[onlooker]

A "progress trap" is the condition human societies experience when, in pursuing progress through human ingenuity, they inadvertently introduce problems they do not have the resources or political will to solve, for fear of short-term losses in status, stability or quality of life. This prevents further progress and sometimes leads to societal collapse.

It does seem so considering how pretty much every civilization in history has either decayed or collapsed. And how our current worldwide civilization seems on the brink of collapse. Thoughts?

[Newfie]

Maybe. I’m more along the lines of thinking we have very limited ability to imagine the future and effectively plan for it. We do OK up to be point where we need to do decade long planning. Those long term issues really only come up with advanced civilizations. We are essentially a beast from the savanah living in a city.

[Plantagenet]

Personally, I like civilization.

I like the fact I can get decent medical care and live better then kings lived 200 years ago. I like the internet and the instant access to news from around the world.

I especially like home refrigerators, air conditioning and ice cubes in my drinks.

Personally, after traveling all around the world and visiting more then a few hot and humid third-world s-hole countries, I think the real dividing line between civilized countries and places more towards the S-hole end of things is the availability of ice. When its 90° and humid and the streets are crammed full of sweaty people squeezing by each other in India, it would be nice to be able to retreat into a nice cool building with air conditioning and have an iced coffee or something. And sure, you can get that in the posh tourist hotels. But I usually travel zero star, and stay in cheap local hotels and eat in cheap local restaurants, and air conditioning and ice are no where to be seen. Or you can get ice, but its made by freezing the local polluted water, so you don't want it anyway.

Ice...the sine qua non of civilization.

[onlooker]

mockup-f7de20ca_300x300.png

Yes, indeed, it is all good in rich countries in the 20th and so far 21st century.
But, it will ALL end soon. So, I suppose live for today, the heck with tomorrow. The short term benefits of civilization undermining the longer term future

[Plantagenet]

Yes, indeed, it is all good in rich countries in the 20th and so far 21st century.
But, it will ALL end soon. So, I suppose live for today, the heck with tomorrow. The short term benefits of civilization undermining the longer term future

The question "Is Civilization a progress trap" implies that there is something innate in "civilization" that is a trap....i.e. that somehow civilization contains the seeds of own downfall in it.

While that may true for modern industrial civilization, it hasn't been true in the past. Most prior civilizations have collapsed due to outside pressure. For instance, the Incan and Aztec civilizations were destroyed by the Spanish. The Mayan civilization was destroyed by drought. Egyptian civilization was overthrown by the Roman and then the Islamic conquest. The Islamic civilization centered in Baghdad was destroyed by the Mongel hordes. The Romans were toppled by the Huns and the Goths. The Byzantines were destroyed by the Turkish Moslem hordes.

Modern industrial civilization is something new and unique. Our massive utilization of fossil fuels and the concomitant heating of the planet most likely will destroy the current civilization, and may even precipitate a global mass extinction event as well. But the problem isn't "civilization." The problem is the use of fossil fuels and the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It is quite possible to have civilization without fossil fuels.......unfortunately we've been cursed with a particularly incompetent set of world leaders recently, and they haven't take the necessary steps to adapt to the risk we are all facing.

IMHO its not civilizations fault---its Obama's fault, and Merkel's fault, and Putin's and Trump's fault, and Modi's fault, and especially the Chinese leader's fault, since they're the ones emitting most of the CO2, and its the fault of every other lying no good fraud politician who signed the Paris Accords and its the fault of all the lying scientists who won't tell their poltiical bosses the truth.

Its all those peoples fault. Civilization itself isn't to blame.

Cheers!

[yellowcanoe]

While that may true for modern industrial civilization, it hasn't been true in the past. Most prior civilizations have collapsed due to outside pressure. For instance, the Incan and Aztec civilizations were destroyed by the Spanish. The Mayan civilization was destroyed by drought. Egyptian civilization was overthrown by the Roman and then the Islamic conquest. The Islamic civilization centered in Baghdad was destroyed by the Mongel hordes. The Romans were toppled by the Huns and the Goths. The Byzantines were destroyed by the Turkish Moslem hordes.

In the case of the Incan and Aztec civilizations, the Spaniards had much more advanced military technology including horses (not at that time native to the Americas), guns and iron weapons and armour. These are clearly cases where a successful civilization suffered a catastrophic failure due to an invasion by a superior force. The fall of the Roman empire occurred after a long period of decline -- the invasion of the Huns was just the final act and not the cause of the end of the Roman empire. The Byzantine empire was also in decline before being defeated by the Moslem's. I think the more common situation is that an empire goes into decline and then becomes vulnerable to attack by a superior enemy.

[Plantagenet]

The fall of the Roman empire occurred after a long period of decline -- the invasion of the Huns was just the final act and not the cause of the end of the Roman empire.

Of course.

But the "long period of decline" also involved military defeat after military defeat and loss of province after province. After Rome had lost all its provinces, then military adversaries sacked Rome itself. Obviously the Huns didn't defeat Rome all by themselves....Rome suffered many different military defeats and sustained large territorial losses as the empire shrank. This was not an inevitable one way trip to collapse either----there were also periods when Rome retook areas that had been lost. But the long term decline of Rome clearly involved multiple military defeats and loss of territories before the final sack of Rome. And even then the empire reconstituted itself in Ravenna for a bit before before militarily destroyed for the final time.

Same thing with the Byzantines. Of course the day that Constantinople fell was not the whole story of the fall of the Byzantine Empire. First they had to loose Egypt and Syria, and all of Turkey and Greece and the Balkans to military conquest. Then when those territories were lost, Constaniple itself fell to conquerers.

The question that should be under discussion here is whether or not civilizations contain the seeds of their own destruction, i.e. there is some fatal flaw in civilization that leads to weakness and self-destruction, or whether civilizations are pretty stable until some outside force (climate change, military adversaries, etc.) cause the civilization to topple.

My point is simply that many civilizations clearly toppled not when some internal glitch caused the civilization to spontaneously collapse , but when they were defeated and destroyed by outside military conquest. Here's another example--- the Cathaginians had a nice little empire with an interesting civilization, but they were defeated and destroyed by Rome. I suppose you could argue the Cathaginians had some deep moral flaw that didn't allow them to defeat Rome, but more likely it was just the superior military capabilities of Rome that defeated Carthage.


The Romans totally destroyed Carthage and its civilization. They killed and enslaved everyone in the city and they even salted the fields so nothing could grow there.

Cheers!

[Newfie]

Putting the historic context aside, THIS civilization seem to be more or less world wide, global. External powers won’t take us down because there is no “outside.”

Yet we will fall, from some internal fault.

plant, it seems that your answer is right there, at least for THIS civilization.

[onlooker]

Well, I think we can agree about certain common traits of most civilizations
- they develop currency economies.
-they tend to expand
-they tend to become militaristic
-they tend to have a hierachy power structure.

Okay, so whether via military defeats, economic collapse, environmental overshoot and depletion, they all seem to contain these seeds of their own destruction. And when you look at civilizations you are looking at the long continuous line of Civilization leading up to our world civilization. Our civilization incorporates all these above mentioned traits and is now in dire danger of total collapse from environmental and population pressures due to this expansionist trend. We have expanded now to beyond the limits that Earth can tolerate. Of course Kaiser would say it is just our primate instincts. Well, then humans contain the seeds of their own destruction

[Plantagenet]

whether via military defeats, economic collapse, environmental overshoot and depletion, they all seem to contain these seeds of their own destruction.

I don't see that. Being conquered by a foreign power or multiple powers is not due to any innate flaw in the civilization. All it means is that a neighbor or a combination of neighbors have superior military force.

Our civilization... is now in dire danger of total collapse from environmental and population pressures due to this expansionist trend. We have expanded now to beyond the limits that Earth can tolerate.

No prior civilization had the capability to change the climate of the entire planet. This is something new. I don't think there is much to learn about our situation by comparing it to past situations because no prior civilization has ever been in the same situation.

Not only do we face the collapse of our civilization, but we face the collapse of the entire planet's ecosystems.

And its not some mysterious military force over the horizon thats going to do us in....climate change is entirely our fault and we know exactly what we have to do to save ourselves.

But we're not doing what we have to do to save ourselves.

I suppose our "leaders" are waiting for some kind of climate catastrophe that is so big that it can't be explained away before taking real action. But by then it may be too late to stop runaway climate change.

humans contain the seeds of their own destruction

Thats a fatalistic way to look at things. I'm not convinced of it. I think it is inevitable that humans will eventually try to do something about climate change instead of just pretending to do something. All it will take is one leader to take the lead, and perhaps we can ditch the phony Paris Accords and get the UNFCC going again on a real treaty to reduce GHG emissions. I'm not exactly hopeful about it, but I think its worth the effort.

Cheers!

[onlooker]

Replying to your points Plant. The military defeats were the result of an expansionist agenda which put that particular civilization or empire into conflict with an other or others. The second point about our unique capability to alter the climate is just a matter of degree. Prior civilizations also overextended themselves and overshot their environmental carrying capacity. And finally, the fatalistic description is I think subjective. Objectively, the fact is that numerous decisions of greater or lesser import have led us to this most perilous situation as a species. To say we as humans contain the seeds of our own destruction is actually saying that our rashness, myopic focus, lack of caution, hubris, ignorance, greed etc are characteristics that are implicated in arriving at this juncture. So, it is not saying that it was some preordained outcome, but that our own limited faculties and lack of control of said faculties has played a role in shaping our destiny. So in that sense we have carried the seeds of our own demise. In fairness, we also even at this late stage may carry also the seeds to extricate ourselves from total disaster.

[Plantagenet]

The military defeats were the result of an expansionist agenda which put that particular civilization or empire into conflict with an other or others.

Yup. I agree 100%. The reason Rome was so wealthy is that for hundreds of years they defeated other polities and stole all their stuff and then expanded by extending Roman control over the new territories. It was an intentional policy. The Aztecs and Incas and the Spainiards and the Brits operated pretty much the same way.

There can be great trading empires.....the Phoenicians and the Venetians did some conquering, but a whole lot more trading.....but trading empires can turn into expansionist empires too.

...the fatalistic description is I think subjective..... To say we as humans contain the seeds of our own destruction is actually saying that our rashness, myopic focus, lack of caution, hubris, ignorance, greed etc are characteristics that are implicated in arriving at this juncture. So, it is not saying that it was some preordained outcome, but that our own limited faculties and lack of control of said faculties has played a role in shaping our destiny. So in that sense we have carried the seeds of our own demise.

No doubt much of humanity is a festering cesspool.

However, every so often humanity produces some truly remarkable people .... prophets and philosophers like Socrates and Jesus......military geniuses like Alexander the Great and Julius Caeser......scientists and engineers inventors like Einstein and James Watt.....and great political visionaries and leaders like Winston Churchill and Thomas Jefferson and Ghandi.

What we need now is a great political leader who sees the danger ahead from climate change. If Winston Churchill can inspire the Brits to fight against the Nazis, and Jefferson could teach Americans the meaning of liberty, and Ghandi would mobilize India to throw off foreign domination, there is no reason why some great leader can't rouse the world to fight climate change, since there is a fair chance it will wipe out modern industrial civilization if we don't get moving to counteract it.

In fairness, we also even at this late stage may carry also the seeds to extricate ourselves from total disaster.

At least its worth a try.

HAVE A GREAT DAY, Onlooker. thanks for the very interesting thoughts and ideas expressed in this thread. I appreciate you starting this interesting thread, and your intelligent presentation of your opinions on these subjects.

Cheers!

[onlooker]

Thanks Plant, I also hope you get to go soon on one of your interesting trips. Don't stay too long in this doomstead diner, it can become a bit depressing. haha. I should follow my own advice

[Tanada]

History Poverty Heinlein.jpg

[Tanada]

Plantagenet, while it is true ours is the first civilization that has the capacity to alter the global environment/climate as a whole it is also quite evident that many earlier civilizations altered the local environment to the point that they contributed to the fragility of their own civilizations. While the oft cited Easter Island collapse has been debunked as being mostly the result of colonialist policies of enslaving, exterminating and replacing the natives ultimately with sheep other examples abound.

For example the population of the ancient city of Ephesus in Asia Minor was a hugely successful trading port on the coast of the eastern Mediterranean where their local river flowed into the harbor providing fresh water sought by sailors and farmers and easy access to trading networks. however over a period of some 300 years the intensive clear cut style of logging in the mountains where the river started and was available to wash the logs down to the city for processing combined with poor farming practices lead to a great deal of silt being added to the river. Over about three centuries the silt gradually filled in their excellent harbor putting the ancient city further and further from the shore and creating a swampland that hosted mosquitoes that prospered along with the Malarial parasites and other disease vectors.

Along the same lines the Italian city of Pisa was actually a lot like Venice during its early history, but in their case when the slit coming down the river filled in the harbor their solution was to add more dirt on top to create landfill property. Eventually the famous Tower of Pisa was built on the fill which meant they should have driven pilings down to bedrock to create a stable foundation. They didn't do this properly and over the last 500 years the tower has gradually acquired a greater and greater tilt. If nothing is done to create permanent stability eventually the center of mass will be far enough over that the tower will drop onto its side catastrophically.

Ultimately it is the laziness of not thinking problems all the way through or understanding the problem will not be severe until three or more generations in the future that leads people to continually make terrible decisions. Most people have kids and ultimately grand-kids that they want to succeed, but they have a hard time relating to generations further out in time so if their actions don't much hurt their kids and grand kids they don't pay much attention. Their great-great-great-great-great-grand kids 300 years from now? Those people are strangers who have to look out for their own interests when the time comes. As a result I can tell myself that 'driving my truck doesn't actually hurt anyone I know' or 'flying three times a year for a Caribbean vacation is harmless' even though mathematically I know all those CO2 emissions cause a lasting impact on the environment, but a slow gradual impact I can pretend not to notice.

The other day when I was looking up the zone shift maps for the climate zone thread I showed a couple of them to my spouse and we reminisced how 40+ years ago our families would have to get all the fall leaves raked up by Halloween and we had a 50/50 chance of heavy enough snow on thanksgiving for the traditional first snowball fight of the year. Oh and a White Christmas week was nearly guaranteed. Now 40-50-60 years later the climate zones have shifted hundreds of miles north. The fall colors no longer peak in early October they now peak in mid November, roughly 5 weeks later. If we get any snow on Thanksgiving it is just a dusting and it melts as it hits the still warm soil without accumulating. White Christmas is now about 50-50 and sometimes in the last decade we have actually had RAIN for Christmas because temperatures have been in the upper thirties F instead of mid twenties. We have also suffered a period of about 6 weeks back in both 2013 and 2014 when the Arctic Express drove night time lows in February and January into the -5F range every night because the polar jet stream is now so weak and messed up it no longer prevents such things. Make no mistake when we were kids -5F on a cold winter night was normal weather, but now it is so rare that its return was a major news event.

So yes, while the Vikings didn't alter the world climate they did alter the environment of Greenland to an extent when they built farms and ranches on pristine forested valleys and the Romans caused the destruction of Ephesus and caused the transition of Pisa from a port on a harbor into being a coastal city. 19th century Americans used surplus ships in San Fransisco harbor to create submerged erosion obstacles that allowed land fill in the harbor to be semi-stable and strong enough to support light wood frame housing. Over the last 50 years a number of those sunken ships have been accidentally rediscovered during utility excavation projects. Straightening and flood control on the Mississippi has reduced silt deposits so much that the southern coast of Louisiana is migrating north as the sea washes the earlier deposits away with every storm or tidal surge.

All of these acts of foolish short sighted humans cause problems for later generations, but that is human nature. I don't doubt for a moment the wood merchants and ship builders in Ephesus would have reacted with a shrug if anyone had told them their activities would make the city die in a few centuries. Even now the Army Corp of Engineers knows they should remove many of the levees they built and allow the Mississippi to flood every year, but for political reasons they will not do so. We also know without a doubt that Miami, Florida is doomed after a fashion by sea level rise, but instead of encouraging people to move to higher ground now while it is cheaper and easier we encourage them to stay by subsidizing beach restoration and rebuilding projects for things destroyed in storm events. The same is true to a lesser extent in Virginia Beach and Norfolk where the ancient crater rim from an impact event is gradually subsiding even as sea levels rise creating a double rate effect in SLR.

So is 'Progress' a trap? Well when you try and take it to extreme levels you naturally run into the law of diminishing returns. We start bay carrying an object in our had and progress to using a pole to balance a load, then building a pack like arrangement and finally a travois which allow a single person to go from carrying a pair of small objects to dragging a fairly heavy object. Each piece of 'progress' made life better for the person moving stuff from spot A to spot B. We went on from there to the point where we have now launched so many objects into Low Earth Orbit that we are on the edge of or in the beginning stages of a Kessler Syndrome that will make space unusable for humans for several centuries until natural forces clear out all our junk for us. This problem was discovered in the mid 1970's and mathematically modeled. In the 43 years since then the number of pieces of space junk in Low Earth Orbit has multiplied exponentially and humans have done nearly zero in terms of cleaning up after ourselves. If we ever get into an active war where various nations engage in anti-satellite attacks the amount of LEO space junk will multiply enormously inside of a few weeks most likely making all Space Stations too dangerous to live on. The major space powers all know ways to help this problem and they all also have tested weapons for making the problem about a million times worse. Which way do you think 'Progress' will actually lead us, cleaning up our current mess or shooting at each other and greatly enhancing the problem?