149
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2026
149 points (88.2% liked)
childfree
2556 readers
113 users here now
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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)
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.
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.
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