Hummm, we grew from simple family based groups, to larger extended families, got into fights with other 'relatives' who had moved away a generation ago...remerged gene pools (relatives we enslaved after all the killing was done) with modest differences(new infections from the slave biosphere-mostly) at tribal speeds. The human race was tribal for the vast majority of the last 4 million years.

Tis MAY have been seen as a 'complex' undertaking but a desktop PC, at best a souped-up gamer box, should have been able to crunch these numbers in a five day period.

The big question is, do we make it to the end of the 1500AD to 3000AD time frame??
Any prediction there?

Word to ya muthas-

This would be cool, if it holds up. It reminds me of Isaac Asimov's "Psychohistory" in the "Foundation" series (a then fictional science concerning the mathematical interpretation of history, and social prediction).

http://en.wikiped...ctional)

Isaac Asimov would be giddy with delight.

This would be cool, if it holds up. It reminds me of Isaac Asimov's "Psychohistory" in the "Foundation" series (a then fictional science concerning the mathematical interpretation of history, and social prediction).

http://en.wikiped...ctional)

Isaac Asimov would be giddy with delight.

I was just about to say this sounds like the beginnings of psychohistory...

Did I miss something? The simulation almost exclusively shows expansion, where the real world also experienced (large) declines in empires. The simulation only seems to take into account a starting point and consequent expansion over inhabitable land over time. That's not a simulation of complex society...

"Foundation" reference... one of the few fiction books I own...

seems to me that even if the math model was 100% accurate about the past, wouldn't its real test be in its ability for prediction?

if the math model was 100% accurate about the past, wouldn't its real test be in its ability for prediction?

If it were 100% accurate: yes.

The problem with quantitative history* is that it's not 100% accurate and also that there are unique events that cannot be foreseen (e.g. natural disasters). Additionally we do have climate data for the past, which plays into how societies spread (or are forced to move). For the future we have models. But those aren't as reliable as past data.

Then there's the "psychology" aspect. If you know how you're being analyzed/predicted then that will change your behavior (something that Asimov got correct in his novels, BTW.).

Isaac Asimov would be giddy with delight.

The idea of quantitative history isn't new (and Asimov didn't invent it). It's been known (and even applied) since Marx. (and known probably way before that).

*Let's leave the term 'psychohistory' for the novels.

They are no Hari Seldons: since the main factor incorporated in the model is warfare, the only supported factor will be warfare.

Browsing their model, it is obvious they didn't include archaeological factors like outbreeding by migrated, more productive cultures, diseases/immune factors of migrations, et cetera.

It is a start of research akin to climate research. But they wanted to find warfare important and therefore they skewed their model so it was.

How about doing away with the silly "BCE - CE" thing and just going to "BPC - PC". Year 1 in this new reference would be the current 1975, so we are now living in the year 38 PC.

Did I miss something? The simulation almost exclusively shows expansion, where the real world also experienced (large) declines in empires. The simulation only seems to take into account a starting point and consequent expansion over inhabitable land over time. That's not a simulation of complex society...

It should have shown, in my humble opinion, very gradual increase, like interest on money while the principal is small. Then almost exponential growth in a region. Followed by large plateaus that have very modest increase, explosive growth, plateau again, growth, etc. If they had continued, they should have even been able to show the effect of the Chinese 'one child' policy as well as China's sex-selective destruction of female unborn. This would have then shown us the effect(predictive) of over 110 Million men who have no female mates at a time when the Chinese wish to be consumers (The next 30 years) War, based on the price of rice? They needed to have kept going!
word

They are no Hari Seldons: since the main factor incorporated in the model is warfare, the only supported factor will be warfare.

Browsing their model, it is obvious they didn't include archaeological factors like outbreeding by migrated, more productive cultures, diseases/immune factors of migrations, et cetera.

It is a start of research akin to climate research. But they wanted to find warfare important and therefore they skewed their model so it was.

They may have noticed that disease, drought and famine are NO MATCH for humanity's ability to kill large numbers in a geological-time equivalent of a millisecond.Even the Black Death nor the differing Flu Pandemics killed as many as the most immediately following warfare in any region over the same time-period as the last epidemic, whatever it was. They also did not account for twins and triplets, for example.Unless a population ALWAYS makes twins when mating occurs, mortality more than balances it out; Hence more baby boys

Psycho-history was a fraud in The Foundation.

"intense competition between societies"
The abstract state 'societies', not the govts that the wars.
Govts emerged from societies by violence. A gang and its leader discovered it was easier to plunder than to work for a living.
Alexander demanded tribute from minor gangs or they were destroyed. No different than an organized crime boss demanding protection money or he will destroy your business.
Instead of 'societies', the authors should use govts lead by monopolistic force.
" state-building and suggest a possible explanation why a long history of statehood is positively correlated with political stability, institutional quality, and income per capita. "
A better phrase would be a govt with the force to protect the society from violence from other plunders had a better opportunity to grow.
And when such a govt recognized its power should be limited and derived from society, prosperity exploded.