Collapse

1. Societies collapse when environmental problems overwhelm them.

By collapse, I mean a drastic decrease in human population size and/or political/economic/social complexity, over a considerable area, for an extended time.

Environmental limits. Many past societies, from Easter Island to the Maya, reached peaks of population and complexity only to decline or vanish. This collapse often occurred because they inadvertently destroyed the environmental resources on which they depended. These resources include forests, soil, water, and wild food sources.

Ecocide. The process of unintended ecological suicide, or ecocide, involved practices like deforestation, soil erosion, salinization, water mismanagement, overhunting, and overfishing. As populations grew, they intensified resource use and expanded onto marginal lands, leading to environmental damage that the land could not sustain.

Consequences. The result was food shortages, starvation, and increased competition for dwindling resources. This often led to internal conflict, warfare, and the overthrow of ruling elites by disillusioned masses. Population numbers decreased drastically through death or emigration, and societies lost their political, economic, and cultural complexity.

2. Collapse is rarely simple, but an interaction of multiple factors.

I don't know of any case in which a society's collapse can be attributed solely to environmental damage: there are always other contributing factors.

Five-point framework. Understanding societal collapse requires considering multiple interacting factors, not just environmental damage alone. A useful framework includes:

• Environmental damage (self-inflicted)
• Climate change (natural or human-caused)
• Hostile neighbors
• Friendly trade partners (loss of support)
• Society's response to its problems

Interconnectedness. These factors often exacerbate each other. A society depleting its resources might survive a benign climate but be pushed over the edge by drought or cold. Weakened by environmental stress, a society becomes vulnerable to hostile neighbors or the loss of support from struggling trade partners.

Complex outcomes. Different societies collapse to different degrees and in different ways, depending on the specific combination and severity of these factors. Some societies, like the Soviet Union or ancient Carthage, collapsed primarily due to non-environmental reasons, demonstrating that environmental damage is not a universal cause of collapse.

3. Environmental fragility makes societies more vulnerable to collapse.

For Easter Island, more than for any other society discussed in this book, we can specify in detail the factors underlying environmental fragility.

Varying resilience. Environments differ greatly in their ability to withstand human impact and recover from damage. Fragile environments, like those on Easter Island or in Iceland, are more susceptible to degradation than robust ones.

Factors of fragility. Environmental fragility depends on several properties:

• Climate (dry, cold, or unpredictable climates hinder plant growth and recovery)
• Soil type (light, thin, or nutrient-poor soils erode easily and are slow to form)
• Geological activity (lack of recent volcanism or uplift means less soil renewal)
• Isolation (limits access to external resources for recovery)

Differential outcomes. Societies in fragile environments, even with similar levels of human impact, are more likely to suffer severe consequences than those in resilient environments. Easter Island's extreme deforestation was partly due to its uniquely fragile environment, while Iceland's struggles were linked to its sensitive volcanic soils.

4. Climate change is a recurring threat interacting with human impact.

It was neither factor taken alone, but the combination of environmental impact and climate change, that proved fatal.

Natural fluctuations. Climate has always varied naturally, becoming hotter or colder, wetter or drier, or more variable over time. Past societies, often without written records or long-term memory, were vulnerable to multi-decade climate shifts like droughts or cold periods.

Exacerbating existing problems. Climate change often acts as a stressor on societies already weakened by self-inflicted environmental damage. The Anasazi and Maya, for example, were already facing problems from deforestation and population growth when severe droughts hit, pushing them towards collapse.

Differential effects. Climate change can benefit one society while harming another, depending on their location and lifestyle. The Little Ice Age was detrimental to the Norse in Greenland but beneficial to the Inuit, who were better adapted to cold conditions and sea ice.

5. Relations with neighbors (trade and conflict) are crucial for survival.

Hence the risk arises that, if your trade partner becomes weakened for any reason (including environmental damage) and can no longer supply the essential import or the cultural tie, your own society may become weakened as a result.

Interdependence. Most societies are not isolated but interact with neighbors through trade and conflict. Dependence on friendly trade partners for essential resources or cultural ties creates vulnerability if those partners decline.

Loss of support. The collapse of Pitcairn and Henderson Islands was triggered by the environmental decline and subsequent inability of their trade partner, Mangareva, to continue providing essential imports like stone tools and food. Similarly, the decline of trade with Norway contributed to the demise of the Greenland Norse.

Hostile interactions. Societies weakened by environmental or climate problems become more susceptible to attacks from hostile neighbors. The fall of the Western Roman Empire, the Khmer Empire, and the Greenland Norse were all influenced by the actions of neighboring groups, whose success was often linked to the declining strength of the collapsing society.

6. A society's response to its problems determines its fate.

Different societies respond differently to similar problems.

Choice matters. Even when facing similar environmental challenges, societies make different decisions about how to respond. These responses are shaped by a society's political, economic, social, and cultural institutions and values.

Paths to success. Societies can succeed through different approaches:

• Bottom-up: Local communities manage resources based on shared knowledge and interests (e.g., New Guinea highlanders, Tikopia).
• Top-down: Centralized governments implement policies for the long-term good of the whole society (e.g., Tokugawa Japan, Inca Empire).

Failure to adapt. Societies that fail often cling to values or practices that are no longer appropriate for their changing circumstances. The Greenland Norse, for example, were reluctant to adopt Inuit technologies or change their lifestyle, contributing to their demise.

7. Societies fail to solve problems for predictable reasons.

How could a society fail to have seen the dangers that seem so clear to us in retrospect?

Multiple points of failure. Societies can fail to solve problems at several stages:

• Failure to anticipate: Lack of prior experience or forgetting past events.
• Failure to perceive: Problems are imperceptible, managers are distant, or slow trends are masked by fluctuations (creeping normalcy, landscape amnesia).
• Failure to try to solve: Rational conflicts of interest (tragedy of the commons, elite vs. masses) or irrational behavior (values, denial, groupthink).
• Failure to succeed: Problem is too difficult, solution is too expensive, or efforts are too little, too late.

Human nature. These failures stem from common human traits and organizational dynamics. Selfishness, short-term thinking, resistance to change, and psychological biases can prevent effective action even when problems are recognized.

Lessons from failure. Understanding why societies fail is crucial for increasing our chances of success. By identifying these common pitfalls, we can develop strategies to avoid them and improve group decision-making processes.

8. Rational and irrational behaviors drive disastrous decisions.

Contrary to what Joseph Tainter and almost anyone else would have expected, it turns out that societies often fail even to attempt to solve a problem once it has been perceived.

Rational bad behavior. Individuals or groups may act in ways harmful to others or society as a whole if they correctly perceive it as advancing their own interests. This "rational" behavior is common in business and politics, especially when profits are concentrated among a few while costs are diffused among many (perverse subsidies).

Irrational behavior. Societies also fail due to behavior harmful to everyone, often driven by deeply held values or psychological biases. Examples include:

• Clinging to values that no longer make sense (e.g., religious beliefs, traditional lifestyles).
• Sunk-cost effect (reluctance to abandon failed policies).
• Psychological denial (ignoring painful realities).
• Groupthink or crowd psychology (suppressing dissent for consensus).

Clash of interests. Failures often arise from conflicts between the short-term interests of decision-making elites and the long-term interests of the rest of society. Elites may be insulated from the consequences of their actions, leading them to prioritize personal gain over societal well-being.

9. Big businesses' environmental behavior is shaped by external pressures.

In the long run, it is the public, either directly or through its politicians, that has the power to make destructive environmental policies unprofitable and illegal, and to make sustainable environmental policies profitable.

Profit motive. Businesses are primarily driven by the need to make profits for their shareholders. While some environmental practices can be profitable (e.g., avoiding costly disasters, gaining competitive advantage), others are not, at least in the short term.

External forces. Businesses' environmental behavior is heavily influenced by external pressures:

• Government regulations and enforcement (e.g., coal mining vs. hardrock mining).
• Public opinion and consumer preferences (e.g., demand for sustainable timber/seafood).
• Actions of buyers in the supply chain (e.g., DuPont and Tiffany influencing mining practices).
• Employee morale and values.

Public responsibility. Ultimately, the public holds the power to influence business behavior by demanding better practices through purchasing choices, political action, and legal challenges. When the public tolerates destructive practices, businesses are more likely to engage in them.

10. Modern environmental problems are global, interconnected, and accelerating.

For the first time in history, we face the risk of a global decline.

Twelve problems. Modern societies face a dozen major environmental problems, eight inherited from the past and four new ones:

• Resource destruction/loss: Habitats, wild foods, biodiversity, soil.
• Resource ceilings: Energy, freshwater, photosynthetic capacity.
• Harmful outputs: Toxic chemicals, alien species, atmospheric changes.
• Population issues: Numbers, per-capita impact.

Interlinkages. These problems are deeply interconnected; population growth exacerbates all others, energy use contributes to atmospheric changes and pollution, and resource depletion increases competition and conflict. Solving one problem often depends on solving others.

Accelerating pace. Environmental degradation is accelerating due to rising population and per-capita impact. Many problems, like deforestation, fishery collapse, and fossil fuel depletion, have fuses of less than 50 years, threatening significant lifestyle changes within the current generation's lifetime.

11. Hope lies in recognizing problems and making courageous choices.

By reflecting deeply on causes of past failures, we too, like President Kennedy in 1961 and 1962, may be able to mend our ways and increase our chances for future success.

Not inevitable. Societal collapse is not predetermined. While environmental challenges exist, a society's fate depends on its choices and responses. Success stories like Tokugawa Japan and Tikopia demonstrate that sustainable practices are possible.

Learning from the past. Studying past failures and successes provides valuable lessons, but the modern context is unique due to globalization, advanced technology, and the scale of problems. We face global risks but also have unprecedented opportunities to learn from others.

Courageous leadership. Solving modern problems requires courageous leaders and publics willing to:

• Anticipate and perceive problems early.
• Prioritize long-term well-being over short-term gain.
• Re-evaluate core values that may no longer serve survival.
• Implement bold, effective solutions (top-down and bottom-up).

Empowerment. Recognizing the public's ultimate responsibility for shaping business and government behavior is empowering. By demanding sustainable practices and supporting courageous leaders, we can increase our chances of navigating the current challenges and building a sustainable future.