Principles of biological scalability, especially the principle of the minimum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebig%27s_law_of_the_minimum … along with principles of social scalability https://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2008/07/hampton-sides-sheds-light-on-mancur.html … https://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2017/02/money-blockchains-and-social-scalability.html … explain some of the most important patterns of history. /1
-
Show this thread
-
Applying the Sprengel/Liebig principle of the minimum to human food production & nutrition, a society can be protein-rich, and thus limited by its carbohydrate & fat intake (i.e. calorie-limited), or it can be rich in carbohydrates or fats, thus limited by its protein intake. /2
2 replies 3 retweets 43 likesShow this thread -
Our hunter-gatherer ancestors had poor social scalability because they were roving bandits, frequently at war with each other. Their typical diets, compared to ours, were heavier in meat, & thus more limited in energy (carbohydrates & fats) and less limited in proteins. /3
2 replies 4 retweets 35 likesShow this thread -
Stationary agriculture was carbohydrate heavy -- abundant in energy but relatively scarce in protein. Permanent food sources enabled stationary bandits, an innovation that allowed social scaling to far greater population sizes and densities than roving banditry. /4
1 reply 3 retweets 39 likesShow this thread -
The downside to stationary agriculture: the protein-limited grain diets of typical farmers were unnatural & poor compared to the protein-rich diets of their hunter-gatherer forebears. Genetic adaptation was only partial. /5
2 replies 3 retweets 37 likesShow this thread -
Alongside the stationary carbohydrate-rich (and thus protein-limited) cultures were the nomadic protein-rich cultures, far more limited in social scale, except when, as with Mongols, Arabs, etc. they conquered & led the social scaling institutions of stationary societies. /6
3 replies 2 retweets 40 likesShow this thread -
The frequency with which sparsely populated nomads conquered populous stationary societies seems paradoxical until we realize that nomads diets were much closer to our foraging forebears', giving more muscle & brain power, offsetting the poor scaling of roving societies. /7
10 replies 18 retweets 112 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @NickSzabo4
You don't need to reach for diet to explain it. War is a way of life for nomadic herdsmen.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @paulg
War was also a way of life for stationary polise and empires. Everybody tried to feed their soldiers as well as they could, but some could feed them a much higher quality diet than others.
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @NickSzabo4
I mean in the sense that nomadic herdsmen were usually also cattle raiders. Whereas farmers did not habitually try to steal the grain of the farmers in the neighboring village.
2 replies 0 retweets 9 likes
They were roving bandits to be sure. But that's small scale war which isn't the best prep for the organized large-scale wars of stationary states. BTW fully roving banditry couldn't support cattle, only sheep, goats, & horses, all more secure from raiding than big slow beasts.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.