"Collapse" by Jared Diamond

[El Koeno]

Yeah, we're using resources. Why is this relevant to what I've been saying?

Well, my main point is not that using resources is bad. The main point is that we're having a serious impact on the global ecosystem. This is relevant to what you're saying here, because if we manage to screw up the entire global ecosystem in such a way that our very own survivability is compromised we'll have nowhere else to go; we'll be just as helpless as those easter islanders.

Now, I have yet to see us screwing up the entire planet that bad (it can actually stand quite some abuse), without people realizing it and changing their behaviour, but in theory it is possible. And I guess saying: "Don't worry, party on and things will turn out for the best!" isn't excactly the way to make sure people actually do adapt.

 

[El_Machinae]

Most people don't realise that there's a problem until the problem is staring them in the face. With ecosystems, this usually means that the tipping point was reached quite awhile ago.

 

[aelf]

Why is a fact a mantra? If you cant get a simple point into yer head, I gotta keep repeating it until you actually address it, you dont ... as I'll show now.

Maybe because you have nothing else to say, yeah? I'll try again.

So what? So what? Thats my next mantra... Finite resources dont mean we aren't capable of living far beyond local environmental conditions. We're doing it now...

Did you not hear me say that the earth is ultimately a single locality? Sure, Lag Vegas can take resources from another place to support itself. But excess demand in one market has to be balanced by excess supply in another. When supply is generally running low (i.e. earth as a single locality is running low on resources), that might not be the case anymore, and we get trouble. That's why I said this is unsustainable, because we're using up more resources than we can find or create overall.

And those needs are being met much easier because of modern technology and trade. Past civilizations collapsing due to local environmental limitations didn't have our advantages and could not live far beyond local environmental conditions. You keep calling this a mantra but you keep ignoring it and arguing against yer conveniently idiotic strawmen.

Idiotic? You don't seem to get it at all. Sorry that I don't speak American and haven't been able to make it plain to you. Local civilizations will collapse as competition for limited resources intensify and more powerful civilizations will seek to dominate what's left. The future is not going to be one of trade if we go on this way, but one of competition and hoarding. Look at what the US is doing with oil, for example.

Oh, "pillaging" now means using resources? Nothing you've said refutes my "mantra". You're just telling me we're gonna run out of resources. Like I said we had infinite resources? No, I said modern technology and trade allows for civilizations to live far beyond their local environmental limits. Much moreso than past civilizations that collapsed because they lacked the trade/resources to overcome an environmental deficit. For all this "mantra" nonsense, you still dont know what I said.

I know exactly what you said, and I raised problems about it. This seems to escape you because you're just locked in your ostrich mindset.

Where did I say we have unlimited resources? Oh, I'm ignoring obvious "facts" - your facts aint relevant to what I said. Here's what I said:

Modern technology and trade allows civilizations to live far beyond the limits imposed by the local environment, luxuries many past civilizations lacked.

And yer response?

Resources are limited and being pillaged

boo hoo, the "pillaging" of those resources allow civilizations to live far beyond the local environmental limits. You even said it yerself, so what are you arguing about?

The fact that we don't have unlimited resources is the problem. If you're using up more than what you can find or create, you are merely pillaging, and the earth is being gradually stripped bare.

Just one cliche after the next.

Is that the best you can say? Cliche? I didn't know that coolness is a factor when considering what is right and wrong.

So what (even if true, desert cities dont develop resources?). Seriously, what are you arguing against? I said the movement of those resources allows desert cities to live far beyond their local environmental limits. You seem to disagree but then all you do is repeat my explanation as to why they live beyond those limits now. Yeah, trade allows people to live in more hostile environments. I know that, I said it already and you're just repeating it.

I'm arguing against living beyond our means. This probably means not having big expensive desert cities anymore, for one. The costs involved in transporting resources to supply such cities are simply not worth it.

Thats nice, and still irrelevant to what I said. Do you understand that? And whether or not we can create resources (the human mind is our greatest resource), the resources are there to be "pillaged". We dont have to create them, we have to create ways of exploiting them. Some day we'll be using the Sun much more for energy, even the wind.

If anyone is a dreamer, your like is. Do you seriously think that at this rate we will be able to change enough to avert a serious crisis? Look at the immense dragging of feet that is going on and the insanity for 'free trade'. You think all the ecological destruction and the using up of resources are not going to have serious consequences? You're delusional.

Not completely true. Earth is (nearly) closed system (we receive energy from the Sun and we send a tiny amount of our junk into space).
This means that we aren't really "stripping away Earth's resources". This stuff is still around. It can mostly be reused. Downfall of the mining industry, rise of the recycling industry.

EDIT: That does not mean we can't screw things up big time. The transition could be extremely painful (or not).

This:

That's not quite right. Soil erosion and desertification does destroy or at least reduce the fertility of farmland. Overfishing does reduce fish stocks to levels that can't be maintained and will not rebound without decades of suspension of fishing in large areas. Oil, once gone is gone. And metals, while in theory recyclable, some portion of it is always lost.

That said, it's not all doom and gloom. New resources can be found, old can be managed better, and substitutes can be developed.

Just to add, recycling also uses up a lot of energy, which has to come from somewhere.

It's not exactly going to be doom, but we will definitely be in for some pretty rough times, and many people will simply perish. Most people who are living in developed countries will probably survive, but at the price of being essentially robbers, taking away what's left from others by force.

While I don't fully agree with Aelf, you're not adressing his point: Las Vegas is indeed a good example of how we can overcome local challenges. However, human society has become so extensive and complex that what used to apply only to small scale locales (e.g. easter island), might now be applicable to the entire globe. We're not deforesting an island; we're having a significant impact on total amount of rainforest globally. We're not just threathening one species of fish in one place, we're threatening many, world wide. We're significantly affecting the composition of the global atmosphere.

Now it's all nice that Las Vegas can get its water from somewhere (there's no denying that large scale interbasin water transfers are unsustainibe by the way), but where are we going to get a new atmosphere? New tropical rainforests?

Your argument that technological progress might alleviate these problems still stand, and is very significant if you ask me. Trade however, is not going to solve many of the problems we're facing, and I think that might be what Aelf is trying to point out.

Yes. However, technological progress might not happen quickly enough. What technology would allow our lifestyles to drastically become more sustainable soon enough? As it is, we need a few more earths to sustain the current standards.

 

[El Koeno]

Yes. However, technological progress might not happen quickly enough. What technology would allow our lifestyles to drastically become more sustainable soon enough? As it is, we need a few more earths to sustain the current standards.

Well, already quite a bit is possible with current technologyy: Europe needs a lot less oil per unit of economic output than the US does for example.

And I guess there might be some debate over what is "soon enough". Really, I totally agree we've got to change. I haven't got a clue how fast we need to do it though. Or how drastic the change should be. What I do know is that internet forums aren't the place to find out.

 

[aelf]

Well, already quite a bit is possible with current technologyy: Europe needs a lot less oil per unit of economic output than the US does for example.

Yes, Europe does lead the way. As to whether enough is done, maybe in some parts of it. But looking at the UK, I can't say much

And I guess there might be some debate over what is "soon enough". Really, I totally agree we've got to change. I haven't got a clue how fast we need to do it though. Or how drastic the change should be. What I do know is that internet forums aren't the place to find out.

Of course. But there's plenty of material out there, including the limits to growth thesis that I brought up here. They should give you, at least, an idea of how drastic the change should be, if not actual projections.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm about half-way through, and I'm really enjoying the book. I find it fascinating how much scientific work has been done in fields I've never cared about before.

 

[Winner]

I have the audio version of the book, can anybody tell me how much is missing in it? Some important parts, perhaps?

 

[thomas.berubeg]

What about "the third chimpanzee," did anyone read this? ( I read it recently and liked it)

 

[Shaihulud]

Read it, was quite interesting, although I prefered his "Guns, Germs and metal". He never gave singular reason for the collapse for the societies. He gives a wide range of reasons both natural, cultural and technological that conspires to doom the society. For example, with the Norse Greenlanders, he never denied that the decreasing temperature made things difficult, that was one of the enviromental reasons. The reduction of pasturage for their cows, their inability to adapt to a changing enviroment. I think that he gives a reasonable explaination which I can accept.

 

[RedRalph]

What about "the third chimpanzee," did anyone read this? ( I read it recently and liked it)

I did, also recommoned "Why sex is fun" by him.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Did he write any more books? I've read GGS and Collapse and aren't particularly interested in Why is Sex Fun or the 3rd Chimpanzee, so I'm Diamondless.

 

[kulade]

I recently finished reading the Third Chimpanzee; I had already read GGS several years ago and I've skimmed Collapse in the bookstore. All in all, all of his books are somewhat redundant and end up saying similar things. Chimpanzee had a part at the end that was in essence a miniature copy of Collapse, and explained GGS's tilted axises concept and such and it even had a good four chapters concerning sex, I suppose akin to Why Sex is Fun. I'd probably just recommend Chimpanzee, all the rest is compacted in it, just without some of his elaboration.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

He should make a super-book. Combining all his books.