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.
4. Commenting on the Seshat project on the relationship between moralizing gods and complex societies, the author states, “But under scrutiny, those patterns show themselves to often be just results of omissions and lacunas in the underlying databases.” This is a lie of omission.
5. The author provides a link to the critique of our results, but conveniently omits mentioning our very robust rebuttal. In fact, our response involved an enormous amount of additional work.
6. We have consulted with dozens more historians and scholars of religion and summarized their collective knowledge in an analytical narrative running at over 100k words. The resulting publication has been published as a preprint months ago ...
7 ... and is currently undergoing review in an academic journal. And what did it tell us? Far from weakening our results, extensive buttressing of our data and improved analytical techniques have only strengthened them.
8. We invited our critics to respond, but so far they’ve declined to do so. But the author of this hit-piece has decided to ignore it.
9. Finally, the author says, “History and historical data can still teach us so much if we take a guide with us on the way: a historian.” It may come as a surprise, but I am in complete agreement with this statement.
10. But what the author (again, conveniently) omits is that the Seshat project does precisely this. It would be impossible to build the Databank without historians and other experts on past societies.
11. The author’s dismissal trivializes the enormous contributions of more than a hundred historians have made to the project. You can see their contributions acknowledged here: seshatdatabank.info/seshat-about-u…
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.
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?
@WalterScheidel@BjoernGehrmann We've just experienced a wave of deadly collective violence. That's different from peaceful demonstrations. Of course, dozens killed and hundreds of thousands killed are very different orders of magnitude. But the nature of internal warfare is that it easily escalates.
@WalterScheidel@BjoernGehrmann Historically and statistically, smaller-scale outbreaks of political violence serve as a reliable leading indicators of worse to come. For example, incidence of deadly riots started to increase in Antebellum America in the 1830s and exploded during the 1850s.
@WalterScheidel@BjoernGehrmann If you look at the statistical distribution of sizes (number killed) of internal collective violence, it doesn't have two humps corresponding to "riots" and "civil wars". Instead, it is a continuous "fat-tailed" distribution.
As we are living through 2020, it's worth remembering that such violence spikes recur roughly every 50 years. The spike of c.1920 was much worse than that of the late 1960s.