/his/ - History

I don't know what it is, but I really love the Youtube comment so far.

Anyway, I was initially put off by the thumbnail. I thought it was made by John Green.

>>35403

That is really interesting shit that, while perhaps a bit simplistic, is still pretty accurate. I'll have to buy the book and see how much detail it goes in to.

>>35403

C and V remind me of the 文 and 武 dichotomy in old Chinese philosophy.

>>35415

All models are simplistic. The question is whether the model is useful, and I suspect this one, though flawed, has some use.

>>35432

1. Interesting. However, there's a lot of [citation needed] for me. Just hoping the book can cover that.

I bet there would be, it just seems like this is just little snippets from the book.

2. At the first video, the guy uses the term "stress". At first, I just assume he uses the term "stress" as defined by many contemporary dictionary (Cambridge, Oxford, etc.). However, by the third video, the term "stress" as he uses it is different from the one that is commonly used. I got stress sometimes but I have not build a civilisation.

Your stress =/= your ancestor's stress. Like he said, there stress would be wherever they would die in the next month if the crops failed and children learnt from their parents at a very young age that they were stressed, meaning the baby would also be stressed. If you feared for your life constantly then the chances are you'd do the exact same things he said you would do in the video.

3. There's only one example given in the videos, the Roman Empire. If biohistory rise and decline of civilisation really is a "law of History", I think more example from other civilisations is necessary.

It's most likely that he just used Rome as the civilisation that most people would already know something about so we can actually relate to it. He uses the British Empire as another example (most colonial empires can be compared also) and you can relate this to other ancient civilisations, such as Egypt, Mycenaean Greece etc. I bet he'd go into more detail in the book.

4. Glad to see people uses the term "patriarchy" while not vilifying men at the same time.

SO FUCKING REFRESHING.

5. In the example of the Roman Empire, when "V" is on the rise, why does the birthrate decline? Because the guy also said that the rise of "V" causes man to have more sexual partners. So, why the declining birthrate? I doubt abortion is that advanced in the Roman Empire, and contraceptive is not as advanced as today.

I'm pretty sure the population declined as people stopped keeping or caring for their children which led to them dying young, I think they just used the wrong word. He later states that the birth rate declined due to a sharp drop in V and, therefore, stress as people did not see the need to have more children; here the Romans had very low amounts of C and V as there was no stress.

>>35447

>I'm pretty sure the population declined as people stopped keeping or caring for their children which led to them dying young, I think they just used the wrong word. He later states that the birth rate declined due to a sharp drop in V and, therefore, stress as people did not see the need to have more children; here the Romans had very low amounts of C and V as there was no stress.

they plumbing for drinking was maded from lead, pretty simple

>>35484

you are forgetting about the plagues

>>35485

lead can affect the inmune system, shit is all tied

>>35533

>whereas V is something like an add-on.

The first thing that comes to my mind are societies with a well-established "warrior caste" (which would include medieval Europe too). A portion of population is kept in a high-V state to make it easier for the majority to keep their high-C state.

>>35632

Fuck. Do you expect me to actually read through this wall of text and point out why his counterarguments are grasping at straws? Firstly

>>Britain is experiencing the same decline as Rome in 100BC, with the collapse of civilisation inevitable, a scientist has warned.

>Britain in 2015 is, simply put, not in even remotely the same sort of global situation as the Roman Empire. It is not a hegemonic empire (why the author didn't apply this theory to the early half of the 20th century or 19th century, you ask? You'll find out later), nor does Britain now even remotely share a similar world to the Roman Empire, or culture, or just…anything substantive enough to sustain such a claim, really.

Hey man, what does this have to do with Britain? Britain, as is (which would be I guess since 1945), is from geopolitical viewpoint a vassal state of USA. Who actually had a republican revolution, similar to Rome, though the cassus belli for it was… somewhat different.

Also he seems to be a typical pedantic scholastic who refuses a simplified theory completely just because it's not all-encompassing. Hey, let's pretend that the guy behind Biohistory actually claims that this is all and everything you need to know about history and it will let you predict future, and completely denies that real history is a result of interplay of several different factors, and the Biohistory aspect is just one of them! It's like a pedantic organic chemist denying the general rule that longer chain hydrocarbons and substituted hydrocarbons, so including longer chain alcohols = higher melting/boiling point, just because the lightest one, methanol, has higher melting point than the second lightest one, ethanol, not to mention that water, which is the zero-carbon-chain equivalent of alcohols has way higher melting and slightly higher boiling point than both of them — completely ignoring the possibility that interplay of other factors, as hydrogen bonding, means this observation is indeed correct, even if it's not the only factor involved.

>>35645

Also the

>British kids actually didn't get educated

point is moot because again his statement actually holds true for American kids, and I've stated before that the author is talking more about America than Britain. So, hm, maybe this is more Daily Telegraph in charge of bad journalism?

>>35632

>>35645

>>35646

And there's also one guy in the comments claiming that Roman Empire was actually stable down until 476. Yeah let's ignore the 3rd Century Crisis which was technically half a century long civil war (which, by the way, occurred only slightly later with even some overlap than another insanely long civil war that happened way further east, in China)

>>35645

>Hey, let's pretend that the guy behind Biohistory actually claims that this is all and everything you need to know about history and it will let you predict future, and completely denies that real history is a result of interplay of several different factors, and the Biohistory aspect is just one of them!

Exactly.

>>35403

This sounds like bullshit.

>>35647

>And there's also one guy in the comments claiming that Roman Empire was actually stable down until 476

And let's ignore how it basically became a corpse in 406.

>>35486

i never understood this lead theory. the pipes were encased with concrete and any lead that may have been exposed would be covered gradually by phosphate buildup from water