 |
Sundays at 9.10am , repeated
Tuesdays at 7.10pm
Why Societies Collapse: Jared Diamond at Princeton
UniversityProduced by Kirsten Garrett Sunday 27
October 2002 Go
to a version of this page which is more suitable for
printing
Kirsten Garrett:
Throughout human history, societies, civilisations have
prospered and collapsed over time. The reasons, obviously, have
lessons for the whole of our intricately interlinked planet today.
At Princeton University in America, earlier this month, eminent
professor Jared Diamond gave a speech about the collapse of ancient
societies. And today, Background Briefing will broadcast that talk,
edited and including some questions and answers at the end.
Hallo, I’m Kirsten Garrett.
Introducing Jared Diamond was Michael Cook. He’s Professor of
Islamic Studies at Princeton.
Michael Cook: There’s something that you need to
remember about biologists. In one respect they’re rather like the
germs that they study, that’s to say they can jump species. And more
than that, they can jump whole orders. And that’s exactly what
Professor Diamond has done. From birds, he went on to develop a
lively interest in primates, including the primate species which is
so abundantly present in this room tonight. In this field too, he’s
published a couple of books, but this time they’re books that you
and I will find fully accessible. The first one which he published
back in 1992 is called, it has a rather teasing title, ‘The Third
Chimpanzee’, and what he’s telling us is that we humans could
perfectly well be classified as just another species of chimp. The
second book has an even more inflammatory title. It’s called ‘Why is
Sex Fun?’ and it’s such a hot item that if you go to the library
they won’t let you have it for more than three hours at a
stretch.
But it is nevertheless, like everything else that Professor
Diamond writes, it’s a serious answer to a serious question.
Kirsten Garrett: In his introduction, Professor
Michael Cook went on to talk about the book ‘Guns, Germs and Steel’
for which Jared Diamond won the Pulitzer Prize.
Michael Cook: At the heart of ‘Guns, Germs and
Steel’, is the most illuminating account that I’ve ever read of the
single most important event that ever took place in the history or
pre-history of the Near East, namely the emergence, the earliest
emergence of farming on this planet some 10,000 years ago. But
having said that, having made the connection, I suppose that I
really do have to admit that the book isn’t just a contribution to
Near Eastern studies. It also deals with the emergence of farming
elsewhere on the planet, and it analyses the long-term consequences
of that momentous development. In other words, you could pretty much
say that the book poses and answers the question, How did we get to
where we are now?
Kirsten Garrett: And so to Professor Jared
Diamond himself.
Applause
Kirsten Garrett: He’s a tall, slender man with a
small beard, and as he speaks Jared Diamond strides up and down the
stage, almost chatting to the large audience. He spoke of
once-vibrant societies such as the one that built Angkor Wat, the
Mayan civilisation, the Easter Islands, Greater Zimbabwe, and the
Indus Valley.
Jared Diamond: Why did these ancient
civilisations abandon their cities after building them with such
great effort? Why these ancient collapses? This question isn’t just
a romantic mystery. It’s also a challenging intellectual problem.
Why is it that some societies collapsed while others did not
collapse?
But even more, this question is relevant to the environmental
problems that we face today; problems such as deforestation, the
impending end of the tropical rainforests, over-fishing, soil
erosion, soil salinisation, global climate change, full utilisation
of the world’s fresh water supplies, bumping up against the
photosynthetic ceiling, exhaustion of energy reserves, accumulation
of toxics in water, food and soil, increase of the world’s
population, and increase of our per capita input. The main problems
that threaten our existence over the coming decades. What if
anything, can the past teach us about why some societies are more
unstable than others, and about how some societies have managed to
overcome their environmental problems. Can we extract from the past
any useful guidance that will help us in the coming decades?
"Some of these romantic mystery collapses
have been self-inflicted ecological suicides, resulting from
inadvertent human impacts on the environment."
|
There’s overwhelming recent evidence from archaeology and other
disciplines that some of these romantic mystery collapses have been
self-inflicted ecological suicides, resulting from inadvertent human
impacts on the environment, impacts similar to the impacts causing
the problems that we face today. Even though these past societies
like the Easter Islanders and Anasazi had far fewer people, and were
packing far less potent destructive practices than we do today.
It turns out that these ancient collapses pose a very complicated
problem. It’s not just that all these societies collapsed, but one
can also think of places in the world where societies have gone on
for thousands of years without any signs of collapse, such as Japan,
Java, Tonga and Tikopea. What is it then that made some societies
weaken and other societies robust? It’s also a complicated problem
because the collapses usually prove to be multi-factorial. This is
not an area where we can expect simple answers.
What I’m talking about is the collapses of societies and their
applications to the risks we face today. This may sound initially
depressing, but you’ll see that my main conclusions are going to be
upbeat.
Kirsten Garrett: You’re listening to an edited
version of a talk given by Jared Diamond who’s Professor of
Physiology at UCLA, but who gave this talk at Princeton University a
few weeks ago.
The first example he gave to illustrate the sorts of problems
communities accumulate was the American State of Montana. Not many
years ago, it was one of the wealthiest in America, wealth based on
copper mining, forestry and agriculture. Now it’s very poor. Mining
has gone, leaving terrible environmental damage, 70% of the children
in Montana are on Food Aid, logging and farming are in decline. What
happened was that the mining, forestry and agriculture which earned
so much wealth, became destructive. Montana now has terrible forest
fires, salinisation, erosion, weeds and animal diseases, and
population decline. Professor Jared Diamond.
Jared Diamond: If Montana were an isolated
country, Montana would be in a state of collapse. Montana is not
going to collapse, because it’s supported by the rest of the United
States, and yet other societies have collapsed in the past, and are
collapsing now or will collapse in the future, from problems similar
to those facing Montana. The same problems that we’ve seen
throughout human history, problems of water, forests, topsoil,
irrigation, salinisation, climate change, erosion, introduced pests
and disease and population; problems similar to those faced by
Montanans today are the ones posing problems in Afghanistan,
Pakistan, China, Australia, Nepal, Ethiopia and so on. But those
countries, Afghanistan, Pakistan etcetera have the misfortune not to
be embedded within a rich country that supports them, like the
United States.
Visiting Montana again just brought home to me that these
problems of ancient civilisations are not remote problems of
romantic mysterious people, they’re problems of the modern world
including of the United States. I mentioned then that there’s a long
list of past societies that did collapse, but there were also past
societies that did not collapse. What is it then that makes some
societies more vulnerable than others? Environmental factors clearly
play a role, archaeological evidence accumulated over the last
several decades has revealed environmental factors behind many of
these ancient collapses. Again, to appreciate the modern relevance
of all this, if one asked an academic ecologist to name the
countries in the modern world that suffer from most severe problems
of environmental damage and of over-population, and if this
ecologist never read the newspapers and didn’t know anything about
modern political problems, the ecologist would say “Well that’s a
no-brainer, the countries today that have ecological and
populations, there are Haiti, Somalia, Rwanda, Burundi, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nepal, the Philippines, Indonesia, Solomon
Islands.” Then you ask a politician who doesn’t know, or a strategic
planner who knows or cares nothing about ecological problems, what
you see is the political tinderboxes of the modern world, the danger
spots, and the politician or strategic planner would say “It’s a
no-brainer; Haiti, Somalia, Rwanda, Burundi, Iraq, Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Nepal, the Philippines, Indonesia, Solomon Islands”, the
same list. And that simply makes the point that countries that get
into environmental trouble are likely to get into political trouble
both for themselves and to cause political troubles around the
world.
In trying to understand the collapses of ancient societies, I
quickly realised that it’s not enough to look at the inadvertent
impact of humans on their environment. It’s usually more
complicated. Instead I’ve arrived at a checklist of five things that
I look at to understand the collapses of societies, and in some
cases all five of these things are operating. Usually several of
them are.
The first of these factors is environmental damage, inadvertent
damage to the environment through means such as deforestation, soil
erosion, salinisation, over-hunting etc.
The second item on the checklist is climate change, such as
cooling or increased aridity. People can hammer away at their
environment and get away with it as long as the climate is benign,
warm, wet, and the people are likely to get in trouble when the
climate turns against them, getting colder or drier. So climate
change and human environmental impact interact, not
surprisingly.
Still a third consideration is that one has to look at a
society’s relations with hostile neighbours. Most societies have
chronic hostile relations with some of their neighbours and
societies may succeed in fending off those hostile neighbours for a
long time. They’re most likely to fail to hold off the hostile
neighbours when the society itself gets weakened for environmental
or any other reasons, and that’s given rise for example, to the
long-standing debate about the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Was
the conquest by Barbarians really a fundamental cause, or was it
just that Barbarians were at the frontiers of the Roman Empire for
many centuries? Rome succeeded in holding them off as long as Rome
was strong, and then when Rome got weakened by other things, Rome
failed, and fell to the Barbarians. And similarly, we know that
there were military factors in the fall of Angkor Wat in Cambodia.
So relations with hostiles interacts with environmental damage and
climate change.
"If one of those friendly societies itself
runs into environmental problems and collapses for
environmental reasons, that collapse may then drag down their
trade partners." |
Similarly, relations with friendlies interacts. Almost all
societies depend in part upon trade with neighbouring friendly
societies, and if one of those friendly societies itself runs into
environmental problems and collapses for environmental reasons, that
collapse may then drag down their trade partners. It’s something
that interests us today, given that we are dependent for oil upon
imports from countries that have some political stability in a
fragile environment.
And finally in addition to those four factors on the checklist,
one always has to ask about people’s cultural response. Why is it
that people failed to perceive the problems developing around them,
or if they perceived them, why did they fail to solve the problems
that would eventually do them in? Why did some peoples perceive and
recognise their problems and others not?
I’ll give you four examples of these past societies that
collapsed. One is Easter Island, I’ll discuss it first because
Easter is the simplest case we’ve got, the closest approximation to
a collapse resulting purely from human environmental damage.
The second case are the collapses of Henderson and Pitcairn
Island in the Pacific, which were due to the combination of
self-inflicted environmental damage, plus the loss of external trade
due to the collapse of a friendly trade partner.
Third I’ll discuss, closer to home the Anasazi in the US
south-west whose collapse was a combination of environmental damage
and climate change.
And then finally I’ll mention the Greenland Norse who ended up
all dead because of a combination of all five of these factors.
So let’s take then the first of these examples, the collapse of
Easter Island society. Any of you here in this room, have any of you
had the good fortune to have visited Easter Island? Good for you,
you lucky person, I’m going there next month, I’ve wanted for
decades to go there. And Easter is the most remote habitable scrap
of land in the world; it’s an island in the Pacific, 2,000 miles
west of the coast of Chile, and something 1300 miles from the
nearest Polynesian island. It was settled by other Polynesians
coming from the west, sometime around AD800 and it was so remote
that after Polynesians arrived at Easter Island, nobody else arrived
there. Nobody left Easter as far as we know, and so the Easter story
is uncomplicated by relations with external hostiles or friendlies.
There weren’t any. Easter Islanders rose and fell by themselves.
Easter is a relatively fragile environment, dry with 40 inches of
rain per year. It’s most famous because of the giant stone statutes
- those big statues weighing up to 80 tons - stone statues that were
carved in a volcanic quarry and then dragged up over the lift of the
quarry and then 13 miles down to the coast and then raised up
vertically onto platforms, all this accomplished by people without
any draught animals, without pulleys, without machines. These 80 ton
statues were dragged and erected under human muscle power alone. And
yet when Europeans arrived at Easter in 1722, the statues that the
islanders themselves had erected at such great personal effort, the
islanders were in the process of throwing down their own statues,
Easter Island society was in a state of collapse. How, why and who
erected the statues, and why were they thrown down?
Well the how, why and who has been settled in the last several
decades by archaeological discoveries. Easter Islanders were typical
Polynesians, and the cause of the collapse became clear from
archaeological work in the last 15 years, particularly from
paeleo-botannical work and identification of animal bones in
archaeological sites. Today Easter Island is barren. It’s a
grassland, there are no native trees whatsoever on Easter Island,
not a likely setting for the development of a great civilisation,
and yet these paeleo-botannical studies, identifying pollen grains
and lake cores show that when the Polynesians arrived at Easter
Island, it was covered by a tropical forest that included the
world’s largest palm tree and dandelions of tree height. And there
were land birds, at least six species of land birds, 37 species of
breeding sea-birds - the largest collection of breeding sea-birds
anywhere in the Pacific.
Polynesians settled Easter, they began to clear the forest for
their gardens, for firewood, for using as rollers and levers to
raise the giant statues, and then to build canoes with which to go
out into the ocean and catch porpoises and tuna. In the oldest
archaeological one sees the bones of porpoises and tuna that the
people were eating. They ate the land birds, they ate the sea-birds,
they ate the fruits of the palm trees. The population of Easter grew
to an estimated about 10,000 people, until by the year 1600 all of
the trees and all of the land birds and all but one of the sea-birds
on Easter Island itself were extinct. Some of the sea-birds were
confined to breeding on offshore stacks.
"The largest animal left to eat with the
disappearance of porpoises and tuna were humans..."
|
The deforestation and the elimination of the birds had
consequences for people. First without trees, they could no longer
transport and erect the statues, so they stopped carving statues.
Secondly, without trees they had no firewood except of their own
agricultural wastes. Thirdly, without trees to cover the ground,
they suffered from soil erosion and hence agricultural yields
decreased, and then without trees they couldn’t build canoes, so
they couldn’t go out to the ocean to catch porpoises, there were
only a few sea-birds left because they didn’t have pigs the largest
animal left to eat with the disappearance of porpoises and tuna were
humans. And Polynesian society then collapsed in an epidemic of
cannibalism. The spear points from that final phase still litter the
ground of Easter Island today. The population crashed from about
10,000 to an estimated 2,000 with no possibility of rebuilding the
original society because the trees, most of the birds and some of
the soil were gone.
I think one of the reasons that the collapse of Easter Island so
grabs people is that it looks like a metaphor for us today. Easter
Island, isolated in the middle of the Pacific Island, nobody to turn
to to get help, nowhere to flee once Easter Island itself collapsed.
In the same way today, one can look at Planet Earth in the middle of
the galaxy and if we too get into trouble, there’s no way that we
can flee, and no people to whom we can turn for help out there in
the galaxy.
I can’t help wondering what the Islander who chopped down the
last palm tree said as he or she did it. Was he saying, ‘What about
our jobs? Do we care more for trees than for our jobs, of us
loggers?’ Or maybe he was saying, ‘What about my private property
rights? Get the big government of the chiefs off my back.’ Or maybe
he was saying, ‘You’re predicting environmental disaster, but your
environmental models are untested, we need more research before we
can take action.’ Or perhaps he was saying, ‘Don’t worry, technology
will solve all our problems.’
Laughter
Kirsten Garrett: After speaking about several
other Pacific Island nations and what happened to them, Professor
Jared Diamond went on to talk of the Anasazi, an Indian nation later
called the Pueblo, in what is now the United States.
Jared Diamond: My next example involves the
Anasazi in our south west, in the four corners area of Arizona, New
Mexico, Colorado, Utah. How many of you here have been to either
Mesa Verde or Chaco Canyon? OK, looks like nearly half of you. It’s
very striking to visit say Chaco Canyon where there are still the
ruins of the biggest skyscrapers erected in the United States until
the Chicago skyscrapers erected in Chicago’s loop in the 1870s and
1880s. But the skyscrapers of Chaco Canyon were erected by native
Americans, the Anasazi. Up to 6-storey buildings, with up to 600
rooms. The Anasazi build-up began around AD600 with the arrival of
the Mexican crops of corn, squash and beans, and in that relatively
dry area. Again it’s very striking today to drive through an area
where today either nobody is living at all, or nobody’s living by
agriculture. At Chaco Canyon itself there are a couple of houses of
National Park Rangers importing their food, and then nobody else
living within 20 or 30 miles. And yet to realise, and to see the
remains on the ground, this used to be a densely populated
agricultural environment.
The Anasazi were ingenious at managing to survive in that
environment, with low fluctuating, unpredictable rainfall, and with
nutrient-poor soils. The population built up. They fed themselves
with agriculture, in some cases irrigation agriculture, channelled
very carefully to flood out over the fields. They cut down trees for
construction and firewood. In each area they would develop
environmental problems by cutting down trees and exhausting soil
nutrients, but they dealt with those problems by abandoning their
sites after a few decades and moving on to a new site. It’s possible
to reconstruct Anasazi history in great detail for two reasons: tree
rings, because this is a dry climate, the south-west. From
tree-rings you can identify from the rings on the roof beams, what
year - 1116, not 1115 AD - what year the tree in that roof was cut
down, and also those cute little rodents in the south-west, pack
rats, that run around gathering bits of vegetation in their nests
and then abandoning their nests after 50 years, a pack rat midden is
basically a time capsule of the vegetation growing within 50 yards
of a pack rat midden over a period of 50 years. And my friend Julio
Betancourt who was near an Anasazi ruin and happened to see a pack
rat midden whose dating he knew nothing about. He was astonished to
see in what’s now a treeless environment, in this pack rat midden
were the needles of pinion pine and juniper. So Julio wondered
whether that was an old midden. He took it back, radio carbon-dated
it, and lo and behold it was something like AD 800. So the pack-rat
middens are time capsules of local vegetation allowing us to
reconstruct what happened.
What happened is that the Anasazi deforested the area around
their settlements until they were having to go further and further
away for their fuel and their construction timber. At the end they
were getting their logs, neatly cut logs, uniform weighing on the
average 600 pounds, 16 feet logs, were cut at the end on tops of
mountains up to 75 miles away and about 4,000 feet above the Anasazi
settlements, and then dragged back by people with no transport or
pack animals, to the Anasazi settlements themselves. So
deforestation spread. That was the one environmental problem.
The other environmental problem was the cutting of arroyos. In
the south-west when water flow gets channelled for example in
irrigation ditches, then vast water flow is run off in desert rains.
It digs a trench in the channel, and digs a trench deeper and deeper
so those of you who’ve been to Chaco Canyon will have seen those
arroyos up to 30 feet deep. And today, if the water level drops down
in the arroyos, that’s not a problem for farmers, because we’ve got
pumps, but the Anasazi did not have pumps, and so when the
irrigation ditches became incised by arroyo cutting and when the
water level in the ditches dropped down below the field levels, they
could no longer do irrigation agriculture. For a while they got away
with these inadvertent environmental impacts. There were droughts
around 1040 and droughts around 1090, but at both times the Anasazi
hadn’t yet filled up the landscape, so they could move to other
parts of the landscape not yet exploited. And the population
continued to grow.
And then in Chaco Canyon when a drought arrived in 1117, at that
point there was no more unexploited landscape, no more empty land to
which to shift. In addition at that point, Chaco Canyon was a
complex society. Lots of stuff was getting imported into Chaco -
stone tools, pottery, turquoise, probably food was being imported
into Chaco. Archaeologists can’t detect any material that went out
of the Chaco Valley, and whenever you see a city into which material
stuff is moving and no material stuff is leaving, you think that the
modern world - the model could be of New York City or Rome, or
Washington and Rome - that is to say you suspect that out of that
city is having political control or religious control in return for
which the peasants in the periphery are supplying their imported
goods.
"When you see a rich place without a wall,
you can safely infer that the rich place was on good terms
with its poor neighbours, and when you see a wall going up
around the rich place, you can infer that there was now
trouble with the neighbours. " |
When the drought came in 1117 it was a couple of decades before
the end. Again any of you who have been to Pueblo Benito, will have
seen that Pueblo Benito was the six storey skyscraper. Pueblo Benito
was a big, unwalled plaza, until about 20 years before the end, when
a high wall went up around the plaza. And when you see a rich place
without a wall, you can safely infer that the rich place was on good
terms with its poor neighbours, and when you see a wall going up
around the rich place, you can infer that there was now trouble with
the neighbours. So probably what was happening was that towards the
end, in the drought, as the landscape is filled up, the people out
on the periphery were no longer satisfied because the people in the
religious and political centre, were no longer delivering the goods.
The prayers to the gods were not bringing rain, there was not all
the stuff to redistribute and they began making trouble. And then at
the drought of 1117, with no empty land to shift to, construction of
Chaco Canyon ceased, Chaco was eventually abandoned. Long House
Valley was abandoned later. The Anasazi had committed themselves
irreversibly to a complex society, and once that society collapsed,
they couldn’t rebuild it because again they deforested their
environment.
In this case then, the Anasazi case, we have the interaction of
well understood environmental impact and very well understood
climate change from the tree rings, from the width of the tree
rings, we know how much rainfall was falling in each year and hence
we know the severity of the drought.
My next to last example involves Norse Greenland. As the Vikings
began to expand over and terrorise Europe in their raids. The
Vikings also settled six islands in the North Atlantic. So we have
to compare not 80 islands as in the Pacific, but 6 islands. Viking
settlements survived on Orkney, Shetland, Faeroe and Iceland, albeit
it with severe problems due to environmental damage on Iceland. The
Vikings arrived in Greenland, settled Greenland AD 984, where they
established a Norwegian pastoral economy, based particularly on
sheep, goats and cattle for producing dairy products, and then they
also hunted caribou and seal. Trade was important. The Vikings in
Greenland hunted walruses to trade walrus ivory to Norway because
walrus ivory was in demand in Europe for carving, since at that time
with the Arab conquest, elephant ivory was no longer available in
Europe. Vikings vanished in the 1400s. There were two settlements;
one of them disappeared around 1360 and the other sometime probably
a little after 1440. Everybody ended up dead.
The vanishing of Viking Greenland is instructive because it
involves all five of the factors that I mentioned, and also because
there’s a detailed, written record from Norway, a bit from Iceland
and just a few fragments from Greenland: a written record describing
what people were doing and describing what they were thinking. So we
know something about their motivation, which we don’t know for the
Anasazi and the Easter Islanders.
Of the five factors, first of all there was ecological damage due
to deforestation in this cold climate with a short growing season,
cutting turf, soil erosion. The deforestation was especially
expensive to the Norse Greenlanders because they required charcoal
in order to smelt iron to extract iron from bogs. Without iron,
except for what they could import in small quantities from Norway,
there were problems in getting iron tools like sickles. It got to be
a big problem when the Inuit, who had initially been absent in
Greenland, colonised Greenland and came into conflict with the
Norse. The Norse then had no military advantage over the Inuit. It
was not guns, germs and steel. The Norse of Greenland had no guns,
very little steel, and they didn’t have the nasty germs. They were
fighting with the Inuit on terms of equality, one people with stone
and wooden weapons against another.
So problem No.1, ecological damage, problem No.2, climate change.
The climate in Greenland got colder in the late 1300s and early
1400s as part of what’s called the Little Ice Age, cooling of the
North Atlantic. Hay production was a problem. Greenland was already
marginal because it’s high latitude short growing season, and as it
got colder, the growing season got even shorter, hay production got
less, and hay was the basis of Norse sustenance. Thirdly, the Norse
had military problems with their neighbours the Inuit. For example,
the only detailed example we have of an Inuit attack on the Norse is
that the Icelandic annals of the years 1379 say ‘In this year the
scralings (which is an old Norse word meaning wretches, the Norse
did not have a good attitude towards the Inuit), the wretches
attacked the Greenlanders and killed 18 men and captured a couple of
young men and women as slaves.’ Eighteen men doesn’t seem like a big
deal in this century of body counts of tens of millions of people,
but when you consider the population of Norse Greenland at the time,
probably about 4,000 people, 18 adult men stands in the same
proportion to the Norse population then as if some outsiders were to
come into the United States today and in one raid kill 1,700,000
adult male Americans. So that single raid by the Inuit did make a
big deal to the Norse, and that’s just the only raid that we know
about.
Fourthly, there was the cut-off of trade with Europe because of
increasing sea-ice, with a cold climate in the North Atlantic. The
ships from Norway gradually stopped coming. Also as the
Mediterranean reopened Europeans got access again to elephant ivory,
and they became less interested in the walrus ivory, so fewer ships
came to Greenland. And then finally cultural factors, the Norse were
derived from a Norwegian society that was identified with
pastoralism, and particularly valued calves. In Greenland it’s
easier to feed and take care of sheep and goats than calves, but
calves were prized in Greenland, so the Norse chiefs and bishops
were heavily invested in the status symbol of calves. The Norse,
because of their bad attitude towards the Inuit did not adopt useful
Inuit technology, so the Norse never adopted harpoons, hence they
couldn’t eat whales like the Inuit. They didn’t fish, incredibly,
while the Inuit were fishing. They didn’t have dog sleighs, they
didn’t have skin boats, they didn’t learn from the Inuit how to kill
seals at breeding holes in the winter. So the Norse were
conservative, had a bad attitude towards the Inuit, they built
churches and cathedrals, the remains of the Greenland cathedral is
still standing today at Gardar. It’s as big as the cathedral of
Iceland, and the stone churches, some of the three-stone churches in
Greenland are still standing. So this was a society that invested
heavily in their churches, in importing stained-glass windows and
bronze bells for the churches, when they could have been importing
more iron to trade to the Inuit, to get seals and whale meat in
exchange for the iron.
"Greenland then is particularly instructive
in showing us that collapse due to environmental reasons isn’t
inevitable. It depends upon what you do."
|
So there were cultural factors also while the Norse refused to
learn from the Inuit and refused to modify their own economy in a
way that would have permitted them to survive. And the result then
was that after 1440 the Norse were all dead, and the Inuit survived.
Greenland then is particularly instructive in showing us that
collapse due to environmental reasons isn’t inevitable. It depends
upon what you do. Here are two peoples and one did things that let
them survive, and the other things did not permit them to
survive.
There are a series of factors that make people more or less
likely to perceive environmental problems growing up around them.
One is misreading previous experience. The Greenlanders came from
Norway where there’s a relatively long growing season, so the
Greenlanders didn’t realise, based on their previous experience, how
fragile Greenland woodlands were going to be. The Greenlanders had
the difficulty of extracting a trend from noisy fluctuations; yes we
now know that there was a long-term cooling trend, but climate
fluctuates wildly up and down n Greenland from year to year; cold,
cold, warm, cold. So it was difficult for a long time perceive that
there was any long-term trend. That’s similar to the problems we
have today with recognising global warming. It’s only within the
last few years that even scientists have been able to convince
themselves that there is a global long-term warming trend. And while
scientists are convinced, the evidence is not yet enough to convince
many of our politicians.
Problem No. 3, short time scale of experience. In the Anasazi
area, droughts come back every 50 years, in Greenland it gets cold
every 500 years or so; those rare events are impossible to perceive
for humans with a life span of 40, 50, 70 years. They’re perceptible
today but we may not internalise them. For example, my friends in
the Tucson area. There was a big drought in Tucson about 40 years
ago. The city of Tucson almost over-draughted its water aquifers and
Tucson went briefly into a period of water conservation, but now
Tucson is back to building big developments and golf courses and so
Tucson will have trouble with the next drought.
Fourthly the Norse were disadvantaged by inappropriate cultural
values. They valued cows too highly just as modern Australians value
cows and sheep to a degree appropriate to Scotland but inappropriate
to modern Australia. And Australians now are seriously considering
whether to abandon sheep farming completely as inappropriate to the
Australian environment.
Finally, why would people perceive problems but still not solve
their own problems? A theme that emerges from Norse Greenland as
well as from other places, is insulation of the decision making
elite from the consequences of their actions. That is to say, in
societies where the elites do not suffer from the consequences of
their decisions, but can insulate themselves, the elite are more
likely to pursue their short-term interests, even though that may be
bad for the long-term interests of the society, including the
children of the elite themselves.
In the case of Norse Greenland, the chiefs and bishops were
eating beef from cows and venison and the lower classes were left to
eating seals and the elite were heavily invested in the walrus ivory
trade because of let them get their communion gear and their
Rhineland pottery and the other stuff that they wanted. Even though
in the long run, what was good for the chiefs in the short run was
bad for society. We can see those differing insulations of the elite
in the modern world today. Of all modern countries the one with by
far the highest level of environmental awareness is Holland. In
Holland, a higher percentage of people belong to environmental
organisations than anywhere else in the world. And the Dutch are
also a very democratic people. There are something like 42 political
parties but none of them ever comes remotely close to a majority,
but this which would be a recipe for chaos elsewhere, modern
Holland, the Dutch are very good for reaching decisions. And on my
last visit to Holland I asked my Dutch friends Why is it this high
level of environmental awareness in Holland? And they said, ‘Look
around. Most of us are living in Polders, in these lands that have
been drained, reclaimed from the sea, they’re below sea level and
they’re guided by the dykes’. In Holland everybody lives in the
Polders, whether you’re rich or poor. It’s not the case that the
rich people are living high up on the dykes and the poor people are
living down in the Polders. So when the dyke is breached or there’s
a flood, rich and poor people die alike. In particular in the North
Sea floods in Holland in the late ‘40s and ‘50s, when the North Sea
was swept by winds and tides 50 to 100 miles inland, all Dutch in
the path of the floods died whether they were rich or poor. So my
Dutch friends explained it to me that in Holland, rich people cannot
insulate themselves from consequences of their actions. They’re
living in the Polders and therefore there is not the clash between
their short-term interests and the long-term interests of everybody
else. The Dutch have had to learn to reach communal decisions.
Whereas in much of the rest of the world, rich people live in
gated communities and drink bottled water. That’s increasingly the
case in Los Angeles where I come from. So that wealthy people in
much of the world are insulated from the consequences of their
actions.
Well, finally then. I’ve talked mostly about the past. What about
the situation today? There are obvious differences between the
environmental problems that we face today and the environmental
problems in the past. Some of those differences are things that make
the situation for us today scarier than it was in the past. Today
there are far more people alive, packing far more potent per capita
destructive technology. Today there are 6-billion people chopping
down the forests with chains and bulldozers, whereas on Easter
Island there were 10,000 people with stone axes. Today, countries
like the Solomon Islands - wet, relatively robust environments,
where people lived without being able to deforest the islands for
32,000 years, within the past 15 years the Solomon Islands have been
almost totally deforested, leading to a civil war and collapse of
government within the last year or two.
Another big difference between today and the past is
globalisation. In the past, you could get solitary collapses. When
Easter Island society collapsed, nobody anywhere else in the world
knew about it, nobody was affected by it. The Easter Islanders
themselves, as they were collapsing, had no way of knowing that the
Anasazi had collapsed for similar reasons a few centuries before,
and that the Mycenaean Greeks had collapsed a couple of thousand
years before and that the dry areas of Hawaii were going downhill at
the same time. But today we turn on the television set and we see
the ecological damage in Somalia and Afghanistan, or Haiti, and we
pick up a book and we read about the ecological damage caused in the
past. So we have knowledge both in space and time, that ancient
peoples did not. Today we are not immune from anybody’s problems.
Again, if 20 years ago you would ask someone in strategic
assessments to mention a couple of countries in the world (in fact I
was in on such a conversation) completely irrelevant to American
interests. The two countries mentioned as most irrelevant to
American interests were two countries that are remote, poor,
landlocked, with no potential for causing the United States trouble:
Somalia and Afghanistan. Which illustrates that today anybody can
cause trouble for anybody else in the world. A collapse of a society
anywhere is a global issue, and conversely, anybody anywhere in the
world now has ways of reaching us. We used to think of globalisation
as a way that we send to them out there our good things, like the
Internet and Coca Cola, but particularly in the time since September
11th we’ve realised that globalisation also means that they can send
us their bad things like terrorists, cholera and uncontrollable
immigration. So those are things that are against us, but things
that are for us is that globalisation also means that exchange of
information and that information about the past, so we are the only
society in world history that has the ability to learn from all the
experiments being carried out elsewhere in the world today, and all
the experiments that have succeeded and failed in the past. And so
at least we have the choice of what we want to do about it. Thank
you.
Applause
Kirsten Garrett: That was Professor Jared
Diamond from UCLA, speaking at Princeton University earlier this
month. Then there were some questions from members of the
audience.
Man: The impression I get is that you are
talking about them primarily in relation to environmental factors,
you’re talking about an elite that becomes isolated, insular and
operates without being affected by the consequences of environmental
degradation. What about other cultural forces, such as the
development of political instability, civil wars, people who are low
down in the hierarchy that are challenging the order. And could it
be the societies simply over time devolve towards political
instability. What about other factors such as disease for example,
could they play a role as well?
"The single factor that is the best
predictor of the collapse of societies in the last couple of
decades is infant and child mortality."
|
Jared Diamond: Absolutely. In two minutes I did
not do justice to cultural factors. There’s a large literature on
causes of instability and civil wars and collapse of States and
civil unrest, and it turns out that you will go home and say Jared
Diamond has a list of eight explanations for everything. There are
eight variables that people have been able to identify: With risk of
civil war, for example there’s a data base of all cases of State
failures and civil wars and violent government transitions in the
last 30 years. People have mined this data base. Would anybody like
to guess what is the single factor that is the best predictor of the
collapse of societies in the last couple of decades? This is an
unfair question because it’s so surprising. The strongest predictor
is infant and child mortality. Countries that have had high infant
or child mortality are more likely to undergo State collapse, and
there are many links, including difficulties in the workforce, high
ratio of children to adults. But in brief, yes, there is a large
literature of other cultural factors that contribute to the collapse
of societies.
Woman: Talking about culture problems, is there
any correlation between the level of conservatism in a society and
the likelihood of it collapsing?
Jared Diamond: I don’t know. This is something
that we haven’t measured, we haven’t tried to measure. Interesting,
but I don’t know.
Kirsten Garrett: The next question was not
miced, so Professor Jared Diamond responded and restated it.
Jared Diamond: Interesting question. For those
of you who didn’t hear it: Do I think that today there’s more
reliance that technology will come and somehow save us, even though
we can’t specify how? Yes there certainly is, and many of my
friends, particularly in the technology sector don’t take
environmental problems so seriously. I’ll give you a specific
example. After ‘Guns, Germs and Steel’ was published, it was
reviewed by Bill Gates who liked it and gave it a favourable review,
and the result was that I had a two-hour discussion with Bill Gates,
who is a very thoughtful person, and he’s interested in lots of
things. He probes deeply and he has seriously considered positions
of his own. The subject turned to environmental issues and I
mentioned that that’s the thing that most concerned me for the
future of my children, Bill Gates has young children. He paused in
his thoughtful way and he said, not in a dismissing way, ‘I have the
feeling that technology will solve our environmental problems, but
what really concerns me is biological terrorism.’ Look that’s a
thoughtful response, but many people in the technology sector assume
that technology will solve our problems. I disagree with that for
two reasons.
One is that technology has created the explosion of modern
problems while also providing the potential for solving them. But
the first thing that happens is technology creates the problem and
then maybe later it solves it, so at best there’s a lag.
The second thing is that the lesson we’ve learned again and again
in the environmental area is it’s cheaper, much cheaper and more
efficacious to prevent a problem at the beginning than to solve it
by high technology later on. So it’s costing billions of dollars to
clean up the Hudson River, and it costs billions of dollars to clean
up Montana, it would cost a trivial amount to do it right in the
beginning. Therefore, I do not look to technology as our
saviour.
Michael Cook: Let us thank Professor Diamond
again.
Applause
Kirsten Garrett: Professor Jared Diamond of
UCLA, speaking at Princeton University earlier this month about what
we can learn from the collapse of ancient societies. Professor
Diamond won the Pulitzer Prize for his book, ‘Guns, Germs and Steel’
in 1997. His talk was edited for this broadcast, but the complete
speech is audio streamed on the Background Briefing website.
Co-ordinating Producer is Linda McGinness. I’m Kirsten Garrett
and you’re with ABC Radio National.
back
to the Background Briefing homepage |
|