On The Collapse of Complex Societies 461
One of the mailing lists that I'm on had a great short essay about the disastrous decision that societies can make - and their consequences. The author is Jared Diamond, who also wrote Guns, Germs and Steel (First Slashdot book review was that book), and is still one of the most interesting books I've read in a while.
Article Text (just in case) (Score:5, Informative)
WHY DO SOME SOCIETIES MAKE DISASTROUS DECISIONS?: JARED DIAMOND
Education is supposed to be about teachers imparting knowledge to students. As every teacher knows, though, if you have a good group of students, education is also about students imparting knowledge to their supposed teachers and challenging their assumptions. That's an experience that I've been through in the last couple of months, when for the first time in my academic career I gave a course to undergraduates, highly motivated UCLA undergraduates, on collapses of societies. Why is it that some societies in the past have collapsed while others have not? I was discussing famous collapses such as those of the Anasazi in the U.S. Southwest, Classic Maya civilization in the Yucatan, Easter Island society in the Pacific, Angkor Wat in southeast Asia, Great Zimbabwe in Africa, Fertile Crescent societies, and Harappan Indus Valley societies. These are all societies that we've realized, from archaeological discoveries in the last 20 years, hammered away at their own environments and destroyed themselves in part by undermining the environmental resources on which they depended.
For example, the Easter Islanders, Polynesian people, settled an island that was originally forested, and whose forests included the world's largest palm tree. The Easter Islanders gradually chopped down that forest to use the wood for canoes, firewood, transporting statues, raising statues, and carving and also to protect against soil erosion. Eventually they chopped down all the forests to the point where all the tree species were extinct, which meant that they ran out of canoes, they could no longer erect statues, there were no longer trees to protect the topsoil against erosion, and their society collapsed in an epidemic of cannibalism that left 90 percent of the islanders dead. The question that most intrigued my UCLA students was one that hadn't registered on me: how on Earth could a society make such an obviously disastrous decision as to cut down all the trees on which they depended? For example, my students wondered, what did the Easter Islanders say as they were cutting down the last palm tree? Were they saying, think of our jobs as loggers, not these trees? Were they saying, respect my private property rights? Surely the Easter Islanders, of all people, must have realized the consequences to them of destroying their own forest. It wasn't a subtle mistake. One wonders whether -- if there are still people left alive a hundred years from now -- people in the next century will be equally astonished about our blindness today as we are today about the blindness of the Easter Islanders.
This question, why societies make disastrous decisions and destroy themselves, is one that not only surprised my UCLA undergraduates, but also astonishes professional historians studying collapses of past societies. The most cited book on the subject of the collapse of societies is by the historian, Joseph Tainter. It's entitled The Collapse of Complex Societies. Joseph Tainter, in discussing ancient collapses, rejected the possibility that those collapses might be due to environmental management because it seemed so unlikely to him. Here's what Joseph Tainter said: "As it becomes apparent to the members or administrators of a complex society that a resource base is deteriorating, it seems most reasonable to assume that some rational steps are taken towards a resolution. With their administrative structure and their capacity to allocate labor and resources, dealing with adverse environmental conditions may be one of the things that complex societies do best. It is curious that they would collapse when faced with precisely those conditions that they are equipped to circumvent." Joseph Tainter concluded that the collapses of all these ancient societies couldn't possibly be due to environmental mismanagement, because they would never make these bad mistakes. Yet it's now clear that they did make these bad mistakes.
My UCLA undergraduates, and Joseph Tainter as well, ha
Re:Argument by non-sequitur? (Score:3, Informative)
Prisoner's Dilemma (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Just broad, long-term examples like this? (Score:2, Informative)
Maybe if you would read the content of the article, rather than just the title, you would see that the author is also talking about the failure of a society to properly anticipate, identify, and react to societal-scale decisions. He paints the Easter Island scenario as a clear case of failure to identify the need to make a decision to change course.
Jared Diamond is grossly overrated (Score:5, Informative)
For example, I recently saw Diamond on CSPAN talking about his ideas. As an example of societies that failed/didn't fail to develop, he compared Paraguay to Switzerland. The irony is, Paraguay, under the 19th century dictator Francisco Lopez, was on its way to developing when it lost the devastating War of the Triple Alliance against Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina. Behind this war was the manipulation of British diplomacy, horrified by Paraguay's opposition to free trade and use of tarrifs against British good to stimulate local economic development; Paraguay was crushed by war, the same way Egypt's efforts to develop under Mohammed Ali were crushed by war with England three decades earlier.
Historians like Diamond will always find cultural or geographical explanations for development and underdevelopment, but they will never examine too closely the role of colonialism, war and politics. That might be hitting too close to home.
Re:Chaos theory of human societies? (Score:1, Informative)
This is true of all just-so stories. Diamond spends lots of time in GG&S trying to establish that the differences between successful technological societies and primitive neolithic societies cannot be accounted for by such "biological" factors as IQ, motivation, etc. He falls for the old dichotomy trap, and looks at "environmental" factors like who had plants and animals that could be domesticated, who had reasonable climates for farming, etc.
If it's not one, it must be the other. Or so disciples of the "nature vs nurture" debate would have us believe. Such things as legal traditions, religion, warfare, and politics are entirely absent from his account. It's true that genetic differences are too small to account for civilization. But Diamond spends too little time on alternatives to his theories. How much of a role does randomness play in when and how civilizations emerge? How does climate interact with political systems to produce warfare, or make it particularly damaging? How does climate interact with hunting and gathering to make it sustainable in some areas, but not in others? Could these factors interact with sociological phenomena to produce technically advanced societies? Diamond is mum on this.
Re:Chaos theory of human societies? (Score:2, Informative)
Larger grain production area than Europe. More people and more advanced sciences than Europe, by about 500 years.
Why didn't they take over the world?
As for "hunting and gathering" by say 1000 CE, the only places that was happening was the Arctic, Australia, the Pacific Islands, South America and southern Africa.
The Eastern American Indians and Pacfic Indian tribes had advanced trade routes, the Central American Indians were busy building pyramids and conducting wars for slaves. Islam was spread from Spain to Indonesia.
The plains indians of North America had a very free thinking society and all they did was hunt and gather.
Look at what the Aztecs accomplished. By 1490 they had a human sacrifice system set up so they could kill people more efficently than the Nazis did.
Re:Chaos theory of human societies? (Score:3, Informative)
Every spring I can tell you that the Contiental United States will warm up. Snow will melt and storms will develop in the Atlantic.
No duh. Now, if the weather were not chaotic, you could tell me exactly how many degrees it would warm up and where, and whether it would be raining May 30th in Newfoundland.
But the weather is chaotic. "Chaotic" doesn't mean "varies randomly all over the scale"; it means "varies effectively unpredictably within a defined volume of phase space". That volume of phase-space in the Sahara Desert is a lot smaller than in, say, New England, but the same kind of variations in temperature show up.
That volume of phase-space is the climate - in the Sahara, it doesn't include 30 degrees below zero, at least in this millenium.
If you can prove the weather is not chaotic, then you have a glorious future awaiting you in meteorology. You can name your price. I'm not holdimg my breath, though.
The corruption is worse than you think: (Score:3, Informative)
The pipeline through Afghanistan has already been started:
http://www.paknews.com/flash.php?id=8&date1=2003-
Last Sunday the CBS show "60 Minutes" discussed the conflict of interest. I'm not the only one who thinks there is conflict of interest. 50 years ago, President Eisenhower warned about the "Military-Industrial Complex".
See Halliburton Makes a Killing on Iraq War
(Brown and Root is a subsidiary of Halliburton)
http://www.utne.com/webwatch/2003_39/news/10427-1
"The Bush-Cheney team has turned the United States into a family business", says Harvey Wasserman, author of The Last Energy War.
To the Person who modded this (Score:2, Informative)