> When Pompeii erupted the population was around 10k just there.
And Rome (the city) had a population of 1 million or more, but that doesn't change the fact that demographers estimate at most a 10–20% urbanization rate in the Roman empire—meaning at least 80% of the population lived outside of cities in rural areas. And that's Rome, which had a notably high urbanization rate compared to periods before or after, not matched in Europe until the industrial revolution.
Compare that with an 80% urbanization rate in the US today and we're looking at almost exactly the inverse from where we were 2000 years ago in the Mediterranean. And it's even worse if we're just looking at the US, which had a 5% urbanization rate in the 1790 census and didn't even get to 20% until 1860. Where we're at now is simply unparalleled in history, and there's ample evidence that we're not well adapted as a species to this kind of density.
Rural doesn't mean your living secluded away from the world though with two other families to talk to. There was still a society and economy to be part of, governments that rule, wars being fought, religion etc
None of those things required social engagement with large numbers of people on an ongoing basis. Occasional contact with the broader world for business and religion is not the same thing as the intense, frequent, and large-scale social expectations that are a burden for most introverts.
There's a huge difference between going to church on occasion (or even weekly, which was not always the norm) and living in a city with a population density measured in the thousands per square mile.
I think this idea of villages of 30 people where you don't talk to anyone is just a fantasy. Even the Mayflower had 130 people to just set up their new town.
> idea of villages of 30 people where you don't talk to anyone is just a fantasy
I didn't say that—I said you'd regularly interact with only ~30 people (give or take). You'd probably be on good terms with a few dozen more, and it's been demonstrated that we really lose the ability to have relationships entirely by about 100-300.
The average city today has about 8x that number of people per square mile. That's entirely unlike anything that evolution equipped us for, which is why I object to OP's assertion that we all descend from extremely social people. By modern standards we absolutely do not.
todays world gives you so many opportunities to not talk to anyone. if you needed to get something done in the past you need to talk with other people, people were specializing in their abilities. today you can get food delivered to your door, look up repairs on youtube, buy anything you want or need online, do your job remotely, get directions from an app.
in what way do you feel like your expected to talk to anyone in our modern world? even here online, there's no expectation for you to respond to anything I said here
And Rome (the city) had a population of 1 million or more, but that doesn't change the fact that demographers estimate at most a 10–20% urbanization rate in the Roman empire—meaning at least 80% of the population lived outside of cities in rural areas. And that's Rome, which had a notably high urbanization rate compared to periods before or after, not matched in Europe until the industrial revolution.
Compare that with an 80% urbanization rate in the US today and we're looking at almost exactly the inverse from where we were 2000 years ago in the Mediterranean. And it's even worse if we're just looking at the US, which had a 5% urbanization rate in the 1790 census and didn't even get to 20% until 1860. Where we're at now is simply unparalleled in history, and there's ample evidence that we're not well adapted as a species to this kind of density.