How Civilizations Fall: A theory of Catabolic Collapse

[TFian]

Quote:

The collapse of complex human societies remains poorly understood and current theories fail to model important features of historical examples of collapse. Relationships among resources, capital, waste, and production form the basis for an ecological model of collapse in which production fails to meet maintenance requirements for existing capital. Societies facing such crises after having depleted essential resources risk catabolic collapse, a self-reinforcing cycle of contraction converting most capital to waste. This model allows key features of historical examples of collapse to be accounted for, and suggests parallels between successional processes in nonhuman ecosystems and collapse phenomena in human societies.

http://www.ecoshock.org/transcripts/...n_collapse.pdf

Pretty interesting theory on how civilizations rise and fall. Any flaws in what he's proposing?

[theprestige]

I think he covers all the flaws quite effectively in the final paragraph:

1. He hasn't done any of the hard work necessary to validate his proposal.
2. In fact, it may be impossible to validate his proposal.
3. He's willing to admit supposition in place of actual evidence or serious research efforts
4. In closing, he asserts that such supposition should be biased in favor of his proposal.

Other than that, you're right: It is a pretty interesting theory.

Oh, wait. I almost forgot: The section titled "Testing the Model" neither tests the model, nor proposes a method for testing the model.

[TFian]

A follow up by the author

http://tinyurl.com/3y5639u

Quote:

A couple of years ago I wrote an article titled "How Civilizations Fall: A Theory of Catabolic Collapse" -- quite the cheerful topic, granted, but it's relevant nowadays in more than an academic sense. I've never been able to find much common ground with the neoprimitivist types who insist that civilization is an awful idea and we all ought to go back to hunting and gathering, but there isn't much encouragement to be had from the cheerleaders of perpetual progress, either. In ecological terms, civilization is quite a new thing, not much more than 10,000 years old at most, and like most new evolutionary gambits, it's had its share of drastic ups and downs. Visit cities in Italy, China, or elsewhere that have been continuously inhabited for 2500 years and it's clear that, in the right environmental conditions, the civilized way of life can sustain itself over the long term; visit the ruins of Ur of the Chaldees or the Mayan metropolis of Tikal and it's equally clear that when environmental conditions don't support it, civilization is a mayfly phenomenon that flits past and vanishes in a blink of ecological time.

Quote:

The idea of catabolic collapse is simple enough, and it's best communicated through a metaphor. Imagine that, instead of the fate of civilizations, we're discussing home ownership. Until recently, when people went shopping for a home, most of them were sensible about it and bought one within their means. The housing bubble of the last few years, though, encouraged quite a few people to get in over their heads, buying much more house than they could afford, on the assumption that appreciating real estate values and the other advantages of home ownership would make up the difference.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by TFian

A follow up by the author

The idea of catabolic collapse is simple enough, and it's best communicated through a metaphor.

http://tinyurl.com/3y5639u

No. Absolutely not. First, an idea is always best communicated in its own terms, not in terms of something else.

Second, if his idea really is "simple enough", he should have no trouble explaining it simply enough in its own terms.

Third, the problem with metaphors and analogies is that they require you to assume as given things that have yet to be established. In this case, the author wants us to assume as given that civilizations share certain fundamental constraints, dynamics and consequences with home ownership.

But of course, it is precisely these fundamental constraints, dynamics, and consequences that the author has not yet proven to be true, about civilizations. As I've already pointed out, the author admits that proving these characteristics will take hard work, that he has not done the hard work, and that such hard work may never yield conclusive results. (ETA: At least it grows increasingly clear that no hard work the author is willing to do will yield conclusive results.)

I also pointed out that the author was willing to accept supposition in place of hard work and evidence, and that the author believes that such supposition should be biased in favor of his idea.

Here, in his followup, he does exactly that: He supposes--and asks us, without any proof or reason, to suppose as well--that the constraints, dynamics, and consequences are already well established. All we have to do is accept his description of home ownership, and we have automatically--without any proof or reason--accepted his idea about civlizational collapse.

This use of metaphor, in place of actual research, of analogy in place of evidence, is a lie. A cheat. A fraud.

An analogy might be useful for introducing schoolchildren to novel concepts that are not "simple enough" in their own terms. And even then, the concepts they introduce have been thoroughly researched and proven, in their own terms, by people who are not schoolchildren.

We're not schoolchildren. To be lectured as if we were, with childish and simplistic analogies, is insulting enough. When that lecture is delivered by someone whose own efforts on the subject show no signs of having progressed beyond such childishness, it is downright laughable.

[quixotecoyote]

theprestige nails it. Metaphor can be useful for explaining a concept, but it is generally misleading when trying to argue for, or prove, a concept.

[theprestige]

To be clear: I think metaphor can be useful for explaining a difficult concept. Sometimes. To children. By people who have already explained the concept in its own terms. And have successfully argued for and proven their concept.

Since the author has not yet successfully argued for and proven their concept, and since we are not children, the use of metaphors is entirely inappropriate.

TFian, can you point out any flaws in what I'm proposing?

[Pacal]

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

theprestige nails it. Metaphor can be useful for explaining a concept, but it is generally misleading when trying to argue for, or prove, a concept.

Exactly, a metaphor / allegory is not an arguement and proves nothing one way or the other. however since Plato's allegory / metaphor of the cave many have found it a seductive substitute for an actual arguement.

[Pacal]

Some really good books about Collapse are Jared Diamond's Collapse, and for those interested in a a more academic less popular analysis there is Joseph A. Tainter's THe Collapse of Complex Societies.

For specific Examples of Collapse there is for Easter Island The Enigmas of Easter Island by John Flenley, Paul Bahn. and for the Maya there is The Fall of the Ancient Maya by David Webster.

[RobDegraves]

From a historical perspective, I think it's a mistake to look for a single cause for a so called "collapse of civilization". There is no such thing.

Let's take the Roman empire for example.

To begin with, it's rather simplistic to say that the Roman empire collapsed. It didn't.... it simply slowly shrank. In the west, the Roman empire was always the poor cousin to the east. When the capital moved from Rome to Constantinople, the empire slowly stopped caring about it's western marches. Keep in mind however, that as late as the 6th century AD, the Frankish king Clovis considered himself to be a general in the Roman army, duly appointed by the Emperor in Constantinople.

The eventual disappearance of the Roman empire was due to a multitude of circumstances ... economics, the end of the expansion, the greek-ification of the empire, Christianity, the lack of a system of succession... etc.

Each civilization had specific circumstances that both defined it and eventually ended it. You can't simply make a formula to explain all of them, it simply doesn't work that way.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Pacal

Some really good books about Collapse are Jared Diamond's Collapse, and for those interested in a a more academic less popular analysis there is Joseph A. Tainter's THe Collapse of Complex Societies.

For specific Examples of Collapse there is for Easter Island The Enigmas of Easter Island by John Flenley, Paul Bahn. and for the Maya there is The Fall of the Ancient Maya by David Webster.

Welcome to the board, Pacal!

The Easter Island collapse was discussed in this thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=183412&page=33

It may have happened differently than you thought (this happens to a LOT of things in that thread).

[DOC]

Some Christians believe if a country is out of God's will it will eventually decline or collapse.

The Soviet Union and The Roman Empire seem to support that belief. Also you will notice that Christianity seems to be somewhat on the downturn in the US and growing in China.

[Chaos]

Originally Posted by RobDegraves

To begin with, it's rather simplistic to say that the Roman empire collapsed. It didn't.... it simply slowly shrank. In the west, the Roman empire was always the poor cousin to the east. When the capital moved from Rome to Constantinople, the empire slowly stopped caring about it's western marches. Keep in mind however, that as late as the 6th century AD, the Frankish king Clovis considered himself to be a general in the Roman army, duly appointed by the Emperor in Constantinople.

Heck, the emperors of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, which technically lasted until the early 19th century, considered themselves sorta kinda successors of the the Roman Empire - the hint is right there in the name.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by DOC

Some Christians believe if a country is out of God's will it will eventually decline or collapse.

The Soviet Union and The Roman Empire seem to support that belief. Also you will notice that Christianity seems to be somewhat on the downturn in the US and growing in China.

Some christian thinks the darnedest things, without evidence. Like for example that the writer of the new testament told the "truth".

Thankfully historian are a tad bit above that.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Welcome to the board, Pacal!

The Easter Island collapse was discussed in this thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=183412&page=33

It may have happened differently than you thought (this happens to a LOT of things in that thread).

For those search the specific discussion, it starts a bit before that post :

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=533

but this is the one speaking on how resource scarcity did not kill the eastern island civilisation.

The Peruvian, the illness did it. I am not sure why some says the french also did it, I only see mention of 1 shipment for work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Island#History

[Aepervius]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Ba...Dutrou-Bornier

It seems to have been the work of *ONE* french, with the clear help of part of the population, a clear bastard, so to say "the french are responsible for part of the collapse" is an exaggeration.

Quote:

He set up residence at Mataveri, began buying up land from the Rapanui. In 1869 he seized Koreto, the wife of a Rapanui, and married her. He tried to persuade France to make the island a protectorate, and recruited a faction of Rapanui whom he allowed to abandon their Christianity and revert to their previous faith. With rifles, a cannon, and hut burning, he and his supporters ran the island for several years as "governor", appointing Koreto Queen

[Weak Kitten]

I think I listened to Joseph A. Tainter's book on tape. It was actually quite good and seemed to indicate that in the past it has been cultures that isolated themselves and did not develop new technologies to deal with changing environmental challenges who collapsed.

It seems that societal collapse is a complex thing made up of many factors. However, an inability to learn and adapt seems to be a big factor.

[Garrison0fMars]

Originally Posted by Chaos

Heck, the emperors of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, which technically lasted until the early 19th century, considered themselves sorta kinda successors of the the Roman Empire - the hint is right there in the name.

Not only that, but consider this. The Ostrogothic Kingdom, which encompassed all of modern day Italy, while existing briefly, continued much of the structures and technology of Western Rome. After it's collapse, the city of Rome, and areas below it were able to maintain Roman culture and technology all the way up to the 11th century (from what I've read, I could be wrong). Then there's of course, the Byzantines, the Eastern side which existed far longer than Western Rome, all the way up to the 14th century, when it was conquered by the Ottomans (so collapsed not by resource depletion, but foreign invasion). Afterwards, I believe the Ottoman sultans would use the title "Qaysar-i Rum" (or at least some of them), which means "Caesar of Rome" in Ottoman Turkish. So arguably, the Roman empire existed all the way until 1922 (collapse of the Ottomans, also not because of resource depletion)

[Garrison0fMars]

Originally Posted by DOC

Some Christians believe if a country is out of God's will it will eventually decline or collapse.

The Soviet Union and The Roman Empire seem to support that belief. Also you will notice that Christianity seems to be somewhat on the downturn in the US and growing in China.

Really then? Explain the rise of the Ottomans please. It lasted and thrived for well over 500 years. They were created out of the conquered remnants of a Christian nation (Byzantines).

[ddt]

Originally Posted by RobDegraves

From a historical perspective, I think it's a mistake to look for a single cause for a so called "collapse of civilization". There is no such thing.

Let's take the Roman empire for example.

To begin with, it's rather simplistic to say that the Roman empire collapsed. It didn't.... it simply slowly shrank. In the west, the Roman empire was always the poor cousin to the east. When the capital moved from Rome to Constantinople, the empire slowly stopped caring about it's western marches. Keep in mind however, that as late as the 6th century AD, the Frankish king Clovis considered himself to be a general in the Roman army, duly appointed by the Emperor in Constantinople.

The eventual disappearance of the Roman empire was due to a multitude of circumstances ... economics, the end of the expansion, the greek-ification of the empire, Christianity, the lack of a system of succession... etc.

Each civilization had specific circumstances that both defined it and eventually ended it. You can't simply make a formula to explain all of them, it simply doesn't work that way.

While you can argue that people like Clovis and Charlemagne (and his successors) considered themselves Roman general or Roman emperor, that is only a title and doesn't reflect the whole civilization. I think it's clear that the Roman civilization in Western Europe collapsed. In Traian's time, around 100 AD, the Roman empire was a relatively well-oiled machine that provided for a good infrastructure, safety for its citizens and enabled trade from Britain in the west to Syria in the east. Excavations of Roman remains exhibit that: you'll find stuff from Syria or Egypt in Britain or France or Germany. That trade system collapsed. The Western European Middle Ages has virtually no trade surpassing the local/regional level until the rise of the Flemish and Italian ports in the 12th century.

The state infrastructure collapsed, and gave rise to local and regional counts and dukes who were quite independent and in the French case, didn't give a rat's ass about the king in Paris until he reconquered that territory. Charlemagne's restoration of empire was very short-lived, and in any case, the Roman concept of service to the state was replaced by a system of personal fielty to the lord. In fact, you can argue here that a factor in the collapse of the Roman empire was a growing disinterest among the aristocracy to serve the state.

When you look at the infrastructure, it's even more bleak. The Roman road system has been used much longer, at least until the Renaissance and in many places much longer, without significant extension or renewal. Or what about the Roman water supply? For instance, the Romans built an aqueduct from the Eiffel to Cologne over 95 km, to supply that city with fresh water. Both the technology needed as the political commitment to make such public works has been absent until the 19th century.

So yes, I'd argue that Roman civilization collapsed in Western Europe. And well, calling the western part simply "Western marches" and they stopped caring about it - that's a bit simplistic. Gaul, for one, was one of the richest parts of the Roman empire.

[TFian]

Originally Posted by theprestige

TFian, can you point out any flaws in what I'm proposing?

Yes I do. First off, I don't understand the staunch opposition of explaining ideas through metaphors. Sure, it comes from the idea that most of the people coming to his site wouldn't understand the ideas he's explaining, but that doesn't mean people who already do should just brush it off. But also, the original paper on his theory of Catabolic collapse had nothing to do with metaphors, that was only in his blog response.

Second, you claim he gives no ways to test his theory, yet it's pretty clear he gives a number of examples, and in detail explains his capital to waste theory. It's all very detailed, and pretty sound.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by TFian

Yes I do. First off, I don't understand the staunch opposition of explaining ideas through metaphors. Sure, it comes from the idea that most of the people coming to his site wouldn't understand the ideas he's explaining, but that doesn't mean people who already do should just brush it off. But also, the original paper on his theory of Catabolic collapse had nothing to do with metaphors, that was only in his blog response.

Fair enough. It's true he explains the theory in its own terms in the paper. I still think that if it truly is a simple theory, as he claims, it should not be necessary to explain it to newcomers in metaphorical terms. And I have strong objection to such explanations on general principle, but that's neither here nor there.

Quote:

Second, you claim he gives no ways to test his theory, yet it's pretty clear he gives a number of examples, and in detail explains his capital to waste theory. It's all very detailed, and pretty sound.

It's true that he gives a number of examples, but it's not true that the examples he gives prove that his theory is sound. He claims that the examples "test" his theory, but doesn't actually describe how. Then, in the paper's final paragraph, he admits that he hasn't done the hard work necessary to prove the soundess of his theory. He also admits that the necessary hard work may never be done.

I pointed this out in the very first reply to your OP:

Originally Posted by theprestige

1. He hasn't done any of the hard work necessary to validate his proposal.
2. In fact, it may be impossible to validate his proposal.
3. He's willing to admit supposition in place of actual evidence or serious research efforts
4. In closing, he asserts that such supposition should be biased in favor of his proposal.

I would be very interested in your thoughts specifically about the four numbered points listed above.

[TFian]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I have strong objection to such explanations on general principle, but that's neither here nor there.

Why? I know it's neither here nor there, but I'm just curious why you have such a strong objection.

Originally Posted by theprestige

It's true that he gives a number of examples, but it's not true that the examples he gives prove that his theory is sound.

How so? He details his capital to waste equations pretty well, and gives numerous examples throughout history where the equation played out.

Originally Posted by theprestige

He claims that the examples "test" his theory, but doesn't actually describe how.

Yes, he does. Here's a good example he gives.

Quote:

The collapse of the western Roman Empire, by contrast, was a catabolic
collapse driven by a combined maintenance and resource crisis. While the ancient
Mediterranean world, like imperial China, was primarily dependent on readily
replenished resources, the Empire itself was the product of an anabolic cycle fueled
by easily depleted resources and driven by Roman military superiority. Beginning in
the third century BCE, Roman expansion transformed the capital of other societies
into resources for Rome as country after country was conquered and stripped of
movable wealth. Each new conquest increased the Roman resource base and helped
pay for further conquests. After the first century CE, though, further expansion
failed to pay its own costs. All remaining peoples within the reach of Rome were
either barbarian tribes with little wealth, such as the Germans, or rival empires
capable of defending themselves, such as the Parthians (Jones 1974). Without
income from new conquests, the maintenance costs of empire proved unsustainable,
and a catabolic cycle followed rapidly. The first major breakdown in the imperial
system came in 166 CE, and further crises followed un

Originally Posted by theprestige

Then, in the paper's final paragraph, he admits that he hasn't done the hard work necessary to prove the soundess of his theory. He also admits that the necessary hard work may never be done.

What? Where does he say this?

Originally Posted by theprestige

I would be very interested in your thoughts specifically about the four numbered points listed above.

Ok

1.) Isn't true. He's given scores of detailed researched examples that fit his theory very well.

2.) How would it be impossible?

3.) No he's not. What supposition does he use in place of actual evidence?

4.) So?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by TFian

Why? I know it's neither here nor there, but I'm just curious why you have such a strong objection.

At best, metaphors replace the appropriate terms and concepts with inappropriate terms and concepts, trading accuracy for familiarity. I think that almost everybody is almost always better served by accuracy: You don't become familiar with a new concept by focusing on an old concept, but by focusing on the new concept until you become familiar with it.

At worst, metaphors are a flat-out lie: They ask you to accept as given the very premises the claimant should be required to prove.

In between, metaphors are a mistake, giving you the impression that you have become familiar with a new concept, when in reality you are only experiencing familiarity with an old concept.

Quote:

How so? He details his capital to waste equations pretty well, and gives numerous examples throughout history where the equation played out.

No, he gives numerous examples where he claims his equations played out. The equations themselves are nowhere actually applied to the examples. Where's the math? Where's the statistics? Where's the detailed economic analysis? Where's the comprehensive review of the historical record?

Quote:

Yes, he does. Here's a good example he gives.

Actually, this is a terrible example. It includes two citations: One for the existence of the Parthian Empire as a contemporary power, and one for the well-known fact that the Roman Empire really did decline and fall.

He makes claims about the basis and evolution of the Roman economy, but nowhere does he actually apply his equations and demonstrate their soundness. And nowhere does he cite any sources for the claims he makes (except for the two trivial and irrelevant cites I already mentioned).

Quote:

What? Where does he say this?

In the final paragraph of his paper:

1. He hasn't done any of the hard work necessary to validate his proposal.

Such assessments of past and present societies, in order to achieve a high degree of analytic or predictive value, require careful quantitative analysis of a sort this paper has not attempted.
(page 12, paragraph 2, sentence 1)

2. In fact, it may be impossible to validate his proposal.

Since each element in the conceptual model presented here stands for a diverse and constantly changing set of variables, such analysis offers significant challenges, and in many historical examples it may be impossible to go beyond proxy measurements of uncertain value for crucial variables.
(page 12, paragraph 2, sentence 2)

3. He's willing to admit supposition in place of actual evidence or serious research efforts

However, general patterns corresponding to the catabolic collapse model may be easier to extract from incomplete data.
(page 12, paragraph 2, sentence 3)

4. In closing, he asserts that such supposition should be biased in favor of his proposal.


Any society that displays broad increases in most measures of capital production coupled with signs of serious depletion of key resources, in particular, may be considered a potential candidate for catabolic collapse.
(page 12, paragraph 2, sentence 4)

Quote:

Ok

1.) Isn't true. He's given scores of detailed researched examples that fit his theory very well.

2.) How would it be impossible?

3.) No he's not. What supposition does he use in place of actual evidence?

4.) So?

1.) No he hasn't. "Scores" is "twenties". You'd need at least forty examples, for this to be true. Also, the research isn't very detailed, and the detail is most notably absent from the parts of the examples that are supposed to support his claims. He even admits as much: "... careful quantitative analysis of a sort this paper has not attempted".

2.) Ask Greer: He's the one that says "...in many historical examples it may be impossible to go beyond proxy measurements of uncertain value for crucial variables".

3.) You misunderstand: After admitting that actual evidence may be difficult or impossible to obtain, he says, "general patterns corresponding to the catabolic collapse model may be easier to extract from incomplete data". He's suggesting that anything that looks like his model can be supposed to validate his model.

4.) So don't you find bias in favor of an untested, unsupported, unresearched model a little problematic?

[TFian]

Originally Posted by theprestige

At best, metaphors replace the appropriate terms and concepts with inappropriate terms and concepts, trading accuracy for familiarity. I think that almost everybody is almost always better served by accuracy: You don't become familiar with a new concept by focusing on an old concept, but by focusing on the new concept until you become familiar with it.

At worst, metaphors are a flat-out lie: They ask you to accept as given the very premises the claimant should be required to prove.

In between, metaphors are a mistake, giving you the impression that you have become familiar with a new concept, when in reality you are only experiencing familiarity with an old concept.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there. I think metaphors are a great way to convincing most people of your arguments.

Originally Posted by theprestige

No, he gives numerous examples where he claims his equations played out. The equations themselves are nowhere actually applied to the examples. Where's the math? Where's the statistics? Where's the detailed economic analysis? Where's the comprehensive review of the historical record?

Check the section "The Human Ecology of Collapse" he details it all there. Pages 3-7 Details the concepts and equations of Resources(R) Capital(C) Waste(W) and the transition from one to the other.

Originally Posted by theprestige

Actually, this is a terrible example. It includes two citations: One for the existence of the Parthian Empire as a contemporary power, and one for the well-known fact that the Roman Empire really did decline and fall.

He didn't use the Parthian Empire as an example of catabolic collapse, just brought the up as a rival to the Romans. And yes, the Romans decline is a well known fact, and he explains how they declined, and backs it up with plenty of references.

Originally Posted by theprestige

He makes claims about the basis and evolution of the Roman economy, but nowhere does he actually apply his equations and demonstrate their soundness.

Yes, yes he does. Look to the pages I referred to earlier in the post.

Originally Posted by theprestige

And nowhere does he cite any sources for the claims he makes (except for the two trivial and irrelevant cites I already mentioned).

I guess you missed the 36 sources he gives at the bottom of the paper, along with 7 civilizational models?

Originally Posted by theprestige

1. He hasn't done any of the hard work necessary to validate his proposal.

Such assessments of past and present societies, in order to achieve a high degree of analytic or predictive value, require careful quantitative analysis of a sort this paper has not attempted.
(page 12, paragraph 2, sentence 1)

So? That doesn't his theory doesn't hold any weight.

Originally Posted by theprestige

2. In fact, it may be impossible to validate his proposal.

Since each element in the conceptual model presented here stands for a diverse and constantly changing set of variables, such analysis offers significant challenges, and in many historical examples it may be impossible to go beyond proxy measurements of uncertain value for crucial variables.
(page 12, paragraph 2, sentence 2)

This doesn't mean it'd be impossible to validate his proposal, just means that not all variables can be accounted for.

Originally Posted by theprestige

3. He's willing to admit supposition in place of actual evidence or serious research efforts

However, general patterns corresponding to the catabolic collapse model may be easier to extract from incomplete data.
(page 12, paragraph 2, sentence 3)

Where's the supposition party come in?

Originally Posted by theprestige

4. In closing, he asserts that such supposition should be biased in favor of his proposal.


Any society that displays broad increases in most measures of capital production coupled with signs of serious depletion of key resources, in particular, may be considered a potential candidate for catabolic collapse.
(page 12, paragraph 2, sentence 4)

He doesn't say it should be biased in favor of his theory, just that it's a possible candidate.

Originally Posted by theprestige

1.) No he hasn't. "Scores" is "twenties". You'd need at least forty examples, for this to be true.

Why do you need forty?

Originally Posted by theprestige

Also, the research isn't very detailed, and the detail is most notably absent from the parts of the examples that are supposed to support his claims.

It's very detailed...what do you mean?

Originally Posted by theprestige

He's suggesting that anything that looks like his model can be supposed to validate his model.

No, that they're just possible candidates.

Originally Posted by theprestige

4.) So don't you find bias in favor of an untested, unsupported, unresearched model a little problematic?

I don't agree with your conclusion of what Grand Archdruid of the Ancient Order of Druids in America John Michael Greer is saying in his paper.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I think he covers all the flaws quite effectively in the final paragraph:

1. He hasn't done any of the hard work necessary to validate his proposal.
2. In fact, it may be impossible to validate his proposal.
3. He's willing to admit supposition in place of actual evidence or serious research efforts
4. In closing, he asserts that such supposition should be biased in favor of his proposal.

Other than that, you're right: It is a pretty interesting theory.

Yup. He complains that current theories fall short because they fail to model these things, then he proceeds to fail to model them as well.

And the theories sound very much like the stuff Jared Diamond has been writing for years, so it's not even new.

[Kinseek]

Originally Posted by DOC

Some Christians believe if a country is out of God's will it will eventually decline or collapse.

The Soviet Union and The Roman Empire seem to support that belief. Also you will notice that Christianity seems to be somewhat on the downturn in the US and growing in China.

But the belief is hardly defined in any useful way. What does it mean to be out of God's will? How can you avoid circular reasoning that states that being out of God's will means decline - and that decline means being out of God's will? If that is what your ill-explained attempt at a causal explanation rests on - then it is worthless.

The Roman Empire clearly started a decline after/during Christianity was widely adopted and on the rise in its empire (and indeed has been argued to be major cause for the fall of the empire by Gibbons). Pagan Rome did great. Christian Rome got overrun. How do you reconcile that with a notion that God bestows good things upon a state with rising numbers of christians?

[TFian]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Yup. He complains that current theories fall short because they fail to model these things, then he proceeds to fail to model them as well.

Where does he do this? That is false.

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

And the theories sound very much like the stuff Jared Diamond has been writing for years, so it's not even new.

Similarity yes, but his theory is a lot more detailed than anything Diamond has come up with, and creates an equation to apply to societies suffering catabolic collapse.

[TFian]

Originally Posted by ddt

While you can argue that people like Clovis and Charlemagne (and his successors) considered themselves Roman general or Roman emperor, that is only a title and doesn't reflect the whole civilization. I think it's clear that the Roman civilization in Western Europe collapsed. In Traian's time, around 100 AD, the Roman empire was a relatively well-oiled machine that provided for a good infrastructure, safety for its citizens and enabled trade from Britain in the west to Syria in the east. Excavations of Roman remains exhibit that: you'll find stuff from Syria or Egypt in Britain or France or Germany. That trade system collapsed. The Western European Middle Ages has virtually no trade surpassing the local/regional level until the rise of the Flemish and Italian ports in the 12th century.

The state infrastructure collapsed, and gave rise to local and regional counts and dukes who were quite independent and in the French case, didn't give a rat's ass about the king in Paris until he reconquered that territory. Charlemagne's restoration of empire was very short-lived, and in any case, the Roman concept of service to the state was replaced by a system of personal fielty to the lord. In fact, you can argue here that a factor in the collapse of the Roman empire was a growing disinterest among the aristocracy to serve the state.

When you look at the infrastructure, it's even more bleak. The Roman road system has been used much longer, at least until the Renaissance and in many places much longer, without significant extension or renewal. Or what about the Roman water supply? For instance, the Romans built an aqueduct from the Eiffel to Cologne over 95 km, to supply that city with fresh water. Both the technology needed as the political commitment to make such public works has been absent until the 19th century.

So yes, I'd argue that Roman civilization collapsed in Western Europe. And well, calling the western part simply "Western marches" and they stopped caring about it - that's a bit simplistic. Gaul, for one, was one of the richest parts of the Roman empire.

It was a "well oiled" machine, while it could last. Ancient Rome had a sophisticated economic system in which credit and government stimulus programs played an important role. Roman money, though, was based strictly on precious metals, and the economic expansion of the late Republic and early Empire was made possible only because Roman armies systematically looted the wealth of most of the known world. More fatal still was the shift that replaced a sustainable village agriculture across most of the Roman world with huge slave-worked latifundiae, the industrial farms of their day, which were treated as cash cows by absentee owners and, in due time, were milked dry. The primary economy cracked as topsoil loss caused Roman agriculture to fail; attempts by emperors to remedy the situation failed in turn, and the Roman government was reduced to debasing the coinage in an attempt to meet a rising spiral of military costs driven by civil wars and barbarian invasions. This made a bad situation worse, gutting the Roman economy and making the collapse of the Empire that much more inevitable.

[Garrison0fMars]

Seriously, does this guy (Greer) have to use an metaphor for everything? The guy doesn't seem to be able to construct an argument without some metaphorical strawman to apply to his critics.

[Eddie Dane]

Originally Posted by Kinseek

But the belief is hardly defined in any useful way. What does it mean to be out of God's will? How can you avoid circular reasoning that states that being out of God's will means decline - and that decline means being out of God's will? If that is what your ill-explained attempt at a causal explanation rests on - then it is worthless.

The Roman Empire clearly started a decline after/during Christianity was widely adopted and on the rise in its empire (and indeed has been argued to be major cause for the fall of the empire by Gibbons). Pagan Rome did great. Christian Rome got overrun. How do you reconcile that with a notion that God bestows good things upon a state with rising numbers of christians?

Why did Gibbons think that?

[fleabeetle]

Supremely silly, but what-the-heck -- just a matter of misreading: a thing experienced by most people. The first seven or eight times I saw title of this thread on the "H, L & tA" menu, I registered instead of "Catabolic" -- "Catholic". Whence I just thought "Oh, well, Mr. Ratzinger's lot -- who's surprised?", and read no further. Have just realised what the word truly is; now feel inclined actually to read the thread.

As I say -- idiotic thing to do, and to post about -- but, the kind of thing that often happens.

[Kinseek]

Originally Posted by Eddie Dane

Why did Gibbons think that?

Gibbon reasoned that Christianity weakened the Roman resolve to fight. The people got more concerned with the afterlife, which held promise of being better then this, and hence saw no reason to put great effort into this one, and certainly not for the empire. The state had also diverted according to Gibbon much of its resources from war-making potential to the church. A good and moral christian is also not really supposed to drive swords through people - the pagans had little of such notions.

[TFian]

Originally Posted by Kinseek

Gibbon reasoned that Christianity weakened the Roman resolve to fight. The people got more concerned with the afterlife, which held promise of being better then this, and hence saw no reason to put great effort into this one, and certainly not for the empire. The state had also diverted according to Gibbon much of its resources from war-making potential to the church. A good and moral christian is also not really supposed to drive swords through people - the pagans had little of such notions.

Christianity had little to nothing to do with the collapse of Rome. It was resource depletion, ala Catabolic collapse.

[excaza]

Originally Posted by Kinseek

A good and moral christian is also not really supposed to drive swords through people

Unless they're Muslim the pope says so.