| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Your Informer" |
| Date: |
09 Dec 2005 05:12:10 AM |
| Object: |
Stability of countries |
Why does the world have the current arrangement of countries? Is this just
luck or did things have to be this way anyway? If we look back 40,000 years
ago, there were no countries at all. Just migrating tribes. Suppose now you
send your friend back in time and give him a gun. Say he is supposed to
eliminate all tribes in some 100 by 100 mile area. Will the world's
countries be vastly different today? Or will they be exactly the same?
In other words, what is the sensitivily of borders as a function of
population initial conditions? Anyone?
.
|
|
| User: "D.K." |
|
| Title: Re: Stability of countries |
09 Dec 2005 05:24:26 PM |
|
|
In article <439966ba$4@clarion.carno.net.au>, "Your Informer" <z@z.z> wrote:
Why does the world have the current arrangement of countries?
You are mad. You should seek professional medical help. Your
disease is clearly escalating. Canberra will do it to everyone.
DK
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David C. Ullrich" |
|
| Title: Re: Stability of countries |
09 Dec 2005 08:14:38 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 22:12:10 +1100, "Your Informer" <z@z.z> wrote:
Why does the world have the current arrangement of countries? Is this just
luck or did things have to be this way anyway? If we look back 40,000 years
ago, there were no countries at all. Just migrating tribes. Suppose now you
send your friend back in time and give him a gun. Say he is supposed to
eliminate all tribes in some 100 by 100 mile area. Will the world's
countries be vastly different today? Or will they be exactly the same?
Doesn't this seem like an exquisitely silly question?
In other words, what is the sensitivily of borders as a function of
population initial conditions? Anyone?
It follows from the Riemann Mapping Theorem that the borders would
be exactly the same as they are today, regardless of initial
conditions.
************************
David C. Ullrich
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Director of SCR" |
|
| Title: Re: Stability of countries |
09 Dec 2005 09:15:00 AM |
|
|
"David C. Ullrich" <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote in message
news:584jp1da1or1la5qn9v692504u10sja4ce@4ax.com...
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 22:12:10 +1100, "Your Informer" <z@z.z> wrote:
Why does the world have the current arrangement of countries? Is this just
luck or did things have to be this way anyway? If we look back 40,000
years
ago, there were no countries at all. Just migrating tribes. Suppose now
you
send your friend back in time and give him a gun. Say he is supposed to
eliminate all tribes in some 100 by 100 mile area. Will the world's
countries be vastly different today? Or will they be exactly the same?
Doesn't this seem like an exquisitely silly question?
LOL. This is a million dollar question.
In other words, what is the sensitivily of borders as a function of
population initial conditions? Anyone?
It follows from the Riemann Mapping Theorem that the borders would
be exactly the same as they are today, regardless of initial
conditions.
LOL. Drop your pure mathematics into the garbage can. Its useless. It only
has application in some computer code development. We are talking here real
world. Its well known that some dynamical systems have regions of stability,
such that if you change the system at some point in time, the system will
approach the same future state as if the variable were unchanges. If this is
true for the world, then the way that the world is must be stable!
Of course this is an important question! It might mean that if, for example,
some disaster happens in the world then the world will be uneffected in the
long run.
.
|
|
|
| User: "[Mr.] Lynn Kurtz" |
|
| Title: Re: Stability of countries |
09 Dec 2005 11:56:17 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 02:15:00 +1100, "The Director of SCR" <z@z.z>
wrote:
"David C. Ullrich" <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote in message
news:584jp1da1or1la5qn9v692504u10sja4ce@4ax.com...
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 22:12:10 +1100, "Your Informer" <z@z.z> wrote:
<snip>
In other words, what is the sensitivily of borders as a function of
population initial conditions? Anyone?
It follows from the Riemann Mapping Theorem that the borders would
be exactly the same as they are today, regardless of initial
conditions.
LOL. Drop your pure mathematics into the garbage can. Its useless.
<snip>
I love exchanges like this. It reminds me of the story I heard (true
but I'm not naming names) about an exchange between a couple of
graduate students, one of whom was very strong and the other very weak
going something like this:
Lecturer: " ... and if follows that blah blah drops out easily..."
Weak: " I don't see how he got that."
Strong, keeping a straight face "It is a trivial consequence of
Hilbert's corollary to the Rayleigh Bernstein Gauss lemma."
Weak, thoughtfully stroking his chin: "Oh yeah.... I see it now."
Do you see why the above exchange reminded me of that?
--Lynn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry" |
|
| Title: Re: Stability of countries |
09 Dec 2005 12:14:33 PM |
|
|
"[Mr.] Lynn Kurtz" <kurtzDELETE-THIS@asu.edu> wrote in message
news:2MKZQ8It4rzToylGP9h6uoNV5xs4@4ax.com...
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 02:15:00 +1100, "The Director of SCR" <z@z.z>
wrote:
"David C. Ullrich" <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote in message
news:584jp1da1or1la5qn9v692504u10sja4ce@4ax.com...
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 22:12:10 +1100, "Your Informer" <z@z.z> wrote:
<snip>
In other words, what is the sensitivily of borders as a function of
population initial conditions? Anyone?
It follows from the Riemann Mapping Theorem that the borders would
be exactly the same as they are today, regardless of initial
conditions.
LOL. Drop your pure mathematics into the garbage can. Its useless.
<snip>
I love exchanges like this. It reminds me of the story I heard (true
but I'm not naming names) about an exchange between a couple of
graduate students, one of whom was very strong and the other very weak
going something like this:
Lecturer: " ... and if follows that blah blah drops out easily..."
Weak: " I don't see how he got that."
Strong, keeping a straight face "It is a trivial consequence of
Hilbert's corollary to the Rayleigh Bernstein Gauss lemma."
Weak, thoughtfully stroking his chin: "Oh yeah.... I see it now."
Do you see why the above exchange reminded me of that?
--Lynn
That was truly enlightening and explains why you never got past
kindergarten.
Women should just stay home anyway. They are just baby factories anyway.
Personally, I don't believe in wasting a perfectly good vagina.
If women ruled the world, we'd all be crocheting and gossiping about the
awful dress that MTRP wore.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Russell" |
|
| Title: Re: Stability of countries |
13 Dec 2005 03:52:13 PM |
|
|
Larry wrote:
"[Mr.] Lynn Kurtz" <kurtzDELETE-THIS@asu.edu> wrote in message
[snip Hilbert lemma of Rayleigh-Bernstein-Gauss]
Heh. I like to think Weak really *did* follow the lecture after
that hint; makes the joke even better IMO. And of course we
don't really know, do we?
Do you see why the above exchange reminded me of that?
--Lynn
That was truly enlightening and explains why you never got past
kindergarten.
Women should just stay home anyway. They are just baby factories anyway.
Maybe Lynn should add [Mr.] to his .sig file as well. OTOH we
might then see fewer thoughtful submissions of this kind by
Larry, to our incalculable loss.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Russell" |
|
| Title: Re: Stability of countries |
13 Dec 2005 03:56:42 PM |
|
|
Russell wrote:
Larry wrote:
"[Mr.] Lynn Kurtz" <kurtzDELETE-THIS@asu.edu> wrote in message
[snip Hilbert lemma of Rayleigh-Bernstein-Gauss]
Oops, bit of an anachronism there... Lynn said corollary.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "the captain" |
|
| Title: Re: Stability of countries |
09 Dec 2005 05:06:57 PM |
|
|
"[Mr.] Lynn Kurtz" <kurtzDELETE-THIS@asu.edu> wrote in message
news:2MKZQ8It4rzToylGP9h6uoNV5xs4@4ax.com...
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 02:15:00 +1100, "The Director of SCR" <z@z.z>
wrote:
"David C. Ullrich" <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote in message
news:584jp1da1or1la5qn9v692504u10sja4ce@4ax.com...
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 22:12:10 +1100, "Your Informer" <z@z.z> wrote:
<snip>
In other words, what is the sensitivily of borders as a function of
population initial conditions? Anyone?
It follows from the Riemann Mapping Theorem that the borders would
be exactly the same as they are today, regardless of initial
conditions.
LOL. Drop your pure mathematics into the garbage can. Its useless.
<snip>
I love exchanges like this. It reminds me of the story I heard (true
but I'm not naming names) about an exchange between a couple of
graduate students, one of whom was very strong and the other very weak
going something like this:
Lecturer: " ... and if follows that blah blah drops out easily..."
Weak: " I don't see how he got that."
Strong, keeping a straight face "It is a trivial consequence of
Hilbert's corollary to the Rayleigh Bernstein Gauss lemma."
Weak, thoughtfully stroking his chin: "Oh yeah.... I see it now."
Do you see why the above exchange reminded me of that?
--Lynn
nope, and if strong is what you want, look no further than the captain. i
handle the all the practical application.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Fergerson" |
|
| Title: Re: Stability of countries |
09 Dec 2005 01:18:07 PM |
|
|
Your Informer wrote:
Why does the world have the current arrangement of countries? Is this just
luck or did things have to be this way anyway? If we look back 40,000 years
ago, there were no countries at all. Just migrating tribes. Suppose now you
send your friend back in time and give him a gun. Say he is supposed to
eliminate all tribes in some 100 by 100 mile area. Will the world's
countries be vastly different today? Or will they be exactly the same?
Ignoring the other subthread for the moment, why do you see a
difference between current national boundaries and the ranges of
ancient "migrating tribes"? And please don't tell me you don't
believe they had preferred ranges; current "racial" distinctions can
be directly correlated to regional climatic conditions (the
correlation sure isn't perfect, but is an indication of adaptation
over fairly long periods). It seems to me that your scenario is very
era-dependent; if the killing took place during say an Ice Age a
crucial component of many future populations might be removed from
the total gene pool. Otherwise, no real difference.
After all, we're just talking about how groups of people allocate
access to resources. The only real difference between the ancient
and modern methods is the paperwork. As support for this, notice
that the previous European Nations are in the process of uniting
into one politicoeconomic State largely because it will simplify the
exchange of goods within its new borders.
In other words, what is the sensitivily of borders as a function of
population initial conditions? Anyone?
I'm of the opinion that this is amenable to Chaos Theory, and my
snap judgement is that current national boundaries represent a
fairly strong attractor any given population would eventually settle
on, largely because of the locations of geological features.
Mark L. Fergerson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry" |
|
| Title: Re: Stability of countries |
09 Dec 2005 01:25:36 PM |
|
|
Like Ulrich, U R just a sucker.
The Austral Asian has made fools of you all.
"Mark Fergerson" <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message
news:7Mkmf.16910$Mi5.2161@dukeread07...
Your Informer wrote:
Why does the world have the current arrangement of countries? Is this
just luck or did things have to be this way anyway? If we look back
40,000 years ago, there were no countries at all. Just migrating tribes.
Suppose now you send your friend back in time and give him a gun. Say he
is supposed to eliminate all tribes in some 100 by 100 mile area. Will
the world's countries be vastly different today? Or will they be exactly
the same?
Ignoring the other subthread for the moment, why do you see a difference
between current national boundaries and the ranges of ancient "migrating
tribes"? And please don't tell me you don't believe they had preferred
ranges; current "racial" distinctions can be directly correlated to
regional climatic conditions (the correlation sure isn't perfect, but is
an indication of adaptation over fairly long periods). It seems to me that
your scenario is very era-dependent; if the killing took place during say
an Ice Age a crucial component of many future populations might be removed
from the total gene pool. Otherwise, no real difference.
After all, we're just talking about how groups of people allocate access
to resources. The only real difference between the ancient and modern
methods is the paperwork. As support for this, notice that the previous
European Nations are in the process of uniting into one politicoeconomic
State largely because it will simplify the exchange of goods within its
new borders.
In other words, what is the sensitivily of borders as a function of
population initial conditions? Anyone?
I'm of the opinion that this is amenable to Chaos Theory, and my snap
judgement is that current national boundaries represent a fairly strong
attractor any given population would eventually settle on, largely because
of the locations of geological features.
Mark L. Fergerson
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Director of SCR" |
|
| Title: Re: Stability of countries |
09 Dec 2005 07:30:08 PM |
|
|
"Larry" <Larry27@YuTu.com> wrote in message
news:ySkmf.4317$Kf4.38@fe08.lga...
Like Ulrich, U R [snip].
The Austral Asian has made fools of you all.
Thank you for your contribution. I also felt this was the time to change the
topic of discussion. The thread was going nowhere.
"Mark Fergerson" <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message
news:7Mkmf.16910$Mi5.2161@dukeread07...
Your Informer wrote:
Why does the world have the current arrangement of countries? Is this
just luck or did things have to be this way anyway? If we look back
40,000 years ago, there were no countries at all. Just migrating tribes.
Suppose now you send your friend back in time and give him a gun. Say he
is supposed to eliminate all tribes in some 100 by 100 mile area. Will
the world's countries be vastly different today? Or will they be exactly
the same?
Ignoring the other subthread for the moment, why do you see a
difference between current national boundaries and the ranges of ancient
"migrating tribes"? And please don't tell me you don't believe they had
preferred ranges; current "racial" distinctions can be directly
correlated to regional climatic conditions (the correlation sure isn't
perfect, but is an indication of adaptation over fairly long periods). It
seems to me that your scenario is very era-dependent; if the killing took
place during say an Ice Age a crucial component of many future
populations might be removed from the total gene pool. Otherwise, no real
difference.
After all, we're just talking about how groups of people allocate
access to resources. The only real difference between the ancient and
modern methods is the paperwork. As support for this, notice that the
previous European Nations are in the process of uniting into one
politicoeconomic State largely because it will simplify the exchange of
goods within its new borders.
In other words, what is the sensitivily of borders as a function of
population initial conditions? Anyone?
I'm of the opinion that this is amenable to Chaos Theory, and my snap
judgement is that current national boundaries represent a fairly strong
attractor any given population would eventually settle on, largely
because of the locations of geological features.
Mark L. Fergerson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Director of SCR" |
|
| Title: Re: Stability of countries |
09 Dec 2005 07:25:02 PM |
|
|
"Larry" <Larry27@YuTu.com> wrote in message
news:ySkmf.4317$Kf4.38@fe08.lga...
Like Ulrich, [snip]> The [snip] has made fools of you all.
Brookski may be right here.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Stability of countries |
13 Dec 2005 01:17:39 PM |
|
|
Your Informer wrote:
Why does the world have the current arrangement of countries? Is this just
luck or did things have to be this way anyway? If we look back 40,000 years
ago, there were no countries at all. Just migrating tribes.
It's an open question whether hunter-gatherer societies had sufficient
capacity to form states or state-like structures, one that's actually
being discussed in anthropological circles in the last few years.
What's known is that when you go back to the Upper Paleolithic (i.e.
modern humans before the advent of agriculture), there is a continuity
of various stone-age industries, some widespread throughout much of
Eurasia that are not considered to have been independently developed.
There has even been discussion of the possibility that the Clovis
technology, which spread from the eastern part of North America to the
rest of the continent around 10000 years ago or less was seeded by a
similar culture which existed across the Atlantic in Europe just before
its appearance (and, in fact, there is one strand along the mtDNA
family tree which has, amongst its progeny, those native to NW Europe
and Eastern North America).
What's also known is that the transition from hunter-gatherer to
agricultural living (i.e. the Neolithic Revolution, more aptly named
the Neolithic Devolution) was NOT a forward step in progress. Foresics
has made clear the marked difference between those from the former
societies vs. those from the latter; with the latter being less robust,
stunted in growth, showing much greater wear and tear as befits one who
had born a greater work burden in their lives.
Even today, the few remaining hunter-gatherer groups, like the San (the
Bushmen), are self-sufficient with 20 hours a week of work.
So, there's plenty of room and time in such societies for thought,
leisure, and other activities that can lead to a state or state-like
arrangement.
But not the numbers...
Which gets to the point: the question of what led to the various
transitions that comprise history IS, in fact, a concern of Physics on
2 levels.
The question is: what could possibly prompt a transition of a people to
a LOWER standard or living? You're talking about a phase transition
(the Neolithic) through a significant barrier (the marked decrease in
individual living standards).
Such a transition requires an external driving force. It will not
proceed spontaneously on its own.
And that's the really interesting part about all this. People have
always been asking the wrong question: "why have human, with their
present level of intelligence, only recently in their history
'progressed' to agriculture?", when the REAL question that they should
be asking is: "since it's obvious that anyone with even the slightest
experience in gathering will have knowledge of the basic principles of
agriculture, and equally obvious that nobody in their right mind is
going to willingly restablish themselves in a settled agricultural
lifestyle when it means going from a 20-hour work week to an 80-hour
work week with greater vulnerability to droughts, and less robustness
and less mobility, why are human NOT still hunter-gatherers? Why did
they decide at one moment in history to make the change?"
The major difference between hunter-gatherers and agriculturalists is
numbers.
This is an issue that even popped up, in a rather poignant fashion, in
a fictional setting (Dances with Wolves), "How many white men are there
[back East]?", the Sioux asked his friend, Dances with Wolves, who
responded with the greatest hesitation and trepidation "As many as
there are stars in the sky."
The issue is numbers. And what probably happened is that with the
global warming event that occurred around 9600 BC, with the dramatic
melting and retreat of the ice and warming up, the hunter-gatherer
lifestyle probably became so profitable that a population explosion
resulted.
But there comes a point where the numbers become too large to support
this life-style. The estimates I've seen is that it takes on the order
of a square kilometer or more per individual for this mode of life.
That leaves you with 3 choices, if you're in this situation: either (1)
move out, (2) change the way you live, or (3) die off.
Those who died off are not around to be heard from. Those who moved off
needed some place to move to, and the only out at the time was to the
uninhabited region across Beringia. So, began the great migration of
the Siberians who eventually became the Indians. Left behind in their
wake, before these people learned (the hard way) the lessons of living
with the land, are the carcasses of dozens of large animal species, the
elephant (that is, the mammoth), horse, camel, sloth, tiger, etc. which
used to live there but all went extinct with their arrival. There were
about 40 large animal species or more which were killed off.
Those who stayed back were forced into the phase transition, even
against their own self-interest in level of living standard, into the
agricultural mode.
Second, on the level of natural events, one has several well-known
cycles in the Earth's orbit and rotation which have now been
established to have provided a major driving force behind the Ice Ages.
The picture has been painted in much more detail in recent times, now
that a means of assessing the average annual temperature has been
established with the discovery of a natural thermometer (Oxygen isotope
measurements in ice cores) -- this goes back about 1000000 years. Tree
ring dating fills in the picture, dovetailing with all the above, and
C-14 measurements, when calibrated with tree-ring dating, helps further
fill in details.
In other words, what is the sensitivily of borders as a function of
population initial conditions? Anyone?
The other phase transitions are linked either to major technological
innovations or the effects of population pressure. The Industrial
Revolution (which really had its precursor in the Europe of the
1000's-1200's during its population explosion, before the setback of
the Plague) was certainly linked to the pressure brought about by the
agricultural era population reaching its limits. It's marked by a
transition of the population from rural to primarily urban and the
dominant mode of production away from agricultural to all of what came
after (manufacturing; and in the post-Industrial era, knowledge).
Around 1200 BC all the major empires in the Near East either went
extinct or fell apart. The period is known in historical circles as the
"1200 crisis" and is essentially the equivalent to a 1930's-1940's
style transition. There was a regional "world war" which brought down
Greece, Crete, the Hittites and (for all practical purposes) Egypt; as
well as breeding chaos and ruin in Mesopotamia.
A confederation of peoples, called the Sea Peoples, which included
people from Libya, and probably from Sardinia, Sicily, the Greek Isles,
Anatolia and even had people involved in it from the Urnfield culture
(from the Danube valley and Central Europe) (as is made clear by the
design of the ships seen in the Egyptian account at Medinet Habu of the
Sea Peoples' incursion) ran roughshod over the Levant. Others, maybe
linked (especially given the involvement of the Urnfield people in the
Sea Peoples incursions) are the Dorians, who ran over Greece, and the
Phrygians (who ran over Anatolia). This probably spurred on later
incursions by the Aramaeans, and probably had the Hebrews somewhere in
this mix.
What was the trigger? The Iron Age.
At an earlier time, around 1700-1600 BC, a whole range of peoples ran
over the Old World or made their influence felt. The Hurrians
(biblical, Horites), led by an Indo-Aryan aristocracy (which are even
referred to in Genesis as the various 'dukes' of the Horites), who even
worshipped some of the same gods seen in Hinduism (e.g. Indra, Varuna),
ran over Mesopotamia and Canaan. The Hyksos ran over Egypt; both are
distinguished by their technological innovation: the wheel and chariot.
Some believe the Hyksos may have been affiliated with the Hurrians,
others think it might have been the very Hebrews described in Genesis
under the leadership of Joseph (who, according to Genesis, was in fact
the prime minister of Egypt). The Hittites came into Anatolia. The
wheel and chariot came into China, as well as a new pottery culture
(seen for a few hundred years throughout central Asia before its
arrival in China); and a substantial Indo-Aryan vocabulary relating to
words like wheel, horse, axle, etc.
So, you have 2 watersheds which are probably linked to population
pressure; and 2 which were linked to technological revolutions (which,
in turn, may be considered to be the results of having enough people in
one place that new innovations start to proceed at a significant pace).
The last and most significant watershed is the one currently taking
place and is also linked to a phase change on the population curve,
which has only made itself visible in the last 5 years or less. The
birth rates are plummetting worldwide, and the world population curve
is concave down (though there might be a brief resurgence with a baby
boom echo).
Associated with this is a major transition -- that from the
manufacturing-dominated Industrial to the knowledge-dominated
Post-Industrial era. This is the phase transition that Toffler (of
Future Shock fame) called the Third Wave (the other two waves being the
Neolithic Revolution and Industrial Revolution).
What's characteristic of this transition (so far) is that the main
beneficiaries of it and trailblazers appear to be women. Directly
linked with the dramatic downturn in birthrates is an equally dramatic
flooding of the colleges and universities, worldwide -- by women. But
not men. All the upper-echelon knowledge-based fields and professions
that define this information-era culture are fields that require
college education (the news profession comes out of the schools of
communication; lawyers and judges out of the law schools; doctors out
of the med schools; managers out of the business schools; etc.), many
of which have passed over into a female majority.
Given the foregoing, a lot is seen to be independent of initial
conditions and the product of generic phase transitions. Had it not
been the Phrygians, Sea Peoples, Dorians, etc., it would have been
someone else. Had it not been the Hittites, Hurrians it would have been
someone else behind the horse and chariot; etc.
This also means that the transitions are predictable -- not just those
seen up to date, but those yet to come. This is, in large measure, what
lies behind the Federation Series -- a trilogy sequel to the Tofflerian
trilogy Future Shock / Third Wave / Powershift, which substantially
broadens the picture provided by Toffler's Wave Theory and lays out the
picture of the Fourth Wave -- that is, of yet another historical
watershed that is set to inundate the world, even as the Third Wave
proceeds forth.
The Federation Series
http://federation.g3z.com/FedSeries/Index.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Director of SCR" |
|
| Title: Re: Stability of countries |
14 Dec 2005 01:37:46 AM |
|
|
<markwh04@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134501459.118565.244840@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Your Informer wrote:
Why does the world have the current arrangement of countries? Is this
just
luck or did things have to be this way anyway? If we look back 40,000
years
ago, there were no countries at all. Just migrating tribes.
It's an open question whether hunter-gatherer societies had sufficient
capacity to form states or state-like structures, [snip rest]
I am talking about the CURRENT borders, and PAST population distribution.
Not PAST borders.
Besides, historical information is too unreliable taken individually.
Mathematically speaking most historical theories are withing error bars.
LOL.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Definitive" |
|
| Title: Re: Stability of countries |
14 Dec 2005 12:40:06 PM |
|
|
"The Director of SCR" <z@z.z> wrote in message
news:439fcd4d$4@clarion.carno.net.au...
<markwh04@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134501459.118565.244840@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Your Informer wrote:
Why does the world have the current arrangement of countries? Is this
just
luck or did things have to be this way anyway? If we look back 40,000
years
ago, there were no countries at all. Just migrating tribes.
It's an open question whether hunter-gatherer societies had sufficient
capacity to form states or state-like structures, [snip rest]
I am talking about the CURRENT borders, and PAST population distribution.
Not PAST borders.
Besides, historical information is too unreliable taken individually.
Mathematically speaking most historical theories are withing error bars.
LOL.
What does "LOL" stand for in this context, "Larry on line"?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Orion" |
|
| Title: Re: Stability of countries |
14 Dec 2005 04:10:06 AM |
|
|
Current national arrangements are probably the result of the transition
to agriculture and the industrial revolution in the west. IMO states
are flawed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Definitive" |
|
| Title: Re: Stability of countries |
14 Dec 2005 12:40:58 PM |
|
|
"Orion" <danny99@bezeqint.net> wrote in message
news:1134555006.807667.198250@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Current national arrangements are probably the result of the transition
to agriculture and the industrial revolution in the west. IMO states
are flawed.
Sometimes I feel like I am talking to myself.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: Stability of countries |
14 Dec 2005 01:52:12 PM |
|
|
Orion wrote:
Current national arrangements are probably the result of the transition
to agriculture and the industrial revolution in the west. IMO states
are flawed.
IMO, it is a natural development of the instinct in ground-dwelling
mammalian hunters and gatherers to acquire and hold a region of land
that can provide necessary resources such as food and water.
....not unlike the pissing on tree trunks by wolves.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Orion" |
|
| Title: Re: Stability of countries |
13 Dec 2005 02:55:31 PM |
|
|
Your Informer wrote:
Why does the world have the current arrangement of countries? Is this just
luck or did things have to be this way anyway? If we look back 40,000 years
ago, there were no countries at all. Just migrating tribes. Suppose now you
send your friend back in time and give him a gun. Say he is supposed to
eliminate all tribes in some 100 by 100 mile area. Will the world's
countries be vastly different today? Or will they be exactly the same?
In other words, what is the sensitivily of borders as a function of
population initial conditions? Anyone?
Populations were by far fewer back in that time. 1000 years ago there
were only 200 million people, today there are 6.5 billion and growing
at a fast rate.
The nation-state and capitalism are also relativily modern inventions.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
