3. I now have three contenders, one that was a surprise for me, two that I had in mind when asked the question.
4. Let's start with the surprising one: hinter-gatherers burning grass-lands or brush-lands to create habitat suitable for their life-styles.
5. After initial resistance, I decided that this is a valid entry into the race. These people used energy to modify environment to suit their needs. Is that different from people using muscle power to cut forests for agriculture, or a modern farmer using bulldozers to clear land?
6. To quantify it we would need to figure out what area was burned, what was energy density (standing plant biomass per unit area), and what was the size of the foraging group (to get to per capita terms).
7. The problem for this contender is that such habitat modification only happened once a year. So once we divide by 365 and the number of foragers in the band, we may not get an impressive number in Wpc (Watts per capita). But let's see.
8. The next contender is a society in a harsh (cold) climate. People here proposed the Norse, but actually my homeland (Russia, specifically around Moscow) has a more energy demanding climate (because it is continental).
9. Even a well constructed (insulated) house in Moscow region require 5-6 cubic meters of firewood (that's nearly two cords, for you North Americans) to keep it warm through winter.
10. That's 3,000 kg of wood (a lower estimate) at 20 MJ/kg. Dividing this by 30 mln seconds/year and four people (a typical household) we have 500 Wpc. Now we are talking real numbers!
Plus energy needed for steel tools, pottery, transportation, plowing. We have a real contender
11. Now to the final contender (and my answer to Ian): the Mongols!
Let's look at the Mongols just before they went on the rampage through Eurasia under Chinggis Khan.
12. Nomadic armies were different from your usual idea of a medieval army. They were followed by huge herds of horses. Each Mongol needed 3-4 horses for effective military operations, because horses tire faster than their riders, and need time to recover after being ridden hard.
13. 1 horsepower is c.750 W. At three horses per warrior and rounding down we have 2 kWpc. That's an awesome amount of power by pre-industrial standards. No wonder the Mongols conquered as far as they cared! Their only defeat was at the hands of Mamluks, also steppe warriors.
14. Of course, warriors were only a part of the Mongol society. But we also need to add other transport animals o horses, as Mongols also herded camels and yaks, depending on the environment. They also had a well-developed metallurgy.
15. But they didn't spend a lot on heating (firewood is hard to come by in the steppe, although they had a lot of animal dung). And on pottery. Still, just due to their vast horsepower, their energy use per capita should be way up there.
16. Once we do the numbers, I expect that Russians and Mongols will share the first two positions as societies that were the most energy rich per capita.
17. Iron-making capacity of Sung China is really impressive, but gets diluted by the population numbers (90 mln).
18. These are back of the napkin calculations, and I welcome your constructive critique! The requirement, however, is that we use the same currency -- Wpc. Please don't tell me about the intellectual brilliancy of your favorite civilization (wonderful, but that's not the point).
===== End of thread =====
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
@BretDevereaux In his response to @Noahpinion Bret takes a swipe in passing at my work. It is not clear to what he refers ("effort to find support for this hypothesis in the ancient world"), as my my main effort for empirically testing this hypotheses has centered on the US from 1789 to ...
@BretDevereaux@Noahpinion ... the present. With a huge emphasis on the contemporary America (from the 1970s on). Perhaps America in the late 20 century is an ancient country? The main source is Ages of Discord peterturchin.com/ages-of-discor…
As I said, I really enjoyed this piece. Noah shows data for a bunch of new "proxies", variables that can help us with quantifying elite overproduction. Some reactions follow.
.@Noahpinion First, I disagree with the (apparent) criticism that my definition of elite overproduction focuses only on the supply -- it is explicitly the issue of balance of supply/demand. In #AgesOfDiscord I always consider both sides of the equation.
@Noahpinion Elite overproduction is always a relative thing, not an absolute one. The whole point is to understand what process generates frustrated elite aspirants, and how their numbers blow up, when supply starts to massively overwhelm demand.
2. The author writes, “Peter Turchin and his collaborators have championed a new approach in which history as a discipline will be replaced by cliodynamics”. This is an outrageous falsehood. The relationship between cliodynamics and history is a mutualistic symbiosis.
1. Thanks for this calculation! The starting point is very interesting, but I am not sure the answer is right (there seem to be a few extra orders of magnitude...)
3. 100 k people burn 200 k ha, so we have 2 ha burned per person.
4. Taking median standing crop biomass in grasslands as 300 g per sq.m (it varies, dry steppe is less, moist savanna is more, but let's for the order of magnitude).
5. That works out to 6,000 kg of dry matter (mostly cellulose) per capita burned.
6. Now let's compare it with my previous estimate of firewood burned by a Russian household, 3,000 kg. In per capita terms, 600 - 750 kg.