Did Humanity Really Almost Go Extinct? Debunking John Vervaeke’s Theory

 

Hey everyone. I've been looking into the work of John Vervaeke. He teaches at the University of Toronto - psychology, cognitive science, and Buddhist psychology. Though his PhD is actually in philosophy.

These days, lots of people are talking about his ideas, especially his lecture series called Awakening from the Meaning Crisis. In it, he explores why modern life often feels empty of meaning.

His ideas are fascinating. But on this channel, I do something specific: I check if his use of research lines up with current science. When he talks about human evolution, ancient rituals, or how consciousness developed, he makes clear claims about history and science. We can check these claims against research.

In this video, we’ll look at one key claim from his first lecture. Here’s what he tells us: Before what we call the Upper Paleolithic period, humans almost died out. This happened somewhere between 30,000 and 70,000 years ago. According to Vervaeke, our numbers dropped to maybe 10,000 people worldwide. He points to two causes: climate change in Africa as the ice age was ending, and a huge volcano eruption around 70,000 years ago.

Here’s where it gets interesting. Vervaeke says humans didn’t respond with better tools. He says climate was “too huge and too poorly understood” for that. Instead, they changed how they thought and worked together. They built trading networks to share resources and discoveries. This led to new rituals—ways of dealing with strangers and keeping groups together.

This moment is key to his whole story. He uses it to explain how humans developed new ways of thinking and making meaning. In his view, this near-death experience for our species triggered changes that led to what we call the Upper Paleolithic “revolution” in human culture.

So, to recap: Vervaeke argues that a near-extinction event around 70,000 years ago led humans to develop new ways of thinking and collaborating. He believes this crisis jump-started what we now recognize as modern human culture.

But first, we need to ask: Does the evidence support this story? Let's look at what current research tells us about human population changes and what was really happening back then.

Before we dive into the evidence, let’s talk about why this idea of a near-extinction event is so appealing. It’s a dramatic story—a huge disaster leads to a big leap forward in human thinking. It seems to explain so much about how we developed. And Vervaeke isn’t the only one who finds this idea compelling.

First, we need to understand two key ideas in genetics: population bottlenecks and founder effects. Scientists often talk about these, but people mix them up. Here’s the difference:

A population bottleneck happens when a group gets very small. Think of it like this: if you suddenly lost most of your population, you’d also lose most of your genetic variety. And you can’t get that variety back—it’s gone forever.

A founder effect is different. It happens when a small group breaks away from a larger one and starts a new population somewhere else. The new group only carries some of the original group’s genetic variety. This turns out to be crucial for understanding human history.

In short, bottlenecks reduce a population’s genetic diversity because of a drastic population drop, while founder effects create isolated groups that carry only a portion of the original population’s diversity. This distinction is key as we look at what really happened during human evolution.

In the 1990s, this idea of a human bottleneck started to look very promising. Here’s why: Scientists found evidence of an enormous volcanic eruption in Sumatra, from about 73,500 years ago. The timing seemed perfect. It looked like it could explain both the patterns we see in human genes and what archaeologists were finding. A scientist named Stanley Ambrose suggested this eruption caused a volcanic winter that almost wiped out humanity.

To understand just how big this eruption was: When Krakatau erupted in 1883—one of the largest eruptions in recorded history—it produced about 20 cubic kilometers of material. Toba? More than a hundred times that amount. It covered all of India in ash about as deep as your hand. That’s why early researchers thought it must have had devastating effects worldwide. But as we’ve seen, the size of an eruption doesn’t always tell us how it affected the climate or life on Earth. More recent studies show that factors like chemical composition and timing matter more than just size alone.

To summarize: For a while, the Toba eruption seemed like the perfect explanation for a genetic bottleneck in humans. But as we’ll see, newer research tells a different story about its actual impact.

In 2003, researchers pointed out something that should have been obvious: If conditions were bad enough to almost wipe out humans—and remember, we’re one of the most adaptable species on Earth—we should see the same devastating effects on other mammals. But we don’t. Other animal species from that time period show no signs of massive die-offs.

Here’s something even more interesting about human populations in Africa during this time. Remember how Vervaeke talks about a bottleneck in Africa? Well, here’s the fascinating part: Africa today holds about 90% of all human genetic variety. African populations show remarkable diversity—exactly the opposite of what we’d expect if there had been a severe bottleneck.

What we do see is evidence of founder effects—remember those? We see them mainly in populations outside Africa. When small groups of humans left Africa between 50,000 and 70,000 years ago, they only took a portion of African genetic variety with them. That’s why human populations become less diverse the further you get from Africa.

In 2020, a big study came out. Its title is a mouthful: Understanding the Overestimated Impact of the Toba Volcanic Super-Eruption on Global Environments and Ancient Hominins. This study really helped settle the debate. It showed that scientists had greatly overestimated the effects of the Toba eruption. Several factors played a role: the chemical makeup of the volcanic materials, Earth’s position in its orbit at the time—all these meant the eruption wasn’t nearly as devastating as we once thought.

What’s really striking is what archaeologists have found. They see continuous signs of human activity before and after the Toba eruption. Far from being devastated, human populations proved remarkably resilient.

So, here’s what we’ve found: human populations didn’t actually experience a massive die-off during this period. Instead, humans appear to have been resilient, showing continuous activity before and after the Toba eruption.

This is where Vervaeke’s argument runs into serious problems. He suggests that this near-extinction event forced humans to develop new ways of thinking and working together. In other words, that crisis drove innovation. But the evidence shows something different: humans were already remarkably adaptable and resourceful before the time of this supposed bottleneck.

Let’s examine what archaeology actually reveals. By 70,000 years ago, humans had already developed complex toolkits, which allowed them to perform a variety of tasks more efficiently. They had learned to hunt and gather food in many different environments, demonstrating remarkable adaptability to diverse ecosystems. Additionally, they had built networks for trading across long distances, indicating advanced social structures and communication skills.

In short, humans were already showing advanced behaviors well before the supposed bottleneck. They had symbolic expression, complex tools, and even long-distance trade networks.

These achievements showcase the sophistication of early human societies well before the commonly cited "human revolution."

As those 2003 researchers pointed out, humans likely already had sophisticated ways to handle environmental changes. They didn’t need a crisis to develop these abilities—they already had them.

Now, this doesn’t mean we should dismiss Vervaeke’s ideas about how humans develop meaning and understanding. Those ideas might still be valuable. But we need to look for different explanations for the cultural and technological changes he describes. Instead of a sudden response to disaster, we’re probably looking at something more gradual—a longer story of human innovation and adaptation.

So, the takeaway here is that modern human behavior didn’t emerge suddenly from a crisis but rather built up over time through gradual innovation and adaptation.

Here’s what makes this really fascinating: The true story of human cognitive development might be even more interesting than the bottleneck story. Instead of one dramatic event forcing rapid change, we see evidence of humans constantly adapting, innovating, and developing new abilities over much longer periods.

So what does this mean for the rest of Vervaeke’s argument about how meaning-making and consciousness emerged? Before we look at his other claims about shamanic practices and ritual development, we need to remember that his starting point—this evolutionary pressure point—isn’t supported by current evidence.

Let me sum up what we’ve learned. Our review of the evidence shows two important things:

First, there was no near-extinction event around 70,000 years ago that forced humans to radically change their behavior.

Second, the idea of a sudden “human revolution”—a dramatic leap forward in human capabilities—doesn’t match what archaeologists have found.

In summary, Vervaeke’s hypothesis of a crisis-driven leap forward in human cognition doesn’t match current evidence. But understanding this gradual accumulation of human capability might give us an even richer story about our species’ development.

Here’s why this matters so much: Vervaeke didn’t just get some facts wrong. This mistaken idea forms the foundation for his larger story about how humans developed new ways of thinking and making meaning. If there was no catastrophic event that forced rapid adaptation, we need to seriously rethink his explanations for how human cognitive abilities and social practices evolved.

Now, this is just our first look at Vervaeke’s work. In future videos, we’ll examine other parts of his ideas. But this first analysis of how he uses scientific evidence raises some important questions. It suggests we should carefully evaluate his other historical and scientific claims.

Think of it this way: Sometimes a compelling story can be so attractive that even thoughtful scholars can build elaborate theories on shaky foundations. That’s why checking the evidence matters so much.

You’ll find all my sources in the description below. I’ve included links to the key research papers we discussed, so you can check everything yourself.

Thanks for watching, and see you in the next video, where we’ll look at another aspect of Vervaeke’s work.