Indeed. The model is seeded with only two interesting bits of information: agricultural capacity and military technology. They then compared that model with one that only knew about agriculture. Because the first model was more predictive, they concluded war was the primary cause of civilization. That result seems suspect.
Looking at the little maps in the article, I might hesitate a guess that this model has been over-fit to a certain idea of "civilization". It predicts Egypt and Rome and Greece, things people know about. But it doesn't seem to predict the Byzantines, Sogdian and other Central Asian empires, peaks and troughs of Chinese dynasties, etc., which were just as long-lived and influential but are less well-known.
I wonder what would happen if they modeled resource availability, language overlap over time, political ideology (large empires tend to become inward-looking), etc. War is certainly an important factor, but not the only one.
Looking at the little maps in the article, I might hesitate a guess that this model has been over-fit to a certain idea of "civilization". It predicts Egypt and Rome and Greece, things people know about. But it doesn't seem to predict the Byzantines, Sogdian and other Central Asian empires, peaks and troughs of Chinese dynasties, etc., which were just as long-lived and influential but are less well-known.
I wonder what would happen if they modeled resource availability, language overlap over time, political ideology (large empires tend to become inward-looking), etc. War is certainly an important factor, but not the only one.