Comments on: Cliodynamics: Mathematizing History http://www.sublimeoblivion.com/2009/12/04/cliodynamics/ Anatoly Karlin on Eurasia, geopolitics, and peak oil Sat, 31 Jul 2010 20:54:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=7816 By: AK http://www.sublimeoblivion.com/2009/12/04/cliodynamics/#comment-6419 AK Sun, 11 Jul 2010 10:09:31 +0000 http://www.sublimeoblivion.com/?p=2960#comment-6419 Haha, welcome to my world. While the book is fascinating, I really don't recommend buying it because I'd imagine it would cost something like $200 (of course if I'm totally wrong and its ten times less go for it) - not unless you actually have plans to do original work in the subject. Libraries are good. So is browsing sites like http://cliodynamics.ru/ Haha, welcome to my world.
While the book is fascinating, I really don’t recommend buying it because I’d imagine it would cost something like $200 (of course if I’m totally wrong and its ten times less go for it) – not unless you actually have plans to do original work in the subject. Libraries are good. So is browsing sites like http://cliodynamics.ru/

]]> By: Alex http://www.sublimeoblivion.com/2009/12/04/cliodynamics/#comment-6418 Alex Sun, 11 Jul 2010 10:04:41 +0000 http://www.sublimeoblivion.com/?p=2960#comment-6418 Thanks, Anatoly - I wanted to read a bit before deciding whether I will need the book. The same is here - I think I might resemble a Xmax tree nowdays - with various unfinished projects instead of the toys , hanging from all sides... Cheers Thanks, Anatoly – I wanted to read a bit before deciding whether I will need the book. The same is here – I think I might resemble a Xmax tree nowdays – with various unfinished projects instead of the toys , hanging from all sides… Cheers

]]> By: AK http://www.sublimeoblivion.com/2009/12/04/cliodynamics/#comment-6416 AK Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:21:39 +0000 http://www.sublimeoblivion.com/?p=2960#comment-6416 Alex, the originally link seems to have been broken - thanks for pointing that out. It seems that the DOC file has since been removed from the Internet so I substituted a link to Google Books, which has its first chapter. I agree that S=kN is a ridiculous assumption (in real life) because it completely neglects the Malthusian dimension and hence produced ridiculous singularity-like predictions. This model is remedied by integrating Malthusian dynamics into the long-term Kuznetsian trend. I don't really think the rope argument is valid here because this equation is assumed to be implicit. Namely, if you do have a certain surplus, that must imply a certain carrying capacity, implying a certain technological level, implying a certain number of people necessary to have produced the inventors required to get to that technological level. But I agree that this is very simplistic and I have many criticisms of the way technology is interpreted in cliodynamics (and LTG) as just one variable. In reality, technology is intricately linked to the particular environment and cannot be represented by a single value. E.g. sailing technology is very useful to a Mediterranean civilization and will massively raise its carrying capacity (e.g. by connecting Egyptian grain surpluses grown on the Nile valley to coastal cities like Rome); it is completely useless in the middle of a desert populated by Bedouins. And so on. This has a lot of consequences for the modern world since so much of our current "high" technology is critically dependent on cheap fossil fuel subsidies for its sustenance. Just to clarify, I don't "work" on cliodynamics now. I'd just like to if I ever get the time and freedom to. Alex, the originally link seems to have been broken – thanks for pointing that out. It seems that the DOC file has since been removed from the Internet so I substituted a link to Google Books, which has its first chapter.

I agree that S=kN is a ridiculous assumption (in real life) because it completely neglects the Malthusian dimension and hence produced ridiculous singularity-like predictions. This model is remedied by integrating Malthusian dynamics into the long-term Kuznetsian trend.

I don’t really think the rope argument is valid here because this equation is assumed to be implicit. Namely, if you do have a certain surplus, that must imply a certain carrying capacity, implying a certain technological level, implying a certain number of people necessary to have produced the inventors required to get to that technological level. But I agree that this is very simplistic and I have many criticisms of the way technology is interpreted in cliodynamics (and LTG) as just one variable. In reality, technology is intricately linked to the particular environment and cannot be represented by a single value. E.g. sailing technology is very useful to a Mediterranean civilization and will massively raise its carrying capacity (e.g. by connecting Egyptian grain surpluses grown on the Nile valley to coastal cities like Rome); it is completely useless in the middle of a desert populated by Bedouins. And so on. This has a lot of consequences for the modern world since so much of our current “high” technology is critically dependent on cheap fossil fuel subsidies for its sustenance.

Just to clarify, I don’t “work” on cliodynamics now. I’d just like to if I ever get the time and freedom to.

]]> By: Alex ("zed" one) http://www.sublimeoblivion.com/2009/12/04/cliodynamics/#comment-6398 Alex ("zed" one) Fri, 09 Jul 2010 07:59:46 +0000 http://www.sublimeoblivion.com/?p=2960#comment-6398 It's an interesting topic you work with, Anatoly. Just in case - can you restore the link to the "Full version of Introduction: Millennial Trends (DOC).", please? (and if it is not inconvenient- drop me e-mail as I cannot see the "follow-up" option on your page?) So far I don't quite understand why S=kN. I can, perhaps, see some arguments "for" , but as a possible counter-argument eg. there is known experiment in social psychology which shows that the force on a rope pulled by a group of people has a maximum at ~ 12 persons. Not to argue right here - just a remark. Cheers It’s an interesting topic you work with, Anatoly. Just in case – can you restore the link to the “Full version of Introduction: Millennial Trends (DOC).”, please? (and if it is not inconvenient- drop me e-mail as I cannot see the “follow-up” option on your page?)
So far I don’t quite understand why S=kN. I can, perhaps, see some arguments “for” , but as a possible counter-argument eg. there is known experiment in social psychology which shows that the force on a rope pulled by a group of people has a maximum at ~ 12 persons. Not to argue right here – just a remark. Cheers

]]>