To be honest, I don't don't think the difference between our positions is all that significant, particularly with regard to the more general message that may be learned from studies of Polynesian peoples, other complex societies, or indeed, ecology in general. That being, that should we proceed upon our present path, a die-off of some sort becomes at some point inevitable.
And it may not have been a resource crunch.
Yes, yes, most certainly. Having an ethic that is concordant with nature does not provide sufficient evidence that a resource crunch has occurred, and never could. I'm just suggesting that it may constitute indirect, circumstancial evidence to support the notion. I think it becomes harder to explain the adaptive function of those 'harmonious with nature' ethics in the absence of extreme resource pressure.
I think all the races on Earth have experienced serious resource strife in the past. It's been a dominant effect on our evolution, physical and cultural. The current period of relative plenty is what's odd.
Very much so. Considering the adaptive function of various ethics, you might then propose, as a general heuristic, that pro-growth ethics should be more prevalent in cultures who have been devoid of resource constraint for a long time, whilst pro-sustainability ethics should be more prevalent in cultures who have experienced harsh resource constraint in the relatively recent past.
But did they? Polynesians generally divided up islands into chiefdoms, and you didn't have free reign to go wherever you wanted. It was a complex society, and life in complex societies is often constrained. Indeed, the statues seem to be evidence of an "arms race" of sorts, between vying chiefdoms. They may have hidden their resources, just as the Saudis are hiding theirs.
All things are possible, but are they likely? In any event, one imagines a relative freedom in shipping around the island, allowing for at least a cursory appraisal.
I think that's arguable.
true...
but let's not.
I don't think that makes a difference. Most people can't really grasp numbers that large, anyway. Moreover, I think the main issue is not the scope of the problem, but simple human denial. Which seems to be somewhat hard-coded into us. Healthy humans tend to be over-optimistic. We believe we have more control over our lives than we actually do. The only realists among us are the clinically depressed.
I don't dispute the tendancy for humans to self delude, but I do think that the phrase "hard-wired into us" is too often used to betray the complexity of our self-delusion capacity. We do not self-delude at all times or an equal amount in all things. Rather, I am suggesting here that by increasing the order of magnitude of the numbers several times, the capacity for someone to self-delude could only increase, even if that increase would turn out to be insignificant under inspection. Presumably, you refer to the theory of depressive realism? As I understand it, this theory was popular for a time, but later experiments have failed to replicate the expected findings, and have brought the theory into question. Somewhat ironically, I suggest that the theory of depressive realism may be an example of the abilty of humans to self-delude. . .
While in my view, all the information in the world isn't going to help.
Ok. It all depends what you mean by information. Should you believe that action is related to belief, and that beliefs are a kind of information, then you might consider information of some kind to be a sufficient cause for action. With the appropriate action, at the appropriate time, a crisis caused by resource depletion becomes avertible.
Now, while I'll accept in advance the criticism that the above is tautological, this is exactly what I meant when I described resource depletion as an challenge to ignorance. Had the Club of Rome been able to overcome the tendancy for people to self-delude, and managed to propagate the beliefs they held successfully in the 1970's, successful management of a transition to a sustainable society may have been possible.
Further, if the Lynch mob are correct, and peak oil doesn't occur for another, say, 25 years, this means that we might still be able to avert most of an uncontrolled die-off by urgently changing course today [For the record, I don't believe the 25 years figure is remotely likely, but it must be at least possible]. However, just as universal acceptance of the urgency of resource depletion eluded the Club of Romers, the same challenge presents itself today. Perhaps I would have been more precise had I said that peak oil represents a challenge to the timely overcoming of ignorance. Because ignorance will be overcome. It is just that I expect it will be too late.
So I guess the main point of disagreement here is how much we know about past collapses. I don't think the evidence of complex societies is easily destroyed. Ordinary Americans may not know much about them, but that's more a reflection of our U.S.-oriented education system than of scientific evidence.
You are probably right here. What I've been trying to argue is a precautionary stance against a negative bias, and against an overconfidence in the certainty of the outcome. If you can't say anything nice, then don't say anything at all, as my mother used to say. So what I will say, in lieu of anything more definite (or nice), is that it still may be possible to avoid catastrophe.