You are not making much sense. “Those kind of things” are very different.
States collapse (historically) often—e.g. Somalia. Systems of government collapse occasionally—e.g. USSR. None of these events are usually described as a “civilization collapse”.
I don’t know of any case of the collapse of a technological civilization. If you want to stretch the definition of “technological” you can find something in the BC eras, but that isn’t very relevant. And you still haven’t answered the question: what exactly will collapse? “Civilization” is a very handwavy answer.
I don’t know of any case of the collapse of a technological civilization. If you want to stretch the definition of “technological” you can find something in the BC eras, but that isn’t very relevant.
So what’s your definition of a “technological civilization”? Can you give another example of one? Otherwise this sounds like your arguing that you are immortal because no one exactly like you has ever died.
For example, lead and copper production create characteristic types of atmospheric pollution so we can get estimates for historical world production levels from Greenland ice cores. The resulting graph for lead shows two peaks, corresponding to ancient Rome and modern civilization. The graph for copper shows three peaks, the two for lead and also Song dynasty China. The peaks are surrounded by troughs, eg, world lead production wouldn’t return to Roman levels until the 18th century, so in that sense we can objectively say that technological civilizations have collapsed in the past.
So what’s your definition of a “technological civilization”?
For the purposes of this discussion I’ll define it as a civilization sufficiently advanced to be become global. The relevant point is that no local calamity will extinguish it, you need a planet-wide adverse event to collapse it. I think XVII century and later would count as such.
Dying out of local societies, cultures, cities, states, etc. has, of course, been a very common occurrence throughout history.
For the purposes of this discussion I’ll define it as a civilization sufficiently advanced to be become global. The relevant point is that no local calamity will extinguish it,
The problem is that the global nature of civilization can also cause calamities to become global.
The Roman Empire was more global than its predecessors but was still fallen mainly by internally generated calamities.
One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.
The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.
All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.
All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
I’m not sure what you are arguing here. I think there’s a large but vague concept of societal/civilization/technological collapse that people have in mind; something involving a dramatic reduction in living standards, technological regression, more simplified society, civil wars, etc… There’s also a bunch of partial examples, the older ones in that link, and more recent ones like China in the 1930s, Somalia more recently, Japan and Germany at the end of WW2, and a few others.
I’m pointing out that some common ideas about the features of these collapse seem to be wrong.
Now, if you want to give the idea a more thorough analysis, please do so! If you’re saying the concept is unclear, I agree. If you say it covers examples that don’t belong in the same category, then separate them. If you’re arguing that actually civilizations don’t/won’t collapse the way they used to—then that’s a view I have partial sympathy with, and would love to see proved or disproved.
I’m arguing that you’re thinking about fiction plots and, moreover, doing so in a fuzzy and not terribly coherent way. People do have a vague concept of a civilization collapse, but they also have vague concepts of aliens in flying saucers abducting humans and livestock.
None of your recent examples is called a collapse of a civilization and they do not match your “vague concept” anyway.
I’m pointing out that some common ideas about the features of these collapse seem to be wrong.
You’re vaguely waving your hand in the direction of a certain genre of fiction and declare that those people got it wrong. That seems silly on its face to me. Genre tropes are not “correct” or “wrong”.
If you are critiquing real analyses of potential aftermath scenarios, please link to them.
to give the idea a more thorough analysis
I don’t see any idea other than that you find dystopian tropes, ahem, unrealistic.
You could talk, instead, about much more specific scenarios. For example, defeat in a war (Germany, Japan). Or failure of the political structures (USSR). Or inability to maintain any sort of a centralized control (Somalia). They do not fit your “vague concept”, but they have a big advantage of having actually happened.
I’ll take a shot at it. What may collapse is the ability of any significant group of humans (say 100K+) to coordinate and to feel secure enough that they can specialize deeply enough to make digital watches.
Asteroid impact on scale of dinosaur killer. Super volcanic eruption. Regular eruption under Antarctic ice sheets or the middle of Greenland raise water levels by 10m. Total nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia.
I’m all of these cases actual societal collapse would be caused by sudden worldwide famine, not the disaster itself.
I do think you can find examples of societal breakdown in the recent past if you narrow yourself to consider local regions, such as various failed colonies, New Orleans in the days following Katrina, or Somalia or parts of Iraq.
Asteroid impact on scale of dinosaur killer. Super volcanic eruption. Regular eruption under Antarctic ice sheets or the middle of Greenland raise water levels by 10m. Total nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia.
As an aside, one of these is not like the others :-D
But sure, let’s consider an dinosaur killer. So what will happen? A lot of places will lose much of their population, either directly or because of famine. A great deal of land will become nearly empty of humans. But once the nuclear winter is over and the population stabilizes, humans will rebuild.
It might take a while to get back to microprocessor fabs, but the knowledge of e.g. how to make steel and electricity will not be lost. So what if the humanity will be thrown back to the tech level of Victorian England? That was merely a century and a bit ago.
There are lots of potential proximal causes. Root cause likely to be that humans aren’t well-suited for the level of peace and scale of cooperation that we’ve seen for the last few hundred years.
I was trying to get to something less handwavy. “Humans aren’t well-suited” isn’t it.
And anyway, your line of argument leads to the conclusion that we are just living constantly and permanently in the “post-collapse” state. Past the Golden Age, kicked out of the Garden of Eden, etc. etc.
Yeah, I can’t predict more concretely than that—the obvious paths are somewhat preventable/recoverable. My intended argument is that we’re not past the golden age, we’re in a golden age. It may be so golden that it’s the last one, or it may be just one of an very long series.
Indeed. After the collapse, things will be… typical, in many ways.
So we are talking about the collapse of what?
States, systems of government, current technological civilizations, those kind of things.
You are not making much sense. “Those kind of things” are very different.
States collapse (historically) often—e.g. Somalia. Systems of government collapse occasionally—e.g. USSR. None of these events are usually described as a “civilization collapse”.
I don’t know of any case of the collapse of a technological civilization. If you want to stretch the definition of “technological” you can find something in the BC eras, but that isn’t very relevant. And you still haven’t answered the question: what exactly will collapse? “Civilization” is a very handwavy answer.
So what’s your definition of a “technological civilization”? Can you give another example of one? Otherwise this sounds like your arguing that you are immortal because no one exactly like you has ever died.
For example, lead and copper production create characteristic types of atmospheric pollution so we can get estimates for historical world production levels from Greenland ice cores. The resulting graph for lead shows two peaks, corresponding to ancient Rome and modern civilization. The graph for copper shows three peaks, the two for lead and also Song dynasty China. The peaks are surrounded by troughs, eg, world lead production wouldn’t return to Roman levels until the 18th century, so in that sense we can objectively say that technological civilizations have collapsed in the past.
For the purposes of this discussion I’ll define it as a civilization sufficiently advanced to be become global. The relevant point is that no local calamity will extinguish it, you need a planet-wide adverse event to collapse it. I think XVII century and later would count as such.
Dying out of local societies, cultures, cities, states, etc. has, of course, been a very common occurrence throughout history.
The problem is that the global nature of civilization can also cause calamities to become global.
The Roman Empire was more global than its predecessors but was still fallen mainly by internally generated calamities.
Life is not static. All empires fall eventually.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_collapse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_collapse#Examples_of_civilizations_and_societies_that_have_collapsed
There is that sentence in the post you’re replying to:
I’m not sure what you are arguing here. I think there’s a large but vague concept of societal/civilization/technological collapse that people have in mind; something involving a dramatic reduction in living standards, technological regression, more simplified society, civil wars, etc… There’s also a bunch of partial examples, the older ones in that link, and more recent ones like China in the 1930s, Somalia more recently, Japan and Germany at the end of WW2, and a few others.
I’m pointing out that some common ideas about the features of these collapse seem to be wrong.
Now, if you want to give the idea a more thorough analysis, please do so! If you’re saying the concept is unclear, I agree. If you say it covers examples that don’t belong in the same category, then separate them. If you’re arguing that actually civilizations don’t/won’t collapse the way they used to—then that’s a view I have partial sympathy with, and would love to see proved or disproved.
Go ahead and un-wave my hand at this answer.
I’m arguing that you’re thinking about fiction plots and, moreover, doing so in a fuzzy and not terribly coherent way. People do have a vague concept of a civilization collapse, but they also have vague concepts of aliens in flying saucers abducting humans and livestock.
None of your recent examples is called a collapse of a civilization and they do not match your “vague concept” anyway.
You’re vaguely waving your hand in the direction of a certain genre of fiction and declare that those people got it wrong. That seems silly on its face to me. Genre tropes are not “correct” or “wrong”.
If you are critiquing real analyses of potential aftermath scenarios, please link to them.
I don’t see any idea other than that you find dystopian tropes, ahem, unrealistic.
You could talk, instead, about much more specific scenarios. For example, defeat in a war (Germany, Japan). Or failure of the political structures (USSR). Or inability to maintain any sort of a centralized control (Somalia). They do not fit your “vague concept”, but they have a big advantage of having actually happened.
I’ll take a shot at it. What may collapse is the ability of any significant group of humans (say 100K+) to coordinate and to feel secure enough that they can specialize deeply enough to make digital watches.
That’s a consequence. What is the cause?
Asteroid impact on scale of dinosaur killer. Super volcanic eruption. Regular eruption under Antarctic ice sheets or the middle of Greenland raise water levels by 10m. Total nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia.
I’m all of these cases actual societal collapse would be caused by sudden worldwide famine, not the disaster itself.
I do think you can find examples of societal breakdown in the recent past if you narrow yourself to consider local regions, such as various failed colonies, New Orleans in the days following Katrina, or Somalia or parts of Iraq.
As an aside, one of these is not like the others :-D
But sure, let’s consider an dinosaur killer. So what will happen? A lot of places will lose much of their population, either directly or because of famine. A great deal of land will become nearly empty of humans. But once the nuclear winter is over and the population stabilizes, humans will rebuild.
It might take a while to get back to microprocessor fabs, but the knowledge of e.g. how to make steel and electricity will not be lost. So what if the humanity will be thrown back to the tech level of Victorian England? That was merely a century and a bit ago.
Of course, we’re now in movie-plot land.
There are lots of potential proximal causes. Root cause likely to be that humans aren’t well-suited for the level of peace and scale of cooperation that we’ve seen for the last few hundred years.
I was trying to get to something less handwavy. “Humans aren’t well-suited” isn’t it.
And anyway, your line of argument leads to the conclusion that we are just living constantly and permanently in the “post-collapse” state. Past the Golden Age, kicked out of the Garden of Eden, etc. etc.
Yeah, I can’t predict more concretely than that—the obvious paths are somewhat preventable/recoverable. My intended argument is that we’re not past the golden age, we’re in a golden age. It may be so golden that it’s the last one, or it may be just one of an very long series.
Does that imply a coming collapse? Or can the ages get more and more golden?