Collapses of Civilizations

[spratleyj]

I just started reading Jared Diamond's book Collapse and have found it to be a very fascinating book, on a very fascinating subject. I also found his Pulitzer Prize winning Germs, Guns & Steel to be a excellent book.

Anyways, I wanted to ask what you'll thought about the state of our civilization, not just in the U.S but the world as a whole. Personally, I think we're at a crucial point in our history. As nations like India and China continue to industrialize the management and dispersion of natural resources (or the lack thereof) is becoming extraordinary important, as is the destruction of the environmental that comes from harvesting and burning fossil fuels. It's important that we don't cross the "event horizon" a point of no return where we do so much damage to the environment that we can't fix it. I think we're pretty close to that with Global Warming... anyways as Diamond points out the destruction of the environment isn't the only thing that causes civilizations to fall, economics and war often do as well.

Anyways I would like to get you'lls thoughts about:

1) What are the main problems?
2) How far down the wrong road are we?
3) What are the solutions?

Or anything else relating...

(NOTE: THIS POST ISN'T MEANT FOR POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS, KEEP YOUR PARISIAN POLITICS TO YOURSELF - AS THE RECENT SITUATION HAS HIGHLIGHTED SUCH POLITICAL POSTING WILL NOT BE TOLERATED SO DO YOURSELF A FAVOR AND DON'T POST SUCH COMMENTS)

With Regards,

[Ronald Brak]

Is modern civilization in danger of a collapse? No, I don't think so. Is our modern civilization in danger of doing huge amounts of damage to the natural environment and to itself to such an extent that large amounts of money will have to be spent on adaption and mitigation instead of on fun things like space exploration? Yes, I think so.

1) The main environmental problem as I see it is global warming.
2) We're a long way down the wrong road. Global warming has so far contributed to droughts, beetle infestations, sea ice loss, reduction in snow melt, sea level rise and animal and plant extinctions. These problems will only get worse if we don't reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
3) The solution is to cut our CO2 emissions. A cut of 80% over the next 20 years could cause CO2 concentrations to stabilize below 0.045%, but any cut would reduce the damage caused by rapid climate change. Changing to low emission energy sources will have costs, but they are not large if done gradually and will be much less than the cost of dealing with further global warming.

The good news is that other environmental problems, in the developed world at least, appear quite minor compared to global warming (thanks to a lot of hard work by a lot of people). So if we can halt global warming we should have the ability to prevent further damage to the natural environment.

I will quickly mention that a lack of energy is not something that is likely to cause our civilization to collapse there are many energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal and even nuclear that can be used instead of fossil fuels.

[Ozzy]

PROBLEMS
Associated with GW is sealevel rise. (We are just starting to see the effects)
Anthropogenic species extinction and loss of biodiversity (we are well down the track)
Increases in starvation and malnutrition through increasing food cost (its happenng now)

Solutions? Stop burning fossil fuels, stop agricultural and habitation expansion into existing wildlife habitats, agricultural partnerships were local people remain the land owners.

[Veeger]

Define: collapse of civilization.

[spratleyj]

Define: collapse of civilization.

I would use the same definition as Diamond does - "a drastic decrease in human population size and/or political/economic/social complexity, over a considerable area, for an extended time"

[toothdust]

I think the chance of a total collapse resulting in the halting of technological advance, breakdown of order, and mass death (80% plus) isn't very likely, pending some extreme catastrophe/disease. I do, however, think that we may go through some rough times ahead. We could very well break down into anarchy for a while, but I thin kit would be short. We could very well experience some kind of worldwide disease (hopefully its a zombie disease, for I have read the Zombie Survival Guide).

Overall though, I have an optimistic outlook for humankind. We have proven to be creative and adaptable little creatures, and I don't think there are any challenges we can't overcome. In fact, I think that a small breakdown of society is exactly what we need to propel us into a new age, a next step if you will. I think our food system needs to fail us to wake people up to its frailties. I think our energy system needs to break down to get us to adopt a more sustainable, decentralized system.

Then again, can't rule out the worst. Kay put it best in MIB;

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."

[randycat99]

(NOTE: THIS POST ISN'T MEANT FOR POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS, KEEP YOUR PARISIAN POLITICS TO YOURSELF...

Whaddyou got against the French?

As for my contribution to the topic, the title brings to my mind issues of societal viability being eroded by increasing organized corruption, apathy towards achievement and integrity, tribalism-based warfare, out-of-control birthrate, and absence of infrastructure (adequate food, housing, water, services/goods/money). At some point, the weight of these factors becomes so great, the society becomes dysfunctional and unable to sustain itself. From that, we may find a slow death riddled with human suffering, starvation, brutality, exploitation, refugee camps, etc, or maybe a quick death punctuated by some WMD event or spiraling out of control destruction.

[slang]

I would use the same definition as Diamond does - "a drastic decrease in human population size and/or political/economic/social complexity, over a considerable area, for an extended time"

By that definition I think a collapse of civilisation would not necessarily be a bad thing. I can think of a type of civilisation where a drastically reduced amount of human beings would have a better individual "quality of life", with a focus more on technology and survival than politics or economics. I'm not sure if I could make that work, but that's their problem

[geonuc]

I would think a 'collapse of civilization' would involve a substantial decline in quality of life as well, as people are each forced to do for themselves those things the collective society does now. Production of food would probably being the biggest concern.

As to the main problems we now face that will lead to a decline if not checked in time, overpopulation is the chief culprit. Just about every other global/societal problem is rooted in having too many people on the planet.

[Disinfo Agent]

The financial crisis is bad (and should get worse yet), but the mother of all our collective problems is still global warming.

The solutions to GW are under discussion. The biggest problem is the lack of will to apply them. As for the financial situation, I get the impression that no one is even completely sure of what has happened, as yet.

Oh, well, at least now we know the 21st century won't be a boring Star Trek utopia...

[jhwegener]

Though J. Diamonds books are very interesting and probably important works, some questions and comments may be raised.
One of the examples of "collapse of civilization" in the book "Collapse" is Norse Greenland. Diamonds example in this case, that the Norse "collapse" was caused to an inflexible agricultural lifeform (as opposed to better adapted Inuits comming from the north )has been questioned (I do´nt know how much relevant litterature there is in english and admit can at this moment not give you name of sources, researchers etcetera - sorry).Other alternatives could be that many norse greenlanders simply returned after some centuries, especially after the black death made land more available in many parts of Europe. It is allso a question wether greenlanders really were so inflexible in their farming lifestyle, or rather adapted to local conditions (hunting of sea mammals) - curiously: some contemporay greenlanders are introducing farming at the moment a "reverse" transition - perhaps a warmer climate will make this a great succes.

[clint]

1) What are the main problems?

I think the main problem is beyond any particular technology or contaminant,
it's our erratic approach to global problem-solving.

Our civilization has evolved to a level where almost anything we do has a global impact, often with quite unpredictable long-term consequences.
On the other hand, we don't seem to be capable or willing to act accordingly.

In the past we could simply survive by 'reacting' to most dangers once they became clear and present.
Now it seems we are getting to a point where we will have to anticipate new dangers, and collectively develop long-term strategies to solve them,
long before they become a real problem or even apparent (because once that happens it may be too late).

As the GW debate shows,
this will require some major change of mindset in international politics:
from pursuing national interests to pursuing global interests.

I think this century will show if we are able to live up to that challenge

[Romanus]

1) What are the main problems?
2) How far down the wrong road are we?
3) What are the solutions?

The first one is very easy to answer, and has been addressed multiple times. The last one is more difficult, as everyone has their own idea of what will fix them, yet they still acknowledge that these are real problems that need to be solved. The middle one, though, is IMO almost unanswerable. A stockbroker in July 1929 probably wouldn't have much of an idea of how close they were to an economic collapse, but that same person might have a much better view how close he was looking back from 1933.

Our problems today aren't as straightforward, IMO, as cutting down all the trees on an island or killing all the game or fouling all the water, because the size of our global civilization and the inevitable inequalities and geographic differences blunt the impact of any one change. An arctic monitoring station may record a temperature rise unnoted in Miami, or the acid rain in western New York state is a distant abstraction to someone in International Falls, or the tropical deforestation that's a tragedy to the comfortable American environmentalist is just another day, another dollar to the laborer clearing the trees. Yet, if it all comes crashing down we may indeed be able to point to A, B, or C as infallible pointers, and how could we have been so dense, et cetera, et cetera.

I don't think we should be worrying about how far we are down the wrong road, as what we can do with the resources we have right now to solve the problems we know can cause problems later. And, as others have noted, public and political inertia is at least as much of a problem as the raw environmental issues.

In short: #1 and #3 should always be foremost in our minds.

Just my two bits.

[BrentArsement]

This subject is simply complicated To understand our future, we must understand the past and present. Most folks haven't completed this first task. I believe civilization will collapse, sooner rather than later. The changes and sacrifices we must make to prevent this are too difficult. I also believe we will, as always, rebuild eventually. Finite Fossil Fuel, Mass crop production dependency, impossible credit redemption home and abroad, too many people, radical religion, Earth's changing climate, and greed are all part of the formula for collapse. We can't continue on our current course, but are unwilling to change our ways, myself included. I love electricity, easy transportation, abundant food availability, lengthy warm showers, air conditioning, and the list goes on and on and on.

I have lived thru Hurricane Rita and recently Ike. Wow! They will sober you up and force you to identify what is essential. Water, Food, Security, Community, and a good telescope, of course. If we build our lives around these things, soon, we will be OK in the long run. If not, then each individual has to live with that decision. My motto is enjoy the good things in life today, because tomorrow seems to be full of surprises. That is my answer to your question. Cheers.

[stutefish]

Unless you're particularly religious, there is no "wrong" road. Just roads that lead to results that are more or less inconvenient to whatever arbitrary values or goals you happen to be fond of.

You ask "how far down the wrong road are we?"

For all I know, this is the best of all possible roads, and we're as far along it as we've always been: Somewhere between the "beginning" and the "end", whatever those two things may be.

Even in the case of clint's "pursuing global interests", who's to say the current situation isn't already the most optimal method of reaching that goal?

(Not to mention the fact that historically, any trend in a society towards a more "global" or "collective" set of interests has generally also been a trend in that society towards totalitarianism, tyranny, suppression of dissent, and oppression of dissenters. E.g., the Soviet Union, among many others. Who's to decide what the "global interests" are, and how best to pursue them? And what are you going to do with those who disagree, and who insist on retaining the right to actively undermine your great work by word and deed?)

[spratleyj]

Speaking about the U.S I think a "collapse" of sorts is very possible especially if we continue to rely of fossil fuels. Because they will destroy the environment to a point where there may be no return, plus counting to use them could have a crippling economic impact at the price of importing energy sources will likely soar as the rest of the world catches up with the U.S and Europe. However we still have a good deal of time before we cross such a distant point of no return... hopefully the masses and the politicians will recognize and do something about the destruction of the environment before it's too late (will not mention any names here, as this isn't a political post )

I think the "goals" of life and or civilization can be summarized in order by the following:

a) survival - that's is not collapsing as a civilization (which as others have pointed out should include a certain quality of life)

b) advancement in the sciences, maths, philosophy etc... Basically understanding the universe better, eventually to a point where we're "infinitely" advance

c) Enjoy a certain quality of life, personally that means having a fun and full life, which of course varies depending on whom your talking about.

[spratleyj]

Unless you're particularly religious, there is no "wrong" road. Just roads that lead to results that are more or less inconvenient to whatever arbitrary values or goals you happen to be fond of.

You ask "how far down the wrong road are we?"

For all I know, this is the best of all possible roads, and we're as far along it as we've always been: Somewhere between the "beginning" and the "end", whatever those two things may be.

Even in the case of clint's "pursuing global interests", who's to say the current situation isn't already the most optimal method of reaching that goal?

(Not to mention the fact that historically, any trend in a society towards a more "global" or "collective" set of interests has generally also been a trend in that society towards totalitarianism, tyranny, suppression of dissent, and oppression of dissenters. E.g., the Soviet Union, among many others. Who's to decide what the "global interests" are, and how best to pursue them? And what are you going to do with those who disagree, and who insist on retaining the right to actively undermine your great work by word and deed?)

Of course there are "wrong roads" - I think just about everybody would agree that some of these would be the "wrong road"...

1) The destruction of the environment and the waste of all natural resources
2) A military conquest of the entire planet by any country
3) Economic depression

The list goes on and on, now I realize that it's often hard to know if we're on the right track or not, but there certain are "wrong roads".

[Veeger]

For all I know, this is the best of all possible roads, and we're as far along it as we've always been: Somewhere between the "beginning" and the "end", whatever those two things may be.

Perhaps not the best of all possible roads, but the only road since where we are is the culmination of where we've been; right, wrong or neutral. Its not like we have collectively chosen any roads. Its rolls out under our feet.

This is part of what we are seeing on the present road.

[chrissy]

Climatic variability on the timescale of tens of thousands of years has turned out to be a predominant pattern in earth history. The last two and a half million years have been marked by many global climate oscillations, between warmer and cooler conditions. This trend of oscillations appears to be merely the continuation of a pattern of variability extending back well into the Tertiary period and possibly beyond . During the last few million years, the length and the amplitude of these climate cycles has increased.

Large global interglacial-glacial-interglacial climate oscillations have been recurring at approximately a 100,000 year periodicity for the last 900,000 years ,though each individual cycle has had its own idiosyncrasies in terms of the timing and magnitude of changes. Extended records of atmospheric gas concentrations and polar temperatures may also be expected from the continued deeper drilling of the Antarctic Vostok ice core.
Climate change has occured quite often so it is coming regardless.
But it is also true that we humans are contributing to the effect and changing things at a more rapid pace with the green house gases polluting everything, if everyone did their little bit, maybe it would slow down to a pace where it isn't as noticable as it is now. Over population doesn't help our planet, with more homes being built and trees taken down to accommodate this increase in demand.

[randycat99]

Unless you're particularly religious, there is no "wrong" road. Just roads that lead to results that are more or less inconvenient to whatever arbitrary values or goals you happen to be fond of.

You ask "how far down the wrong road are we?"

For all I know, this is the best of all possible roads, and we're as far along it as we've always been: Somewhere between the "beginning" and the "end", whatever those two things may be.

Even in the case of clint's "pursuing global interests", who's to say the current situation isn't already the most optimal method of reaching that goal?

(Not to mention the fact that historically, any trend in a society towards a more "global" or "collective" set of interests has generally also been a trend in that society towards totalitarianism, tyranny, suppression of dissent, and oppression of dissenters. E.g., the Soviet Union, among many others. Who's to decide what the "global interests" are, and how best to pursue them? And what are you going to do with those who disagree, and who insist on retaining the right to actively undermine your great work by word and deed?)

I give kudos to you for such a astute and thinking-outside-of-the-box post!

I similarly imagine we, as a society, are frequently guilty of making complete circles as different group-minded powers come to be and deciding the path in the opposite direction is much better than the one that we were formerly following.

[Ronald Brak]

...who's to say the current situation isn't already the most optimal method of reaching that goal?

Voltaire?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candide

[jhwegener]

(Not to mention the fact that historically, any trend in a society towards a more "global" or "collective" set of interests has generally also been a trend in that society towards totalitarianism, tyranny, suppression of dissent, and oppression of dissenters.

There is right now more of this "global" interests than at any other moment in many respects. Too much? (think NAFTA, IMF, EU, WTO, UN, NATO, and a lot of other organisations for trade, exchange of money, scientific knowledge, politics, military organisation and a lot more). Too much or too little? Or the right form of cooperation or the wrong?

[PraedSt]

Well...spratleyj, you're talking about human civilisation as a whole, right? In which case I think civilisation is fine at the moment.

I think the main challenges to our species/civilisation are:

1. As Chrissy mentioned, climate. And I don't just mean global warming. Our entire history has taken place during a tiny sliver of boring climate. As far as I know, a lot of climate regimes are totally unsuitable for our present state civilization. I would like us to acquire the ability to control climate; although this would bring with it it's own sets of problems of course...
2. Space impacts.
3. Nuclear war.

Solutions: the usual. Research, Resources, Will.

Specifically, I don't think: depletion of resources, the environment and economics, can be classified as 'civilisation threatening' problems. They are problems, of course; I just don't think they are powerful enough, or 'difficult' enough, to threaten our entire civilisation.

[clint]

Even in the case of clint's "pursuing global interests", who's to say the current situation isn't already the most optimal method of reaching that goal?

The pretty coordinated world-wide reactions to the current financial crisis probably do go in that direction.
OTOH, global warming seems to have fallen off the top priority list for now.

That kind of highlights the problem, doesn't it?

We seem to be pretty good at 'reactive' crisis management (i.e. once disaster has already struck).
And we're especially good at it when we have the luxury of lessons learned from a previous bad experience with the subject
(e.g. the Great Depression in the 30s provides important lessons for the current financial crisis and partly inspired the current countermeasures)

Problem is, we seem to be facing more and more challenges where we don't have that luxury
(i.e. we'll have to get it right the first time or not get another chance, as in the worst-case scenarios of GW)

[Vallkynn]

I must agree that some kind of collapse will come. Civilization decay due to lack of resources, or by indirect consequence of that. If we look at history, we see that civilizations usually go for a war on resources and that can cause the collapse of other civilizations with no resource problems. Our situation is similar, the world resources are not enough to provide an western world life standard to the all the world's population. Starting with China and India, we are already having problems. We are already in war, an economic one, which is after all a resource war. We are currently trading employment for cheap technology and food. If you search for the guano war in 19th century we can see that this situation already happened in the past. I don't know if we are going to fall into a another stone age, or into a military state, either one of the two is shure.

[clint]

Several of you have mentioned a global authoritarian regime as a possible - if 'wrong' - solution.

But apart from being morally/ethically wrong, I also don't think that would solve our problems:
in the end dictatorships always end up creating more trouble than they solve.

And part of the reason is that solving complex problems requires lots of creativity and flexibility,
which tend to flourish a lot less under repressive regimes, to say the least

Sorry, we'll have to think by ourselves

[BrentArsement]

Stutefish, I agree we are where we are and will be what we will be. I mentioned "wrong road". Perhaps this is not simple enough. Each moment we have a choice that leads to consequences. Grab a rattlesnake he will bite you; keep your distance he will not.

If you don't have access to drinkable water, which requires a choice/plan, you will die in 3-5 days. Not that dying is bad, but dying of thirst is a physically miserable process. Food, which again requires a choice/plan, must be eaten or within 3-5 weeks you will, with some misery, die.

All "roads" lead to the same destination (Rome, right?) so why does it matter? I guess, in a deep thought forum like this, nothing matters for we are where we are and are gonna be what we are gonna be, both as an individual and a group. Right?. I am not so focused on the road we are on, i am just enjoying the scenery as I drive down it. Actually, i am not driving, i am walking. It is healthier for me and the Earth.
Spratleyj, you have asked a very fun question. Thanks. Cheers.

[Disinfo Agent]

I'm not generally a suporter of pessimism, but I make an exception for poetry:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

William Butler Yeats, "The Second Coming", 1919

[Argos]

Civilization won´t collapse until people stop living in cities [civilitas] and get back to the hunting-gathering business. That won´t happen [although a decline in the standards of living within the cities is a possibility].

[01101001]

Welcome to BAUT Forum.

I don't know if we are going to fall into a another stone age, or into a military state, either one of the two is shure.

Have you any evidence to present that these are the only two sure outcomes, or should we just take your word for it -- here in General Science.