Sid Orwell's Civ 1984

We've seen the loss of complexity repeatedly in history with the disappearance of the Anasazi, the Mayan collapse, the post-Bronze Age Dark Age, the collapse of Mohenjo-Daro, etc.

Civ has never modeled this fact of history that technology requires infrastructure to simply maintain.

Records will be useless. Hell, most records would be on the internet and computers and when global destruction happens, good luck thinking the internet will still be there, you'll have access to stable electricity, etc.

Those on books will only last til they become kindling or as long as you have literate people. We can look at the collapse of the West Roman empire to see that literacy rates plummet following societal collapse.

The economic calculus shifts without the infrastructure to support civilization. Pillaging becomes profitable, populations disperse, etc.

Originally Posted by Al B. Sure!

How is that even a response to what I said? Why can you not comprehend what you read?

Create a strawman with your sealing off Norway! You mean sealing off Norway, devastating its infrastructure and killing off half the population, with no Marshall plan of foreign aid. Norway will be effectively pre-industrial pretty quickly.

Did I not just say that it would take a while living under more primitive infrastructure (50+ years; actually probably longer. You'd want to have no one alive from the prior age so maybe 100 years) before they would lose knowledge? Did I not say that? But they wouldn't be able to capitalize on that knowledge by building buildings/units/advancing to the next step on the tech tree until the infrastructure (physical and intellectual) was re-built to that threshold level.

I don't think you have a comprehension of how precarious our civilization is.

Norway was an example of a much smaller population than what the world currently has. If you destroyed a large part of the world's infrastructure, the marginal productivity of capital would increase substantially and rapid growth would be possible through saving and investment. East Germany was not a Marshall Plan recipient and the Soviets stripped a lot of their assets for "reparations" yet they did not revert to a pre-industrial society.

Originally Posted by Al B. Sure!

What do you think New Orleans would be like if there was no support and aid brought in following Katrina? Now expand that destruction globally.

All it takes is a single disaster big enough for us to be Mad Maxing it up.

Anything economically profitable would have been rebuilt. If some more poor black people had left, big deal.

Originally Posted by Al B. Sure!

We've seen the loss of complexity repeatedly in history with the disappearance of the Anasazi, the Mayan collapse, the post-Bronze Age Dark Age, the collapse of Mohenjo-Daro, etc.

Civ has never modeled this fact of history that technology requires infrastructure to simply maintain.

Records will be useless. Hell, most records would be on the internet and computers and when global destruction happens, good luck thinking the internet will still be there, you'll have access to stable electricity, etc.

Those on books will only last til they become kindling or as long as you have literate people. We can look at the collapse of the West Roman empire to see that literacy rates plummet following societal collapse.

Lost physical capital can be replaced long before everyone forgets how to read or forgets the skills they had. Name some examples of industrial societies that reverted to pre-industrial societies because roads, buildings and machines got destroyed, please...

Originally Posted by gribbler

Lost physical capital can be replaced long before everyone forgets how to read or forgets the skills they had. Name some examples of industrial societies that reverted to pre-industrial societies because roads, buildings and machines got destroyed, please...

How the **** is lost physical capital going to be replaced when there are no factories to build machines?! Who is going to build the factories? That requires capital! Who is going to work making machines when mere survival becomes paramount with food shortages and raiders? And that knowledge will disappear within a single generation.

There has never been an industrial society that was devastated then isolated from the world.

There have been a multitude of pre-industrial societies that were, however, and they show dramatic and sudden reductions in complexity (Mayans, Anasazi, Mississippi mound builders, Harappa, Mycenae/Crete, etc.).

All being industrial means is there's an extra order of complexity that pre-industrial agricultural societies don't have. That extra level of complexity is not an asset in the face of stress. It means the preservation of that complexity is even MORE precarious and more prone to collapse in the presence of stress.

Go read The Collapse of Complex Societies by Joseph Tainter or stfu

Another author on collapse (I want to say Brian Fagan) used a metaphor that I may be butchering but bear with me. He imagined ancient agricultural societies as a small boat on an ocean. The boat is tiny but it can sustain the powerful waves of a tsunami by simply riding along them. As civilization becomes more complex, however, the boat becomes larger and larger, until it is a huge ship. It is massive, advanced, and looks powerful but the mighty tsunami waves crash against it and tip it over.

Complexity makes societies more inflexible to stress.

Originally Posted by Al B. Sure!

How the **** is lost physical capital going to be replaced when there are no factories to build machines?! Who is going to build the factories? That requires capital! Who is going to work making machines when mere survival becomes paramount with food shortages and raiders? And that knowledge will disappear within a single generation.

Whatever is left (what, are you claiming that a war somehow destroyed every single piece of wealth?) is going to be extremely profitable and the profits will be re-invested in creating more capital, because of the promise of high returns.

There has never been an industrial society that was devastated then isolated from the world.

Yeah, you kind of have no evidence that industrial societies somehow can't recover from devastation through relying on their own remaining resources. I gave an example of a war-torn country that was forced to pay reparations yet still had an economic recovery.

There have been a multitude of pre-industrial societies that were, however, and they show dramatic and sudden reductions in complexity (Mayans, Anasazi, Mississippi mound builders, Harappa, Mycenae/Crete, etc.).

Why? Because of war? I see no evidence of that. A change of, say, climate hitting an agrarian society is something completely different because it affects their productive capacity in the long run, not the short run.

All being industrial means is there's an extra order of complexity that pre-industrial agricultural societies don't have. That extra level of complexity is not an asset in the face of stress. It means the preservation of that complexity is even MORE precarious and more prone to collapse in the presence of stress.

Go read The Collapse of Complex Societies by Joseph Tainter or stfu

Again, I see no evidence of that. Since they are far richer, industrialized societies would have to get hit far harder in order for producing sufficient food or ensuring rule of law to become impossible. If society and its institutions are basically unchanged I see no reason a rapid recovery wouldn't occur.

Originally Posted by Al B. Sure!

Another author on collapse (I want to say Brian Fagan) used a metaphor that I may be butchering but bear with me. He imagined ancient agricultural societies as a small boat on an ocean. The boat is tiny but it can sustain the powerful waves of a tsunami by simply riding along them. As civilization becomes more complex, however, the boat becomes larger and larger, until it is a huge ship. It is massive, advanced, and looks powerful but the mighty tsunami waves crash against it and tip it over.

Complexity makes societies more inflexible to stress.

Define complexity. Is it a high degree of specialization and division of labor? Terms you don't define are analytically meaningless.

Originally Posted by gribbler

Define complexity. Is it a high degree of specialization and division of labor? Terms you don't define are analytically meaningless.

"Social complexity can be recognized by numerous differentiated and specialised social and economic roles and many mechanisms through which they are coordinated, and by reliance on symbolic and abstract communication, and the existence of a class of information producers and analysts who are not involved in primary resource production. Such complexity requires a substantial "energy" subsidy (meaning the consumption of resources, or other forms of wealth)."

Originally Posted by gribbler

Whatever is left (what, are you claiming that a war somehow destroyed every single piece of wealth?) is going to be extremely profitable and the profits will be re-invested in creating more capital, because of the promise of high returns.

Somehow I think a perfectly preserved microchip factory is going to be pretty useless (ie- no value) when there's no power, food, etc.

And anything practical that is valuable will be stolen by raiders. Like I said, pillaging becomes an economically viable life-style, at least in the short-term.

Yeah, you kind of have no evidence that industrial societies somehow can't recover from devastation through relying on their own remaining resources. I gave an example of a war-torn country that was forced to pay reparations yet still had an economic recovery.

East Germany was not isolated from the world. They still had the Red iron rule of law and the ability to acquire goods and capital from other countries. Your example is not relevant.

Why? Because of war? I see no evidence of that. A change of, say, climate hitting an agrarian society is something completely different because it affects their productive capacity in the long run, not the short run.

The West Roman Empire, Mycenae, etc. were military-based collapses.

Again, I see no evidence of that. Since they are far richer, industrialized societies would have to get hit far harder in order for producing sufficient food or ensuring rule of law to become impossible. If society and its institutions are basically unchanged I see no reason a rapid recovery wouldn't occur.

Blow up all the power plants and let's see how long our civilization lasts.

Alby's got a point. Complex societies require huge inputs just to exist. Roads have to be maintained, armies paid, farmers need agrochemicals, everybody else needs food, etc. We are tremendously wealthy, far wealthier than ever before in history, but that wealth can only exist if the system keeps going. Society is like a ramjet, and if it ever comes to a halt, it's finished.

Originally Posted by Al B. Sure!

"Social complexity can be recognized by numerous differentiated and specialised social and economic roles and many mechanisms through which they are coordinated, and by reliance on symbolic and abstract communication, and the existence of a class of information producers and analysts who are not involved in primary resource production. Such complexity requires a substantial "energy" subsidy (meaning the consumption of resources, or other forms of wealth)."

So basically, your argument is that the less labor a society devotes to feeding itself, the more easily it can be brought back to a state where almost all labor is needed to feed itself. Does that really make sense? The less labor a society devotes to basic needs, the more spare resources it has to call on for ensuring survival if it suffers a negative shock.

Somehow I think a perfectly preserved microchip factory is going to be pretty useless (ie- no value) when there's no power, food, etc.

The people who worked there aren't solely capable of building microchips--- if some of them have to be reallocated to other tasks it's not like they can't be retrained.

And anything practical that is valuable will be stolen by raiders. Like I said, pillaging becomes an economically viable life-style, at least in the short-term.

It still exists after the raiders take it. What are they going to do with it? Destroy it? Then they would have wasted their time taking it. Sell it? Then the person who bought can now use it to produce things. And they wouldn't have bought it if they didn't have the means of protecting it.

East Germany was not isolated from the world. They still had the Red iron rule of law and the ability to acquire goods and capital from other countries. Your example is not relevant.

Well yippee, they had rule of law. Are all the cops and soldiers dead and unable to enforce laws in your post-apocalyptic hellscape?

The West Roman Empire, Mycenae, etc. were military-based collapses.

The Western Roman Empire was conquered by people who set up their own kingdoms, they didn't systematically destroy society. Italy may have declined but that's hardly surprising when they lost their empire and could no longer take stuff from other regions. Mycenae- I don't know anything about it. I guess you could also claim Troy had a military-based collapse. Sure, if you raze a city it may not recover.

Blow up all the power plants and let's see how long our civilization lasts.

I'm sure no one could possibly repair a power plant before a generation passes.

So basically, your argument is that the less labor a society devotes to feeding itself, the more easily it can be brought back to a state where almost all labor is needed to feed itself. Does that really make sense? The less labor a society devotes to basic needs, the more spare resources it has to call on if it suffers a negative shock.

How would intensive agriculture even be sustained? What will fuel the tractors? Who will protect the farmers from pillagers? How is the food even distributed with collapsed infrastructure, raiders, etc. Where's the gasoline coming from?

And last I checked, we don't have farms in Philly. Where are all the urbanites going to get food from? The supermarket stocks won't last long.

The population will have to disperse from the cities... hey look! Less urbanization! Less complexity!

Originally Posted by gribbler

Well yippee, they had rule of law. Are all the cops and soldiers dead and unable to enforce laws in your post-apocalyptic hellscape?

**** yeah they are. They're the first ones off the job, because every soldier and cop would know that the end was there. Dude, if there were nuclear devastation that left 15.7 million people alive on the earth, that's like a 99.8% kill rate. That's ****ing insane. That's not losing a war, that's verging on annihilation. Nobody has ever had that happen to them, and if it did happen, the survivors would not keep calm and carry on.

EDIT: I forgot that the 15.7 million figure is just the Celts. Still, even if there were only a 99.4% death rate, that's still really bad.

gribbler, you better call up Drs. Tainter and Fagan and tell them they're wrong. Or better yet, call up everybody who has written apocalyptic fiction and tell them that the marginal productivity of capital will increase substantially so it'll be rainbows and flowers after global destruction!

Originally Posted by Al B. Sure!

How would intensive agriculture even be sustained? What will fuel the tractors? Who will protect the farmers from pillagers? How is the food even distributed with collapsed infrastructure, raiders, etc. Where's the gasoline coming from?

And last I checked, we don't have farms in Philly. Where are all the urbanites going to get food from? The supermarket stocks won't last long.

The population will have to disperse from the cities... hey look! Less urbanization! Less complexity!

Gee, if fuel is currently unavailable I guess they'll use... manual labor provided by losers from Philadelphia. Don't worry, the oil wells and refineries will come back because when fuel is scarce people will pay a lot for it. If there really is no state that can stop raiders from roaming around freely (did they find fuel or are they riding horses...?) someone is going to accumulate political power and establish control.

Originally Posted by Al B. Sure!

gribbler, you better call up Drs. Tainter and Fagan and tell them they're wrong. Or better yet, call up everybody who has written apocalyptic fiction and tell them that the marginal productivity of capital will increase substantially so it'll be rainbows and flowers after global destruction!

Wrong about what??? I'm not going to call up Drs. Tainter and Fagan and tell them they're wrong about the Mayans. I also don't expect fiction writers to be realistic about the long term consequences of massive damage to physical infrastructure.

It is often assumed that the collapse of the western Roman Empire was a catastrophe for everyone involved. Tainter points out that it can be seen as a very rational preference of individuals at the time, many of whom were actually better off. Archeological evidence from human bones indicates that average nutrition actually improved after the collapse in many parts of the former Roman Empire. Average individuals may have benefited because they no longer had to invest in the burdensome complexity of empire. Tainter notes that in the west, local populations in many cases greeted the barbarians as liberators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_...ial_complexity

Gee, it looks like the Roman collapse actually raised the standard of living. Actually his argument was that ancient societies collapse simply from becoming too complex, which has nothing to do with the high standard of living enjoyed by industrialized societies.

Originally Posted by Felch

**** yeah they are. They're the first ones off the job, because every soldier and cop would know that the end was there. Dude, if there were nuclear devastation that left 15.7 million people alive on the earth, that's like a 99.8% kill rate. That's ****ing insane. That's not losing a war, that's verging on annihilation. Nobody has ever had that happen to them, and if it did happen, the survivors would not keep calm and carry on.

EDIT: I forgot that the 15.7 million figure is just the Celts. Still, even if there were only a 99.4% death rate, that's still really bad.

Peak population in his world wasn't 6 billion- according to him the kill rate was only 90%. Really, under those circumstances I don't think the military is going to spontaneously disband. Well, maybe the marines will because they are pussies.

Originally Posted by gribbler

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_...ial_complexity

Gee, it looks like the Roman collapse actually raised the standard of living. Actually his argument was that ancient societies collapse simply from becoming too complex, which has nothing to do with the high standard of living enjoyed by industrialized societies.

No. Tainter's argument is not simply complexity but complexity in the face of a stress. A high complexity society can not downsize in response to the changing conditions so it collapses completely.

Yes, the standard of living improved after Rome. It was able to improve because society WENT DOWN IN COMPLEXITY!!!! The Roman system collapsed and was replaced by the much simpler Germanic societies of their conquerors. The Roman way of life could not be sustained given their economic and military stresses.

Originally Posted by Al B. Sure!

No. Tainter's argument is not simply complexity but complexity in the face of a stress. A high complexity society can not downsize in response to the changing conditions so it collapses completely.

Yes, the standard of living improved after Rome. It was able to improve because society WENT DOWN IN COMPLEXITY!!!! The Roman system collapsed and was replaced by the much simpler Germanic societies of their conquerors. The Roman way of life could not be sustained given their economic and military stresses.

The type of "complexity" modern societies have raises the standard of living, it doesn't lower it. We are far richer from having a small number of resource producers supply cities, while doing the same was making the Romans poorer. That makes a high level of complexity stable for us, because if complexity is forced to a lower level people have incentives to act in ways that will restore the previous level of complexity.