Biohistory: The biological basis of civilization and why they fall

Found this introductory video series on youtube that may be of interest:

C and the Basis of Civilization:





Democracy, Money and Violence:





The Civilization Cycle:




Discuss.

Quote

Obviously it's hard to discuss such big, broad topics in such a short form without terribly oversimplifying things, but I think they did a pretty decent job and there is a lot of truth there.

I think the parts where they talk about the benefits of efficient markets and decision making based on value vs relationships is interesting. I'm confident that our society doesn't do that nearly as well as advertised.
- influence of advertising (overt and covert)
- identity politics and quotas, wage gap, etc.
- large organizations with internal politics having influence over how the orgs resources are allocated
- "it's not what you know, it's who you know"
- in general, people in position to allocate large amounts of resources due to their job (as opposed to their own wealth) who don't have enough work ethic and general integrity to make those decisions with the long term best interests of their employers as the top priority.

Quote

Read the book for better understanding. It's free.

https://www.biohistory.org/thank-biohist...fall-west/

Quote

(02-27-2017 05:00 PM)Dan Woolf Wrote:  Read the book for better understanding. It's free.

https://www.biohistory.org/thank-biohist...fall-west/

Awesome.

Quote

A continuation of the series.

Population cycles and behaviour:




How world war I and world war II is genetically related.

Quote

(02-27-2017 05:00 PM)Dan Woolf Wrote:  Read the book for better understanding. It's free.

https://www.biohistory.org/thank-biohist...fall-west/

Is there a PDF version I can download?

Quote

(06-02-2017 12:31 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 05:00 PM)Dan Woolf Wrote:  Read the book for better understanding. It's free.

https://www.biohistory.org/thank-biohist...fall-west/

Is there a PDF version I can download?

If all else fails pick up Adobe Calibre; works off PC, allows you to convert to PDF though the conversions can be a bit wiggy sometimes.

Quote

This BioHistory stuff is nothing more than comparing humans to animals. It goes without saying that humans are a lot more complex than animals unless you're a behaviorist who insists that thoughts have no bearing on our actions (i.e. there is no free will).

There are also huge gaps in some of the historical cycles presented; the dark age was not dark for the Byzantine Empire, for example.

Interesting observations but there is not much of a concrete theory here, no actionable advice is presented.

Quote

I am somewhat skeptical of this theory - the general principles that values of hard work, family, sexual morality and trade build civilizations are undeniable, of course, but I am skeptical of this theory that this has rigid bio mechanical roots.

The biggest big red flag for me is the tired trope of Rome as example. This example is full of popular misconceptions. Contrary to how it is presented in schools Rome didn't fall in 476, but rather in 1453 when Muslims conquered Constantinople. This cycle theory doesn't explain why one half of empire survived 1000 years longer then the other half. Even then, although the Eastern Roman state was destroyed, their civilization didn't as it migrated trough establishing Tsardom to what is now known as Russia, so in a sense it was truly destroyed only in 1917, when Communists destroyed Tsardom and Communism can be argued as completely different form of civilization.

The western Roman empire also didn't quite fall but rather just split into Medieval Christian kingdoms. Contrary to popular misconception Rome was not pagan when it fell and was already mostly Christian. Contrary to popular misconceptions no outside barbarians destroyed Rome, but rather the conquered and baptized pagan nations split apart and formed their Christian Kingdoms. This was due to the moral decline only of the Rome city while the recently Baptized conquered barbarians had higher moral standards and didn't want to subordinate themselves to the degenerate capital. This is why Western Christian Kingdoms were actually true successors of Christian Rome not it's anathemas. The dark ages that fallowed were due to no single Christian kingdom being able to amass enough power and resources to rival the combined power of all former Roman empire's territory. As much as each King wanted to become Emperor by uniting all Christian lands they all failed and further expansion only became possible with advent of seafaring.

So in a sense I don't consider modern west to be a different civilization from ancient Rome. This misconception or Rome being separate from Christian West comes from popular images of Rome being a pagan capital and torturing Christians in Coliseum, while actually these were just a few early episodes and for most of it's history Rome itself was Christian - hence the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church. Rome and modern west is actually the same civilization that has lasted for 2.5 millenia. Sure it has had it's ebbs and flows and it has to do with temperament of people and moral standards and birthrates, but on overall that is the same civilization and everyone who today comes from a western Christian/secular/white country is a Roman to some degree. Different regions of this civilization have prospered more at some times then others but these periods are too irregular to talk about predetermined cycles.

Now Islamic world - that is truly a different civilization. Islam has actually more to do with ebbs and flows of Roman empire as we are tough in schools. Islam actually destroyed Roman empire at Constantinople. Islam constantly bullied and endangered Western civilization, not allowing it to reach heights of Roman empire in middle ages. Islam separated Roman/Western civilization from Indian and Chinese civilizations for centuries. And it was due to this separation that Wast started to build ships to circumnavigate this hostile civilization and discovered other civilizations - Indian, Chinese, Japanese and Mesoamerican - and became the most powerful civilization on globe due to trade and seafaring.

This is not how it is interpreted in schools trough - because our civilization is paranoid of Islam and the omission of Muslim bullying of our civilization is much older then modern leftist SJW and mass media lies. This omission has centuries old traditions from times when Muslims pirated our ships in Mediterranean and still no such thing was tough in schools.

So do not believe in predetermined cycles and inevitability of fall of our civilization. While some parts of West are clearly lost - if west reasserts it's moral values revitalizes it's Christian or pagan or philosophic teachings and recognizes Islam as the alien enemy it is like it was done in times of Charlemagne, Crusades, Reconquista and Conquering of Barbay Coast then Roman/western/white/Christian civilization can survive.

On overall this cycle theory of these videos is just another distraction full of half-truths by seeking a materialistic explanation of things while the true salvation of West is more spiritual in nature: We re the salt of the earth, we are children of Mars (called V in these videos) and chosen of Jesus (called C in these videos) and Islam is the lash of God put in this world to make us pay for our sins. As we sin - Islam strengthens to punish us. As we atone - Islam weakens and we dominate in the world. As medieval and barbaric as this sounds - by understanding this we will do better then by constructing elaborate theories about bio mechanics.

Quote

(02-27-2017 07:32 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  Found this introductory video series on youtube that may be of interest:

C and the Basis of Civilization:





Democracy, Money and Violence:





The Civilization Cycle:




Discuss.

The concept of biohistory is fascinating. I have spent a lot of time recently thinking and reading about the history and future of the West and this seems to give some real insight.

Do you have anything else to share?

Quote

(06-02-2017 02:56 AM)Samseau Wrote:  This BioHistory stuff is nothing more than comparing humans to animals. It goes without saying that humans are a lot more complex than animals unless you're a behaviorist who insists that thoughts have no bearing on our actions (i.e. there is no free will).

There are also huge gaps in some of the historical cycles presented; the dark age was not dark for the Byzantine Empire, for example.

Interesting observations but there is not much of a concrete theory here, no actionable advice is presented.

He did base this on experiments based on mice including the epigenetic changes as a result of food shortages and the resulting behavioral shifts and observations of other animals. The latest one being lemmings.

And assuming that humans have bestial instincts which would seem similar to other mammals most especially mice. The man applies it to humanity as well. Which seems to fit the general trendline.

Quote

(06-02-2017 03:40 AM)theoneandonly Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 07:32 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  Found this introductory video series on youtube that may be of interest:

C and the Basis of Civilization:





Democracy, Money and Violence:





The Civilization Cycle:




Discuss.

The concept of biohistory is fascinating. I have spent a lot of time recently thinking and reading about the history and future of the West and this seems to give some real insight.

Do you have anything else to share?

Not so far since this is all the videos they put out. But I recommend the link provided by one of the commentators in this thread.

Quote

(06-02-2017 02:57 AM)Mage Wrote:  snip

I agree to some extent with what you're saying but if civil unrest comes to a head and the American empire dissolves into Caliphornia, Cascadia, Jew York and its satellite cities and the Holy American Empire of the midwest and south, could you still claim that "American civilization survived"? Seems like this line of reasoning is a bit of a stretch.

Quote

(06-02-2017 11:38 AM)Extinguished Light Wrote:  

(06-02-2017 02:57 AM)Mage Wrote:  snip

I agree to some extent with what you're saying but if civil unrest comes to a head and the American empire dissolves into Caliphornia, Cascadia, Jew York and its satellite cities and the Holy American Empire of the midwest and south, could you still claim that "American civilization survived"? Seems like this line of reasoning is a bit of a stretch.

I think that Civilization is a broader term then any country.

Sometimes fracturing of a country/empire occurs precisely because some parts of it retain traditions and civilization while others fall into degeneracy. It's like surgery to cut out cancer from healthy tissue, so that at least in diminished state but the organism (civilization) would survive.

Quote

(06-04-2017 02:52 AM)Mage Wrote:  

(06-02-2017 11:38 AM)Extinguished Light Wrote:  

(06-02-2017 02:57 AM)Mage Wrote:  snip

I agree to some extent with what you're saying but if civil unrest comes to a head and the American empire dissolves into Caliphornia, Cascadia, Jew York and its satellite cities and the Holy American Empire of the midwest and south, could you still claim that "American civilization survived"? Seems like this line of reasoning is a bit of a stretch.

I think that Civilization is a broader term then any country.

Sometimes fracturing of a country/empire occurs precisely because some parts of it retain traditions and civilization while others fall into degeneracy. It's like surgery to cut out cancer from healthy tissue, so that at least in diminished state but the organism (civilization) would survive.

I think the idea is that while the culture of the civilization tends to persist, the collapse cycle is between large empires and fragmented kingdoms. There are very few cases of a civilization totally collapsing into nothing, mainly just Native American civilizations from European colonization. But that's more like a destructive black swan event akin to an alien invasion.

Quote

Has anyone read March of the Titans by Arthur Kemp? He argues that the rise and fall of a civilisation depends on the people within that society. Chinese people will create a Chinese civilisation. When they disappear or become a minority their unique civilisation goes with them. Likewise Kemp writes that the fall of Rome, Egypt etc is because the creators of those societies were outnumbered by foreigners.

Quote

(06-08-2017 02:20 PM)Chris Brown Wrote:  Has anyone read March of the Titans by Arthur Kemp? He argues that the rise and fall of a civilisation depends on the people within that society. Chinese people will create a Chinese civilisation. When they disappear or become a minority their unique civilisation goes with them. Likewise Kemp writes that the fall of Rome, Egypt etc is because the creators of those societies were outnumbered by foreigners.

Hard to argue with that.

Quote

(06-08-2017 02:20 PM)Chris Brown Wrote:  Has anyone read March of the Titans by Arthur Kemp? He argues that the rise and fall of a civilisation depends on the people within that society. Chinese people will create a Chinese civilisation. When they disappear or become a minority their unique civilisation goes with them. Likewise Kemp writes that the fall of Rome, Egypt etc is because the creators of those societies were outnumbered by foreigners.

At least in the case of the Chinese, there were multiple sub-races of people living in the area, with large tribes appearing around 7,000 years ago. About 4,000 years ago they started forming dynasties with claims to the entire known world. 2,000 years ago power was centralized in the emperor and the "Chinese" (themselves an amalgamation of sub-races by this point) began assimilating non-Chinese on a large scale. Vietnam (the name means Southern Viet), for example, is probably the last surviving member of a tribal group called the "Hundred Viets" that occupied southern China; people close to today's Koreans used to live in the Chinese Northeast.

It's not like all of these people were conquered. In many cases they were the ones who conquered China or parts of China, and in doing so lost their unique culture, language, and even ethnic character. The result is a place that doesn't resemble the China of 1000, 1500, or 3000 years ago any more than modern France looks like a Celtic kingdom, but somehow Chinese believe very firmly that China has been around for 5,000 years. It wouldn't be a stretch, in my view, to say that they found a way to make civilization surpass ethnicity and language.

Quote

I dont know, I am a bit skeptical. I am from Africa and we blacks have never gone through a civilisation cycle. We always remain in the vigour part.

Quote

(06-10-2017 07:17 AM)Stanfield Wrote:  I dont know, I am a bit skeptical. I am from Africa and we blacks have never gone through a civilisation cycle. We always remain in the vigour part.

True. Factors like Agriculture and Patriarchy would be needed to kickstart civilization. I recommend the 1st video which explains the conditions that lead to the temperament necessary for civilization. Although I am not aware of Africans in history until the modern age adhering to regimes that would causes rises in C temperament which would help build civilization.

Africans did not have the concept of Fatherhood by and large until Europeans came and introduced the concept as well as Patriarchy. Which as this article seems to state is one of the crucial components necessary for civilization:
http://www.fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html

As long as men are disenfranchised from their families and lack headship over them they are not inclined to invest in them and thereby help build civilization.

Quote

(06-09-2017 04:32 PM)Lunostrelki Wrote:  At least in the case of the Chinese, there were multiple sub-races of people living in the area, with large tribes appearing around 7,000 years ago. About 4,000 years ago they started forming dynasties with claims to the entire known world. 2,000 years ago power was centralized in the emperor and the "Chinese" (themselves an amalgamation of sub-races by this point) began assimilating non-Chinese on a large scale. Vietnam (the name means Southern Viet), for example, is probably the last surviving member of a tribal group called the "Hundred Viets" that occupied southern China; people close to today's Koreans used to live in the Chinese Northeast.

It's not like all of these people were conquered. In many cases they were the ones who conquered China or parts of China, and in doing so lost their unique culture, language, and even ethnic character. The result is a place that doesn't resemble the China of 1000, 1500, or 3000 years ago any more than modern France looks like a Celtic kingdom, but somehow Chinese believe very firmly that China has been around for 5,000 years. It wouldn't be a stretch, in my view, to say that they found a way to make civilization surpass ethnicity and language.

The most essential core of Chinese civilization is, in fact, language. Not spoken language, but the written one. The one thing that binds all the different ethnicities and dialects within China together is the Chinese writing system, Hanzi.

Chinese writing '8,000 years old'

Chinese agriculture is roughly as old as its writing. Some people think '5000 years civilization' is an exaggeration. In fact, it is more likely an underestimation. China arguably has the earliest writing system (predating the Summerian cuneiform by 2000 years), and hence the oldest civilization.

From the modern the Jiahu tortoise shell carvings (8600 y.o) through the Damaidi carving (8000 y.o) to the Shang Dynasty script (3500 y.o), up to classical Chinese and modern day simplified Chinese, the Chinese writing system has continually evolved, but basically in an unbroken line, which made China an unbroken civilization. No matter how many times China is split up into multiple kingdoms or conquered by a different race, no matter how many different dynasties and political systems it goes through, Hanzi lives on as the common thread that strings together China's long, messy, chaotic and vastly diverse history. Hanzi is the very soul of China, containing the quintessence of Chinese culture that not even ten Mao Zedongs can destroy.

So no, I don't think the Chinese are wrong in thinking that China has been around for 5000 years. It's even older than that. China cannot be defined apart from the Chinese writing system. Hanzi is the core aspect of Chinese identity, equally or even more important than biological makeup.

Quote

(06-11-2017 08:50 AM)Liberty Sea Wrote:  

(06-09-2017 04:32 PM)Lunostrelki Wrote:  At least in the case of the Chinese, there were multiple sub-races of people living in the area, with large tribes appearing around 7,000 years ago. About 4,000 years ago they started forming dynasties with claims to the entire known world. 2,000 years ago power was centralized in the emperor and the "Chinese" (themselves an amalgamation of sub-races by this point) began assimilating non-Chinese on a large scale. Vietnam (the name means Southern Viet), for example, is probably the last surviving member of a tribal group called the "Hundred Viets" that occupied southern China; people close to today's Koreans used to live in the Chinese Northeast.

It's not like all of these people were conquered. In many cases they were the ones who conquered China or parts of China, and in doing so lost their unique culture, language, and even ethnic character. The result is a place that doesn't resemble the China of 1000, 1500, or 3000 years ago any more than modern France looks like a Celtic kingdom, but somehow Chinese believe very firmly that China has been around for 5,000 years. It wouldn't be a stretch, in my view, to say that they found a way to make civilization surpass ethnicity and language.

The most essential core of Chinese civilization is, in fact, language. Not spoken language, but the written one. The one thing that binds all the different ethnicities and dialects within China together is the Chinese writing system, Hanzi.

Chinese writing '8,000 years old'

Chinese agriculture is roughly as old as its writing. Some people think '5000 years civilization' is an exaggeration. In fact, it is more likely an underestimation. China arguably has the earliest writing system (predating the Summerian cuneiform by 2000 years), and hence the oldest civilization.

From the modern the Jiahu tortoise shell carvings (8600 y.o) through the Damaidi carving (8000 y.o) to the Shang Dynasty script (3500 y.o), up to classical Chinese and modern day simplified Chinese, the Chinese writing system has continually evolved, but basically in an unbroken line, which made China an unbroken civilization. No matter how many times China is split up into multiple kingdoms or conquered by a different race, no matter how many different dynasties and political systems it goes through, Hanzi lives on as the common thread that strings together China's long, messy, chaotic and vastly diverse history. Hanzi is the very soul of China, containing the quintessence of Chinese culture that not even ten Mao Zedongs can destroy.

So no, I don't think the Chinese are wrong in thinking that China has been around for 5000 years. It's even older than that. China cannot be defined apart from the Chinese writing system. Hanzi is the core aspect of Chinese identity, equally or even more important than biological makeup.

If you dumped 5 million white people in a Chinese province, and had them mix with the existing population, in 200 or 300 years they'd be Chinese. The people in whatever area you settled them in would be known across the country for larger eyes, whiter skin, and occasionally brown hair.

Mao Zedong almost replaced Hanzi with pinyin, and the Donggan people in Central Asia (they speak a dialect of Mandarin with lots of Russian loanwords) use Cyrillic. But I think that the Maoists realized that the written language was a primary factor keeping China from disintegrating, so they settled for simplified calligraphic forms.

Quote