Altered Maps XII: Not to Scale

[Gigaz]

That's a very nice explanation for one group. It doesn't explain the phenomenon of the adoption of agricultural practices in general.

Because evidence strongly suggests that this didn't happen.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120426143850.htm

Agriculture came from the Middle East to Europe because people from the Middle East settled down in Europe and eventually became dominant after thousands of years.

 

[Dachs]

Because evidence strongly suggests that this didn't happen.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120426143850.htm

Agriculture came from the Middle East to Europe because people from the Middle East settled down in Europe and eventually became dominant after thousands of years.

I imagine they migrated to China, Mesoamerica, India, and the Andes as well.

How very disgustingly Eurocentric of you.

 

[hoplitejoe]

I assume the Europeans then somehow enlightened the rest of the world, civilising is what we do best.

 

[JohannaK]

Of course. Vasco da Gama and Columbus followed prehistoric records of maritime routes connecting Europe to Asia and America respectively, isn't it obvious?

 

[Gigaz]

I imagine they migrated to China, Mesoamerica, India, and the Andes as well.

How very disgustingly Eurocentric of you.

No, agriculture was invented independently in China, Mesoamerica, South America, New Guina and possibly several places in Africa.

 

[Dachs]

No, agriculture was invented independently in China, Mesoamerica, South America, New Guina and possibly several places in Africa.

Exactly. That was my point. So we return again to the idea that a single group's highly contingent theoretical adoption of agriculture is not generalizable across the entire set of groups that adopted agriculture.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Nobody likes Kilkenny.

That's because they killed Kenny. Those bastards!

 

[TheLastOne36]

Yes, Diamond's work is always interesting.

But he doesn't explain really how or why agriculture arose. Just that people adopted it because of increasing population.

I have read, somewhere (and I really forget where), that agriculture was begun in the Fertile Crescent as a natural consequence of the gathering lifestyle. Where wild cereals were so abundant that simply gathering the grain and taking it back to a, more or less, permanent camp and accidentally dropping some meant that cultivated fields arose almost spontaneously. And spontaneous selective cultivation led to modern grain crops.

It seems very unlikely that, simply, with increasing population, some people sat down and pondered what to do and came up with the idea of agriculture.

Well that is because that was the thesis of that paper.

Jared Diamond explains pretty much exactly that in Guns, Germs and Steel. (Which is probably where you read it)

 

[Gigaz]

Exactly. That was my point. So we return again to the idea that a single group's highly contingent theoretical adoption of agriculture is not generalizable across the entire set of groups that adopted agriculture.

I'm talking about a small number of centers for the invention of agriculture. Each center had a certain number of crops that were cultivated (wheat in the Middle East, rice in China for example). But the spread of agriculture over the whole world was not due to adoption by other cultures but because of active settling by farmers.

 

[Dachs]

I'm talking about a small number of centers for the invention of agriculture. Each center had a certain number of crops that were cultivated (wheat in the Middle East, rice in China for example). But the spread of agriculture over the whole world was not due to adoption by other cultures but because of active settling by farmers.

That's as may be. I'm not trying to contest that. What I'm saying is that the highly contingent model for the adoption of agriculture for which you are arguing is not a particularly likely thing to have occurred, spontaneously and independently, in several places around the world. The fact that agriculture was adopted by people in several regions who had no contact with each other and who weren't even using the same crops suggests a systemic, not contingent, factor was at work.

 

[Omega124]

Snip

Love it, but some minor critcisms

As stated, Idaho should be in Cascadia
Delaware should be called Pennsylvania
Mississippi should be called Louisiana (The state isn't even in that state, even if the river does run through it)
Georgia and Dixie should be merged, and then named Dixie
Utah and Nevada should then be separated from Colorado and be called New Vegas Deseret

 

[Mango Elephant]

Mississippi is called Mississippi because almost all of its Eastern border is the Mississippi river.

As for the Dixie idea, that would make Dixie by far the most populous state, which I'm trying to avoid (although it would give less power to the Republicans in the Senate, which is a Good Thing). Because that's impossible, the Deseret idea is also impossible, unfortunately.

I made a new map, though!

Rhode Island is based on New York, and since Rhode Island was named after the Island of Rhodes (where the Colossus was) I think it's fine to call NYC Rhode Island.

Also, the Empire of the Mormon isn't actually an empire, it's still a state.

And I'm aware it's significantly uglier than the first one I made.

 

[bombshoo]

Yay Ohio has an empire!

But none of it is in Ohio....

 

[Joecoolyo]

Chicago in Ohio? What is this madness?

I demand secession!

 

[Mango Elephant]

lol actually at first it was called Chicago, but then I thought "WTH that's so stupid!" and so I changed it.

I support anything Ohio as long as it's not actually Ohio. I think I speak for everyone when I say Ohio is the worst state in the union, except perhaps Mississippi or Florida.

 

[Joecoolyo]

lol actually at first it was called Chicago, but then I thought "WTH that's so stupid!" and so I changed it.

I support anything Ohio as long as it's not actually Ohio. I think I speak for everyone when I say Ohio is the worst state in the union, except perhaps Mississippi or Florida.

It's not as if Chicago doesn't already dominate the state you created

And, nah, there are worse filler states out there compared to Ohio.

 

[Mango Elephant]

Ohio is not a filler state. It is a state of necromancy, witchcraft, and satanism. It is evil and intolerant. It is the dying liver of America.

 

[Save_Ferris]

Colorado and Arizona are have much more people than Utah, unless an immediate widespread conversion occurs.

Also, Texas would be more likely to overtake Oklahoma than Missouri, given it probably has the largest military capability of any state.

Also, here's the problem with naming states after rivers: In the future, people will still associate names like "Ohio" with the states (or basic areas), rather than the rivers.

Ohio is not a filler state. It is a state of necromancy, witchcraft, and satanism. It is evil and intolerant. It is the dying liver of America.

Eeeeenope, that's Detroit. There are a few parts of Cleveland and Cincinnati that are evil, but that's not enough to make it evil as a state.

 

[DroopyTofu]

I was inspired by Mango's work and made my own. Thoughts?

Capitals:
Greater New York - NYC
Tide Water - Atlanta
Ohio - Cincinnatti
Great Lakes - Chicago
Mississippi - New Orleans
Nuevo Mexico - Fort Dallas Worth
Pacifica - San Francisco
Idaho - Salt Lake City
Dakota - Minneapolis

 

[Dachs]

Your "Tidewater" does not include Tidewater Virginia. Your "Mississippi" does not include Mississippi. Your "Idaho" is missing a significant chunk of Idaho. Your "Ohio" is missing a significant chunk of Ohio.