I agree with the guy before me, geography has been an important part of our lives as a species and our successes and losses have been heavily affected by it. No it's not definitive but it's a huge part just like starting a campaign with missing limbs is going to affect you compared to if you had all of them. Yes you can still succeed but you'd be doing it in spite of the extra difficulty.
…all of those are influenced by environmental pressures. for example a place with little water or too much or with regular flooding is more likely to have a water god/rain god of some sort. if a group of people are completely land locked and have never seen nor know about the ocean they will not have a word for ocean and would probably adopt another languages word for it if not make one up when they finally do learn of its existence. if a group of people live in a very cold or inversely a very hot place where it’s hard for things to grow it’s not likely they will develop an agrarian lifestyle, at least not before their peers do. a place with too little water is far more likely to start wars over water than a place that has plenty of it. a place with lots of fertile land isn’t as likely to start a war for it than a place with very little fertile land. and… an these beginning interactions of a society are heavily influenced by the environment. which can create feed back loops later down the line and effecting geo-politics, rivalries, hatred, trade, language
In one of my worlds, there is a resource rich area but the natives (the beastmen ring species) do not wish to destroy it so only use what is needed and any metal weapons are looted as battle trophies. However, this caused conflict with other nations. This constant war was put on hold during the demon war (which was initiated by the mortal races as they feared the now united demon world that was very warlike due to a severe lack of resources but had a lot of mythical metals compared to other known linked planes). However, this fell apart when the beast hero left to save his newly united clans from a demon army which was a last ditch effort to cause as much damage as possible to the invading mortals as well as to satiate their bloodlust due to losing faith in their emperor (the Asmodeaon). This was considered a betrayal to other mortals leading to a situation in the present where they raid the beastmen for slaves and resources (technically illegal) which causes beastmen retaliation raids which brings them war slaves which are legal. As such, this prompts the other mortals to do this own raids in retaliation causing an endless cycle.
Enviromental determinism is the starting point, not the end game. You start with basic settlements that are shaped mostly but their environment and resources. How would these settlements explain the world around them? (A riven might be the open would of a life giving God in the middle of the desert) You've got religion. The surplus/absence of a resource means trade and/or conquest. Thinking of the materiality of their tools and weapons you can establish which ones win. So you modify the basic premises of the early settlements and adjust the foundational aspects of economy, power, religion and society to the new developments. And that's where the real sandbox fun begins
My favorite thing in fiction is when a settlement thrives in a ridiculous place not because it is a good place to settle, but because it's a terrible place to settle and humans are contrarians.
Such places can paradoxically be valued because they're unwanted. Whoever claims them first is more likely to be left alone; rivals are less likely to spill blood to steal poor land.
Very bad example New Orleans is in a terrible spot because eof the Mississippi River which made trade easy and mad ether people a lot of money, there were incentives given by geography that made people overlook the swamps and other obstacles because other influences shapes by geography made the city incredibly worthwhile.@@oliviastratton2169
@@finaldusk1821not true though, all cities that could be named for examples are. Build were they were due to trade which was mostly shapes by geography and politics but the politics behind Thai trade were also shaped by mainly geography, example is the silk road many town rose up to support this system of trade that devoloped, but it developed mainly because trade over the ocean was too hard at the time of its existence.
I recommend reading "the dawn of everything" by Graeber and Wengrow. In culture-building, I find the concept of schismogenesis is crucial. It's a long read but it can really change your perspective on the relationship between history and culture, and on bias in archaeology and anthropology (and, therefore, how we view cultural diversity) It also sheds light on the problematic concept of "complex society" and the consequences of environmental determinism and a very fixed, linear and essentialist idea of what agriculture is, when it came about, and what its consequences are (and aren't).
I’d like to point out a counter point example; Whittier, Alaska. Where almost the entire population of around 200 people all live under one roof, the 14-story self-sustaining “Begich Towers” which is one large building. In this small town, no one has to go outside unless they’d like to. I’m just saying that sometimes it happens :)
He not saying it doesn't so pointing out counter examples is pointless. He's saying it doesn't ALWAYS happen. That it isn't the ONLY factor. Why do people fail at basic comprehension?
Sir, Norway would like a word with you. 😂 Seriously though, for writers it is crucial to have a fresh look on their texts and the idea those are shaping to have a more precise angle and depth of their narration is very decisive as well.
I hope you’ll make more world building videos, you haven’t uploaded new videos in this series for a long time, I like this series more than your video series on writing,I don’t know why.
As a Floridian, I can confirm our three layer formal wear does not acknowledge nor respect our eternal summer / humid swamp environment. It’s absolutely miserable wearing a suitjacket with a tucked in shirt here. At any time of year
Not every character needs to change and it is entirely dependent on the purpose of your story. In a tragedy your character ideally shouldn't change and be very obstinate to facilitate their own downfall. Though Shakespeare's tragedies typically occur because of secret knowledge bestowed to the character. Also don't base all of your opinions on this guy, he barely understands the concept of environmental determinism.
One fun real world example of something defying Environmental Determinism is Manaus in Brazil. A city with more than 4 million inhabitants, in the middle of Amazon Rainforest, with pretty much no other big city around for thousands of kilometers, and it's known for it's industrial sector ere in Brazil because of subsidies. All because Brazil really wanted a metropolis in the middle of the Jungle.
This reminds me of the Iron Islanders off the coast of Westeros having a "drowned god", "do not sow" and are mostly stuck in a vacuum. They aren't influenced by mainland Westeros despite ruling the River lands.
They only ruled the Riverlands for 10 years, almost 300 years before the main series. And there are cultural ties between the iron born and the cranog men. Both have ties to fish people and the oily black stone of Moat Cailyn was described by Theon as very familiar to the oily black stone of the Kracken throne.
@@joshkorte9020 True that the Iron Islanders didn't rule mainland Westeros for very long. They are however, based on the Norse, who conquered parts of non-Scandinivian Europe and eventually embraced Christianity. There's change among the Norseman. There's none in the Iron Islanders.
Vikings crossed with Spartans- with a predictably stupid & limited culture as a result -- the few that have the sense to see ahead- or beyond themselves, in any form are mocked, hated, or feared- depending on who. Balon's father- Asha/ Yara & Theon's grandfather wanted to do so, but his early death ruined that; Balon, Victarion, & Aerion are 'traditionalists'- & Euron's a f*cking psycho - Asha's probably the Iron Island's best hope to not stagnate into oblivion (Theon's seen as too much of a 'greenlander' to be respected, & he's been pretty broken by his experiences - maybe Victarion will be changed by his time with Moqorro, & Danaerys- but he strikes me as a little too much like Stannis; breaking, rather than bending)...
I do believe humans are a very noteable part of the foodchain. even without our funny technology, we are both prey and predator. We hunt herbivores and are, ourselves, hunted by carnivores. We feed on the foods of herbivores, and the foods of carnivores.
In the world I made, there is one nation that lives in a better land than the others, fertile lands that with an overwhelmingly high amount of vegetation. But the land is only strong because it is sandwiched between two other nations that live under harsher environments that are continuously attempting to take over major parts of the first nation's land.
That's the paradox of having 'the best land', because whoever lives on it becomes the most lucrative target for conquest, especially from desperate neighbours with poor lands.
For a real-world example of the environmental determinism - and its limitations - look no further than the neighboring countries of the United States and Mexico. Both have absolutely astonishing levels of natural resources, large educated populations, stable, relatively forgiving climates, high levels of industry and extensive trade networks. And of course, both are currently democratic republics. But despite sharing nearly all of the same geographic, demographic and environmental advantages, the two countries have gotten radically different outcomes for their efforts. Where the United States is the wealthiest country on Earth, Mexico is decidedly lagging behind in prosperity from a relative standpoint. Endemic corruption, a history of political instability, repeated backsliding into self-defeating Marxist economic policy, and an inability to get a handle on the rampant criminality of the increasingly violent and powerful drug cartels has left modern Mexico only a couple of quick steps away from being a failed state. On paper, the two countries should be about on-par with each other, but in practice stark cultural differences lead to different approaches to governance and economics, which in turn generated wildly different outcomes. You can still see the influence of Environmental Determinism on Mexico today, since even with all of their problems they still managed to rank as the 14th or 15th largest economy in the world.
Environments do determine some things. At the end of the day, they do mean that you as a society do have to, you know, solve the problems caused by the environmental pressure. The least advanced the culture, the more impact the environent will have on it.
What’s more interesting is how a society changes the environment, or lack change honestly. Really says a lot about how ambitious we humans are, would be interesting to see a society flourish without the colonization mentality.
Striking a balance is key. In good worldbuilding, many different factors will be interconnected: geography, economics, diet, trade, politics, religion, culture, behavioral norms. No one factor forces all the others down a single path, but they do influence each other. What would the music of Sting or the writings of Twain be like if either lived in an inland city away from the water, with no river? The rivers and seas did not force them to be who they are, but they played a role in the voice of both.
How this sounds: Cultures aren't solely determined by their environment, they're also determined by their environment. Because the long list of things you mentioned are also environmental factors. It just so happens that the physical environment is always present and at least an order of magnitude more effectual than all of those other things combined, when you look at all of history of a place or a people. In fact, many of those things you mentioned are also determined by the local physical environment. Environmental determinism is real, it's just super idiosyncratic and never happens exactly the same way twice.
This is actually why I LOVED the Scouring of the Shire in the LotR books endgame, no matter how painful and, to some, plotdragging it is. The hobbits there may be a nice and easygoing bunch, but even I thought that they needed to be proverbially slapped on the butt or punched hard in the gut so to get out of their jarringly overcomplacent and peace-addicted funk, all while finally taking more heed on their and their betters' rich history, languages, cultures, and so on. Hence the Times of Plenty that effortlessly defined the gloried rule of King Elessar and so on. Hell, this is also why I'm a huge opponent of nonsense like isolationism and globalist apathy. Cases in point, the likes of the Great Depression DESERVED the existence of World War 2, and the Black Plague ensuring of us humans seeing the rest of the world as a means to expand and heal from excesses. One should wonder which big events would irreversibly make us explore the galaxy, the universe, and even other realms in the coming millennia...
My world has a country with a capital in an awkward place because its mear a city they were trying to take over ny force. Is that like pretty good? I like it
…all of those are influenced by environmental pressures. for example a place with little water or too much or with regular flooding is more likely to have a water god/rain god of some sort. if a group of people are completely land locked and have never seen nor know about the ocean they will not have a word for ocean and would probably adopt another languages word for it if not make one up when they finally do learn of its existence. if a group of people live in a very cold or inversely a very hot place where it’s hard for things to grow it’s not likely they will develop an agrarian lifestyle, at least not before their peers do. a place with too little water is far more likely to start wars over water than a place that has plenty of it. a place with lots of fertile land isn’t as likely to start a war for it than a place with very little fertile land. and… an these beginning interactions of a society are heavily influenced by the environment. which can create feed back loops later down the line and effecting geo-politics, rivalries, hatred, trade, language
Influence from the environment HAS to be taken into consideration, but it's not the be-all and end-all, if you want it to be realistic. What you said isn't true, especially about agriculture. We know of cultures that cultivated in some capacity without very fertile soil in adverse weather, and others actively rejected agriculture even if the weather was favourable, for many reasons. Some are cultural (for example the concept of schismogenesis -- maybe even religious or philosophical reasons, that's up to you), some are a "don't fix what ain't broken" situation. I would also like to highlight that agriculture does not lead to "complex society" (because there is no such thing) or to inequality necessarily, and that there can be hierarchies and inequality, and large settlements, in non-agrarian societies.
@@widmawod if there’s no fertile soil it’s impossible to grow anything. an no duh you can still grow things in adverse weather…i literally said that! almost every society including mongols which were largely nomadic adopted agriculture. even those that didn’t adopt agriculture usually adopt husbandry which eventually leads to agriculture anyways. for example tibet, tibetians were largely nomadic, they adopted husbandry and this led to the majority of tibetians abandoning their nomadic life style and becoming significantly more agrarian establishing their first permanent settlements sometime around 3,600 years ago. i didn’t say only agrarian societies can be large and complex. or only they have inequities. there are inequities in everyone’s birth regardless but agrarian societies are significantly larger than none agrarian societies.
Also, as Lewontin said. There is no "environment" without its inhabitants. They make and are made by their surroundings. To think thay changes in the environment happen not because of the people or organisms that live therein is just junk biology and anthropology and history., People mistake the fact that the physical world can continue to exist even if all people suddenly ceased to exist with the other fact that all of these things, rivers, mountains,climate don't mean jack to a society or species until a species actually lives there and interacts with these things. To be clear, I'm not trying to go into Tim over here. I just thought to add to what he said, because there are many misconceptions people hold about environment and history that irritate me as a history and biology student.
The environment doesn’t have a direct effect on later things, but if you follow the chain of events back far enough you’ll get the original developmental advantages and disadvantages from the environment
I would argue that Most of the factors you listed are part of the environment of the civilisation. That aside, your argument depends heavily on what time the fantasy you're writing is set in. For example, something set in the bronze or copper age will see very little impact from the Outside, while a medieval setting will see much more influence from the surrounding world.
I can just feel how the short form content is limiting the message trying to be heard. I have watched the video where that clip comes from and this feels like a breadcrumb compared to a whole cake that is the video. I do like shorts when they are about a small and easily digestible topic (and really funny, stupid skits), but they feel like a letdown most of the time. Like a trailer that spoils the whole movie, I would like them to improve. Sorry for the ramble I just had to take it off my chest.
IMO environment has a fixed weight on a culture's development. However, its fraction of involvement in it is reduced as more factors come into the mix. In general terms, I'd say environment tends to be an absolute factor the more isolated a culture is from its previous history and/or other cultures, so early cultures and post-apocalyptics groups would tend to be defined by the environment almost entirely. Meanwhile, cultures integrated into the web of history, migration, conflict and economy with other cultures would have the environmental weight on their identity reduced to a minimum.
However, I don't think it has that much weight in a culture's success. That would have more to do with harnessing those factors and creating effective institutions to keep that harnessing goign.
The idea of environment not being deterministic isn't about how environment is inconsequential, but more along the lines of "If you have a fantasy culture that lives in the desert, it doesn't necessarily have to follow a pseudo-Islamic caliphate development arc", etc
I really recommend to look a little into different institutionalism theories. They’re not the easiest theories but they can give a lot of ideas how different things can influence people and cultures, how these then influence another etc:
Environmental determinism is real, though. The fact that every migration movement, conquest, and colonization movement synthesizes with the local culture proves it. If an area is known for a resource, it doesn't matter who lives there, it will be exteacted. Throughout most of human history, conquers would adopt local language and culture. If a civilization lives in the desert, they will make clothing suitable for the desert and not wear heavy furs. Also, they probably won't have many myths about evil frost monsters, winter, or blizzards in a negative way. To them, cold would be a brief respit. A culture that lives in a forested area that has yearly forest fires would probably have myths and customs about it and tell their children how to prevent or survive them. If a new group of people moved into that forest, and they interacted with the original group, the second group would start telling their families the same helpful advice and might share the stories of the first group. Yeah, the environment isn't the sole factor of civilization, but saying that natural disasters, bioms, and geography have no baring on culture is arrogant.
... But all of the fa tors you describe in this video are also determined by environment almost exclusively I would even argue. Yes people aren't completely determined but if you have no coast, you cannot really colonies, if you have no good creatures to domesticate you cannot build cities, if you have no iron you cannot forge iron swords, if you have no lumber you cannot build ships, if you have no tin you need to trade to make bronze etc. Almost everything is determined by geography, all you describe are just factors that developed outside work it, the reason France and German fought so often was mostly geographically because the flat terrain made wars easy, yes these wars influenced societies but it was the geography that made it possible. If you have mountains like in Italy they are good for protection which will influence and shape the society that forms, if you have a lot of sea access you will be able to trade very much and so on.your society religion and wada are determined by your geography
I think that what you described is the definition of environment. I think you are confusing ecosystem with environment. Sure, the biological ecosystem in which a place is established affects it, as well as their environment (the external and internal pressures). You’re defining environment without realizing it.
I’m no expert on definitions. But i’m pretty sure all of those things are environmental factors. Being that they are factors related to that environment.
But their geography shapes almost all of those. Instead why not say "Don't take a shallow view on environmental determinism. Consider how it impacts..."
Everything you listed in some way does tie back to the environment. SUCCESS. It is a bit broad of a marker to determine what is or isn't a successful civilization, but on the lowest level means survival. A surviving society is one that can make use of what resources they can gather from their environment and use it to protect, trade, or eat. On a high level, success means abundance. If a society has a lot of resources and can utilize them well enough to live better lives or overpower their enemies thats successful. CULTURE. People in warm areas will make clothes that cool the body, and people in cold areas make warm clothes. Their architecture will be made out of whats available to them as well. RELIGION. The Polynesians have myths revoled around sailing and lifting islands out of the sea, noticing how the mongols have stories about horses and the steppes and not sailing and islands? Christianity started as a religion in the Middle East, but as it spread throughout Europe, it added local practices into it, which caused the many different beliefs in Christianity, leading to the many sects of the religion. POLITICS. Which political factions have power is based on what resources they have access to and what values the people care about based on what their religion values, which is based on the environment. LANGUAGE. It's super simple to prove with examples. The Inuits have many words for different types of snow because there's a lot of snow, and it's useful to tell which kind you're dealing with. Japanese has a lot of loan words from English and Portuguese because of their centuries of isolation from being an island and having an easier time defending itself because its an island (a geographic feature), so when they did open up and trade they were introduced to new objects and ideas that they didn't have before so they loaned the word that already existed. Also, for many languages, their word for tea or chai depended on if it reached them on the silk road on land or through shipping over seas. THREATS/WARS. The biggest problem of any war is logistics. If you can't resupply your army, you'll die. So say if there's a mountain range and swamp in your way, Hannibal can cross them, but most of his elephants and men died trying, so resuppling that would be impossible so they didn't resupply him. If a massive ocean divides two locations, the invading force is going to have a tough time, which is why England had to give up on the colonies and the USA didn't attack Japan with a ground invasion, but instead island hopped as to be able to resupply themselves better. TRADE. you can't trade with someone you can't reach. The Ottoman Empire blocked trade between Asia and Europe, so the Spanish and Portuguese had to find other routes, which caused them to find the Americans, which are continents (a geographic feature). TECH. A hot desert culture probably won't want to invent insulation to keep heat in their homes, and a colder climate will have the incentive to build insulation. Sea fairing people invented better ships and navigation tools. MIGRATION/COLONIALISM. throughout most of human history, invading cultures were usually assimilated into the culture they conquered or migrated into. The germanic tribes that moved into Romsn territory learned Latin and converted to Greco-Roman religion. The Gauls were conquered but kept their same way of life and never fully became identical to the Italians. When the Franks conquered Gaul, they adopted latin and became french. Tge Franks was a Germanic tribe that moved and adopted a romance language. The Mugals were Mongolian who conquered Afghanistan, converted to Islam, and adopted their culture before conquering India and adopting their culture too. Geographic determasism is 100% a real factor in real life and is useful when creating fiction as well to add understanding and believability to a fictional culture.
I mean. You can absolutely use our world as point of comparison to demonstrate non linear nonsensical things. Australia ain't driving solar cars. People in plenty places drive huge cars for no good reason
I disagree environment shaped the nature of conflict, culture and society. Culturals evolve out of environments that shape them not the other way around. A society will not create a culture of saving food for the winter if there is no frost to cover the landscape, a society will not focus on having a military unless the land they live one is sought after, a society will not advance technologically unless they are connected to other parts of the world. I find you tend to put the cart in front of the horse a lot arguing that wars make technological advancements. When technology advancements in weapons result in wars. You invent the machine gun then your more confident in your ability to fight your opponents not you invent the machine gun while fighting your opponents. Wars at best provide a burst of innovation but over and over history has shown that innovation especially of things that arnt weapons comes at times of peace and trade
I mean, how cultures develop has little to do with their success, though? You're just giving a bad anthropology lesson here by conflating a world-building concept with a real, anthropological fact of life. Historically speaking, virtually every large and functional society was constrained materially by location, specifically access to arable land and fresh water. Societies that don't play by those rules might be fun, but that doesn't make them authetnic to real life.
Surely environmental factors influence early development of civilisations. Therefore allowing for those more advanced civilisations to then take advantage of others.
Absolutely, but as tech progresses and access to wealth increases, societies become increasingly independent from (and capable of reshaping) their environment.
For the first time, I'll have to disagree with you. I think there is nothing wrong with environmental determinism, PROVIDED that you did your homework. You have to study, or consult with those with a strong expertise in anthropology, geology, meteorology, materials engineering, and sociology. The problem is that when people attempt such a hard worldbuilding method, they neglect certain factors which shake the foundations of the project. I would instead say that environmental determinism is something you should only attempt if you have the confidence and expertise to do so.
i think its more that you need to work both on environmental determinism and external factors. for a real world example, take a look at Indonesia, one of the biggest muslim population despite not being anywhere near the middle east where the religion was born. this happened due to the fact that the archipelago in which Indonesia lies was an end point of major historic trade routes where Arab traders eventually spread their culture to. the environmental determinism is the trade route, while the external factor is the cultural exchange that came with it. his advocating for not falling into environmental determinism is to remind us that a world built _only_ on environmental determinism would feel static and unchanging, while the fact of the matter is that culture is often a whole lot more complicated than that
@@alamrasyidi4097 I follow what you're saying, and I really like the example you provided. Thank you for that insightful comment! I think the way I understand it now is that the environmental determinism is a place to start, but it cannot and should not be the end of it as well.
The environment plays a big factor in human development, especially early human history, and semi-exponentially decreases in relevance as technology subverts it. Look at papua new guinea or sub-saharan africa. Thousands of languages and cultures developed in isolation and are becoming homogenized as roads, cars, trains, and planes connect places. Even in america, regional accents and culture have become less pronounced because of radio, television, and the internet.
Of course, while we couldn’t have predicted exactly which countries in the modern day would be most influential or powerful, we could have guessed that the Ganges plain would have a greater population than like Iceland or the Peruvian Andes
There is a flaw in your thinking.All those things you named are still environmental factor. I think you don't consider other humans to be part of your environment. But they clearly are. And as you mentioned correctly they impact us moore than other environmental factors. You are more llikely to be overrun by a car than dyiing from heaat or cold. Sure...
A fundamental misunderstanding of environmental determinism and the environment itself. You are an animal. An animal in an ecosystem. The ecosystem is the primary factor in how you live your life. It just manifests itself in ways you think aren’t the environment because humans have been able to shut themselves out of the environment to the best of their ability. Where does technology come from? Raw materials. Where does raw materials come from? The environment. If the world you live on isn’t the main factor in how you live your life, what is? A metaphysical god? No. Please take a single class in ecology. Most civilizations that have fallen has been due to environmental factors. Read some Joseph Tainter.
Humans can have ideas, and live in societies, that contravene the limitations placed on them by the land... THAT is the kind of environmental determinism that isn't true. It is entirely false that the outcome of a society is determined solely by the environment it finds itself in. That's the "determinism" part. It's very obvious, in fact. Anthropological data shows us that societies living in similar biomes all across the world have, while at times developed convergent solutions, are nonetheless unique and novel cultures who do manage to create novel solutions. Everyone deals with the environment in a different way. It's also a false idea that "most civilizations have fallen due to environmental factors". That's ludicrous and ahistorical.
Just do what the M Night Shyamalan ATLA did and worldbuild through insane exposition dumps..it worked so well the new tv show copied its style..such trash lol
![Lightning bending and Zaheer - Chakras and bending [Avatar: The Last Airbender]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LXJ4gQg8CbQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Of course, don't ignore their environment either. It really does matter!
~ Tim
Ironically enough environment is pretty much #1 in defining a country's success in the real world, at least speaking of geopolitics.
I agree with the guy before me, geography has been an important part of our lives as a species and our successes and losses have been heavily affected by it. No it's not definitive but it's a huge part just like starting a campaign with missing limbs is going to affect you compared to if you had all of them. Yes you can still succeed but you'd be doing it in spite of the extra difficulty.
…all of those are influenced by environmental pressures.
for example a place with little water or too much or with regular flooding is more likely to have a water god/rain god of some sort.
if a group of people are completely land locked and have never seen nor know about the ocean they will not have a word for ocean and would probably adopt another languages word for it if not make one up when they finally do learn of its existence.
if a group of people live in a very cold or inversely a very hot place where it’s hard for things to grow it’s not likely they will develop an agrarian lifestyle, at least not before their peers do.
a place with too little water is far more likely to start wars over water than a place that has plenty of it.
a place with lots of fertile land isn’t as likely to start a war for it than a place with very little fertile land.
and…
an these beginning interactions of a society are heavily influenced by the environment. which can create feed back loops later down the line and effecting geo-politics, rivalries, hatred, trade, language
In one of my worlds, there is a resource rich area but the natives (the beastmen ring species) do not wish to destroy it so only use what is needed and any metal weapons are looted as battle trophies. However, this caused conflict with other nations.
This constant war was put on hold during the demon war (which was initiated by the mortal races as they feared the now united demon world that was very warlike due to a severe lack of resources but had a lot of mythical metals compared to other known linked planes). However, this fell apart when the beast hero left to save his newly united clans from a demon army which was a last ditch effort to cause as much damage as possible to the invading mortals as well as to satiate their bloodlust due to losing faith in their emperor (the Asmodeaon).
This was considered a betrayal to other mortals leading to a situation in the present where they raid the beastmen for slaves and resources (technically illegal) which causes beastmen retaliation raids which brings them war slaves which are legal. As such, this prompts the other mortals to do this own raids in retaliation causing an endless cycle.
Inuit culture: *the environment is the threat*
In other words cultures, nations and peoples evolve from external and internal pressures like a character does, just on a far broader scope.
Yeah IG
So the environment
Enviromental determinism is the starting point, not the end game.
You start with basic settlements that are shaped mostly but their environment and resources. How would these settlements explain the world around them? (A riven might be the open would of a life giving God in the middle of the desert) You've got religion. The surplus/absence of a resource means trade and/or conquest. Thinking of the materiality of their tools and weapons you can establish which ones win. So you modify the basic premises of the early settlements and adjust the foundational aspects of economy, power, religion and society to the new developments. And that's where the real sandbox fun begins
My favorite thing in fiction is when a settlement thrives in a ridiculous place not because it is a good place to settle, but because it's a terrible place to settle and humans are contrarians.
Such places can paradoxically be valued because they're unwanted. Whoever claims them first is more likely to be left alone; rivals are less likely to spill blood to steal poor land.
True!
See: New Orleans for real life example.
Very bad example New Orleans is in a terrible spot because eof the Mississippi River which made trade easy and mad ether people a lot of money, there were incentives given by geography that made people overlook the swamps and other obstacles because other influences shapes by geography made the city incredibly worthwhile.@@oliviastratton2169
@@finaldusk1821not true though, all cities that could be named for examples are. Build were they were due to trade which was mostly shapes by geography and politics but the politics behind Thai trade were also shaped by mainly geography, example is the silk road many town rose up to support this system of trade that devoloped, but it developed mainly because trade over the ocean was too hard at the time of its existence.
"Its not just their environment"
(Goes on to lost a bunch of things that are, arguably, also part of their environment)
In this context environment is referring to the natural environment. Landscape, climate, natural resources, etc.
the point is not to get hung up on environmental determinism and get hardstuck worldbuilding-wise
Not me LITERALLY watching a short about environmental determinism two shorts ago 😂
Environmental Pressures are important but Society itself is an Environmental Pressure.
I recommend reading "the dawn of everything" by Graeber and Wengrow. In culture-building, I find the concept of schismogenesis is crucial. It's a long read but it can really change your perspective on the relationship between history and culture, and on bias in archaeology and anthropology (and, therefore, how we view cultural diversity)
It also sheds light on the problematic concept of "complex society" and the consequences of environmental determinism and a very fixed, linear and essentialist idea of what agriculture is, when it came about, and what its consequences are (and aren't).
I’d like to point out a counter point example;
Whittier, Alaska. Where almost the entire population of around 200 people all live under one roof, the 14-story self-sustaining “Begich Towers” which is one large building. In this small town, no one has to go outside unless they’d like to.
I’m just saying that sometimes it happens :)
He not saying it doesn't so pointing out counter examples is pointless. He's saying it doesn't ALWAYS happen. That it isn't the ONLY factor.
Why do people fail at basic comprehension?
Here in Sweden we are defined by our refusal to let the cold darkness define us!!
Why does the apostrophe change font in the beginning
I love that, "or over at CZcams" when we're clearly watching this on youtube. I get that this was originally a tiktok, but it's still funny.
Sir, Norway would like a word with you. 😂
Seriously though, for writers it is crucial to have a fresh look on their texts and the idea those are shaping to have a more precise angle and depth of their narration is very decisive as well.
I hope you’ll make more world building videos, you haven’t uploaded new videos in this series for a long time, I like this series more than your video series on writing,I don’t know why.
I am currently working on a big 3hr project, but after that, ill settle into some more writing and worldbuilding content.
~ Tim
@@HelloFutureMe 👍 do you know how long it’ll take until you’ll upload this big project? It sounds interesting.
@HelloFutureMe ok
As a Floridian, I can confirm our three layer formal wear does not acknowledge nor respect our eternal summer / humid swamp environment. It’s absolutely miserable wearing a suitjacket with a tucked in shirt here. At any time of year
Congrats on 100k+ copies! That's awesome
What are your thoughts on stories without character development?
Not every character needs to change and it is entirely dependent on the purpose of your story. In a tragedy your character ideally shouldn't change and be very obstinate to facilitate their own downfall. Though Shakespeare's tragedies typically occur because of secret knowledge bestowed to the character. Also don't base all of your opinions on this guy, he barely understands the concept of environmental determinism.
One fun real world example of something defying Environmental Determinism is Manaus in Brazil. A city with more than 4 million inhabitants, in the middle of Amazon Rainforest, with pretty much no other big city around for thousands of kilometers, and it's known for it's industrial sector ere in Brazil because of subsidies. All because Brazil really wanted a metropolis in the middle of the Jungle.
This reminds me of the Iron Islanders off the coast of Westeros having a "drowned god", "do not sow" and are mostly stuck in a vacuum. They aren't influenced by mainland Westeros despite ruling the River lands.
They only ruled the Riverlands for 10 years, almost 300 years before the main series. And there are cultural ties between the iron born and the cranog men. Both have ties to fish people and the oily black stone of Moat Cailyn was described by Theon as very familiar to the oily black stone of the Kracken throne.
@@joshkorte9020 True that the Iron Islanders didn't rule mainland Westeros for very long. They are however, based on the Norse, who conquered parts of non-Scandinivian Europe and eventually embraced Christianity. There's change among the Norseman. There's none in the Iron Islanders.
Vikings crossed with Spartans- with a predictably stupid & limited culture as a result -- the few that have the sense to see ahead- or beyond themselves, in any form are mocked, hated, or feared- depending on who.
Balon's father- Asha/ Yara & Theon's grandfather wanted to do so, but his early death ruined that; Balon, Victarion, & Aerion are 'traditionalists'- & Euron's a f*cking psycho - Asha's probably the Iron Island's best hope to not stagnate into oblivion (Theon's seen as too much of a 'greenlander' to be respected, & he's been pretty broken by his experiences - maybe Victarion will be changed by his time with Moqorro, & Danaerys- but he strikes me as a little too much like Stannis; breaking, rather than bending)...
Thats what I said to my mother about cleaning my room
Were’s my boy the Yuan-ti Pureblood?
Environment determines the early strokes; human decisions determine the details.
I do believe humans are a very noteable part of the foodchain. even without our funny technology, we are both prey and predator. We hunt herbivores and are, ourselves, hunted by carnivores. We feed on the foods of herbivores, and the foods of carnivores.
In the world I made, there is one nation that lives in a better land than the others, fertile lands that with an overwhelmingly high amount of vegetation. But the land is only strong because it is sandwiched between two other nations that live under harsher environments that are continuously attempting to take over major parts of the first nation's land.
That's the paradox of having 'the best land', because whoever lives on it becomes the most lucrative target for conquest, especially from desperate neighbours with poor lands.
For a real-world example of the environmental determinism - and its limitations - look no further than the neighboring countries of the United States and Mexico. Both have absolutely astonishing levels of natural resources, large educated populations, stable, relatively forgiving climates, high levels of industry and extensive trade networks. And of course, both are currently democratic republics. But despite sharing nearly all of the same geographic, demographic and environmental advantages, the two countries have gotten radically different outcomes for their efforts.
Where the United States is the wealthiest country on Earth, Mexico is decidedly lagging behind in prosperity from a relative standpoint. Endemic corruption, a history of political instability, repeated backsliding into self-defeating Marxist economic policy, and an inability to get a handle on the rampant criminality of the increasingly violent and powerful drug cartels has left modern Mexico only a couple of quick steps away from being a failed state.
On paper, the two countries should be about on-par with each other, but in practice stark cultural differences lead to different approaches to governance and economics, which in turn generated wildly different outcomes. You can still see the influence of Environmental Determinism on Mexico today, since even with all of their problems they still managed to rank as the 14th or 15th largest economy in the world.
Environments do determine some things. At the end of the day, they do mean that you as a society do have to, you know, solve the problems caused by the environmental pressure. The least advanced the culture, the more impact the environent will have on it.
What’s more interesting is how a society changes the environment, or lack change honestly. Really says a lot about how ambitious we humans are, would be interesting to see a society flourish without the colonization mentality.
Striking a balance is key. In good worldbuilding, many different factors will be interconnected: geography, economics, diet, trade, politics, religion, culture, behavioral norms. No one factor forces all the others down a single path, but they do influence each other.
What would the music of Sting or the writings of Twain be like if either lived in an inland city away from the water, with no river? The rivers and seas did not force them to be who they are, but they played a role in the voice of both.
How this sounds: Cultures aren't solely determined by their environment, they're also determined by their environment. Because the long list of things you mentioned are also environmental factors. It just so happens that the physical environment is always present and at least an order of magnitude more effectual than all of those other things combined, when you look at all of history of a place or a people. In fact, many of those things you mentioned are also determined by the local physical environment. Environmental determinism is real, it's just super idiosyncratic and never happens exactly the same way twice.
take japan for example: it's a prosperous nation but japan itself does not have much resources at all
This is actually why I LOVED the Scouring of the Shire in the LotR books endgame, no matter how painful and, to some, plotdragging it is. The hobbits there may be a nice and easygoing bunch, but even I thought that they needed to be proverbially slapped on the butt or punched hard in the gut so to get out of their jarringly overcomplacent and peace-addicted funk, all while finally taking more heed on their and their betters' rich history, languages, cultures, and so on. Hence the Times of Plenty that effortlessly defined the gloried rule of King Elessar and so on.
Hell, this is also why I'm a huge opponent of nonsense like isolationism and globalist apathy. Cases in point, the likes of the Great Depression DESERVED the existence of World War 2, and the Black Plague ensuring of us humans seeing the rest of the world as a means to expand and heal from excesses. One should wonder which big events would irreversibly make us explore the galaxy, the universe, and even other realms in the coming millennia...
My world has a country with a capital in an awkward place because its mear a city they were trying to take over ny force. Is that like pretty good? I like it
…all of those are influenced by environmental pressures.
for example a place with little water or too much or with regular flooding is more likely to have a water god/rain god of some sort.
if a group of people are completely land locked and have never seen nor know about the ocean they will not have a word for ocean and would probably adopt another languages word for it if not make one up when they finally do learn of its existence.
if a group of people live in a very cold or inversely a very hot place where it’s hard for things to grow it’s not likely they will develop an agrarian lifestyle, at least not before their peers do.
a place with too little water is far more likely to start wars over water than a place that has plenty of it.
a place with lots of fertile land isn’t as likely to start a war for it than a place with very little fertile land.
and…
an these beginning interactions of a society are heavily influenced by the environment. which can create feed back loops later down the line and effecting geo-politics, rivalries, hatred, trade, language
Influence from the environment HAS to be taken into consideration, but it's not the be-all and end-all, if you want it to be realistic.
What you said isn't true, especially about agriculture. We know of cultures that cultivated in some capacity without very fertile soil in adverse weather, and others actively rejected agriculture even if the weather was favourable, for many reasons. Some are cultural (for example the concept of schismogenesis -- maybe even religious or philosophical reasons, that's up to you), some are a "don't fix what ain't broken" situation.
I would also like to highlight that agriculture does not lead to "complex society" (because there is no such thing) or to inequality necessarily, and that there can be hierarchies and inequality, and large settlements, in non-agrarian societies.
@@widmawod if there’s no fertile soil it’s impossible to grow anything.
an no duh you can still grow things in adverse weather…i literally said that!
almost every society including mongols which were largely nomadic adopted agriculture. even those that didn’t adopt agriculture usually adopt husbandry which eventually leads to agriculture anyways.
for example tibet, tibetians were largely nomadic, they adopted husbandry and this led to the majority of tibetians abandoning their nomadic life style and becoming significantly more agrarian establishing their first permanent settlements sometime around 3,600 years ago.
i didn’t say only agrarian societies can be large and complex. or only they have inequities.
there are inequities in everyone’s birth regardless
but agrarian societies are significantly larger than none agrarian societies.
@@draconisthewyvern3664 they are larger now but it's not necessarily the case
Thank you for the reminder i was kinda falling into this trap
Also, as Lewontin said. There is no "environment" without its inhabitants. They make and are made by their surroundings. To think thay changes in the environment happen not because of the people or organisms that live therein is just junk biology and anthropology and history.,
People mistake the fact that the physical world can continue to exist even if all people suddenly ceased to exist with the other fact that all of these things, rivers, mountains,climate don't mean jack to a society or species until a species actually lives there and interacts with these things.
To be clear, I'm not trying to go into Tim over here. I just thought to add to what he said, because there are many misconceptions people hold about environment and history that irritate me as a history and biology student.
The environment doesn’t have a direct effect on later things, but if you follow the chain of events back far enough you’ll get the original developmental advantages and disadvantages from the environment
Frank Herbert rolling in his grave rn
Isn’t that all,,,, aspects of the environment…?
Isn't this just nature vs nurture again?
I think Russia’s an excellent example of this
I would argue that Most of the factors you listed are part of the environment of the civilisation.
That aside, your argument depends heavily on what time the fantasy you're writing is set in. For example, something set in the bronze or copper age will see very little impact from the Outside, while a medieval setting will see much more influence from the surrounding world.
I can just feel how the short form content is limiting the message trying to be heard. I have watched the video where that clip comes from and this feels like a breadcrumb compared to a whole cake that is the video. I do like shorts when they are about a small and easily digestible topic (and really funny, stupid skits), but they feel like a letdown most of the time. Like a trailer that spoils the whole movie, I would like them to improve. Sorry for the ramble I just had to take it off my chest.
I consider myself to be an environmental determinist. environment is the only factor that will always remain.
IMO environment has a fixed weight on a culture's development. However, its fraction of involvement in it is reduced as more factors come into the mix. In general terms, I'd say environment tends to be an absolute factor the more isolated a culture is from its previous history and/or other cultures, so early cultures and post-apocalyptics groups would tend to be defined by the environment almost entirely. Meanwhile, cultures integrated into the web of history, migration, conflict and economy with other cultures would have the environmental weight on their identity reduced to a minimum.
However, I don't think it has that much weight in a culture's success. That would have more to do with harnessing those factors and creating effective institutions to keep that harnessing goign.
The idea of environment not being deterministic isn't about how environment is inconsequential, but more along the lines of "If you have a fantasy culture that lives in the desert, it doesn't necessarily have to follow a pseudo-Islamic caliphate development arc", etc
I really recommend to look a little into different institutionalism theories. They’re not the easiest theories but they can give a lot of ideas how different things can influence people and cultures, how these then influence another etc:
Environmental determinism is real, though. The fact that every migration movement, conquest, and colonization movement synthesizes with the local culture proves it. If an area is known for a resource, it doesn't matter who lives there, it will be exteacted. Throughout most of human history, conquers would adopt local language and culture. If a civilization lives in the desert, they will make clothing suitable for the desert and not wear heavy furs. Also, they probably won't have many myths about evil frost monsters, winter, or blizzards in a negative way. To them, cold would be a brief respit. A culture that lives in a forested area that has yearly forest fires would probably have myths and customs about it and tell their children how to prevent or survive them. If a new group of people moved into that forest, and they interacted with the original group, the second group would start telling their families the same helpful advice and might share the stories of the first group. Yeah, the environment isn't the sole factor of civilization, but saying that natural disasters, bioms, and geography have no baring on culture is arrogant.
... But all of the fa tors you describe in this video are also determined by environment almost exclusively I would even argue. Yes people aren't completely determined but if you have no coast, you cannot really colonies, if you have no good creatures to domesticate you cannot build cities, if you have no iron you cannot forge iron swords, if you have no lumber you cannot build ships, if you have no tin you need to trade to make bronze etc.
Almost everything is determined by geography, all you describe are just factors that developed outside work it, the reason France and German fought so often was mostly geographically because the flat terrain made wars easy, yes these wars influenced societies but it was the geography that made it possible.
If you have mountains like in Italy they are good for protection which will influence and shape the society that forms, if you have a lot of sea access you will be able to trade very much and so on.your society religion and wada are determined by your geography
Sociologically speaking everything you listed is environmental. Or are you saying people world build exclusively from the natural environment?
I think that what you described is the definition of environment. I think you are confusing ecosystem with environment. Sure, the biological ecosystem in which a place is established affects it, as well as their environment (the external and internal pressures). You’re defining environment without realizing it.
Geographic luck
I’m no expert on definitions. But i’m pretty sure all of those things are environmental factors. Being that they are factors related to that environment.
We can infer from the context that he means natural environment (flora, fauna, physical geography, etc.)
But their geography shapes almost all of those. Instead why not say "Don't take a shallow view on environmental determinism. Consider how it impacts..."
fremen
Everything you listed in some way does tie back to the environment. SUCCESS. It is a bit broad of a marker to determine what is or isn't a successful civilization, but on the lowest level means survival. A surviving society is one that can make use of what resources they can gather from their environment and use it to protect, trade, or eat. On a high level, success means abundance. If a society has a lot of resources and can utilize them well enough to live better lives or overpower their enemies thats successful. CULTURE. People in warm areas will make clothes that cool the body, and people in cold areas make warm clothes. Their architecture will be made out of whats available to them as well. RELIGION. The Polynesians have myths revoled around sailing and lifting islands out of the sea, noticing how the mongols have stories about horses and the steppes and not sailing and islands? Christianity started as a religion in the Middle East, but as it spread throughout Europe, it added local practices into it, which caused the many different beliefs in Christianity, leading to the many sects of the religion. POLITICS. Which political factions have power is based on what resources they have access to and what values the people care about based on what their religion values, which is based on the environment. LANGUAGE. It's super simple to prove with examples. The Inuits have many words for different types of snow because there's a lot of snow, and it's useful to tell which kind you're dealing with. Japanese has a lot of loan words from English and Portuguese because of their centuries of isolation from being an island and having an easier time defending itself because its an island (a geographic feature), so when they did open up and trade they were introduced to new objects and ideas that they didn't have before so they loaned the word that already existed. Also, for many languages, their word for tea or chai depended on if it reached them on the silk road on land or through shipping over seas. THREATS/WARS. The biggest problem of any war is logistics. If you can't resupply your army, you'll die. So say if there's a mountain range and swamp in your way, Hannibal can cross them, but most of his elephants and men died trying, so resuppling that would be impossible so they didn't resupply him. If a massive ocean divides two locations, the invading force is going to have a tough time, which is why England had to give up on the colonies and the USA didn't attack Japan with a ground invasion, but instead island hopped as to be able to resupply themselves better. TRADE. you can't trade with someone you can't reach. The Ottoman Empire blocked trade between Asia and Europe, so the Spanish and Portuguese had to find other routes, which caused them to find the Americans, which are continents (a geographic feature). TECH. A hot desert culture probably won't want to invent insulation to keep heat in their homes, and a colder climate will have the incentive to build insulation. Sea fairing people invented better ships and navigation tools. MIGRATION/COLONIALISM. throughout most of human history, invading cultures were usually assimilated into the culture they conquered or migrated into. The germanic tribes that moved into Romsn territory learned Latin and converted to Greco-Roman religion. The Gauls were conquered but kept their same way of life and never fully became identical to the Italians. When the Franks conquered Gaul, they adopted latin and became french. Tge Franks was a Germanic tribe that moved and adopted a romance language. The Mugals were Mongolian who conquered Afghanistan, converted to Islam, and adopted their culture before conquering India and adopting their culture too. Geographic determasism is 100% a real factor in real life and is useful when creating fiction as well to add understanding and believability to a fictional culture.
I mean. You can absolutely use our world as point of comparison to demonstrate non linear nonsensical things. Australia ain't driving solar cars. People in plenty places drive huge cars for no good reason
case and point: Britain is renowned for their tea. Where did they grow that tea? They didn’t, they imported it from their Indian colonies
I disagree environment shaped the nature of conflict, culture and society. Culturals evolve out of environments that shape them not the other way around. A society will not create a culture of saving food for the winter if there is no frost to cover the landscape, a society will not focus on having a military unless the land they live one is sought after, a society will not advance technologically unless they are connected to other parts of the world.
I find you tend to put the cart in front of the horse a lot arguing that wars make technological advancements. When technology advancements in weapons result in wars. You invent the machine gun then your more confident in your ability to fight your opponents not you invent the machine gun while fighting your opponents. Wars at best provide a burst of innovation but over and over history has shown that innovation especially of things that arnt weapons comes at times of peace and trade
I mean, how cultures develop has little to do with their success, though? You're just giving a bad anthropology lesson here by conflating a world-building concept with a real, anthropological fact of life. Historically speaking, virtually every large and functional society was constrained materially by location, specifically access to arable land and fresh water. Societies that don't play by those rules might be fun, but that doesn't make them authetnic to real life.
Surely environmental factors influence early development of civilisations. Therefore allowing for those more advanced civilisations to then take advantage of others.
Absolutely, but as tech progresses and access to wealth increases, societies become increasingly independent from (and capable of reshaping) their environment.
For the first time, I'll have to disagree with you. I think there is nothing wrong with environmental determinism, PROVIDED that you did your homework. You have to study, or consult with those with a strong expertise in anthropology, geology, meteorology, materials engineering, and sociology. The problem is that when people attempt such a hard worldbuilding method, they neglect certain factors which shake the foundations of the project.
I would instead say that environmental determinism is something you should only attempt if you have the confidence and expertise to do so.
i think its more that you need to work both on environmental determinism and external factors. for a real world example, take a look at Indonesia, one of the biggest muslim population despite not being anywhere near the middle east where the religion was born. this happened due to the fact that the archipelago in which Indonesia lies was an end point of major historic trade routes where Arab traders eventually spread their culture to. the environmental determinism is the trade route, while the external factor is the cultural exchange that came with it. his advocating for not falling into environmental determinism is to remind us that a world built _only_ on environmental determinism would feel static and unchanging, while the fact of the matter is that culture is often a whole lot more complicated than that
@@alamrasyidi4097 I follow what you're saying, and I really like the example you provided. Thank you for that insightful comment!
I think the way I understand it now is that the environmental determinism is a place to start, but it cannot and should not be the end of it as well.
The environment plays a big factor in human development, especially early human history, and semi-exponentially decreases in relevance as technology subverts it. Look at papua new guinea or sub-saharan africa. Thousands of languages and cultures developed in isolation and are becoming homogenized as roads, cars, trains, and planes connect places. Even in america, regional accents and culture have become less pronounced because of radio, television, and the internet.
Of course, while we couldn’t have predicted exactly which countries in the modern day would be most influential or powerful, we could have guessed that the Ganges plain would have a greater population than like Iceland or the Peruvian Andes
And race
There is a flaw in your thinking.All those things you named are still environmental factor. I think you don't consider other humans to be part of your environment. But they clearly are. And as you mentioned correctly they impact us moore than other environmental factors. You are more llikely to be overrun by a car than dyiing from heaat or cold. Sure...
A fundamental misunderstanding of environmental determinism and the environment itself. You are an animal. An animal in an ecosystem. The ecosystem is the primary factor in how you live your life. It just manifests itself in ways you think aren’t the environment because humans have been able to shut themselves out of the environment to the best of their ability. Where does technology come from? Raw materials. Where does raw materials come from? The environment. If the world you live on isn’t the main factor in how you live your life, what is? A metaphysical god? No. Please take a single class in ecology. Most civilizations that have fallen has been due to environmental factors. Read some Joseph Tainter.
Humans can have ideas, and live in societies, that contravene the limitations placed on them by the land... THAT is the kind of environmental determinism that isn't true. It is entirely false that the outcome of a society is determined solely by the environment it finds itself in. That's the "determinism" part. It's very obvious, in fact. Anthropological data shows us that societies living in similar biomes all across the world have, while at times developed convergent solutions, are nonetheless unique and novel cultures who do manage to create novel solutions. Everyone deals with the environment in a different way. It's also a false idea that "most civilizations have fallen due to environmental factors". That's ludicrous and ahistorical.
Just do what the M Night Shyamalan ATLA did and worldbuild through insane exposition dumps..it worked so well the new tv show copied its style..such trash lol