Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2017
- Messages
- 3,309
- Reaction score
- -7
- Country
- Location
Prologue:
Every Empire has a lifecycle. Even civilizations have lifecycles. Spengler,Glubb and others have noted the rough timespans of empires. Toynbee even recorded civilizations which have gone extinct and civilizations which are still intact. Rough estimates of the timespan of empires is in the same ballpark figure
Glubb reports that the stable period of empires tend to be roughly 250 years
The latest Cambridge study on timespans of empires arrive at a number of 336 years
250 years here imply the time between an empire reaches geopolitical significance till the time the first cracks of the final decline start to appear .....For example for the Ottomans the first sign of the final decline would be the loss at the Siege of Malta in 1565 ...but the empire dragged on till 1923 .......so the tail may be extended or may be short, but that is not our main concern here
The two other empires that defy this trend: Roman Empire and Byzantine empire
There was 800 years between two sacks of Rome (though Rome completely changed its political order in the middle---->going from Republic to Empire..Was this a cultural shock for the contemporary romans?)
There is roughly 500 years between the Justinian restoration and the defeat at Manzikert for the byzantine Empire...bookending its stable period or apogee
A list of civilisations to compare how long they lasted
The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival
by Sir John Glubb
A Study of History , a 12-volume universal history by the British historian Arnold J. Toynbee
The Decline of the West (German: Der Untergang des Abendlandes), or The Downfall of the Occident, a two-volume work by Oswald Spengler.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that I have set the context , I want to shift the focus to the subcontinent. When i was checking the cycles of empires in the subcontinent something strange caught my eye
Empires that achieve geopolitical preeminence in the subcontinent donot last the usual 250 to 336 years...But rather only half of that at between 120 to 150 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How do I define geopolitical preeminence?
Any empire that is able to conquer majority of Northern India but more importantly have been able to conquer both the Arabian coast and the Bay of Bengal coast. I know this is a narrow definition but still a more decisive definition. Given against this background let's look at the batting average of empires of the subcontinent
For China the definition of empire would be which polity has been able to fully assert control over Ordos Plateau and the famous Yellow River Bend. That relatively small geographical area is the microcosm of the conflict between Han Chinese and the nomads up north
Maurya empire: 120 years 305 BC to 185 BC (from conquering NW to Indo-greeks)
Gupta Empire: 105 years 380 AD to 485 AD (from Samudragupta conquests till the Hunas)
Mughal Empire: 151 years 1573 AD to 1724 AD (from Akbar defeating Guj. Sultanate to Baji Rao)
British Empire: 129 years 1818 AD to 1947 AD (from defeat of the Maratahas till Independence and Partition)
Republic of India: 72+ years
There were numerous other empires that controlled both the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal coast as well as land above the Vindhyas, but I am discounting them as they were not long or stable enough ..prime being Harsha's empire,Delhi sultanate, Satavahanas,Rahstrakutas, Marathas etc.
Delhi Sultanate tentative control of the said geographical ends : 1232 AD to 1344 AD (suzerainity over the Soomras over the entire period but loss of Bengal for a decade or two in the said period)
Even if RoI is very successful, it would be hardpressed to eclipse the batting average of the Mughals......
This makes it doubly imperative for RoI to deliver high middle income standard of living to the citizens of India before the 100th anniversary of Independence
We may say that we have roughly till 2100 time, to make our beds in order, till disaster strikes......What might be the disaster you ask?
Severe Loss of Income due to Climate Change
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is estimated that India will have 93 percent less GDP per capita due to climate change than the GDP per capita it would have had with the absence of climate change..The figure for Pakistan is 96 percent. Since Pakistani rivers are largely fed by the snowmelt from the glaciers in the Himalayas while Indian rivers are reinforced by the monsoons
Those same estimates point out that GDP of Northern Europe,Russia,Mongolia and Canada would just soar into the stratosphere
Such conditions are bound to cause complete breakdown of the social order in the subcontinent....Given this is the context, what your solution to soften the Landing Impact? The Impact is coming, try as hard as we may to avoid it
Economic Impact of Climate Change by Individual Country
Hotter Days Will Drive Global Inequality
Climate Change / Clean Energy
Hotter Days Will Drive Global Inequality
Rising temperatures due to climate change will strongly affect economic growth around the world, making some countries richer and some poorer.
by David Rotman
Dec 20, 2016
Extreme heat, it turns out, is very bad for the economy. Crops fail. People work less, and are less productive when they do work.
This story is part of our January/February 2017 issue
See the rest of the issue
Subscribe
That’s why an increase in extremely hot days is one of the more worrisome prospects of climate change. To predict just how various countries might suffer or benefit, a team of scientists at Stanford and the University of California, Berkeley, have turned to historical records of how temperature affects key aspects of the economy. When they use this data to estimate how various countries will fare with a warming planet, the news isn’t good.
The average global income is predicted to be 23 percent less by the end of the century than it would be without climate change. But the effects of a hotter world will be shared very unevenly, with a number of northern countries, including Russia and much of Europe, benefiting from the rising temperatures. The uneven impact of the warming “could mean a massive restructuring of the global economy,” says Solomon Hsiang, a professor at the Goldman School of Public Policy at Berkeley, one of the researchers who have painstakingly documented the historical impact of temperature. Even by 2050 (see map), the variation in the economic fates of countries is striking.
Because poorer countries, including those in much of South America and Africa, already tend to be far hotter than what’s ideal for economic growth, the effect of rising temperatures will be particularly damaging to them. Average income for the world’s poorest 60 percent of people by century’s end will be 70 percent below what it would have been without climate change, conclude Hsiang and his coauthors in a recent Nature paper. The result of the rising temperatures, he says, “will be a huge redistribution of wealth from the global poor to the wealthy.”
Change in gross domestic product per capita relative to a world without global warming
Hotter weather is just one of the effects of climate change; shifts in rainfall and an increase in severe weather like hurricanes are among the others. But by analyzing temperatures alone, Hsiang and his coworkers have provided more precise estimates of how climate change could affect the economy. It turns out, Hsiang says, that temperature has a surprisingly consistent effect on different economic inputs: labor supply, labor productivity, and crop yields all drop off dramatically between 20 °C and 30 °C. “Whether you’re looking at crops or people, hot days are bad,” he says. “Even in the richest and most technologically advanced nation in the world, you will see [the negative effects],” he says, citing data showing that a day over 30 °C in an average U.S. county costs each resident $20 in unearned income. “It’s real money.”
The number of days above 95 °F (35 °C) will rise dramatically in many parts of the United States if climate change continues unabated
Of course, the idea that hot temperatures affect agriculture and the way we work and feel is not new. Indeed, Hsiang points to studies done in the early 20th century on the optimum temperatures for factory workers and soldiers. But he and his colleagues have quantified how changes in temperature alter overall economic productivity for entire countries.
Hsiang and his coworkers examined both the annual economic performance in each country and the average yearly temperatures from 1960 to 2010. Then they used advanced statistical techniques to isolate temperature effects from other variables, such as changes in policies and financial cycles. Such analysis, he says, is possible because much more historical data is available, and computational power has increased enough to handle it. Then, by using climate models to project future temperatures, the researchers were able to estimate economic growth over the rest of the century if these historical patterns hold true.
Hsiang has also looked at how hot temperatures affect social behaviors and health, concluding that they increase violence and mortality (see charts). What he calls his “obsession” with the social effects of temperature can be traced to his training in the physical sciences. Temperature plays an essential and obvious role in chemistry and physics, but its effects on society and human behavior have been less appreciated. And yet, as his recent work has confirmed, the climate “is fundamental to our economy,” says Hsiang. Now he’s hoping to provide new understanding of just how an increasingly hot world will affect our future prosperity.
Hot Tempers, Poor Yields, and Sluggish Economies
Risk of Civil Conflict (1 of 6)
The probability of civil conflict in tropical areas increases in hotter El Niño years relative to La Niña years, according to one study. (Hsiang et al., 2011)
Every Empire has a lifecycle. Even civilizations have lifecycles. Spengler,Glubb and others have noted the rough timespans of empires. Toynbee even recorded civilizations which have gone extinct and civilizations which are still intact. Rough estimates of the timespan of empires is in the same ballpark figure
Glubb reports that the stable period of empires tend to be roughly 250 years
The latest Cambridge study on timespans of empires arrive at a number of 336 years
250 years here imply the time between an empire reaches geopolitical significance till the time the first cracks of the final decline start to appear .....For example for the Ottomans the first sign of the final decline would be the loss at the Siege of Malta in 1565 ...but the empire dragged on till 1923 .......so the tail may be extended or may be short, but that is not our main concern here
The two other empires that defy this trend: Roman Empire and Byzantine empire
There was 800 years between two sacks of Rome (though Rome completely changed its political order in the middle---->going from Republic to Empire..Was this a cultural shock for the contemporary romans?)
There is roughly 500 years between the Justinian restoration and the defeat at Manzikert for the byzantine Empire...bookending its stable period or apogee
A list of civilisations to compare how long they lasted
The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival
by Sir John Glubb
A Study of History , a 12-volume universal history by the British historian Arnold J. Toynbee
The Decline of the West (German: Der Untergang des Abendlandes), or The Downfall of the Occident, a two-volume work by Oswald Spengler.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that I have set the context , I want to shift the focus to the subcontinent. When i was checking the cycles of empires in the subcontinent something strange caught my eye
Empires that achieve geopolitical preeminence in the subcontinent donot last the usual 250 to 336 years...But rather only half of that at between 120 to 150 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How do I define geopolitical preeminence?
Any empire that is able to conquer majority of Northern India but more importantly have been able to conquer both the Arabian coast and the Bay of Bengal coast. I know this is a narrow definition but still a more decisive definition. Given against this background let's look at the batting average of empires of the subcontinent
For China the definition of empire would be which polity has been able to fully assert control over Ordos Plateau and the famous Yellow River Bend. That relatively small geographical area is the microcosm of the conflict between Han Chinese and the nomads up north
Maurya empire: 120 years 305 BC to 185 BC (from conquering NW to Indo-greeks)
Gupta Empire: 105 years 380 AD to 485 AD (from Samudragupta conquests till the Hunas)
Mughal Empire: 151 years 1573 AD to 1724 AD (from Akbar defeating Guj. Sultanate to Baji Rao)
British Empire: 129 years 1818 AD to 1947 AD (from defeat of the Maratahas till Independence and Partition)
Republic of India: 72+ years
There were numerous other empires that controlled both the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal coast as well as land above the Vindhyas, but I am discounting them as they were not long or stable enough ..prime being Harsha's empire,Delhi sultanate, Satavahanas,Rahstrakutas, Marathas etc.
Delhi Sultanate tentative control of the said geographical ends : 1232 AD to 1344 AD (suzerainity over the Soomras over the entire period but loss of Bengal for a decade or two in the said period)
Even if RoI is very successful, it would be hardpressed to eclipse the batting average of the Mughals......
This makes it doubly imperative for RoI to deliver high middle income standard of living to the citizens of India before the 100th anniversary of Independence
We may say that we have roughly till 2100 time, to make our beds in order, till disaster strikes......What might be the disaster you ask?
Severe Loss of Income due to Climate Change
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is estimated that India will have 93 percent less GDP per capita due to climate change than the GDP per capita it would have had with the absence of climate change..The figure for Pakistan is 96 percent. Since Pakistani rivers are largely fed by the snowmelt from the glaciers in the Himalayas while Indian rivers are reinforced by the monsoons
Those same estimates point out that GDP of Northern Europe,Russia,Mongolia and Canada would just soar into the stratosphere
Such conditions are bound to cause complete breakdown of the social order in the subcontinent....Given this is the context, what your solution to soften the Landing Impact? The Impact is coming, try as hard as we may to avoid it
Economic Impact of Climate Change by Individual Country
Hotter Days Will Drive Global Inequality
Climate Change / Clean Energy
Hotter Days Will Drive Global Inequality
Rising temperatures due to climate change will strongly affect economic growth around the world, making some countries richer and some poorer.
by David Rotman
Dec 20, 2016
Extreme heat, it turns out, is very bad for the economy. Crops fail. People work less, and are less productive when they do work.
This story is part of our January/February 2017 issue
See the rest of the issue
Subscribe
That’s why an increase in extremely hot days is one of the more worrisome prospects of climate change. To predict just how various countries might suffer or benefit, a team of scientists at Stanford and the University of California, Berkeley, have turned to historical records of how temperature affects key aspects of the economy. When they use this data to estimate how various countries will fare with a warming planet, the news isn’t good.
The average global income is predicted to be 23 percent less by the end of the century than it would be without climate change. But the effects of a hotter world will be shared very unevenly, with a number of northern countries, including Russia and much of Europe, benefiting from the rising temperatures. The uneven impact of the warming “could mean a massive restructuring of the global economy,” says Solomon Hsiang, a professor at the Goldman School of Public Policy at Berkeley, one of the researchers who have painstakingly documented the historical impact of temperature. Even by 2050 (see map), the variation in the economic fates of countries is striking.
Because poorer countries, including those in much of South America and Africa, already tend to be far hotter than what’s ideal for economic growth, the effect of rising temperatures will be particularly damaging to them. Average income for the world’s poorest 60 percent of people by century’s end will be 70 percent below what it would have been without climate change, conclude Hsiang and his coauthors in a recent Nature paper. The result of the rising temperatures, he says, “will be a huge redistribution of wealth from the global poor to the wealthy.”
Change in gross domestic product per capita relative to a world without global warming
Hotter weather is just one of the effects of climate change; shifts in rainfall and an increase in severe weather like hurricanes are among the others. But by analyzing temperatures alone, Hsiang and his coworkers have provided more precise estimates of how climate change could affect the economy. It turns out, Hsiang says, that temperature has a surprisingly consistent effect on different economic inputs: labor supply, labor productivity, and crop yields all drop off dramatically between 20 °C and 30 °C. “Whether you’re looking at crops or people, hot days are bad,” he says. “Even in the richest and most technologically advanced nation in the world, you will see [the negative effects],” he says, citing data showing that a day over 30 °C in an average U.S. county costs each resident $20 in unearned income. “It’s real money.”
The number of days above 95 °F (35 °C) will rise dramatically in many parts of the United States if climate change continues unabated
Of course, the idea that hot temperatures affect agriculture and the way we work and feel is not new. Indeed, Hsiang points to studies done in the early 20th century on the optimum temperatures for factory workers and soldiers. But he and his colleagues have quantified how changes in temperature alter overall economic productivity for entire countries.
Hsiang and his coworkers examined both the annual economic performance in each country and the average yearly temperatures from 1960 to 2010. Then they used advanced statistical techniques to isolate temperature effects from other variables, such as changes in policies and financial cycles. Such analysis, he says, is possible because much more historical data is available, and computational power has increased enough to handle it. Then, by using climate models to project future temperatures, the researchers were able to estimate economic growth over the rest of the century if these historical patterns hold true.
Hsiang has also looked at how hot temperatures affect social behaviors and health, concluding that they increase violence and mortality (see charts). What he calls his “obsession” with the social effects of temperature can be traced to his training in the physical sciences. Temperature plays an essential and obvious role in chemistry and physics, but its effects on society and human behavior have been less appreciated. And yet, as his recent work has confirmed, the climate “is fundamental to our economy,” says Hsiang. Now he’s hoping to provide new understanding of just how an increasingly hot world will affect our future prosperity.
Hot Tempers, Poor Yields, and Sluggish Economies
Risk of Civil Conflict (1 of 6)
The probability of civil conflict in tropical areas increases in hotter El Niño years relative to La Niña years, according to one study. (Hsiang et al., 2011)
Last edited:
Same would possibly happen in the case of Global Warming and other similar grave environmental issues.
