It's essentially the same theory: The large animals in Africa coevolved with humans, and so developed the ability to survive in their presence.
Half a million years ago, there were large animals pretty much everywhere else on Earth too. They very consistently disappeared right around when humans showed up.
That actually brings up an interesting topic: are they (still) there because human populations are comparatively lower?
Africa has some very fertile regions but except for some like the Nile Valley most of them couldn't really compete well with the Yellow River Valley, the Ganges Valley, etc.
Just for comparison, the population of Africa around 1900 was around 100 million, out of which Egypt had 10 million, Ethiopia 10 million, Nigeria 30 million, and 1-2 other population centers around 10 million each. So 70 out 100 million people were bunched up in maybe 5% of the territory.
In the meantime, just India had about 300 million people in 1900 :-) India within from 1500 to 1900 probably had more humans living in it than Africa from the beginning of mankind to 1900.
To be fair the slave trade (both Arabic and Atlantic) exerted (possibly) very significant downwards pressure on population growth in Africa during multiple centuries prior to 1900.
True, but based on the limited info we have, Africa had a much lower population than either India or China even 1000 years prior to that.
Just sheer fertility of regions, navigability of rivers, etc, as a Civilization of EU4 player would put it, meant a "better starting position" for some :-p
Or was/is slavery enabled by excess population relative to resources (no matter time and place)? When life becomes very cheap, etc.? I'm not proposing it is, just wondering about how it looks economically.
It's essentially the same theory: The large animals in Africa coevolved with humans, and so developed the ability to survive in their presence.
Half a million years ago, there were large animals pretty much everywhere else on Earth too. They very consistently disappeared right around when humans showed up.
That actually brings up an interesting topic: are they (still) there because human populations are comparatively lower?
Africa has some very fertile regions but except for some like the Nile Valley most of them couldn't really compete well with the Yellow River Valley, the Ganges Valley, etc.
Just for comparison, the population of Africa around 1900 was around 100 million, out of which Egypt had 10 million, Ethiopia 10 million, Nigeria 30 million, and 1-2 other population centers around 10 million each. So 70 out 100 million people were bunched up in maybe 5% of the territory.
In the meantime, just India had about 300 million people in 1900 :-) India within from 1500 to 1900 probably had more humans living in it than Africa from the beginning of mankind to 1900.
To be fair the slave trade (both Arabic and Atlantic) exerted (possibly) very significant downwards pressure on population growth in Africa during multiple centuries prior to 1900.
True, but based on the limited info we have, Africa had a much lower population than either India or China even 1000 years prior to that.
Just sheer fertility of regions, navigability of rivers, etc, as a Civilization of EU4 player would put it, meant a "better starting position" for some :-p
Or was/is slavery enabled by excess population relative to resources (no matter time and place)? When life becomes very cheap, etc.? I'm not proposing it is, just wondering about how it looks economically.