429
430

H.I. #59: Consumed by Donkey Kong (cgpgrey.com)

MindOfMetalAndWheels[GREY] が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]mmilosh 8ポイント9ポイント  (18子コメント)

In your Americapox video (that started all of this), you weren't talking just about how geography affects development, you were talking about some specific things: Europeans and South Americans, specific diseases, specific animals and a specific conquest. It's fine if you're not interested in those specifics anymore, but you're claiming that you've only ever talked about the big picture, and that's not how it happened. If it was just 'geography affected development of civilization', there wouldn't have been much of a reaction.

On that note, I didn't argue that geography didn't constrain or enhance development of civilizations - it came up in our discussion a few times, and every time I've said yes, and I mentioned one of the works that I've read that discusses it.

When I bring up certain specifics (Palmyra, Mongol Empire, Spanish conquest), you don't want to talk about them. But you do want to specifically talk about Paleo-Americans in 10.000 BC. So which one is it?

I said at the end of our argument that I personally don't think that people who lived on ice sheets would be likely to make a world spanning empire (provided that they didn't migrate), but I don't think that you can draw a general conclusion from that one specific place and point in time.

Furthermore, my answer about survival wasn't a deflection. No one built a world-spanning empire in 10.000 BC. Everyone who lived at that time was more focused on survival, and we're thousands and thousands of years from an empire. To me it's a baffling question, it's almost like asking who will have the greatest football team in 2016. based on rainfall patterns in the 16th century. There's so much time between then and the future point where the question of an empire will become relevant, those people could migrate or be wiped out by a disease, or who knows? I don't know how you can assign a probability based on geography from that one specific case.

I'm not saying that there couldn't be a theory that works that way, but if you want to claim that geography has a probabilistic effect on the emergence of world spanning empires, the burden of proof is on you to show that the current world is not a statistical anomaly, and that geography has had a statistically significant and measurable effect.

The determinism argument that you are accused of is your own fault. 'Game of civilization has nothing to do with the players, and everything to do with the map'. Your words, not anyone else's.

EDIT: I liked the episode by the way.

[–]Jzlo_O 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

And so it begins.

[–]Redzam 0ポイント1ポイント  (8子コメント)

I am trying to understand your points more. People want to make sense (or theories) of history with stories/explanations like JD/Grey give (predictability is comforting to us humans). The americapox video seem to make a lot a sense to me and I enjoyed them quite a lot. Is a point your a trying to make is, "historical theoretical models like these are dangerous since it plays into our natural desires to simplify life rather than the factual mess of a display we humans actually have made?"

[–]mmilosh 1ポイント2ポイント  (7子コメント)

If we're talking about Americapox specifically, the problem with that video is that it's wrong on many levels, and it actually doesn't have that much to do with what Grey is talking about in this podcast. See this breakdown.

As for GG&S it suffers from a lot of the same types of problems, from the side of biology, history and anthropology.

Is a point your a trying to make is, "historical theoretical models like these are dangerous since it plays into our natural desires to simplify life rather than the factual mess of a display we humans actually have made?"

I don't think they are dangerous at all, and I'm not opposed to the idea that geography has an effect on development on society, perhaps in ways that can be measured or quantified. The problem is, there's way too many holes in JD's arguments for his conclusions to be valid.

What I really have a problem with is denial of human agency. Grey says he 'grants it for the purpose of the argument', but then he doesn't want to talk about it because it is too small scale (and he doesn't truly believe it's real anyway, so it never makes an appearance in his argument).

Human agency is the concept that people can make decisions and affect outcomes, rather than being determined by the environment. Structure is the concept that people's identity, social norms, religion, gender, social class, etc. affect what choices that can be made. While there is an ongoing debate on what is more important, these are fundamental concepts through which we study and understand history.

In the end, I'd say history is simply too full of accidents and chaos for deterministic outcomes of the 'the game of civilization is all about the map' type, even if you believe the 'not about the people' bit.

[–]whossname 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

"Deterministic" is probably the wrong term for my position, which I imagine Grey shares. A better word may be "Stochasticism". Things can be random while existing within a probabilistic framework. If you model historical events (or the individual actions that each person makes) as a throw of the dice, in the big scheme of things a trend may start to emerge. In which case the map may be much more important than the people.

[–]Thebobinator 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Even if the map ISNT more important than the people, the map is the thing that is easily measured. Lets say its people 70%, Map 30%. Knowing that 30% can still be a big help for determining probabilities.

[–]whossname 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

To my mind people's actions/personality are the direct result of their genetics and circumstances. The larger Eurasian population allows for more variety in both of these factors, and therefore more opportunities for innovation. Added to the (apparently very contentious) environmental advantages of Eurasia, I would think at least 30% map.

[–]mmilosh -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

That only has merit if you show it to be true.

[–]whossname 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

You might have to define "merit" here. You could pretty much dismiss the whole field of philosophy on the same grounds. For that matter you could dismiss every field by taking the position of a hard skeptic.

The majority of philosophers believe in "compatibilism" http://philpapers.org/archive/BOUWDP

This basically means they believe motives are determined, while people have "free will" to act on their motives. Doesn't make sense to me. Both motives and actions are based on brain states. The former brain state leads to the later.

[–]mmilosh 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

What I mean is, it's questionable if you can model history in that way at all.

[–]whossname -1ポイント0ポイント  (6子コメント)

why do you keep on referring to the Mongolians? They were part of the Eurasian continent, and had trade relationships with the other Eurasian civilisations, meaning they would have access to most of the important technologies and domestic-able animals.

[–]mmilosh 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

So did everyone else on both continents. If it's all about the advantages of your geography, why the Mongols? It's not like they had a big advantage over everyone else.

[–]whossname 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

but they were on the same continent as the people they conquered, so they aren't really relevant to this conversation ...

I thought the discussion was about the differences between different continents, not different civilisations.

[–]rixuraxu 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

I don't know how well Mongolia will play into your argument. China has vast lactose intolerance, whereas Mongolians developed Lactase persistence, because they farmed horses, and had dairy products.

It looks like they're practically a perfect example of fitting the argument. The consumption of lactose is obviously of great benefit to a society, it especially improves health of women.

[–]mmilosh -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

It's not like they were unique in that.

The point is if I gave you a map of the world in 10000 BC and ask you to point to where you think the biggest land empire would emerge from, would you point to a steppe in Central Asia?

[–]stropharia 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Haha, what? These are observations that are noticeable in retrospect, not something that people would necessarily be predicting back then. However, if you showed that map and said, "here's where all the relevant resources are, and here's where they aren't," then yes, probably everyone would say, "ok, well if I had to predict from that info, I'd pick the place with all the relevant resources over the place without them."

How can this even be argued against by anyone who's not trolling? "Where the resources are is more likely to provide a leg up for a society." It's mind-boggling to imagine you sitting there thinking, "nope, there's just no way to have that kind of expectation. It's just as likely that people without the relevant resources would overtake those with them."

[–]mmilosh 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Haha, what? These are observations that are noticeable in retrospect, not something that people would necessarily be predicting back then. However, if you showed that map and said, "here's where all the relevant resources are, and here's where they aren't," then yes, probably everyone would say, "ok, well if I had to predict from that info, I'd pick the place with all the relevant resources over the place without them."

Yes, but the question here is "can you predict where empires will emerge based on geography?". I don't think so.

"Where the resources are is more likely to provide a leg up for a society."

I never claimed otherwise. However, that's just the starting point. How people utilized those resources, what kind of political and social structure they built, when and where they expanded, how they conducted diplomacy and trade with others around them, who they befriended, who they attacked... Those are all factors that decided where and how empires emerged, and these are questions of human agency, not geography.

If it was just about geography and resources, you would expect the people living in the richest lands to always prevail. And that's not how it happened.