nhaliday + walter-scheidel   10

The Science of Roman History: Biology, Climate, and the Future of the Past (Hardcover and eBook) | Princeton University Press
Forthcoming April 2018

How the latest cutting-edge science offers a fuller picture of life in Rome and antiquity
This groundbreaking book provides the first comprehensive look at how the latest advances in the sciences are transforming our understanding of ancient Roman history. Walter Scheidel brings together leading historians, anthropologists, and geneticists at the cutting edge of their fields, who explore novel types of evidence that enable us to reconstruct the realities of life in the Roman world.

Contributors discuss climate change and its impact on Roman history, and then cover botanical and animal remains, which cast new light on agricultural and dietary practices. They exploit the rich record of human skeletal material--both bones and teeth—which forms a bio-archive that has preserved vital information about health, nutritional status, diet, disease, working conditions, and migration. Complementing this discussion is an in-depth analysis of trends in human body height, a marker of general well-being. This book also assesses the contribution of genetics to our understanding of the past, demonstrating how ancient DNA is used to track infectious diseases, migration, and the spread of livestock and crops, while the DNA of modern populations helps us reconstruct ancient migrations, especially colonization.

Opening a path toward a genuine biohistory of Rome and the wider ancient world, The Science of RomanHistory offers an accessible introduction to the scientific methods being used in this exciting new area of research, as well as an up-to-date survey of recent findings and a tantalizing glimpse of what the future holds.

Walter Scheidel is the Dickason Professor in the Humanities, Professor of Classics and History, and a Kennedy-Grossman Fellow in Human Biology at Stanford University. He is the author or editor of seventeen previous books, including The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century (Princeton).
books  draft  todo  broad-econ  economics  anthropology  genetics  genomics  aDNA  measurement  volo-avolo  environment  climate-change  archaeology  history  iron-age  mediterranean  the-classics  demographics  health  embodied  labor  migration  walter-scheidel  agriculture  frontier  malthus  letters  gibbon  traces 
november 2017 by nhaliday
Demography of the Roman Empire - Wikipedia
There are few recorded population numbers for the whole of antiquity, and those that exist are often rhetorical or symbolic. Unlike the contemporaneous Han Dynasty, no general census survives for the Roman Empire. The late period of the Roman Republic provides a small exception to this general rule: serial statistics for Roman citizen numbers, taken from census returns, survive for the early Republic through the 1st century CE.[41] Only the figures for periods after the mid-3rd century BCE are reliable, however. Fourteen figures are available for the 2nd century BCE (from 258,318 to 394,736). Only four figures are available for the 1st century BCE, and are feature a large break between 70/69 BCE (910,000) and 28 BCE (4,063,000). The interpretation of the later figures—the Augustan censuses of 28 BCE, 8 BCE, and 14 CE—is therefore controversial.[42] Alternate interpretations of the Augustan censuses (such as those of E. Lo Cascio[43]) produce divergent population histories across the whole imperial period.[44]

Roman population size: the logic of the debate: https://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/070706.pdf
- Walter Scheidel (cited in book by Vaclav Smil, "Why America is Not a New Rome")

Our ignorance of ancient population numbers is one of the biggest obstacles to our understanding of Roman history. After generations of prolific scholarship, we still do not know how many people inhabited Roman Italy and the Mediterranean at any given point in time. When I say ‘we do not know’ I do not simply mean that we lack numbers that are both precise and safely known to be accurate: that would surely be an unreasonably high standard to apply to any pre-modern society. What I mean is that even the appropriate order of magnitude remains a matter of intense dispute.

Historical urban community sizes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_urban_community_sizes

World population estimates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates
As a general rule, the confidence of estimates on historical world population decreases for the more distant past. Robust population data only exists for the last two or three centuries. Until the late 18th century, few governments had ever performed an accurate census. In many early attempts, such as in Ancient Egypt and the Persian Empire, the focus was on counting merely a subset of the population for purposes of taxation or military service.[3] Published estimates for the 1st century ("AD 1") suggest an uncertainty of the order of 50% (estimates range between 150 and 330 million). Some estimates extend their timeline into deep prehistory, to "10,000 BC", i.e. the early Holocene, when world population estimates range roughly between one and ten million (with an uncertainty of up to an order of magnitude).[4][5]

Estimates for yet deeper prehistory, into the Paleolithic, are of a different nature. At this time human populations consisted entirely of non-sedentary hunter-gatherer populations, with anatomically modern humans existing alongside archaic human varieties, some of which are still ancestral to the modern human population due to interbreeding with modern humans during the Upper Paleolithic. Estimates of the size of these populations are a topic of paleoanthropology. A late human population bottleneck is postulated by some scholars at approximately 70,000 years ago, during the Toba catastrophe, when Homo sapiens population may have dropped to as low as between 1,000 and 10,000 individuals.[6][7] For the time of speciation of Homo sapiens, some 200,000 years ago, an effective population size of the order of 10,000 to 30,000 individuals has been estimated, with an actual "census population" of early Homo sapiens of roughly 100,000 to 300,000 individuals.[8]
history  iron-age  mediterranean  the-classics  demographics  fertility  data  europe  population  measurement  volo-avolo  estimate  wiki  reference  article  conquest-empire  migration  canon  scale  archaeology  multi  broad-econ  pdf  study  survey  debate  uncertainty  walter-scheidel  vaclav-smil  urban  military  economics  labor  time-series  embodied  health  density  malthus  letters  urban-rural  database  list  antiquity  medieval  early-modern  mostly-modern  time  sequential  MENA  the-great-west-whale  china  asia  sinosphere  occident  orient  japan  britain  germanic  gallic  summary  big-picture  objektbuch  confidence  sapiens  anthropology  methodology  farmers-and-foragers  genetics  genomics  chart 
august 2017 by nhaliday
On the effects of inequality on economic growth | Nintil
After the discussion above, what should one think about the relationship between inequality and growth?

For starters, that the consensus of the literature points to our lack of knowledge, and the need to be very careful when studying these phenomena. As of today there is no solid consensus on the effects of inequality on growth. Tentatively, on the grounds of Neves et al.’s meta-analysis, we can conclude that the impact of inequality on developed countries is economically insignificant. This means that one can claim that inequality is good, bad, or neutral for growth as long as the effects claimed are small and one talks about developed countries. For developing countries, the relationships are more negative.

http://squid314.livejournal.com/320672.html
I recently finished The Spirit Level, subtitled "Why More Equal Societies Almost Almost Do Better", although "Five Million Different Scatter Plot Graphs Plus Associated Commentary" would also have worked. It was a pretty thorough manifesto for the best kind of leftism: the type that foregoes ideology and a priori arguments in exchange for a truckload of statistics showing that their proposed social remedies really work.

Inequality: some people know what they want to find: https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/economics/inequality-some-people-know-what-they-want-to-find

Inequality doesn’t matter: a primer: https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/inequality-doesnt-matter-a-primer

Inequality and visibility of wealth in experimental social networks: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature15392
- Akihiro Nishi, Hirokazu Shirado, David G. Rand & Nicholas A. Christakis

We show that wealth visibility facilitates the downstream consequences of initial inequality—in initially more unequal situations, wealth visibility leads to greater inequality than when wealth is invisible. This result reflects a heterogeneous response to visibility in richer versus poorer subjects. We also find that making wealth visible has adverse welfare consequences, yielding lower levels of overall cooperation, inter-connectedness, and wealth. High initial levels of economic inequality alone, however, have relatively few deleterious welfare effects.

https://twitter.com/NAChristakis/status/952315243572719617
https://archive.is/DpyAx
Our own work has shown that the *visibility* of inequality, more then the inequality per se, may be especially corrosive to the social fabric. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature15392 … I wonder if @WalterScheidel historical data sheds light on this idea? end 5/
ratty  unaffiliated  commentary  article  inequality  egalitarianism-hierarchy  economics  macro  growth-econ  causation  meta-analysis  study  summary  links  albion  econotariat  org:ngo  randy-ayndy  nl-and-so-can-you  survey  policy  wonkish  spock  nitty-gritty  evidence-based  s:*  🤖  🎩  world  developing-world  group-level  econ-metrics  chart  gray-econ  endo-exo  multi  yvain  ssc  books  review  critique  contrarianism  sociology  polisci  politics  left-wing  correlation  null-result  race  culture  society  anglosphere  protestant-catholic  regional-scatter-plots  big-picture  compensation  meaningness  cost-benefit  class  mobility  wealth  org:anglo  rhetoric  ideology  envy  money  endogenous-exogenous  org:nat  journos-pundits  anthropology  stylized-facts  open-closed  branches  walter-scheidel  broad-econ  twitter  social  discussion  backup  public-goodish  humility  charity 
june 2017 by nhaliday
Economic Growth in Ancient Greece | pseudoerasmus
Maybe land-and-dung expansion does not really require a fancy institutional explanation. Territory expanded, land yields rose, and people have always traded their surpluses. Why invoke “inclusive institutions”, as Ober effectively does, for something so mundane ? Perhaps the seminal cultural accomplishments of classical Greece bias some of us to look for “special” causes of the expansion.

Note, this is not an argument that political economy or “institutions” play no role in the rise and decline of economies. But in this particular case, so little seems established about the descriptive statistics, let alone the “growth accounting”, of Greek economic expansion in 800-300 BCE that it’s premature to be speculating about its institutional causes.
econotariat  pseudoE  broad-econ  commentary  books  review  economics  growth-econ  history  iron-age  mediterranean  the-classics  critique  institutions  egalitarianism-hierarchy  malthus  demographics  population  density  wealth  wealth-of-nations  political-econ  divergence  europe  the-great-west-whale  data  archaeology  measurement  scale  agriculture  econ-productivity  efficiency  article  gregory-clark  galor-like  long-short-run  medieval  nordic  technology  north-weingast-like  democracy  roots  summary  endo-exo  input-output  walter-scheidel  endogenous-exogenous  uncertainty 
june 2017 by nhaliday
Logic | West Hunter
All the time I hear some public figure saying that if we ban or allow X, then logically we have to ban or allow Y, even though there are obvious practical reasons for X and obvious practical reasons against Y.

No, we don’t.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005864.html
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/002053.html

compare: https://pinboard.in/u:nhaliday/b:190b299cf04a

Small Change Good, Big Change Bad?: https://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/02/small-change-good-big-change-bad.html
And on reflection it occurs to me that this is actually THE standard debate about change: some see small changes and either like them or aren’t bothered enough to advocate what it would take to reverse them, while others imagine such trends continuing long enough to result in very large and disturbing changes, and then suggest stronger responses.

For example, on increased immigration some point to the many concrete benefits immigrants now provide. Others imagine that large cumulative immigration eventually results in big changes in culture and political equilibria. On fertility, some wonder if civilization can survive in the long run with declining population, while others point out that population should rise for many decades, and few endorse the policies needed to greatly increase fertility. On genetic modification of humans, some ask why not let doctors correct obvious defects, while others imagine parents eventually editing kid genes mainly to max kid career potential. On oil some say that we should start preparing for the fact that we will eventually run out, while others say that we keep finding new reserves to replace the ones we use.

...

If we consider any parameter, such as typical degree of mind wandering, we are unlikely to see the current value as exactly optimal. So if we give people the benefit of the doubt to make local changes in their interest, we may accept that this may result in a recent net total change we don’t like. We may figure this is the price we pay to get other things we value more, and we we know that it can be very expensive to limit choices severely.

But even though we don’t see the current value as optimal, we also usually see the optimal value as not terribly far from the current value. So if we can imagine current changes as part of a long term trend that eventually produces very large changes, we can become more alarmed and willing to restrict current changes. The key question is: when is that a reasonable response?

First, big concerns about big long term changes only make sense if one actually cares a lot about the long run. Given the usual high rates of return on investment, it is cheap to buy influence on the long term, compared to influence on the short term. Yet few actually devote much of their income to long term investments. This raises doubts about the sincerity of expressed long term concerns.

Second, in our simplest models of the world good local choices also produce good long term choices. So if we presume good local choices, bad long term outcomes require non-simple elements, such as coordination, commitment, or myopia problems. Of course many such problems do exist. Even so, someone who claims to see a long term problem should be expected to identify specifically which such complexities they see at play. It shouldn’t be sufficient to just point to the possibility of such problems.

...

Fourth, many more processes and factors limit big changes, compared to small changes. For example, in software small changes are often trivial, while larger changes are nearly impossible, at least without starting again from scratch. Similarly, modest changes in mind wandering can be accomplished with minor attitude and habit changes, while extreme changes may require big brain restructuring, which is much harder because brains are complex and opaque. Recent changes in market structure may reduce the number of firms in each industry, but that doesn’t make it remotely plausible that one firm will eventually take over the entire economy. Projections of small changes into large changes need to consider the possibility of many such factors limiting large changes.

Fifth, while it can be reasonably safe to identify short term changes empirically, the longer term a forecast the more one needs to rely on theory, and the more different areas of expertise one must consider when constructing a relevant model of the situation. Beware a mere empirical projection into the long run, or a theory-based projection that relies on theories in only one area.

We should very much be open to the possibility of big bad long term changes, even in areas where we are okay with short term changes, or at least reluctant to sufficiently resist them. But we should also try to hold those who argue for the existence of such problems to relatively high standards. Their analysis should be about future times that we actually care about, and can at least roughly foresee. It should be based on our best theories of relevant subjects, and it should consider the possibility of factors that limit larger changes.

And instead of suggesting big ways to counter short term changes that might lead to long term problems, it is often better to identify markers to warn of larger problems. Then instead of acting in big ways now, we can make sure to track these warning markers, and ready ourselves to act more strongly if they appear.

Growth Is Change. So Is Death.: https://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/03/growth-is-change-so-is-death.html
I see the same pattern when people consider long term futures. People can be quite philosophical about the extinction of humanity, as long as this is due to natural causes. Every species dies; why should humans be different? And few get bothered by humans making modest small-scale short-term modifications to their own lives or environment. We are mostly okay with people using umbrellas when it rains, moving to new towns to take new jobs, etc., digging a flood ditch after our yard floods, and so on. And the net social effect of many small changes is technological progress, economic growth, new fashions, and new social attitudes, all of which we tend to endorse in the short run.

Even regarding big human-caused changes, most don’t worry if changes happen far enough in the future. Few actually care much about the future past the lives of people they’ll meet in their own life. But for changes that happen within someone’s time horizon of caring, the bigger that changes get, and the longer they are expected to last, the more that people worry. And when we get to huge changes, such as taking apart the sun, a population of trillions, lifetimes of millennia, massive genetic modification of humans, robots replacing people, a complete loss of privacy, or revolutions in social attitudes, few are blasé, and most are quite wary.

This differing attitude regarding small local changes versus large global changes makes sense for parameters that tend to revert back to a mean. Extreme values then do justify extra caution, while changes within the usual range don’t merit much notice, and can be safely left to local choice. But many parameters of our world do not mostly revert back to a mean. They drift long distances over long times, in hard to predict ways that can be reasonably modeled as a basic trend plus a random walk.

This different attitude can also make sense for parameters that have two or more very different causes of change, one which creates frequent small changes, and another which creates rare huge changes. (Or perhaps a continuum between such extremes.) If larger sudden changes tend to cause more problems, it can make sense to be more wary of them. However, for most parameters most change results from many small changes, and even then many are quite wary of this accumulating into big change.

For people with a sharp time horizon of caring, they should be more wary of long-drifting parameters the larger the changes that would happen within their horizon time. This perspective predicts that the people who are most wary of big future changes are those with the longest time horizons, and who more expect lumpier change processes. This prediction doesn’t seem to fit well with my experience, however.

Those who most worry about big long term changes usually seem okay with small short term changes. Even when they accept that most change is small and that it accumulates into big change. This seems incoherent to me. It seems like many other near versus far incoherences, like expecting things to be simpler when you are far away from them, and more complex when you are closer. You should either become more wary of short term changes, knowing that this is how big longer term change happens, or you should be more okay with big long term change, seeing that as the legitimate result of the small short term changes you accept.

https://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/03/growth-is-change-so-is-death.html#comment-3794966996
The point here is the gradual shifts of in-group beliefs are both natural and no big deal. Humans are built to readily do this, and forget they do this. But ultimately it is not a worry or concern.

But radical shifts that are big, whether near or far, portend strife and conflict. Either between groups or within them. If the shift is big enough, our intuition tells us our in-group will be in a fight. Alarms go off.
west-hunter  scitariat  discussion  rant  thinking  rationality  metabuch  critique  systematic-ad-hoc  analytical-holistic  metameta  ideology  philosophy  info-dynamics  aphorism  darwinian  prudence  pragmatic  insight  tradition  s:*  2016  multi  gnon  right-wing  formal-values  values  slippery-slope  axioms  alt-inst  heuristic  anglosphere  optimate  flux-stasis  flexibility  paleocon  polisci  universalism-particularism  ratty  hanson  list  examples  migration  fertility  intervention  demographics  population  biotech  enhancement  energy-resources  biophysical-econ  nature  military  inequality  age-generation  time  ideas  debate  meta:rhetoric  local-global  long-short-run  gnosis-logos  gavisti  stochastic-processes  eden-heaven  politics  equilibrium  hive-mind  genetics  defense  competition  arms  peace-violence  walter-scheidel  speed  marginal  optimization  search  time-preference  patience  futurism  meta:prediction  accuracy  institutions  tetlock  theory-practice  wire-guided  priors-posteriors  distribution  moments  biases  epistemic  nea 
may 2017 by nhaliday
What would count as an explanation of the size of China? - Marginal REVOLUTION
econotariat  marginal-rev  discussion  speculation  links  broad-econ  history  iron-age  medieval  early-modern  economics  growth-econ  divergence  political-econ  leviathan  incentives  geopolitics  world  asia  china  roots  coordination  decentralized  stylized-facts  government  institutions  cultural-dynamics  wealth-of-nations  homo-hetero  sinosphere  list  environment  agriculture  multi  twitter  social  commentary  turchin  big-picture  deep-materialism  pdf  cliometrics  scale  orient  chart  🌞  🎩  mediterranean  the-classics  comparison  conquest-empire  the-great-west-whale  europe  microfoundations  geography  explanans  occident  competition  anthropology  hari-seldon  piracy  study  pseudoE  war  taxes  demographics  population  density  monetary-fiscal  causation  gavisti  urban-rural  maps  data  visualization  frontier  civilization  peace-violence  time-series  walter-scheidel  article  polisci  n-factor  whole-partial-many  exit-voice  polis  number  pro-rata  flux-stasis  measure  india  MENA 
may 2017 by nhaliday

related tags

ability-competence  accuracy  additive  aDNA  age-generation  agriculture  albion  alt-inst  analysis  analytical-holistic  anglosphere  anthropology  antiquity  aphorism  archaeology  arms  article  asia  audio  axioms  backup  biases  big-peeps  big-picture  biodet  biophysical-econ  biotech  blog  books  branches  britain  broad-econ  canon  capital  causation  charity  chart  checklists  chicago  china  christianity  civilization  class  climate-change  cliometrics  coalitions  cocktail  cog-psych  commentary  communism  comparison  compensation  competition  confidence  confluence  conquest-empire  contradiction  contrarianism  coordination  correlation  cost-benefit  critique  cultural-dynamics  culture  cycles  darwinian  data  database  debate  debt  decentralized  deep-materialism  defense  democracy  demographics  density  developing-world  discussion  disease  distribution  divergence  draft  early-modern  econ-metrics  econ-productivity  economics  econotariat  eden-heaven  efficiency  egalitarianism-hierarchy  embodied  empirical  endo-exo  endogenous-exogenous  energy-resources  enhancement  enlightenment-renaissance-restoration-reformation  environment  envy  epistemic  equilibrium  error  estimate  europe  evidence-based  examples  existence  exit-voice  expert  expert-experience  explanans  farmers-and-foragers  fertility  flexibility  fluid  flux-stasis  formal-values  frontier  futurism  gallic  galor-like  gavisti  genetics  genomics  geography  geopolitics  germanic  gibbon  gnon  gnosis-logos  government  gray-econ  gregory-clark  group-level  growth-econ  hanson  hari-seldon  health  heavy-industry  heuristic  hidden-motives  history  hive-mind  homo-hetero  humility  hypochondria  hypocrisy  ideas  ideology  incentives  india  inequality  info-dynamics  infrastructure  input-output  insight  institutions  intel  intervention  interview  iron-age  islam  japan  journos-pundits  judgement  labor  left-wing  letters  leviathan  links  list  lived-experience  local-global  long-short-run  macro  madisonian  magnitude  malthus  maps  marginal  marginal-rev  markov  meaningness  measure  measurement  medieval  mediterranean  MENA  meta-analysis  meta:prediction  meta:rhetoric  meta:war  metabolic  metabuch  metameta  methodology  microfoundations  migration  military  mobility  modernity  moments  monetary-fiscal  money  mostly-modern  multi  n-factor  nature  near-far  neuro  news  nitty-gritty  nl-and-so-can-you  nordic  north-weingast-like  null-result  number  objektbuch  occam  occident  old-anglo  open-closed  optimate  optimization  org:anglo  org:edu  org:junk  org:lite  org:mag  org:med  org:nat  org:ngo  org:popup  org:rec  orient  p:null  paleocon  parasites-microbiome  parsimony  patience  pdf  peace-violence  people  philosophy  piketty  piracy  podcast  policy  polis  polisci  political-econ  politics  population  pragmatic  pre-ww2  priors-posteriors  privacy  pro-rata  protestant-catholic  prudence  pseudoE  psychology  public-goodish  quixotic  race  randy-ayndy  rant  rationality  ratty  recommendations  redistribution  reference  regional-scatter-plots  regularizer  religion  rent-seeking  review  revolution  rhetoric  right-wing  rigor  risk  roots  rot  russia  s:*  sapiens  scale  scitariat  search  sequential  sinosphere  slippery-slope  social  social-psych  social-structure  society  sociology  speculation  speed  speedometer  spock  ssc  statesmen  stochastic-processes  stream  study  stylized-facts  summary  survey  systematic-ad-hoc  taxes  technology  tetlock  the-bones  the-classics  the-great-west-whale  the-world-is-just-atoms  theory-practice  thinking  time  time-preference  time-series  todo  top-n  traces  track-record  tradition  tribalism  trivia  turchin  twitter  unaffiliated  uncertainty  universalism-particularism  urban  urban-rural  us-them  usa  vaclav-smil  values  visualization  volo-avolo  walter-scheidel  war  wealth  wealth-of-nations  west-hunter  whiggish-hegelian  whole-partial-many  wiki  winner-take-all  wire-guided  wonkish  world  world-war  yvain  zeitgeist  🌞  🎩  🤖 

Copy this bookmark:



description:


tags: