Timeline for Have fleas caused more human deaths from plague than wars?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 1, 2013 at 18:01 | history | edited | Alenanno | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 101 characters in body
|
| Oct 1, 2013 at 17:55 | history | edited | Alenanno | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 101 characters in body
|
| Oct 1, 2013 at 17:32 | comment | added | Alenanno | @Sancho Can you please join me in the chatroom? It's easier to talk there and we don't clutter the question here. :D | |
| Oct 1, 2013 at 17:27 | comment | added | user5582 | @Alenanno You say, "Fleas cause many diseases but all the claims in the question refer to plague(s)". I'm fine limiting this question to flea-caused plague. But your question doesn't. It asks the broader claim about "have fleas caused more human deaths than wars". That was the motivation behind my earlier edit to this question, to keep it focused on the plague caused by fleas. | |
| Oct 1, 2013 at 17:25 | comment | added | user5582 | @Alenanno The last claim states "More human deaths have been attributed to fleas than all the wars ever fought." That is a stronger claim than the first two quotes. It then lists "As carriers of the bubonic plague, fleas were responsible for killing one-third of the population of Europe in the 14th century" as an example of such deadliness, but you can't ignore that it also says "More human deaths have been attributed to fleas than all the wars ever fought.". I think the question would be fine if you included just the first two quotes. Since they're consistent. | |
| Oct 1, 2013 at 17:21 | history | edited | Alenanno | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 84 characters in body
|
| Oct 1, 2013 at 17:21 | comment | added | Alenanno | @Sancho Sorry but I disagree with you on that. The last claim states "As carriers of the bubonic plague, fleas were responsible for killing one-third of the population of Europe in the 14th century." Fleas cause many diseases but all the claims in the question refer to plague(s), so why do you think they refer to different things? | |
| Oct 1, 2013 at 17:08 | comment | added | user5582 | @Alenanno These quote don't claim the same thing. You have to pick one. The first two claim that plague caused by fleas cause more deaths than all wars. The last claim claims that all deaths caused by fleas is more than all wars, and then gives the plague just as an example. Could you please choose which quote you're asking about, and then change your question text to match it? | |
| Oct 1, 2013 at 16:55 | history | edited | Alenanno | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
I have rolledback and re-edited to include some of the changes.
|
| Oct 1, 2013 at 16:53 | history | rollback | Alenanno |
Rollback to Revision 2
|
|
| Oct 1, 2013 at 15:46 | history | edited | user5582 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
removed repetition, and made questions match the quotes
|
| Oct 1, 2013 at 7:45 | answer | added | user5582 | timeline score: 3 | |
| Aug 11, 2012 at 6:17 | comment | added | Golden Cuy | It's also possible that the claim used to be true, but is no longer true. | |
| Aug 11, 2012 at 1:36 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackSkeptic/status/234101031447965696 | ||
| Aug 10, 2012 at 19:54 | history | edited | Alenanno | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 2 characters in body
|
| Aug 10, 2012 at 19:50 | comment | added | Konrad Rudolph | @matt_black I think you’re wrong there. WW I+II killed about 100 million people, and no war since then has come even close. Needless to say, I find it very easy to believe the fleas (or maybe more generally diseases transmitted by pest vectors) have indirectly caused more deaths than wars. | |
| Aug 10, 2012 at 16:16 | comment | added | Alenanno | @matt_black Yes, that's also true. :) | |
| Aug 10, 2012 at 16:08 | comment | added | matt_black | @Alenanno On the other hand, it could be that the 200m deaths from plague are an underestimate. That is one reason why it is a good question to pose. | |
| Aug 10, 2012 at 15:58 | comment | added | Alenanno | @matt_black Yes, I find it hard to believe that it caused more deaths than war. But well, I've seen "obvious truths" being discredited in the past. :) | |
| Aug 10, 2012 at 15:56 | comment | added | matt_black | Excellent question. But even without looking up the numbers, I suspect that 200m deaths won't be more than war even in recent history. But lets look at actual estimates and perhaps consider deaths as a percentage of the population (black death certainly caused deep and long lasting reductions in the number of people alive in europe.) | |
| Aug 10, 2012 at 15:48 | comment | added | rjzii | Maybe not more deaths than wars over all human history, but I've read that the bubonic plague wiped out between 30–60% of Europe when it hit. Although by the same measure, wars have been responsible for entire populations being wiped out so it might trump even the bubonic plague. | |
| Aug 10, 2012 at 15:40 | history | asked | Alenanno | CC BY-SA 3.0 |