6 ms·

Just a very superficial comment/thought after reading the review: There seem to be an underlying implied correlation between complexity and failure (or collapse

Just a very superficial comment/thought after reading the review: There seem to be an underlying implied correlation between complexity and failure (or collapse). If that premise is, indeed, part of the book's thesis then, in this context, would be fair to say that "simple" societies are less prone to collapse?

Werewolf255 4y ago
I think there might be room for misreading/misinterpretation of that part. I read that part of the review as saying complex societies have 'bucked the trend' by not being -as- prone to collapse; but with a big caveat that it looks like complex societies may operate on longer time scales, so the collapse might be staved off for longer. It's an open question about what 'long enough' would look like though, one that's probably beyond the author's scope.
bratbag 4y ago
In the same way that a boulder at the bottom of a valley is unlikely to roll downhill.
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  To be more exact, primitive societies can still collapse demographically (e.g. through a widespread plague or famine), but they don't have any extra complexity to lose.
inglor_cz 4y ago
Primitive societies do not collapse or grow much. They just stagnate. It might be nice living (I would surely enjoy some hunter-and-gatherer lifestyle), but there is basically no progress over centuries or even millennia. To look at one extreme example, Neanderthal stone tools (Mousterien) haven't changed very much over 100 000 years of their existence.
- AlotOfReading 4y ago
  It's profoundly incorrect to say that nomadic societies "stagnated". They adapted to incredibly variable and harsh conditions from the equator to the Arctic and invented much of the technology of the modern world like agriculture. Archaeological horizons and the lack thereof are only partly related to the societies that produced them. If you're just getting into the subject of what ancient societies looked like and how diverse they could be, I'd recommend Dawn of Everything as an approachable instruction to the topic.
  - inglor_cz 4y ago
    The delta in comparison to the timescale was extremely small, though. Stagnation does not necessarily mean "nothing ever changes at all", just a very small rate of change compared to the modern era. A life of a person in 8000 BC was not that different from life of a person in 7000 BC. For a person from 1000 AD, the world of 2000 AD would be wholly unrecognizable. Highly organized societies tend to transform their environment very thoroughly - just look at all the Roman buildings and facilities that still dot the landscape from Spain to the Levant. A rural society wouldn't be capable of building something like that.
    - AlotOfReading 4y ago
      Don't mistake the limitations of the archaeological record for the underlying reality. Humans are distinctive from most animals precisely because they have adaptations like culture that are perfectly suited to high speed adaptations to changing conditions. Someone born thousands of years would have found quite a lot different, just like you would if you were born in the Roman empire.
      - inglor_cz 4y ago
        Suitable, yes. I don't doubt that cultures can develop extremely quickly when the conditions are ripe. The Japanese dismantled their feudal structure and transformed into a major industrial and military power within a single generation. But that happened under a strong, merciless pressure from other industrialized nations. Nature acts way more slowly that Commodore Perry did and the adaptations are much slower, too.

Werewolf255 4y ago

I think there might be room for misreading/misinterpretation of that part. I read that part of the review as saying complex societies have 'bucked the trend' by not being -as- prone to collapse; but with a big caveat that it looks like complex societies may operate on longer time scales, so the collapse might be staved off for longer. It's an open question about what 'long enough' would look like though, one that's probably beyond the author's scope.

bratbag 4y ago

In the same way that a boulder at the bottom of a valley is unlikely to roll downhill.

inglor_cz 4y ago
To be more exact, primitive societies can still collapse demographically (e.g. through a widespread plague or famine), but they don't have any extra complexity to lose.

inglor_cz 4y ago

Primitive societies do not collapse or grow much. They just stagnate. It might be nice living (I would surely enjoy some hunter-and-gatherer lifestyle), but there is basically no progress over centuries or even millennia. To look at one extreme example, Neanderthal stone tools (Mousterien) haven't changed very much over 100 000 years of their existence.

AlotOfReading 4y ago
It's profoundly incorrect to say that nomadic societies "stagnated". They adapted to incredibly variable and harsh conditions from the equator to the Arctic and invented much of the technology of the modern world like agriculture. Archaeological horizons and the lack thereof are only partly related to the societies that produced them. If you're just getting into the subject of what ancient societies looked like and how diverse they could be, I'd recommend Dawn of Everything as an approachable instruction to the topic.
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  The delta in comparison to the timescale was extremely small, though. Stagnation does not necessarily mean "nothing ever changes at all", just a very small rate of change compared to the modern era. A life of a person in 8000 BC was not that different from life of a person in 7000 BC. For a person from 1000 AD, the world of 2000 AD would be wholly unrecognizable. Highly organized societies tend to transform their environment very thoroughly - just look at all the Roman buildings and facilities that still dot the landscape from Spain to the Levant. A rural society wouldn't be capable of building something like that.
  - AlotOfReading 4y ago
    Don't mistake the limitations of the archaeological record for the underlying reality. Humans are distinctive from most animals precisely because they have adaptations like culture that are perfectly suited to high speed adaptations to changing conditions. Someone born thousands of years would have found quite a lot different, just like you would if you were born in the Roman empire.
    - inglor_cz 4y ago
      Suitable, yes. I don't doubt that cultures can develop extremely quickly when the conditions are ripe. The Japanese dismantled their feudal structure and transformed into a major industrial and military power within a single generation. But that happened under a strong, merciless pressure from other industrialized nations. Nature acts way more slowly that Commodore Perry did and the adaptations are much slower, too.