Very unlike Ruppert's theory, Jared Diamond argues that no single factor contributes to societal collapse. Instead, he establishes a framework of factors that can, for the most part, be used to discover a society's fragility toward collapse. The predictive value of Diamond's work, should he be correct, is certainly the most compelling component of his theory; and, since we can examine past civilizations, the framework can be verified through an investigation of the factors of fragility he sets forward. Perhaps an important question to ask is, to what extent must these factors all be present, and to what degree, for them to indicate a society's fragility; or, looked at differently, what factors of strength mitigate factors of strength, and in what imbalance does the tipping point emerge?
For the next class, please have finished the Jared Diamond video and have read at least the prologue to his book Collapse.
As a short hand, Diamond's framework consists of "climate
change, hostile neighbors, collapse of essential trading partners,
environmental problems, and failure to adapt to environmental issues."There are other factors to his theory, and the nuance of his framework must be understood before commenting, but, commenting on the post, please offer your considerations regarding Diamond's theory. (Please do not make it an "agree or disagree" response.) Take a point he makes and argue with it. You only need to address one issue, but one issue deeply.
JMN
7 comments:
What I like most about Diamond is his intellectual flexibility; I respect that he said he was originally just going to write a book about environmental degradation, but his research led him down another path. His five-part thesis is definitely vague, but it is necessarily vague. As Diamond puts it himself, anyone who thinks there's only one factor should be considered an "idiot".
However, the environmental part of his argument is most interesting to me. When environmental problems lead to the collapse of societies, it is usually readily obvious. Harappan & Mohenjo Daro are great early examples, Easter Island another, the list goes on and on. I think Diamond's fifth point, basically societal response to environments in political, social, cultural terms, warrants a little more explanation. Diamond claims that his fifth point is always present in the collapse of societies, which may be true, but I feel like political/social/cultural issues is an "umbrella" category that requires a little bit more qualification.
For instance, he cites the Greenland Norse building too many cathedrals, or the Harappans unintentionally making their land unsuitable for agriculture, but also cites competing struggles among local rulers and subsequent neglect for the environment due to prioritization of accumulating political power. I think these should definitely be put into two different categories. He does mention "reasons why societies fail to adapt" in one of the later chapters of Collapse, so credit to Diamond for realizing this. However, I think the key distinction between a society unknowingly destroying its environment (like Harappa) versus making decisions that are environmentally harmful because these are secondary duties to other ulterior motives (dare I say, like the modern oil industry?)
Maybe it's not so much an important distinction as to turn Diamond's argument into a "six-point" framework, but I think it's definitely worth noting the ambiguity of Diamond's fifth point in the framework.
Like Bradley the environmental aspect of his argument sparked the most interest in me. Diamond's discussion of climate change is really prevalent in Southern California today. We depend so much on water as a resource, yet we get most of it from other regions like the Sierra Nevadas where snow serves as a source of water which is collected by aqueducts and brought to cities like Los Angeles. This dependency for water ties into his 2nd point in which he states that a society that has less of a resource can absorb the loss as long as the climate is benign. So for the Sierra Nevadas, if climate change brings less snow and more rain, that supply may become more variable (for Southern California) because snow mets slowly and thus serves as a water source for a longer time than rain, which quickly runs of.
I wasn't too sure of Diamond's example of the fall of Rome for his third point. HIs third point discusses societies receiving environmental damages and thus being defeated by their hostile neighbors. However his example of Rome, though interesting, isn't supplied with any facts. When he posses a series of questions on why the barbarians defeated Rome he ends with the question of environmental changes. He asks if the barbarians were "more numerous or better organized, acquired better weapon or more horses, or profited from climate change in the Central Asian steppes?" However Diamond never supports this environmental change in the Central Asian steppes with any proof.
Diamond's argument is well thought out and articulated. All in all, Diamond's argument is very scientific and therefore both logical and trustworthy. Furthermore, the strength of the argument is that its flexible; it avoids universal assertions, and merely seeks to outline general themes in societal collapse. However, my quibble with Diamond is that his claim is in fact too flexible. His broad list of causes for societal collapse are so broad that they leave room for far too many exceptions. I recognize the major point of Diamond's argument is that "not one single factor causes societal collapse." Nevertheless, it seems that Diamond's five causes of societal collapse are so inclusive that they fail to provide any real insight into what makes a society collapse. His statement that environmental problems and a breakdown of relationships with other countries combined with a lack of response to these issues cause a collapse, is no profound statement. These issues have afflicted just about every civilization with differing results. Even Diamond admits that he does not know why/what situations seem to cause societal breakdowns. Since I largely agree with Diamond's five (six) part thesis, I would like to discuss what allows these factors to destroy society.
All of Diamond's factors contribute to fragility. However, perhaps there is a general theme that contributes to these factors. This general theme is that of centralization. When a society becomes more centralized, it becomes more vulnerable to the issues listed by Diamond. Additionally, more centralized societies also have a more difficult time adapting. Thus, centralization is the core cause of fragility. Essentially, this is the missing piece in Diamond's argument.
First, to use this thesis to support Diamond's argument. He frequently mentions that societies collapse not long after reaching their peak. Examples being the USSR, Maya, and the New Kingdom (Egypt). Coincidentally, or possibly not at all, all of these civilizations were tightly centralized at their peak (by the standards of their day). As we've studied in world history increased centralization often meant increased efficiency, be it politically or economically. However, this greater economic efficiency means a greater use of resources and a greater dependability on other uncontrollable factors. For example, when a cities population grows, agriculture must expand from the easily farmed and most fertile land to the somewhat easily farmed, but less fertile land. However, any change in climate can deeply affect the only somewhat easily farmed land. Politically, centralization is often viewed through the rise of all-powerful governors ie Stalin or Ramses II. Often times the height of power is during the reign of larger than life Kings that bring prosperity through their tightly organized and centralized government. However, this legacy of centralization outlives the monarchs/dictators and bequeaths the new found power to a new monarch who is often less fit to perform the duties. These are often the rulers who enact the strict and unadaptable policies that Diamond decries as a main cause of collapse (Ming Dynasty). Thus, centralization creates a win big or lose big phenomena.
(Just to clarify, my argument about centralization being dangerous is not a pro-euro-enlightenment-'MERICA-democracy argument. Democracy is just as susceptible. Examine America's democracy. Correlating with America's rise to international dominance, is an increased concentration in the Executive (FDR-Present). Thus, our current system, entrusts the president with an incredibly un-democratic amount of power).
Next, this win big or lose big phenomena as a result of centralization is not a new concept. It is well engrained in modern finance theory. The safest investments when sh*t hits the fan are those that are spread among many different things, decentralized if you will. Decentralized societies do not produce the incredible success and growth of centralized societies. However, as a result, they do not produce the environmental damage that a centralized civilization does. Furthermore, they avoid over-dependency on energy and food. A decentralized society where many grow their own food is in many ways anti-fragile. Additionally, decentralized societies avoid entanglements with other civilizations. For example, Ethiopia and Afghanistan have largely avoided collapse over the last 3000 years. They have avoided most Depressions and wars. That said, these decentralized societies have also avoided much of the prosperity that has occurred over those past three millennia. Lastly, a decentralized society is much more adaptable and can therefore adapt to problems that arise. This is the argument for the free market. The more players in the game, the more flexibility they have. If Exxon Oil busts, the US would experience some serious difficulties. However, these difficulties would be nothing in comparison to the hardship experienced if Standard Oil (from which Exxon has emerged) had gone bankrupt 100 years ago.
Thus, the alternative to the booms and busts of centralization is slow and gradual sustainability. Of these two options, which is better? That answer is relative and depends on what one deems important. It seems that to a certain extent centralization is inevitable. As humans, we try to be as efficient as possible. Case in point opinion polls in American politics. Since the "Rise of the Executive" the president has led congress in opinion polls by at least 20-30 points. The reason is that the executive is firm and effective, while Congress is bicker-some and inefficient. The first thing we examined in World history was the Neolithic revolution. The shift to agriculture was a shift to a more efficient means of production. Most made that shift making them susceptible to local and later regional markets. Some homo-sapiens however, did not make this shift. They have largely survived with little difficulty or danger though they have not benefitted from the technological and dietary improvements of the last 12,000 years.
Ultimately, I was asked to argue a piece of Diamond's thesis; However, I did not do this, because I agree with Diamond. Thus, what I have provided is a possible missing piece to Diamond's argument. A causation to his causations.
To start, Diamond can say he is in the middle of being a non-environmentalist and an environmentalist, but that is just untrue. He is an environmentalist. The list he gives in the ted talk of the possible reasons we can be “undone” are lack of water, soil loosing nutrients, population growth, toxins, and lack of resources, all of which directly have to do with the environment. While Diamond agrees that we need to work with big businesses to solve these issues leading to imminent collapse, he overall believes environmental issues are what will cause this collapse.
One point of his argument that I found interesting was that military defeat, or relations with hostiles, might not be the actual cause of a civilizations collapse even if it was what led to the civilizations collapse. In the prequel, he states that Rome did not collapse because of the military victories of the barbarians, but because of the inner problems that weakened the Roman Empire that allowed for Rome to be defeated. Thus military conquests didn’t cause the collapse, but economic, cultural, and environmental problems within caused the collapse.
The biggest issue I have with Diamonds Thesis or Argument is that he is extremely vague. He never says how many or what specific of the 5 frameworks are needed for a civilization to collapse, instead he states for each civilization it is different. That’s fine, but then you are left with the argument that each civilization collapses for their own individual reasons and maybe they could share some common problems. Overall, this means his argument is “there is no pattern in the collapse of civilizations”.
Diamond’s 5-part framework seems to have considerable overlap between categories. That being said, I found his theory on environmental degradation and sustainability the most interesting (as did Ian and Bradley). I don’t want to summarize anything people have already said, but I tend to believe that the effect civilizations have on their environments was a big one. Whether they did it unknowingly (like ancient societies) or knowingly (like most big companies of the modern age), is beside the point. To an extent, all that matters is whether the civilizations exhausted their natural resources and then had the misfortune to experience a climate change. Furthermore, the amount of societies “collapsing” completely has decreased in the past 250 years possibly due to the fact that people know how to exploit and/or further extract natural resources. Sure, the USSR could be considered a “collapse,” but the societies, cultures, and people all stayed present. The USSR dissolved rather than “collapsing.” At this point that collapse was more a societal breakdown than a true failure of society. In order to have a true societal collapse there needs to be at least a couple of his 5-part framework working in conjunction.
I’m somewhat playing devil’s advocate, because I actually tend to personally agree with a lot of his environmental opinions. However, like Jake, it bothers me that Diamond is vague on why specific societies collapse. He references Rome, Easter Island, and the Greenland Norse, but ultimately says that there aren’t any pervasive patterns that can be tied to all these societies at the same time. Plus, Diamond’s view is somewhat fatalistic; the world is more populated and using up natural resources faster than ever, and there seems to be no realistic way of making all developed and developing nations stop. This might also be slightly off topic, but if these certain reasons are why societies collapse, then why do new ones emerge in their places. For example, Rome fell, for various reasons: military ineptitude, invasions from the outside, etc. However, Diamond’s theory of collapse, should it be true, fails to explain why newer, more efficient societies can take the place of the ones that failed. There is no one true reason as to why societies fail, but Diamond’s environmental argument, while argued logically, ignores certain points to make his argument seem stronger.
A common issue that previous posters have taken with Diamond’s five-point “checklist” has been the poor organization of his factors and causes of collapse. Particularly, Bradley takes issue with Diamond’s grouping of political, social, and cultural factors into one of those categories, and there certainly is a better way to organize all factors into a framework that works better. Essentially, I think Diamond’s organization is too artificial and isn’t based upon the causal relationships of collapse.
Chris does an excellent job of taking the next step in Diamond’s intellectual endeavor: to delineate the cause behind the causes of collapse. He points to a common theme of centralization, whereby societies forsake the flexibility endowed by localized production for a more efficient yet precarious win-big or lose-big scenario. As a resolution to this problem, Chris recommends that societies grow less rapidly, thereby allotting time to build infrastructures that can sustain such centralization. It is this point that I would like to develop, and which I think ultimately serves as the cause to Chris’ cause for the causes of collapse. In short, societal infrastructures and institutions outpace individuals’ ability to full accommodate them. To illustrate this, take Diamond’s two examples of ways societies fail to avoid collapse: the discrepancy between the short-term interests of elites and the long term interests of the larger society, and the conflict between strongly-held values and situations where those values hinder that society’s ability to adapt by being inapplicable. Those two examples are really one in the same: institutions, either formally through elites or psychologically through social mores, become too powerful and pervasive without taking into account case scenarios not immediately apparent to those elites or to the development of broad societal ideals.
Despite its faults, though, Diamond’s framework is well-liked by my peers because it is what it is: a framework. Not a thesis, not a prescription, but instead, it is a description. Upon this description we are given a useful lens through which we can organize phenomena that lead to collapse, and from which people like Chris and I can formulate our own theses. This flexibility is touted already by Bradley which I think is also illustrated through his ability to cull ideas from different fields, like differential calculus, to help better describe his ideas. Props to Diamond.
Post a Comment