13-07-2005 01:02									#61
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by JohnT I'm surprised that, over 80 years after physics got rid of determinism, that so many people want to work determinism into the social sciences, which are just as chaotic as physics.

I dont think he says things are completely deterministic. a wind gone differently, and Madagascar wouldnt have been settled by southeast asians, for ex. A lucky Peruvian fisherman gets blown off course, and survives, and the Aztecs and Incas get linked, and the Americas are significantly stronger when Columbus comes calling. GGS is a fertile ground for what ifs (look at SHWI if you dont beleive me) but I think he identifies some large driving trends, that answer SOME important questions.

	13-07-2005 01:07									#62
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark i think the first parenthetical is weak, though, and thats what all of you are focusing on. missing the point, I think.

You think wrong. I have always "gotten the point". I just think that Diamond is not necessarily wrong when he states that the Papuans are smarter, a rather un-PC statement.

	13-07-2005 01:08									#63
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by VetLegion It was about Yet Another Alternative Civ Project. Name was chosen some time into it and wasn't authorised by Jared Diamond. The development of the game stopped and the forum has been closed (but the threads are archived).

Well, yeah. The entire meaning of the book, translated into game terms, is "the player with the best starting position, wins." That leads to the following scenario.

quote: "Hey, you wanna play GGS?" "Yes! When?" "How about now?" "Sure." gamers fire up GGS mp, on the first move they reveal the world map to show starting positions. "Looks like you're on an island. You lose!" "$##$!!" "Wanna play another game?" "Why not." gamers fire up GGS mp, on the first move they reveal the world map to show starting positions. "Looks as if your surrounded by mountains. You lose!" "WTF?? $##!#&*%!" "C'mon, one more time. This time we'll play the 'Earth' map." "I am better at that one, true... OK - I've got time for one more game." gamers fire up GGS mp, on the first move they reveal the world map to show starting positions. "Ha-ha! You ended up in India, which is obviously a more losing position than my being on the western-most promontory of Asia!" "Hell. I'm gonna have to work on my strategies - I'm rougher at this than I thought. Good games!" "Thanks. Catch ya tomorrow?" ...

	13-07-2005 01:14									#64
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by JohnT Here's the thing. If the Chinese Emperor had told Zheng He "Go East, young man!", followed by (as in the European example) the colonization of the "Americas" and the Sinocization of the world, their Diamond equivalent would be arguing that China really had no choice but to find herself on the forefront of global modernization because of her monolithic status, the "ability to command vast resources at her whim."* In fact, the Chinese Diamond would argue that Europe couldn't have done it because the mountain ranges made political Europe "too fragmented", her resources "too poorly distributed" to allow any one of the nations to be at the forefront of modernization. *That's an ironic quote, btw, which is different from an actual quote. Just FYI.

Not really. First of all, China colonizing the new world would have been horribly difficult for the Chinese- crossing the Atlantic is much easier than the Pacific. Even if the Chinese had sailed east, maybe they get to Hawaii or such central pacific islands, but 10,000 miles is a sure harder to go than 3000 miles.

Second, even if the Chinese had made on successful trip, the vagaries of Imperial politics would have always had the great ability to nix any further actions, whereas in Europe different competing states would each have their own reasons to go out and explore.

What is silly is thinking that a single Chinese overseas trip would have made all the difference in the world.

	13-07-2005 01:18									#65
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by JohnT Well, yeah. The entire meaning of the book, translated into game terms, is "the player with the best starting position, wins." That leads to the following scenario.

And yet, on this Civilization site, the correctness of that should be obvious.

If you start the game on a small little island with no resources while your competitors start on a large resource rich continent then you will have a hell of a time catching up.

Hell, with every single new Civ game (and the same will be true of Civ4) the designers try to include more and more "variables" which are meant to simulate all those "cultural, human elements" you seem to think so vital. Yet, at the end of the day, the quality and quantity of the territory you hold and the population it makes possible is always the single most important aspect of winning a civ game. Crappy terrain and no resources will kill you.

	13-07-2005 01:25									#66
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Here's the thing. If the Chinese Emperor had told Zheng He "Go East, young man!", followed by (as in the European example) the colonization of the "Americas" and the Sinocization of the world, their Diamond equivalent would be arguing that China really had no choice but to find herself on the forefront of global modernization because of her monolithic status, the "ability to command vast resources at her whim."* In fact, the Chinese Diamond would argue that Europe couldn't have done it because the mountain ranges made political Europe "too fragmented", her resources "too poorly distributed" to allow any one of the nations to be at the forefront of modernization.

But the concentration of power meant that there would be fewer possible actors to take that sort of risk. So, if Castile, Aragon, Genoa, Venice, France, etc. pass up those trading missions to West Africa, Portugal could pick up the slack. And lo and behold, Brazil gets discovered. But if some European superpower thought that the Ottomans need to be stopped at all costs, this doesn't happen. OTOH, after Zheng He's missions, the Chinese state saw that as not only a bad idea, but actively prevented any resources to going into exploration missions because they were worried about the Mongols.

	13-07-2005 01:31									#67
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: I actually enjoyed the book - plenty of cool stuff about plant and animal domestication, linguistics, Madagascar, etc, etc - he brings stuff together and synthesizes well. Though he is apparently wrong on a number of specifics - in particular he accepts the Renfrew hypothesis on the expansion of Indo European.

It's been a few years since I've read the book, but I seem to recall that Diamond kept repeating himself over and over again. The book should've been a lot shorter.

	13-07-2005 01:45									#68
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

lets keep things in perspective. GGS is largely about MACRO history. The principle lesson is why Eurasian civs - Europe, Mideast, India, China - emerged into the late iron age, "civilization" while everyone else was still at early bronze or less when outisders came in (except for subsaharan africa, which was marginallly iron, but way behind the above list) The section of the book on why Europe, and not the others, is pretty skimpy. It contains some useful points - the mideast faded as it could not sustain intensive agriculture - and the terrain of Europe, which was conducive to multiple nation states, while chinas was conducive to a single empire, certainly helped europe.

But that is NOT a statement of inevitability. China was divided into 2 states, occassionally more, at various points since the Han dynasty. Conduciveness is NOT the same as inevitability. Had China in 1450 been in a two or three state situation, instead of under Ming control ( ) it might well have gone exploring and/or trading. Similarly, while it was vulnerable to an isolationist regime, a string of good luck might have avoided such, until the momentum was too great to turn back.

Alternatively, the division of Europe was not inevitable either. A different set of events could have saved Rome, perhaps. Or united Germany under the Ottonians, with who knows what consequences. Or led to Hapsburg dominance.

And while a divided europe makes it impossible for a central regime to stop exploration, there are lots of possibilities that could slow it down, I think.

So while Diamond has identified some strong TENDENCIES, its NOT wholly deterministic.

	13-07-2005 01:48									#69
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ramo It's been a few years since I've read the book, but I seem to recall that Diamond kept repeating himself over and over again. The book should've been a lot shorter.

Yeah, he does that a bit.

You want a book based on an interesting and important concept, that is abysmally written? Try Barnett's "The Pentagons New Map" "I was thinking that we really needed more peacekeepers and less focus on China, as I went to the next briefing with the committee of Super connected analysts and generals, and prepared my brief, and let me tell you, giving good briefs is really important in the Pentagon, you live and die by them, and Im really the master of Powerpoint, ya know, and ..."

	13-07-2005 02:44									#70
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: First of all, China colonizing the new world would have been horribly difficult for the Chinese- crossing the Atlantic is much easier than the Pacific.

However, Magellan was able to accomplish this task after already travelling 5,000 miles, on ships smaller and less well-equipped than the Chinese.

Again, there's more to modernization that mere geographical position. There's the human element as well.

	13-07-2005 02:45									#71
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by GePap And yet, on this Civilization site, the correctness of that should be obvious. If you start the game on a small little island with no resources while your competitors start on a large resource rich continent then you will have a hell of a time catching up. Hell, with every single new Civ game (and the same will be true of Civ4) the designers try to include more and more "variables" which are meant to simulate all those "cultural, human elements" you seem to think so vital. Yet, at the end of the day, the quality and quantity of the territory you hold and the population it makes possible is always the single most important aspect of winning a civ game. Crappy terrain and no resources will kill you.

True, a really crappy position can kill you. However, one starting at a marginal position, depending on the player (read: culture) can still beat a player that starts in OCC-heaven.

	13-07-2005 02:49									#72
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by JohnT quote: First of all, China colonizing the new world would have been horribly difficult for the Chinese- crossing the Atlantic is much easier than the Pacific. However, Magellan was able to accomplish this task after already travelling 5,000 miles, on ships smaller and less well-equipped than the Chinese.

It's one thing to sail around the world. It's another to try and colonize it. Note that Magellan didn't make it the whole way.

	13-07-2005 02:50									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

hell, the polynesians managed to colonize all the way to Easter Island, using outrigger canoes. Course it took them a rather long time to do it.

	13-07-2005 03:03									#74
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by GePap And yet, on this Civilization site, the correctness of that should be obvious.

i actually think this is one of the points of Civ (havent played Civ3) to show the overriding importance of geography, not only in determining who wins, but in HOW they must evolve to win.

GePap, were you around for the debate about putting civ specific attribute into Civ3?

	13-07-2005 03:12									#75
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara It's one thing to sail around the world. It's another to try and colonize it. Note that Magellan didn't make it the whole way.

And that's my point. There's more to colonizing the planet than mere geographical happenstance. People have to want to colonize the planet. China didn't want to, Europe did, and that's how we ended up speaking English here in the New World. And that "wanting" is cultural - one of the elements Diamond removes in his narrative and dismisses as unimportant.

	13-07-2005 03:13									#76
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

not much discussion on the content of the tv show here.

I'll tape it tonight, see if it's worth watching.

	13-07-2005 03:13									#77
	Remove this text

Dissident - my wife just told me that Monday's episode will be repeated Friday night. It might be different in your neck of the woods, though.

	13-07-2005 03:46									#78
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by JohnT And that's my point. There's more to colonizing the planet than mere geographical happenstance. People have to want to colonize the planet. China didn't want to, Europe did, and that's how we ended up speaking English here in the New World. And that "wanting" is cultural - one of the elements Diamond removes in his narrative and dismisses as unimportant.

Although it may have had something to do with the fact that Europe was full. Having found a huge continent to the west to exploit, there was an enormous incentive to go and exploit it. Even if the Chinese had found America or Australia, their geography at home may well have made them happy to just trade rather than colonise.

	13-07-2005 05:37									#79
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: And yet none of those ranges in the eastern parts, the heavily cultivated and populated parts, are really high enough to be too great an obstacle for conquest, otherwise it would not have been possible to have a united China so early and for so long.

Sichuan and (sometimes) Yunnan were both parts of historical China. Both are heavily mountainous. The remainder of southern China is fairly studded with mountains that, while not nearly as high as the massive mountains in western China, functioned as barriers to conquest when combined with the rivers of the Yangxi system.

There's a reason southern China escaped nearly all of the barbarian invasions that afflicted northern China over the centuries.

	13-07-2005 06:11									#80
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

A couple of good maps...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:...E.jpg#filelinks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:...s_CE_2.jpg#file

Note how much of southern China the Qin and Han (the first two unified dynasties in China) managed to control.

	13-07-2005 06:13									#81
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by JohnT Please note that the use of the word "racist" that you quoted was from Diamonds writings, not mine. At best Diamond showed why it was likely that an Eurasian civilization would be the one to dominate the globe. What he didn't do at all was explain why it was the Europeans that did so - but so, so many claim that's what he did.

He explains this by the fact that China was largely unified (explained by geography) and that therefore there was less competition and drive to expand.

	13-07-2005 06:18									#82
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by JohnT I'm surprised that, over 80 years after physics got rid of determinism, that so many people want to work determinism into the social sciences, which are just as chaotic as physics.

Determinism in physics has nothing to do with "chaos" and everything to do with the fact that its laws are actually stochastic in nature.

	13-07-2005 07:00									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Gepap

quote: While complicated, its not dangerous. The state makes sure to keep murder relatively low compared to the high murder rates among very primative groups.

Pretty smart, huh? It is dangerous if you need a long time to adapt and people wont help. But you keep assuming the Bushman gets help but wont allow the New Yorker help. from Bushmen. The point is the NYC system is more complicated than the Bushman's system. I believe more isolated peoples were just far enough away from sufficient contacts for their traditional lifestyles to survive. Technology expanded thru war and trade and the crossroads of the old world had plenty of contact. Civilisation spread out from those crossroads...

quote: That was not natural selection, but human-guided selection. There is a difference, a big difference.

True, but the slavery example mimics both eugenics and survival of the fittest.

quote: What are you talking about? Living in jungles is extremely demanding- lots of things to kill you, and its very hard to find food. Juts look at New Guineans- you don;t really see any fat, contended ones, or you didn;t in the show among those still caryring out subsistance farming.

We didn't get to see the farmers in the show, they just showed an aerial shot. But I didn't say New Guinea was easier than NYC, I said it wasn't that demanding, i.e., closer to NYC than the Kalahari.

	13-07-2005 10:32									#84
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten Sichuan and (sometimes) Yunnan were both parts of historical China. Both are heavily mountainous. The remainder of southern China is fairly studded with mountains that, while not nearly as high as the massive mountains in western China, functioned as barriers to conquest when combined with the rivers of the Yangxi system.[ There's a reason southern China escaped nearly all of the barbarian invasions that afflicted northern China over the centuries.

And you still don't address the political unity aspect of the situation, which is what is being discussed.

Try to keep up Potemkin.

	13-07-2005 10:35									#85
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by JohnT True, a really crappy position can kill you. However, one starting at a marginal position, depending on the player (read: culture) can still beat a player that starts in OCC-heaven.

Culture does not equal some god driven universal never changing force. Culture changes. European culture in 300 AD was fundamentally different than European culture in 1300 AD.

	13-07-2005 10:36									#86
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: And you still don't address the political unity aspect of the situation, which is what is being discussed. Try to keep up Potemkin.

When did "political unity" become what we were discussing? You said "China is a relatively flat- a conqueror can, with sufficient power, easily come to control the entire land of China." I disagreed and believe I have shown you to be incorrect. The fact that you are trying to move on to some other issue seems to back that up...

	13-07-2005 10:41									#87
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by JohnT And that's my point. There's more to colonizing the planet than mere geographical happenstance. People have to want to colonize the planet. China didn't want to, Europe did, and that's how we ended up speaking English here in the New World. And that "wanting" is cultural - one of the elements Diamond removes in his narrative and dismisses as unimportant.

Europe did not "want" to colonize anything. Where the hell do you get that notion?

States in Europe saw a way to increase their power. Note that the firsdt states to send forces to the new world were in the fringes of Europe, the Portuguese. They did not have many other ways to go, now did they? The Chinese on the other hand had plenty of land space to move to, and besides, they were already the richest, largest empire in the world with plenty of land enemies-why send people off somewhere?

So what you attribute to this nebelous "culture" can better be explained by the need for States to increase their power. note that the age of colonization comes hand in hand with the greater centralization of power by European monarchs over feudal interests. Is that centralization of power "European culture" as well?

The Europeans could claimt he Americas cause the locals mostly fell dead. European culture had **** to do with that crucial (if not utterly indespensible) bit.

	13-07-2005 10:43									#88
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten quote: And you still don't address the political unity aspect of the situation, which is what is being discussed. Try to keep up Potemkin. When did "political unity" become what we were discussing? You said "China is a relatively flat- a conqueror can, with sufficient power, easily come to control the entire land of China." I disagreed and believe I have shown you to be incorrect. The fact that you are trying to move on to some other issue seems to back that up...

The discussion is between China's relative unity vs Europe's political disunity (even given that China has plenty of "cultural" disunity within it), because that is what matters to this discussion.

Now, I know that might be hard for you to understand, but do try to keep up, Potemkin.

	13-07-2005 10:46									#89
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

The reason you gave for the difference is wrong and shows an ingnorance of Chinese geography and history on your part. Deal with it.

	13-07-2005 10:55									#90
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten The reason you gave for the difference is wrong and shows an ingnorance of Chinese geography and history on your part. Deal with it.

http://map.huhai.net/

A great set of historical maps of China, either when it was a single state, or broken up into larger states.

Yunnan is not generally part of China until after 1000 AD.

And yes, China as a large land mass is relatively flat. It may not be the great plains flat, but you don't get mountains that make terribly difficult natural barriers. The Urals might be a mountain range, but they are not a huge obstacle either way, going east or west.