It’s equally possible that there was more than one or even a day where only people were born and no one died.

There was a low point where only about 2,000 humans were estimated to be alive. Certainly you couldn’t have had someone dying everyday then

  • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    The human population would have to be in the tens of thousands for that to be likely, and I’m not sure it was ever so low unless we’re arguing about technicalities regarding who counts as human during the process of evolution.

    • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      13 hours ago

      This is a statistic problem. It is likely to occur at least once per year with a population below 250,000.

      Age is distributed and we’re only looking for one day, with a day being no well defined so we have to assume any given 24 hour period.

      If it was under 10,000 there could be entire weeks without a single death.

      This is based on the chance of any random person dying being 1:50,000.

      This is today’s rate and in the past most people died young but the chance of it occurring does not require the population be lower than that chance of a random person dying because we’re looking for any day not a specific day.

      • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        13 hours ago

        You’re right in general, but 1:50,000 implies an average lifespan of 137 years, unless I’m missing something. I think 1:15,000 is a more reasonable estimate.

    • roofuskit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Yes, humanity was very close to extinction and sub 10,000 in population at one point. We can tell from mitochondrial DNA.

      • Rhaedas@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        There’s other recent research that counters this idea. It’s still uncertain. Humans have dipped low before, just probably not levels rivals animals like the cheetah, otherwise we’d show the same genetic issues they have due to the inbreeding of the survivors.

        I don’t have a reference to it at the moment, so it’s a “trust me” scenario, but what I found then was through googling (because I used to be convinced of the bottleneck), so it’s out there.

        • arrow74@lemmy.zipOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          15 hours ago

          From my understanding of the subject the current consensus is the bottleneck did happen. There’s been fluctuations in the exact number, but under 5,000 is what is most widely supported by the evidence.

          The only debate I’m aware of is the exact timing and cause of the bottle neck. It was widely believed a volcano eruption was responsible, but that has become more discredited. It appears the population decline occurred before the eruption and took a significant amount of time to climb after the eruption.

          • Rhaedas@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            15 hours ago

            If I recall right (and it may not be right lol) it was timing as well as how many other populations there were. I think the initial discovery and research made some assumptions that what they found was the only people around and that it was a sudden disaster. Just like now we think that the dinosaurs were already suffering for various reasons and the asteroid was just a final push towards extinction over time.

      • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        17 hours ago

        I read the full paper and I’m not qualified to evaluate the validity of the model being proposed but I find the idea that the population was

        about 1000 individuals, which persisted for about 100,000 years

        rather implausible. Implausible things sometimes turn out to be true but models frequently turn out to be wrong so if I were to bet, I would bet on the latter.

        Plus, for the purpose of the OP, I think neanderthals and other close relatives of modern humans should count as people even if they have no living descendants.