I think you make my point for me. You can "prove" nothing with RW comparisons, but if RW comparisons fail utterly, it's a considerable challenge to convincingly imagine and evocatively describe.
> The total amount of land is fixed (subject to minor changes) so any
> increased usage is due to improved technology or climate changes making
> more or less land available for cultivation.
Note that this certainly isn't true in either Heortling lands or the RW, where clearing forests and "wildlands" was (and still is...) part of the equation. Which itself is significant of course, depending how viable "Hunter" is as a Heortling occupation...
> >Besides, Greg has more than once said that in Genertela at least, magic
> >is _necessary_ to survive, work the land, etc -- not hi-tech fertiliser
> >to make the agribusiness that key 25% more productive. (Though I can't
> >think of anything quite so bald-faced as this actually in print, so this
> >is arguably open to "hyperbole with a dunkel in 'im" question.)
>
> Unless he is claiming that without magic no food at all can be grown,
> which seems extreme, then magic must improve productivity.
"None at all" to "some" is also an "improvement"... What I'm objecting to is that magic is automatically or necessarily an improvement over otherwise uncontroversial (if there are any of those...) terrestrial analogues. Or that it makes such analogues totally unapplicable. From your posts, I'd be tempted to infer you were suggesting Sartar and Heortland were somewhat like Iron Age Britain, but with higher population densities due to the populace and land being magically healthier and more productive. From Jeff's, I'd be tempted to imagine a more cultivated mid-Medieval landscape. Aside from my aesthetic issues with each, we can at least note that the two are rather different.
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail