Tim Hicks
In Collapse, Jared Diamond argues that the past has some important lessons to teach contemporary society. He maintains that, throughout history, a society’s relationship with its environment has been crucial in determining its fate. Diamonds reason for focusing on this relationship and society’s active role goes beyond historical curiosity. It seems to me that Diamond captures Collapse’s raison d'être in a serial publication that forms the basis for one of its chapters. The aim is 'to become more consciously aware of how others have failed, and of what we need to do in order to get it right' (Diamond, 2003). Diamond is an environmentalist, however, he does not subscribe to 'deep ecology'. Further, though he makes use of Marxist, Malthusian and even neo-liberal analysis he generally avoids their political conclusions. He writes from his scientific background and logical positivism characterises Collapse. While in a sense this creates objectivity, he potentially faces criticism for failing to consider individual suffering and morality. While he could also be criticised for failing to offer alternatives, this does nothing to invalidate his argument. Furthermore, Diamond does contribute through the lucid framework he creates from the more detailed research throughout social and ecological sciences.
Firstly, let me sketch Diamond’s argument. He begins by proposing that some combination of five factors, 'environmental components…climate change…hostile neighbours…trade partners…societal responses' (Diamond, 2005, 15), are behind all historical collapses. However, as he progresses, he focuses increasingly on factors one, two and five; the others become corollary themes. The foundation of Diamond’s argument is his case studies. Through these, he establishes that the problems facing the contemporary world had historical precursors. In some cases, multiple societies shared the same environment and through these he illustrates society’s role in determining its own fate (see Ch8 and Ch11). The potency of his approach is illustrated when he wonders how the Easter Islanders justified cutting down the last tree, provocatively responds with lines like 'jobs, not trees', 'we will find substitutes for wood' and 'technology will save us' (Diamond, 2005, 114). Diamond then details why he thinks societies make decisions like cutting down the last tree. In broad terms, they may fail to: anticipate, perceive, try to solve or succeed in solving the problem (see Chapter 14).
Diamond’s theoretical foundations provide a useful segue into his social analysis. Malthusian ideas shape much of his writing. For example, he argues that initially favourable conditions lead to growth that inevitably proves environmentally unsustainable (Diamond, 2005, 384-5). Employing a materialist approach, he notes that when conditions do deteriorate, a solution is far less likely if the elite can remain initially unaffected, or if a solution compromises their interests (Diamond, 2005, 430-1). He also emphasises humanity’s complex and dynamic relationship with its environment and in doing so, he draws heavily on the contemporary paradigm in human ecology. For example, human ecology is the basis for his ideas about creeping normalcy and the problems of remote management (Diamond, 2005, 425-6). Finally, he draws on economic analysis by expanding the tragedy of the commons and pointing to sometime disastrous consequences of ration action (Diamond, 2005, 427-31).
Is Diamond’s analysis of small past is relevant to the present? While Diamond draws most of his studies from the past, he does show that the same conclusions are applicable to modern examples (see Chapters 10-13). Furthermore, the perspective that underlie his theory, human ecology for example, emerged from the study of the present. Another example is Malthusianism; it predicts a catastrophe through an economic analysis of growth trends. If anything, Diamond suffers from applying modern ideas to the past.
Additionally, Diamond avoids being distracted by the politics that often characterises perspectives like Marxism. His point is about environmental problems and logical positivism characterises his approach. He attempts to judge societies only on how they and their practices lead to their ultimate fate without making pejorative judgements.
However, his attempt at objectivity cuts both ways. Whether he is using Marxism or neo-liberalism, talking about infanticide or company liabilities he uses the same neutral language. Consequently, he implies that policies that hurt individuals, but ultimately save society are acceptable. Examples of this are his reference to the benefits of: totalitarian control in the Tokugowa Shogunate, infanticide and suicide Tikopia Island and the ‘one-child policy’ in modern day China (Diamond, 2005, 299-305; 286-93; 377). Regardless of the morality or validity of these arguments, many may use such an anti-humanist view to reject the book.
Many will also criticise Diamond for not offering alternatives. At best, he offers vague opinions about steps in the right direction. The closest he comes to comprehensive solutions relate to the implementation of authoritarian regimes. I do not think this is a fair criticism; pointing out a problem is the first step in solving it.
Still his failure to offer alternatives does raise questions about the value of Collapse. Others have illustrated the environmental problems of the world in greater detail and large elements of his social analysis already existed. Diamond’s strength is that he draws together scattered and often tacit knowledge and articulates it in a simple framework. This clarifies the information for experts and assists in opening the field to outsiders.
Ultimately, I think Collapse is a positive contribution. The analogies
he draws through time, from Easter Island to modern debates on forestry and
from the disappearance of the Greenland Norse to our potential future resonate
deeply. An inevitable criticism that emerges from using the past in this way
is, that that was then, and this is now. However, the theoretical foundations
of Diamond’s analysis originated in the present, is validated by the past and
used to predict the future. But does Diamond actually help us get it right?
Here it becomes more complicated. Underlining what not to do, does in a sense,
clarify our choices. Conversely, he fails to offer detailed alternatives or
any tangible means of moving forward. However overall, the understanding he
promotes through his synthesis of ideas is valuable. Better understanding leads
to better decisions, and if we do heed the lessons of the past, this is his
paramount.
Bibliography
Diamond, Jared ‘Why do some societies make disastrous decisions?’, Edge, 28, April, 2005 www.edge.org/3rd_culture/diamond03/diamond_print.html last updated [Accessed 2 August 2005]
Diamond, JaredCollapse: how societies choose to fail and survive, Allen Lane, London, 2005