Given my recent reading on inter-group competition in anthropology, the dissolution threshold is more likely a meta-population measure, and is not directly related (or not necessarily mapped) to any instance called a civilisation or an archaeological 'culture', or a society or whatever. In addition I think rivalry above dissolution level is a type of competition for which there are no competition-induced increases to complexity (somebody wins, somebody looses, but the real real winner today is soccer/baseball). In this view civilisations merely mark a node of stability which (MAYBE) allows further invagination of complexity, like the unfolding of more and heavier elements in the stelliferous age. In addition, rivalry may obscure a meta-civilisation which has no name. (Examples? Holy Roman Empire as a more codified or institutional form, Iron age "tribes" in Europe and Africa.)
Inter-group competition, despite its name, is often about competition _for_ individuals as members. An identitarian framework curiously obscures this, as we worry about migrants as replacements and not new team members (remember the winner today is inter-group competition). And yes you can point out we all have those rules on membership and legitimacy but without individuals choosing (I typed 'choicing') which group to be with, why would you bother having constraints.
Empires arise as aggregates of something else that has already happened. Hoofless agriculturalists pride themselves on stability compared to rootless nomadic empires and coalitions, but this may also just be rivalry, and they may well form a meta-population within which thresholds are passed. 'Civilizations' are then just better marketed brands, resulting from a stability in the mindscape of notice.
Thought provoking. Agreed that civilization is a node of stability, and there have been, or we can posit, other and alternate b=nods of stability, both and lower and higher indices of complexity.
Given my recent reading on inter-group competition in anthropology, the dissolution threshold is more likely a meta-population measure, and is not directly related (or not necessarily mapped) to any instance called a civilisation or an archaeological 'culture', or a society or whatever. In addition I think rivalry above dissolution level is a type of competition for which there are no competition-induced increases to complexity (somebody wins, somebody looses, but the real real winner today is soccer/baseball). In this view civilisations merely mark a node of stability which (MAYBE) allows further invagination of complexity, like the unfolding of more and heavier elements in the stelliferous age. In addition, rivalry may obscure a meta-civilisation which has no name. (Examples? Holy Roman Empire as a more codified or institutional form, Iron age "tribes" in Europe and Africa.)
Inter-group competition, despite its name, is often about competition _for_ individuals as members. An identitarian framework curiously obscures this, as we worry about migrants as replacements and not new team members (remember the winner today is inter-group competition). And yes you can point out we all have those rules on membership and legitimacy but without individuals choosing (I typed 'choicing') which group to be with, why would you bother having constraints.
Empires arise as aggregates of something else that has already happened. Hoofless agriculturalists pride themselves on stability compared to rootless nomadic empires and coalitions, but this may also just be rivalry, and they may well form a meta-population within which thresholds are passed. 'Civilizations' are then just better marketed brands, resulting from a stability in the mindscape of notice.
https://whyweshould.substack.com/p/reading-joseph-henrich-two-social
Thought provoking. Agreed that civilization is a node of stability, and there have been, or we can posit, other and alternate b=nods of stability, both and lower and higher indices of complexity.
backlink: https://whyweshould.substack.com/p/reading-joseph-henrich-three-ish
and self hosted
(main reason for the re-post of comment) https://whyweshould.loofs-samorzewski.com/reading-joseph-henrich-three-ish/