Jared Diamond on Collapsing Civilizations

[renata]

There are 6 LA Skeptics?


Or is that just for the lunch/dinner portion?

How well attended are these events?

I'm not particularly interested in this one, as I heard enough over the radio. But I would be interested in future events, I'm sure.


Sorry to off-topic this.

I will PM you so we do not derail the thread. There are thousands of LA Skeptics, but I meant lunch is for LA JREFers, there are about 4-6 of us active ones, who show up. The lectures themselves vary, but I think the hall holds 400-500 people. Sometimes they are sold out, more often than not they are very full. The dinners afterwords are for members of the Skeptic Society, and are attended usually by 40-50 people.

 

[Eleatic Stranger]

SA is far from being considered third world.

I think, technically, it still is a third world country. As I vaguely recall, the first world/third world distinction isn't really one with a lot of useful gradations in there. South Africa is far from being as badly off as most of the rest of Africa, though, despite having some serious problems (AIDS).

 

[Khalid01]

He's speaking at a Skeptic's society meeting in Pasadena sunday.

I heard him on the radio today.

Interesting. But not fascinating.

He has history lessons, but not easy enough to apply it to modern life.

Oh, how I would enjoy attending that lecture, especially with other JREFers. Alas, I'm moving into my school's (UCI's) dormatories this week and transportation would be too much of a hassle for my father.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

There are 6 LA Skeptics?

It's LA - I'm suprised there are even 6!

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I think, technically, it still is a third world country. As I vaguely recall, the first world/third world distinction isn't really one with a lot of useful gradations in there. South Africa is far from being as badly off as most of the rest of Africa, though, despite having some serious problems (AIDS).

Are there Second World countries? I don't think I've ever heard that term.

 

[Cain]

Are there Second World countries? I don't think I've ever heard that term.

Historically the "First World" referred to "capitalist" countries and the "Second World" designated "communist" countries. The Third World, where proxy battles were fought did not fall into either category. There's even a Fourth World for stateless people (Palestinians, Kurds).

Most of this terminology is falling into disuse, however, since the end of the Cold War (also, some people contend "Third World" has a racist connotation).

 

[CBL4]

Jared's article is far from convincing that it will affect the US. It sounds like a silly device to make his book more popular.

He gives 5 reasons for collapses:

When it comes to historical collapses, five groups of interacting factors have been especially important: the damage that people have inflicted on their environment; climate change; enemies; changes in friendly trading partners; and the society's political, economic and social responses to these shifts.

1) Environmental - In the examples he gives the environment damages cause starvation. We are fatter then ever.
2) Climate change - He talks about collapses in marginal environments causing food problems. We have a diverse environment and fat people.
3) Enemies - Our enemies are relatively weak compared to Nazi Germany and the USSR.
4) Changes in friendly trading - Global trade is freer than ever and steadily increasing.
5) Economic and Social Response - No need to respond to non problems.

CBL

 

[AWPrime]

1) Environmental - In the examples he gives the environment damages cause starvation. We are fatter then ever.
2) Climate change - He talks about collapses in marginal environments causing food problems. We have a diverse environment and fat people.
3) Enemies - Our enemies are relatively weak compared to Nazi Germany and the USSR.
4) Changes in friendly trading - Global trade is freer than ever and steadily increasing.
5) Economic and Social Response - No need to respond to non problems.

CBL

1) For how long?
2) I am getting the image that your not really taking care of your climate
3) And are increasing in number.
4) For how long?
5) Just wait.......


See the movie: End of Suburbia

 

[Eleatic Stranger]

It's already been pointed out somewhat, but I'll repeat it a little. Certainly none of those conditions obtain this very instant, but that doesn't mean his thesis is bunk - it just means that our civilization is not, at this moment, experiencing the final stages of collapse. And that shouldn't exactly be too controversial of a point -- if he was trying to argue that our civilization was experiencing a catastrophic collapse right this minute then, yes, that would probably be wrong (and silly). But he isn't arguing that - he's pointing out that conditions are such that there's a substantial chance of any number of those conditions obtaining in the near future.

 

[Silicon]

See the movie: End of Suburbia

You can set your watch by the references to Peak Oil with the doomsday crowd.


peak oil.....PEAK OILLLLLLLL!!!!!!!! Wooooooooooooo!




Ah, remember the good old days when it was overpopulation that was going to kill us all. Or the bomb? Or the coming race/class wars? Or the economic collapse because we stopped using gold-backed currency? Hell, remember when it was Y2K that would ignite some kind of suburban resource warfare, where everyone was armed to protect their household stash of gasoline and cans of dinty moore's beef stew?


Head for the HILLS!!! ITS PEAK OIL!!!!!! AHHHHHHHH!

 

[CBL4]

AWPrime,

"For how long?" may seem like a legitimate comment but if we are heading for a collapse, we should see how we are doing.

We are much healthier and better fed than ever before and there is no evidence of a counter trend. Our air and water are much, much cleaner than they were 40 years ago. Our enemies may be increasing in number but they are pipsqueaks compared to our enemies of 20 or 60 years ago. World trade has skyrocketed.

The trends have increase so dramatically for the good that even if you predict a fall in some or all the above, it would be absurd to think it means collapse. Here is one example where I can give hard numbers. World trade increased 17 fold between 1947 and 1998. http://www.iccwbo.org/home/case_for_the_global_economy/world_trade_drives_growth.asp
So if we assume a massive trade crisis which causes a 50% drop in trade, world trade would still be 8.5 times as great as in 1947. We were strong then and with 8.5 times more trade, it would be absurd to think we are facing a collapse because of trade.

CBL

 

[AWPrime]

The countertrend is the collapse.

Our world runs on finite resources, there will come a day where we will be unable to grow do to a lack of resources.

When that happens we will either see a slow decline or a total ^$&*!

It will depend on humanity's ability to adapt to reducing resources.

 

[Darat]

The countertrend is the collapse.

Our world runs on finite resources, there will come a day where we will be unable to grow do to a lack of resources.

When that happens we will either see a slow decline or a total ^$&*!

It will depend on humanity's ability to adapt to reducing resources.

Technically I suppose you are right (given our current theories of what will eventually happen in the universe).

However as long as we can obtain energy from somewhere we should be fine.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

If the separation between the rich and poor grows too big a stable system effectively ends. Everyone can see this looking at the third world. The third world has two classes, the very rich and the very poor. There's no middle joining them.

and so on

Yet historically some very long lasting (e.g. centuries and thousands of years) societies have had as extreme separation of the rich and poor as I can imagine (e.g. Egyptian, Chinese, and Japanese).

Aren’t "middle classes" a relatively recent phenomenon?

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by AWPrime
The countertrend is the collapse.

Clearly we do not go from increasing good to collapse. There has to be a time of (perhaps not so obvious) decline first. If you have evidence of this, please let me know.

Our world runs on finite resources, there will come a day where we will be unable to grow do to a lack of resources. When that happens we will either see a slow decline or a total ^$&*!

This would be true assuming there were no substitutes around. If we start running out of oil, we can use oil shale, alcohol, bioengineered plastics, coal, uranium, etc. If we have freeze in Florida that kills the oranges, the price of oranges go up and people eat more apples and bananas.

The fact is that all natural resources are cheaper than they were 20 year ago (inflation adjusted.) The means we have a greater supply relative to demand for everything.

CBL

 

[AWPrime]

Clearly we do not go from increasing good to collapse. There has to be a time of (perhaps not so obvious) decline first. If you have evidence of this, please let me know.

This is like saying the road is only dangerous if you crash.

This would be true assuming there were no substitutes around. If we start running out of oil, we can use oil shale, alcohol, bioengineered plastics, coal, uranium, etc.

They give less netto energy and are more expensive. And that still supports that there will come a decline.

The fact is that all natural resources are cheaper than they were 20 year ago (inflation adjusted.) The means we have a greater supply relative to demand for everything.

Have you ever wondered they they are cheaper?

 

[CBL4]

[/quote]They give less netto energy and are more expensive. And that still supports that there will come a decline.
Have you ever wondered they they are cheaper?

They, currently, are more expensive than oil is now. However they are getting cheaper and oil is getting cheaper as well. Are they more expensive than oil was 20 years ago? In 20 years will they be more expensive than oil is now? The reality is that we have an superabundance of everything we need. Everything can be replaced with a similar item that is currently more expensive or less desirable.

I know exactly why things get cheaper. Human beings are marvelously inventive creatures when there is profit to be made. Our technology advances at an incredible rate. This is why things get steadily cheaper regardless of shortages. When something appears as if might be running in short supply, there is tons of money to be made and tons of research done on replacing it or using it more effficiently.

All raw materials are getting cheaper. That means we are getting better at growing, extracting, producing everything. Long term shortages and overpopulation are myths that make great SF books and lousy predictions.

CBL

 

[Eleatic Stranger]

Clearly we do not go from increasing good to collapse. There has to be a time of (perhaps not so obvious) decline first.

Um, do you have any particular reason to say this? I'm asking because this thread started out with the following quote by Jared Diamond who probably, I would generally assume, has more knowledge of history than most people...

History warns us that when once-powerful societies collapse, they tend to do so quickly and unexpectedly....

 

[AWPrime]

However they are getting cheaper and oil is getting cheaper as well.

From what do you make that conclusion?

 

[Theodore Kurita]

Yet historically some very long lasting (e.g. centuries and thousands of years) societies have had as extreme separation of the rich and poor as I can imagine (e.g. Egyptian, Chinese, and Japanese).

Aren’t "middle classes" a relatively recent phenomenon?

Middle Classes have only started to emerge within the past 1000 years. So historically speaking, they are relatively knew. In the middle ages the middle class was the merchant class, that was the way it remained for a very long time.

We only started to see a distinction between the merchant class, and what I call the new middle class, which consists of industrial workers, and service workers, within the past 150 - 200 years.