4 ms·

I know petty much nothing, but I cannot help but feel that knowing the result, any answer is equally explainable. If Greenland ruled the world we would all be d

by Gunax 5y ago

I know petty much nothing, but I cannot help but feel that knowing the result, any answer is equally explainable. If Greenland ruled the world we would all be discussing some nonsense about how easily sleds glide over ice. Nevermind that this supposes a geographic explaination--I imagine the author is a geographer. But an economist examines it through economic policy, an anthropologist through culture.. etc. who I am sure all have their own 'obvious and inevitable' justifications.

rwallace 5y ago
> I know petty much nothing, but I cannot help but feel that knowing the result, any answer is equally explainable. If Greenland ruled the world we would all be discussing some nonsense about how easily sleds glide over ice. It is true that, no matter what state of the world we observed, we would try to come up with the best explanations we could, but if we use that as a reason to dismiss explanations of the actual state of affairs, we would dismiss any explanation of anything. > Nevermind that this supposes a geographic explaination--I imagine the author is a geographer. But an economist examines it through economic policy, an anthropologist through culture.. etc. who I am sure all have their own 'obvious and inevitable' justifications. Sure. Reality is complex. It should be no surprise that many disciplines have relevant contributions to explaining it. The fact that economic and cultural considerations are also relevant to history, is no reason to dismiss geographical considerations.
sellyme 5y ago
> If Greenland ruled the world we would all be discussing some nonsense about how easily sleds glide over ice. This criticism only makes sense if you believe that Greenland could realistically have ruled the world with no significant differences in geography or technology to our real world. If we stumbled upon some alternative universe where Greenland in fact was the dominant empire, the idea that something was different enough in their universe such that colder climates were an advantage would absolutely be the first thing investigated. > Nevermind that this supposes a geographic explaination [...] But an economist examines it through economic policy, an anthropologist through culture.. I don't know if you read the first article in this series, but the author definitely touches on those factors, particularly with regards to the Silk Road, and how empires can thrive through competition if they're close (but not too close).

by Gunax 5y ago

rwallace 5y ago

> I know petty much nothing, but I cannot help but feel that knowing the result, any answer is equally explainable. If Greenland ruled the world we would all be discussing some nonsense about how easily sleds glide over ice. It is true that, no matter what state of the world we observed, we would try to come up with the best explanations we could, but if we use that as a reason to dismiss explanations of the actual state of affairs, we would dismiss any explanation of anything. > Nevermind that this supposes a geographic explaination--I imagine the author is a geographer. But an economist examines it through economic policy, an anthropologist through culture.. etc. who I am sure all have their own 'obvious and inevitable' justifications. Sure. Reality is complex. It should be no surprise that many disciplines have relevant contributions to explaining it. The fact that economic and cultural considerations are also relevant to history, is no reason to dismiss geographical considerations.

sellyme 5y ago

> If Greenland ruled the world we would all be discussing some nonsense about how easily sleds glide over ice. This criticism only makes sense if you believe that Greenland could realistically have ruled the world with no significant differences in geography or technology to our real world. If we stumbled upon some alternative universe where Greenland in fact was the dominant empire, the idea that something was different enough in their universe such that colder climates were an advantage would absolutely be the first thing investigated. > Nevermind that this supposes a geographic explaination [...] But an economist examines it through economic policy, an anthropologist through culture.. I don't know if you read the first article in this series, but the author definitely touches on those factors, particularly with regards to the Silk Road, and how empires can thrive through competition if they're close (but not too close).