[Ghostavo]

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/09/computer-simulations-suggest-war-drove-the-rise-of-civilizations/

An interesting article about what seems to be a really cool paper.

From the paper's abstract

How did human societies evolve from small groups, integrated by face-to-face cooperation, to huge anonymous societies of today, typically organized as states? Why is there so much variation in the ability of different human populations to construct viable states? Existing theories are usually formulated as verbal models and, as a result, do not yield sharply defined, quantitative predictions that could be unambiguously tested with data. Here we develop a cultural evolutionary model that predicts where and when the largest-scale complex societies arose in human history. The central premise of the model, which we test, is that costly institutions that enabled large human groups to function without splitting up evolved as a result of intense competition between societies—primarily warfare. Warfare intensity, in turn, depended on the spread of historically attested military technologies (e.g., chariots and cavalry) and on geographic factors (e.g., rugged landscape). The model was simulated within a realistic landscape of the Afroeurasian landmass and its predictions were tested against a large dataset documenting the spatiotemporal distribution of historical large-scale societies in Afroeurasia between 1,500 BCE and 1,500 CE. The model-predicted pattern of spread of large-scale societies was very similar to the observed one. Overall, the model explained 65% of variance in the data. An alternative model, omitting the effect of diffusing military technologies, explained only 16% of variance. Our results support theories that emphasize the role of institutions in 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.

[An4ximandros]

War is the habitat of man.

That's a very interesting find there... And not that surprising, to me at least.

[Luis Dias]

Yeah I'm slightly skeptical of any proposed "model" of entire civilizations by fiat. They are mostly filled with prejudices, and worst of all, mathematical fudges. You can basically prove whatever you want given this kind of structure. The researchers went on to find warfare as a big force of innovation and voilá, they found it.

Bah.

[The E]

Well, this hypothesis was certainly true in a few games of Civilization I've played....

[Luis Dias]

Of course it was. It was designed that way.

Look, I'm not saying it "isn't" true. It might well be. But this idea that it can be "tested" in these computer games simulations is ridiculous and any competent scientist should just laugh at it. Instead we get journals publishing this garbage. It really annoys the hell out of me.

[The E]

Yeah, this is something where I really am skeptical about it all, given that I am not in a position to truly examine their theoretical models.

[Phantom Hoover]

Vaguely related: AIUI all known 'ground up' ecological models are completely unstable; the ones that work are essentially fudges to fit empirical observations.

There aren't any empirical observations here.

[Luis Dias]

Yes, that pretty much aligns with my sensitivity a 100%. Kinda reminds me those silly "holistic" biological graphics that represent the entirety of the biosphere, etc. (every living being has its own place, serves its own distinctive function, everything is harmony, etc.) All absolutely obvious bull**** to anyone who has read (even if only skimmed) Lorenz, Mandelbrot or Gleick.

[Phantom Hoover]

Even better summary of this report: "Model fits data used to calibrate it."