we can name, the number of people we invite to funerals and weddings, and the number that, when exceeded, leads to the break-up of a typical hunter-gatherer group. Whether this is our natural group-size limit is difficult to assess." --- Thomas Suddendorf 2013 _The Gap: The Science of What Separates Us from Other Animals_ pp254-255 +note19 (citing Robin I. Dunbar 1992 "NeoCortex Size as a Constraing on Group Size in Primates" _Journal of Human Evolution_ vol20 pp469-493; Robin I. Dunbar 1996 _Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language_; Malcolm Gladwell 2002 _The Tipping Point_ pp176-185; W.R. Gore & Associates)
"Beginning about 12K years ago, hunter-gatherers near the eastern Mediterranean shore-line began to adopt a new way of life. Instead of continually moving from place to place, they began to live in single places for much or all of the year. They learned to exploit the wild plants and animals in an area much more intensively. For example, they embedded tiny stone blades into wooden or bone shafts to make sickles, which they used to harvest the wild grasses around their homes. They made seasonal trips to hunting camps and returned with their catch to base camps, where they built permanent structures -- rounded rooms dug partly into the ground with roofs probably made of brush...
They no longer had to haul all their possessions from one camp to another. As a result, they immediately acquired more stuff... The remains of their settlements include heavy stone mortars used to grind grain. They made cups and bowls and stored goods in pits lined with stone slabs. The first tools belonging to this tradition were found at a mound around a spring called Wadi Al Natuf just north of Jerusalem, and this period in Middle Eastern history is called the Natufian. The earliest archaeological remains at Jericho, at the base of the mound, were left by the Natufians, though they seem to have used Jericho only as a temporary camp. Then the area around the spring was uninhabited for a long period.
The archaeological remains from the next settlement at the spring, dated to about 10K years ago, aren't those of a camp. They're remains of a town large enough to hold several hundred people... a number of similar towns existed about the same time up and down the Jordan Valley, along the Mediterranean coast, and north into Turkey... Jericho was one of the largest and most sophisticated of these towns, as well as one of the richest; rare obsidian, turquoise, and cowrie shells all have turned up in the ruins." --- Steve Olson 2002 _Mapping Human History: Genes, Race, and Our Common Origins_ pp95-96
"As it happens, [Gregory Clark] has documented 4 behaviors that steadily changed in the English population between 1200CE and 1800CE, as well as a plausible mechanism of change. The 4 behaviors are those of inter-personal violence [initiation of force and fraud, and defense against initiations of force and fraud], literacy, the propensity to save and the propensity to work.
Homicide rates for males, for instance, declined from 0.3 per thousand [30 per 100K] in 1200CE to 0.1 [per thousand=10 per 100K] in 1600CE and to about a tenth of this [0.01 per thousand=1 per 100K] in 1800CE. Even from the beginning of this period, the level of personal violence was well below that of modern hunter-gatherer 'societies'. Rates of 15 murders per 1K men [1,500 per 100K men] have been recorded for the Ache people of Paraguay.
Literacy rates can be estimated from the proportion of people who spell out their names on documents, such as marriage registers and court documents, instead of signing with an X. The literacy rate among English men climbed steadily from about 30% in 1580CE to above 60% by 1800CE. Literacy among English women started from a lower base -- about 10% in 1650CE -- but had equaled that of men by 1875CE.
Work hours steadily increased throughout the period, and interest rates fell. When inflation [debasement of the money supply] and risk are subtracted, an interest rate reflects the compensation that a person will demand to postpone immediate gratification by postponing consumption of a good from now until a future date [as balanced against the immediate value to others to be able to accomplish something now rather than the expectation and value it would have later if one thought one could save up to do it then]. Economists call [these attitudes time preferences], and psychologists call it [willingness to delay] gratification...
Interest rates, which reflect [individuals' time preferences, have been very high -- about 10% -- from the earliest historical times and for all [polities] before 1400CE for which there are data. Interest rates then entered a period of steady decline, reaching about 3% by 1850CE. Because inflation and other pressures on interest rates were [minimal], Clark argues, the falling interest rates indicate that people were becoming less impulsive, more patient, [more trusting], and more willing to save." --- Nicholas J. Wade 2014 _A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, "Race" and Human History_ pp155-158
"In his celebrated marshmallow test, the psychologist Walter Mischel tested young children as to their preference for receiving 1 marshmallow now or 2 in 15 minutes [depending, in part on whether and how much they trusted the experimenters]. This simple decision turned out to have far-reaching consequences: those able to hold out for the larger reward had higher SAT scores and 'social competence' in later life... American 6-year-olds [on average], for instance, have a time preference of about 3% per day, or 150% per month; this is the extra reward they must be offered to delay instant gratification. Time preferences are also high among hunter-gatherers." --- Nicholas J. Wade 2014 _A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, "Race" and Human History_ pp157-158
"True, Virginia was the mammoth and Delaware was the midget; but exclusive of these, the average population of the «large» states was roughly 307K, and that of the «small» roughly 278K -- a difference of approximately 10%. Secondly, the line-up was more nearly sectional than large-vs-small: states South of the Potomac consistently voted with Madison's «large states» bloc, 4 to 6; those North of it (counting New Hampshire, when its delegates arrived) voted as «small states», 6 to 2. Third, the line-up was even more precisely one of the landed states versus the landless. Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia had access, through colonial charters or some other means, to enormous «surpluses» of «unoccupied» [only occuped at hunter-gatherer densities rather than agricultural let alone urban densities]; all voted as «large» states, which is to say for re-arranging the Confederation so as to deprive states of equal votes [but rather votes by population]. New Hampshire, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland had no such lands; all voted as «small states». If any general alignment of nationalist and anti-nationalist [favoring centralized power vs. federation] states existed, it was one of weak or strife-torn states a gainst strong or prospering states. But the alignment was not so clean as that, for delegates were individual human beings (some bound by instructions, some not) who had, in the convention, to vote as states." --- Forrest McDonald 1965, 1979 _E Pluribus Unum_ pp165-166
"[Robin Dunbar's] number in modern humans seems to fall between about 100 and 220 (average 148 [though some estimates run as high as 290]), and the figure matches quite well with the optimum size of large hunter-gatherer aggregations, tribal villages, Hutterite settlements, small military units, and even the average number of people in «effective» «social networks» on the web." --- Chris Stringer 2013 _Lone Survivors: How We Came to Be the Only Humans on Earth_ pg117
(ottO .G nhoJ)
| jgo Resume | jgo Reading Room |
| jgo Econ Data | jgo Econ News Bits |
| jgo's Links | |
| jgo's Work in Progress | |
| Kermit's home page | |
| Page Top | |
