
Is the Semi-Permanent “Gunpowder Empire” Historical Scenario Plausible? - bootload
http://www.bradford-delong.com/2016/07/the-gunpowder-empire-scenario-incomplete-draft.html
======
narrator
I'm more of a fan of anthropologist Joseph Tainter's theories from _Collapse
of Complex Societies_
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Tainter#Social_complexi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Tainter#Social_complexity)).
Civilizations are problem solving entities that have some sort of trick
they've developed for solving civilizational problems. They exploit that trick
with ever increasing levels of complexity until it doesn't work anymore and
starts delivering negative marginal returns. They usually fail to realize that
the downward spiral has begun and that leads to the collapse as they keep
trying to use the strategies that no longer work.

Sometimes a technological breakthrough, like the development of the steam
engine in Britain, will reverse the decline and lead to a whole new
civilizational development curve.

The theory is independent of population levels and so is not a Malthusian
derivative, like most of the popular ones that have been in fashion since the
1970s. I think Tainter's approach is different and unique because he's an
anthropologist and not an economist. For example, the total collapse of Rome,
the historic civilization most similar to our own, was not caused by
environmental factors, but by diminishing marginal returns that eventually
went negative of the "conquer and extract tribute" methodology of the Roman
empire.

~~~
Retric
People tend to think in terms of an oversimplified narrative around the fall
of the Roman empire in ways that really don't fit the data.

Romes decline related to the rate information traveled and the need for
several people at the top. The eastern roman empire lasted well after the
sacking of Rome. But, Rome had fallen several times before this it just being
called Rome. The difference is we equate the city with the empire, but the US
for example moved it's capital and nobody thinks in terms of the fall of
Philadelphia or even fall of the US in 1814 when DC burned.

The Byzantine Empire aka Eastern Roman Empire even covered "Rome" ~550 growing
and falling at various points until 1,400.

IMO, it's not really the empires decline we are talking about so much as the
city's decline.

~~~
narrator
Tainter talks a lot about the Eastern Roman Empire and why it survived. He
talks about how they were able to radically simplify their civilization to
save it.

For example: they got rid of the entire centralized military bureaucracy and
replaced it with the Theme system (
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theme_(Byzantine_district)#Org...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theme_\(Byzantine_district\)#Organization)
) which was basically a sort of farmer's military club franchise where farmers
where also in the military and bought their own weapons and also conducted
civil affairs. This held off invading muslim hordes for hundreds of years.
They also replaced the massive central administration with a very minimalist
king and court. They basically did a massive corporate re-org and
decentralization to save the empire. It's a pattern that not many
civilizations have pulled off.

~~~
bmer
"invading muslim hordes" sounds weirdly demeaning. Why not just say "invaiding
muslim armies"? Just curious.

Asian armies = hordes

European armies = armies?

~~~
mwpmaybe
Horde has a specific meaning in the context of armed forces, and it is
accurate to describe Eurasian armies as "hordes", but the definition rarely
(if ever) includes Muslims.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orda_(organization)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orda_\(organization\))

~~~
johnnyhillbilly
Your reference includes an example of a horde travelling with mosques...

~~~
nl
The Mongols took a lot of Muslims (and some Christians) with them as they
went. They were quite happy for the people they conquered to keep their
religion, provided they surrender.

They certainly weren't a Muslim army, though.

------
bkohlmann
I've always wondered if accelerating technological growth is associated with
increased population due to a simple statistical effect: if we assume human
ingenuity and intelligence is distributed normally, then with larger
populations, humanity gets more right tail geniuses. Which creates more
innovation. Which allows more humans to exist on a resource constrained
planet. It's a virtuous cycle. If this is true, then what happens to tech
growth in the next few decades when global population flattens?

~~~
axlee
> larger populations > more right tail geniuses. > more innovation

Only in the right environment. That's why the modern scientific contribution
of, let's say, Israel, is an order of magnitude larger than Nigeria's despite
being 20 times smaller.

I am also dubious about the implied direct link between "geniuses" and
innovation. Is scientific innovation really driven by "geniuses"?

~~~
bkohlmann
That's fair. I suppose genius is anybody with a unique insight that takes
action - but that last part may require pre existing societal frameworks.
Furthermore, my definition may be so broad as to render it meaningless.

------
tunesmith
It's crazy to think of how our currently state of technology could have been
reached five hundred years ago, or five hundred years from now. I can't
offhand think of anything truly external that has gated our technological
advancements, like some event where aliens visit us and we advance quickly by
analyzing their tech. Is there an argument that external events might have
been real dependencies? I'm thinking of things like volcano eruptions, or
certain astronomical patterns, etc.

~~~
gonvaled
Sure, if you consider the "lack of external event" to also be an external
event: we have been not been thrown back to the stone age, or pushed to the
brink of extinction, because no big asteroid has impacted the Earth in recent
time, and hopefully next time it does we'll be ready to deal with it with
modern technology.

------
T0T0R0
People frequently discuss exponential population growth, but rarely mention
the terrestial confines of such thinking.

Then they say, oh but technology will continue to advance, and yet never
mention pioneering space travel.

I feel like economists that extrapolate numbers into the future, but fail to
consider space travel are like holy men, refusing to consider that the earth
is round, and rather than the imaginary center of a flat universe; doomsayers,
warning that we'll sail over the edge, if we venture too far out to sea.

~~~
johnnyhillbilly
Who are these holy men, of which you speak, that refused to consider Earth
round?

~~~
Nzen
He or she is probably conflating the Catholic inquisitors who convicted
Galileo for a heliocentric heresy and the popular myth that the experts who
dissuaded King Ferdinand from supporting Columbus thought the earth flat,
rather than too wide to cross with contemporary technology. It's just a
rhetorical device intended to diminish the otherwise learned. <edit for
wording>

