childfree

hideshow 30 child comments

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 months ago (28 children)

Where are you getting the 3% figure from wars?

WW1, UK saw a 11-12% mortality rate among their troops. Germany saw an 18% mortality rate. The Russian empire ~ 14%

WW2 the USSR had a rate estimated at ~27%, UK 4%, US 3%, Germany ~27%, Australia 4%, Japan ~ 20%, Finland 3%

Spanish civil war, 10%

The US civil war saw a mortality rate of ~25% among enlisted men.

The napoleonic wars saw ~30% across the board.

And in the 1600s, you were expected to lose 10-30% of your sailors before even reaching your enemy due to disease and illness on the ship. Depending on the length of the voyage.

And as a final note. Death during childbirth is the highest for the first child. The risk will decrease for subsequent children. As in, a woman having her second child, is less at risk of dying from that childbirth than someone who ia birthing her first.

Not that it's a competition between the sexes.

hideshow 28 child comments

parent

[–] iocase@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (24 children)

It's what I heard for pre-industrial warfare since actual fighting happened so infrequently and most people died from disease than actual warfare.

I tried to make it a direct comparison between the two (the original claim in the Twitter screenshot) not counting disease in preindustry which like you said killed the most men in the military.

Also, none of this has any relevant effect on the fact that orders of magnitude more women have died from child birth than war deaths no matter how you slice it.

hideshow 24 child comments

parent

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago (23 children)

Why do you think fighting happened so infrequently?

Soldiers or Sailors dying from disease is a direct result of warfare and service. Getting shot or stabbed in the arm could very well be a death sentence. Not because the wound itself is fatal, but because of the bacteria and infection that takes root afterwards.

Does it matter if you die from disease, splinters, steel, or lead? You died. And you died as a direct result of your service.

hideshow 23 child comments

parent

[–] iocase@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 months ago (22 children)

And the area under the curve for both sides still is somehow in line with my point. Does this really matter that much?

hideshow 22 child comments

parent

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (21 children)

At a rough average mortality of 1-2% chance of death per birth, and most women having 6-10+ kids in pre-industrial times, that’s a roughly 6-18% chance of death. Most wars are like 3% for fatalities

If this is your point. Then no. It is not in line with your point. You're simply factually wrong.

hideshow 21 child comments

parent

[–] iocase@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (20 children)

That's what I said but you've misattributed what I'm saying you're missing the forest from the trees here. I can explain it to you but I can't comprehend it for you. I was pointing out the math behind the post directly to give it numbers, but even with your correction you're still wrong about the magnitude of women who died vs men dying from disease or battle. More women died full stop no matter how you try and slice it. Look up historical mortality rates for women from child birth and see for yourself.

10-30% deaths in (whatever % of men are military men) is less overall deaths than the 85-90% of women who reproduced historically, with an average of 5.5 children roughly, and a 1-2% chance of death from each childbirth.

But this is a really stupid argument since you're going to end up agreeing with the post and me in essence even if you disagree about the minutiae.

hideshow 20 child comments

parent

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago (19 children)

I wouldn't be so sure if I were you. There are more people alive today. Than people that have died since the beginning of our species.

130 years ago. We were ~1.8 billion people. The mortality rate from childbirth hoovered around 1%. Today, it's 0.0001%

We are, roughly. 8 times as many people today than 130 years ago. As our population increased, childbirth mortality decreased. While armed conflicts have increased.

More Ukrainian soldiers have died since the start of Russias war. Than childbirth deaths in the Europe for the past 20 years combined.

And that's just Ukrainian losses. Rather. Those are just the Ukrainian losses they officially admitt have died. Other international estimates quadruple those losses.

It does not look very promising for your "full stop" that more ukranian soldiers have died in the past 4 years than european women in childbirth over the past 20.

And by the looks of it. The war doesn't have an end in sight anyone soon. Not to mention the new ones we're starting

hideshow 19 child comments

parent

[–] iocase@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (18 children)

I am sure since even conservative estimates for the total number of humans that have ever lived is 100 billion+

Total human lives

So 50 billion women roughly, at a mortality rate of 10-20% (how bad would it have been in pre history? Maybe worse?) you're looking at 5-10 billion women who died from child birth in prehistory alone.

Literally 10-20% of half the world population constantly until the 19th century.

Edit:

Adding my new source for context.

"...it would seem that 73% of all war-related deaths since 3000 Bc have occurred in the 20th century AD, pro-rating the data up to the end of the century. Another 23% occurred from AD 1500 to 1900, so that the Modern period of history accounted for 96%) of all war-related deaths."

Total war death since 3000 BCE are around 200 million

hideshow 18 child comments

parent

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 months ago* (17 children)

Your link does not work.

But there's a giant flaw in your calculations here if we assume your 100 billion figure is accurate. Which it seems that it is. So i was wrong about that.

Infant and child mortality was extreamly high in our primitive past. 50 billion girls born. Does not mean 50 billion girls grew up. If you want to estimate the number of girls (and boys) that even made it past age 5. You'll have to cut that number in half. And then there's another ~10 years they will have to survive to even have a chance of dying in childbirth. (Not the best phrasing but you know what i mean)

So, your 5-10 billion is starting to look a lot more like 2-4 billion (if we're being generous). Unfortunately for your argument. The boys that also grew up past puberty were all expected to be soldiers when called upon. You either fought and died or you just died. With some luck you survived. And by luck i mean lucky to have been born on the winning side.

The various empires in our history did not become empires because they were nice to eachother. They did so through blood and conquest.

Genghis Khan's conquests killed ~40 million people alone. That's estimated to have been 11% of the worlds entire population at that time.

Again. This isnt a competition. But men have always (unfortunately) been very resourceful when it comes to war and killing their percieved enemies. And there's been no lack of fighting, ever.

It's a bit of a trope but various massgraves confirms it. Kill the men. Enslave the women and children. (And then work them to death)

hideshow 17 child comments

parent

[–] iocase@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago* (16 children)

Genghis Khan's conquests killed ~40 million people alone. That's estimated to have been 11% of the worlds entire population at that time

Is that military men or does that also include women and children?

I still think the order of magnitude difference is too big between the two groups. 90% of women had children historically, and had kids for basically the entire time they could bear them. Men would be conscripted for war, true, but there were also long periods of peace and war wasn't constant unlike childbirth.

The male subset is naturally smaller and more sporadic.

The female subset is larger, encompasses 90% of women, and was constant until menopause.

hideshow 16 child comments

parent

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (15 children)

Is that military men or does that also include women and children? A fair assumption would be that women and children were included in those ~40 million. How many or what percentage I cannot answer due to lack of surveys conducted at that time. But as far as I'm aware, If you opened your gates and laid down your arms, you'd be allowed to live while paying tribute to your new Khan. But if you didn't, they would operate mostly like everyone else. Kill every man in sight, kill their sons, kill some of the rest for good measure, let a few run away to tell the tale, and enslave the rest.

Every man able to hold a spear. Is going to hold a spear. When enemies are knocking at your gate. Every man is a military man. The concept of "Military" and "Civilians" is a very modern concept. There was no distinction between the two.

What do you consider a "long period of peace"?

War has been pretty damn constant throughout the ages. England and France had a war lasting more than 100 years. Famously called "The hundred year war". The USA have since their inception had roughly, 20 years of peace. Total. Africa has been a clusterfuck of warlords and infighting since (at least) the end of WW2. (Yes, I know why that's the case. But that's another topic for another day). The Middle East have always been good at war long before the brittish started drawing lines. And as for Asia. Well, we covered part of that with Genghis Khan. Not to mention the various Chinese dynasties and their conquests, infighting and rebellions. Japans recorded history is absolutely filled to the brim with wars.

Wars and fighting have been pretty much non stop for the vast majority of our history. The longest time of "peace" in Europe is considered to be either 1815-1914 or 1945 to 2022. But even those have the asterisk of "Peace among major powers in europe". Since there's been plenty of armed conflicts in Europe even during those years.

hideshow 15 child comments

parent

[–] iocase@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (14 children)

That being said it's still not a convincing argument that more men die from war than women die from child birth. The Mongols also administered a massive empire with a massive chunk of the Eurasian population. It was said you could walk from one end of the Mongol Empire to the other with a gold plate on your head and never fear for your life or belongings. That period lasted for decades...

I think for your position to have any merit you'll need to refute my point that (let's use the numbers you gave of 2-4 billion female deaths from childbirth) over the total span of humanity more people have died from childbirth than war

hideshow 14 child comments

parent

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (13 children)

It was said you could walk from one end of the Mongol Empire to the other with a gold plate on your head and never fear for your life or belongings.

I'm gonna go ahead and stop you at the "it was said". People say a lot of things. Do you have anything to back that up with other than "someone once said that"?

It was said 9/11 was an inside attack. It was said that children playing on the fields would anger the underworldly entities. It was said that flies and maggots spontaniously appear out of thin air. It was said the earth is at the center of the universe. I could go on.

What do you mean i have to refute your point, that's exactly what I've been doing at every step of the way. From your bogous claims that every single girl born grew up past puberty, to your fantasy of there being long periods of peace in the world.

I can to some degree work with archeological excavations of humans remains and recordings of battles to actually back up my claims of people dying related to battle.

You're the one making the claim that "more women hace died from childbirth than men in battle, full stop" how about you provide anything of substance at all, to even remotely try to back that up? You've offered nothing at all beyond "i have a gut feeling"

over the total span of humanity more people have died from childbirth than war

I thought you wanted to restrict this to men/teens fighting in wars. But if we're just gonna count all deaths from war, it's not even close.

hideshow 13 child comments

parent

[–] iocase@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (12 children)

It comes from a Persian historian Ata-Malik Juvaini (13th century), who wrote that fear of the khans made the roads so safe "a woman with a golden vessel on her head might walk alone [across it] without fear or dread." This quote comes from Tarikh-i Jahangushay ("History of the World Conqueror"), written ~1260.

Muslim chronicler named Ghazi (1270), holds that "a man might have journeyed from the land of the sunrise to the land of sunset with a golden platter upon his head without suffering the least violence from anyone"

"...it would seem that 73% of all war-related deaths since 3000 Bc have occurred in the 20th century AD, pro-rating the data up to the end of the century. Another 23% occurred from AD 1500 to 1900, so that the Modern period of history accounted for 96%) of all war-related deaths."

Total war death since 3000 BCE are around 200 million

Here's an article on pax Mongolia

What a stupid hill to die on anyways

hideshow 12 child comments

parent

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (11 children)

Cool. Some persian historian wrote a woman MIGHT walk with a golden vessel. Any records of that actually taking place or are we taking an unproven hypothosis ss fact now?

I suggest you actually read the "paper" you cited as 200 million deaths in battle since 3000BCE.

The author says himself, it's to be considered a very preliminary estimation, with estimates that may increase significantly, primarily to provide incentive for future studies.

If you can't even be bothered to read the papers you link. Why should anyone take anything you say seriously?

hideshow 11 child comments

parent

[–] iocase@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (10 children)

I did read it and It's an order of magnitude reference in the worst case. You're still short somewhere around 1.8 billion to 3.8 billion male deaths to overtake a rough best case estimate of total female deaths from childbirth.

I've gone above and beyond to support my argument while all you do is hand wave and move goal posts. Back your words up with something. Its really sad you can't admit you're wrong or support your argument at all.

hideshow 10 child comments

parent

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 months ago* (9 children)

You just never learn do you?

It's painfully obvious you didn't actually read the paper. You looked at a few words, saw a number you liked and called it a day.

But to top it all off, you're now comparing a paper trying to estimate soldier deaths from 3000 BC to present day. With your estimated childbirth mortality, from the beginning of our species.

I'm not short ~2 billion deaths, you've taken the liberty of giving yourself a 300'000 year long head start.

You have genuinly not managed to support any claim you've made. At all.

Even when you try to cherry pick a paper that is taking estimates of relatively modern European deaths and then extrapolating them across the globe over thousands of years. You can't even be bothered to read the part where the author of that paper doesn't even think that number is accurate.

I'll say that again. The author of the paper you linked. Does not think his estimates are accurate. He thinks the numbers are significantly higher. And hopes that his paper will be an incentive for future, more in depth studies.

That's not me handwaving or moving the goalpost. That's the author's own concluding thoughts. But you would have known that. If you actually read his work.

hideshow 9 child comments

parent

[–] iocase@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 months ago* (8 children)

Link something or shut up you moron

I don't think you have because your position isn't supported. If you did you would prove yourself wrong...

Are you incapable of actually sourcing something or even doing the detailed math to prove your position? Thats the core of it. Ive proved my point and you've just had waved and nit picked minutae that has no actual impact on either side. Prove it.

hideshow 8 child comments

parent

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 months ago (7 children)

Let's get one thing straight here. I'm not making the claim that "more men died in battle full stop". It's you that's making the claim "more women died in childbirth full stop". I'm pointing out that what you provide to support that doesn't hold water and isn't even remotely close.

Now, i wasnt even going to bring this up, because normally it doesn't really matter. But since were going back hundreds of thousands of years, it actually does matter.

Girls and boys are not born 50/50. (UK study) There are usually ~105 boys born for every 100 girls. And we have in modern times seen that number increase after times of war and distress.

couple with a very disturbing practise called "female infanticide". Why would they do that? You probably ask. And again. We can only truly answer for the modern times since they didn't really catalog that sort of thing 4000 years ago. But it boils down to that boys are more capable of hard labour and more likely to stay with their family, compared to the women who would go to stay with their partner and his family.

So if you are worried about who will take care of you when you're old. You'll be looking at your sons. So when food is running scarse. Who do you think they feed first? Or at all for that matter.

And you will probably say something like, pfff sure, how often did that happen? And the answer to that is more than enough for the Brittish to outlaw it in 1870

And of course. It's not exactly the kind of thing most people wrote down and documented (dear diary, today we killed our baby daughter). So we can't know how prevelant it was across the world throughout history. But from our modern accounts, it seems to occur more as resources decrease. 50% of your kids were expected to die anyway. Might as well keep feeding the ones that can protect you later.

More boys being born. Girls being killed in their cribs for being a waste of food. Leads to a society with more boys than girls. More boys => larger army = larger wars => more deaths among soldiers

Which all points towards that the notion that more women dying in childbirth than men in battle. Historically speaking, isn't very clear. I think now having looked into it more, that it's entirely possible more men have died in battle. Can i prove it? Of course not. We don't know too much about what happened 10000 years ago. People were unfortunately notoriously illiterate and not very good at writing things down.

As a final note. You have not proved anything. Beyond that you seem to think every girl born grew up past puberty. And that your scope of "calculations" consists of trying to compare 300000 years of births with, 5000? 7000? years of men dying in battle.

Me calling out your moronic statements is not finger wagging or moving a goalpost. Anyway. You wanted some links, enjoy. Bonus points if you can read enough to learn which ethnicity in the UK is suspected of aborting girls due to having a lot more boys born than girls on average.

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] iocase@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (6 children)

Hahahahha "there are 5% more boys than girls therefore suddenly we go from ~200 million military male deaths to surpass your rough conservative estimate of 2-4 billion mothers who died in childbirth."

Its getting harder and harder to find people capable of making coherent arguments online. At least you know how to read and write (must have a water proof keyboard to survive the drooling) but it seems doing the bare minimum like math and Fermi estimating are a lost art.

I hope you dont work anywhere important or do anything that could affect peoples lives beyond greeting them at Walmart. I really pity you...

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 months ago (5 children)

Holy shit. You're so dense, scientists need to study what you're made of.

Personally I hold a masters in economy. But even a fifth-grader should be able to inform you that 105 boys being born for every 100 girls (in peace time) isn't 5% more boys. It's 1.2% more boys. What was that you said about bare minimum math being a lost art? You know what. For once, you and I agree on something.

That 1.2% is just from babies being born. Once you factor in female infanticide you'll get an even larger gap.

Not to mention. You don't even remember that the 200m figure you came up with is a halfbaked estimate extrapolated from battles in the 1400's, applied to the past 5000 years, rather than the past 300000. psst, that's a 295000 year difference.

And before you try to do that yourself. Since we both know bare minimum math isn't your strong suit. It's gonna be a very annoying integral to solve due to lack of reliable census data.

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] iocase@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

With how braindead you are its no surprise you work in economics. And by "a masters in economics" i assume H&R block piloting turbotax? I think they sometimes hire masters in econ of your caliber there. Its a hard job clicking on brigjtly colored arrows and filling in boxes. Was there no online calculator to lead you to the right conclusion? If there was it would tell you you're flat our wrong hahahaha!

200m figure you came up with is a halfbaked estimate extrapolated from battles in the 1400's, applied to the past 5000 years, rather than the past 300000. psst, that's a 295000 year difference.

If you look at the world population past 3000 BCE it wasnt very much...

I bet most "wars" back then were a warlord and has 20 best buds going for campaign while some of their wives die in labour.

How is a master in economics unable to do math? You havent given me a detailed breakdown of your position at all besides shouting out percentages like they mean something.

BTW im more than happy to keep coming back to dunk on you any time you respond. I love being right hahaha!

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)

Those are a lot of big words from someone that thinks 105 boys per 100 girls is a 55/45 split.

I'll stop "shouting percentages" at you. You can't comprehend them to begin with. probably get a heart attack trying to understand what statistical probability is. Good thing we never wasted time on that.

Good luck. I'm sure you'll get far in life

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] iocase@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

Yeah i bet you regret doing econ. Turned out well for you didn't it? Arent economists supposed to be masters of exactly this kind of problem? Did you get straight Cs and Ds and suck the dean off to get your degree? You've done a horrible job explaining your position. You never were able to extrapolate your points into exactly how more military men were supposed to have died than women through childbirth. You were—and still are—off by at least one order of magnitude on your best case argument.

Your most convincing argument could be boiled down to "nuh uh!" Without anything substantial to back it up unlike me. The numerical janitor can't do math or convincingly make an argument with his prodigious econ skills!

Go back to doing peoples taxes...

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

Why would I regret getting a degree? I'm paid well with 6 weeks of paid vacation. Not that it's relevant so why you want to try and bring that up is beyond me.

And what is this about doing other peoples taxes? No one does that here. The government tells you what you owe, how much your employer paid on your behalf. And if you don't have any deductions and it looks good, you simply press "submit". Takes like 5 minutes.

Economists generally do not excavate corpses in the fossil layers to count the number of dead bodies. So i would not say we're experts at that.

We mostly deal with finances or various categories. Like investment funds or long term budgets for governments and banks. that kinda of stuff. So, now you know i guess.

Your inability to comprehend the basics is not something I can help you with.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] iocase@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago

Your inability to comprehend the basics is not something I can help you with.

Its funny I feel the exact same way about you.

parent

[–] UnequalExchange@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

...do you have a citation for those last two paragraphs please?

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

Sure!

https://www.sciencehistory.org/stories/magazine/the-age-of-scurvy/

So, 10-30% was my estimation from my time in school of sailor dying before even seeing battle. Governments expected a return of 50% of sailors. A coin flip. I wouldn't want to take those odds.

As for the claim that subsequent births are less risky than the first.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3520435/

n=40'454 You're 18% more likely to die birthing your first, as you are birthing your second, third and forth, respectively. And then it starts to ramp up at 5 again

We found an 18% increase in the total mortality risk for mothers of one child, and 21% and 49% increases in total mortality risk for mothers having 5–9 and ≥ 10 children, respectively, as compared with mothers of 2–4 children.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] UnequalExchange@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

.Thanks

Also daaaayum an n of 40,000 practically makes that study a certified fact , unless the methodology of the study was asstastically bad.

parent

[–] ApathyTree@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 months ago*

Additionally, almost every woman would be impregnated at some point, whether she wanted to be or not, whereas war and general soldiery was absolutely not a thing every man was expected to do.