believe it is not ethnocentric or racist, but maybe anthropocentric and I make no apologies for that. If anything is missing to unite the freedoms and benefits of primitivism with civilisation then it is a fierce species loyalty which we sadly lack. More than anything this wil be our undoing.

You have me mistaken, then. I was the first of our tribe, and thus had the honor of naming it. I named it “Anthropik” precisely for my fierce loyalty to our species. I am proud to be a human being, and an unapologetic anthropocentrist.

But, you’re not talking about anything inherent to human life. You’re talking about the natural human state, and calling it “cosmically sad.” You’re implying that humans are not valuable in themselves; it is only our technology that justifies our wretched existence. As a fiercely loyal human, I don’t take kindly to such insults made towards my species and their natural, evolutionary niche.

Entropy causing the unwinding, simplification, running down of systems, and life appears to be the only force opposing, creating complexity and winding the spring so to speak.

Life does not create complexity, but diversity, as I explained in thesis #2, and as Steven Gould explained in Full House.

But to say this is the fate of all technology and civilisations is too much of a leap. Because it has always been thus , it will always be thus? That arguement cannot be supported on the weight of our available evidence. We dont know how far our science and our species can go, only that our particular civilisation squandered tremendous opportunities along the way.

It’s a matter of the marginal return curve, and the amount of energy available on earth. The amount of energy available on earth is finite, and it sets a maximum height for the marginal return curve’s peak. We’re very close to that maximum height right now. That’s why it will always be thus–not because it’s always been, but because the earth is finite.

Maybe they will and maybe they won’t. Likely some will and some won’t.

To date, it’s pretty much 100%. I would expect that to hold, within a +/- 5% margin of error.

This resistance has nothing to do with the particular merits of their system

Quite true, but you were saying some people would want to rebuild civilization in the future because they like it so much. No civilization ever got started like that; it was always a matter of necessity, never a matter of preference.

Greer and Diamond notwithstanding, who the hell really knows why Rome fell. Many factors have been identified with impressive arguements marshalled, but all we as scientists can accurately say is it fell. We don’t agree even on when.

There used to be a lot of argument on that. That pretty much died out after 1988. Today, Tainter’s is the concensus view on collapse. The arguments have shifted to which factor was more or less important as a proximate cause, but pretty much everyone accepts Tainter’s model as their starting point. The arguments today are working out the details of it.

But if Justinian doesn’t experience the Plague coterminous with crop failures due to ( probably volcanic) weather then maybe he completes his restoration of the western empire and the story reads differently.

If it hadn’t been that plague, and those crop failures, it would have been something else. The pace of problems is always pretty steady. Civilizations, like all societies, must adapt to those problems. Before the point of diminishing returns, Rome handled plagues and crop failures handily. After, they brought the empire to its knees. We’re not talking about whether problems arise–they always do. We’re talking about a society’s ability to deal with problems, and that’s what makes the difference.

Maybe yes, maybe no.

Definitely yes, if you give archaeological evidence any credit whatsoever.

Except that Europe still had a low level of civilisation. People still weren’t happy primitives but instead were dependant on the local strongman, and increasingly as time wore on, in terror of a stupid and bloody theocracy. If your quality of life is unaffected by the burning of 99% of the written records of accumulated knowledge, then yes maybe they weren’t so bad. People still ate, had babies and died.

And before that, under a “high level of civilization” (whatever that means), people weren’t happy civilized folk but were instead dependent on the local strongman (Roman patron), and increasingly as time wore on, in terror of a stupid and bloody empire. If your quality of life is unaffected by a bunch of flowery poetry that only the strongmen get to hear anyway, then yes, maybe they weren’t so bad. People still ate, had babies and died.

…then if it won’t disrupt your newly primitive lifestyle,or disrupt me trying to preserve my books then you should stop by and we can have a drink around the fire, and toast all we could have been

I’ll take you up on that, though I fear you may misunderstand me. I’ve asserted in previous theses that foragers have as much ability to retain and gather new information as we do, and that art, music, knowledge, philosophy and all those other pursuits are not only part of primitive life, but can be found in greater abundance. What you won’t find are the things that define civilization–hierarchy and exploitation.

I believe it is not ethnocentric or racist, but maybe anthropocentric and I make no apologies for that. If anything is missing to unite the freedoms and benefits of primitivism with civilisation then it is a fierce species loyalty which we sadly lack. More than anything this wil be our undoing. But we are close to understanding how to modify that, lacking not the technology but the vision and will.I guess the best reason why, is that one way to describe our universe is the tension of two diametrically opposed forces- entropy and life. Entropy causing the unwinding, simplification, running down of systems, and life appears to be the only force opposing, creating complexity and winding the spring so to speak.

“All of that is a mirage. It’s not achievable. We’re at the limits–this is pretty much as far as any technological progress could ever get, before it begins to fall in under its own weight. You’ve fallen for it, friend–all of those are lies and false promises to keep you going along with a system that was doomed from the very beginning.”

I agree that we are likely at the limits, and there is no way to avoid a very bad end for probably billions of people. But to say this is the fate of all technology and civilisations is too much of a leap. Because it has always been thus , it will always be thus? That arguement cannot be supported on the weight of our available evidence. We dont know how far our science and our species can go, only that our particular civilisation squandered tremendous opportunities along the way.

“Why not? Once forced to try it, they’ll find–like all other primitives–that it is a far superior life.”

Maybe they will and maybe they won’t. Likely some will and some won’t. But in order to say that it is a superior life for oneself one would have to experience both. The primitive can’t do that but the civilized person can, and I haven’t see many people truly walking away and living as primitives. You variously said that people would have to be forced to become primitives , as primitives were once forced to civilize. This is an excellent point as it illustrates why we probably won’t seize on any of our many opportunities on our spiral downward. Humans are tremendously resistant to change…whatever social organization ( or lack of ) that they find themselves in. This resistance has nothing to do with the particular merits of their system

“Because that option was available to them, because the fall of Rome was a maintenance crisis, not a catabolic collapse. Our situation is less like Rome, and more like Chaco Canyon.”

Greer and Diamond notwithstanding, who the hell really knows why Rome fell. Many factors have been identified with impressive arguements marshalled, but all we as scientists can accurately say is it fell. We don’t agree even on when. Maintenance collapse? yeah maybe. But if Justinian doesn’t experience the Plague coterminous with crop failures due to ( probably volcanic) weather then maybe he completes his restoration of the western empire and the story reads differently. Certainly the Minoan’s collapse as a result of catastrophic volcanism gives us no predictive value as to the fate of civilisations in general

“Quality of life in “the Dark Ages” was not nearly so awful as the poor Roman aristocrats who lost their wealth and power made it out to be.”

Maybe yes, maybe no. Except that Europe still had a low level of civilisation. People still weren’t happy primitives but instead were dependant on the local strongman, and increasingly as time wore on, in terror of a stupid and bloody theocracy. If your quality of life is unaffected by the burning of 99% of the written records of accumulated knowledge, then yes maybe they weren’t so bad. People still ate, had babies and died

I suspect that we won’t agree, seeing this through different lenses, but I enjoy the precision of your arguements. When the “big one” comes as we both believe it will, then if it won’t disrupt your newly primitive lifestyle,or disrupt me trying to preserve my books then you should stop by and we can have a drink around the fire, and toast all we could have been

You could say that the common thread is the collapse, or just as easily say that the thread is the continued impetus of our species to build anew, climb the ladder again, try once more.

You could say that–if you also ignored what a recent abberation complex societies are. They’re little more than blips in our history–and, as shown in the foregoing theses, unsustainable blips that, by their very nature, must collapse.

The “slow climb back up” is colored by the Western imagination of collapse that is so heavily informed by the Roman collapse–which was a maintenance crisis, not a catabolic collapse. We’re facing a catabolic collapse, and in those–such as Easter Island, the Hohokam and the Anasazi, and others–there was no “slow climb back up,” because the preceding civilization had stripped all the necessary materials. That’s something Rome didn’t do. You’ll also note that Rome’s successors flourished most in those places that had been Rome’s periphery–those places where Roman civilization had tread most lightly were those places most able to come back.

it sounds as if many view our impending collapse through a “soft focus” lens. Like a hollywood movie - no gritty details.

Given how much I’ve written about how horrific the whole thing will be for those who choose to die, I don’t think that’s a fair assessment. War, plague, cannibalism–it will be absolutely grisly as billions of people tear each other apart.

But, I do believe that there is a way to escape all of that, if we choose to do so. We need not trust our possible survival in a grisly contest with billions of others. We could choose to become foragers, and escape the entire, awful thing.

…following the collapse of Rome is called the Dark Ages- it was horrific.

Firstly, again, we’re facing a catabolic collapse, not a maintenance crisis. Our comparison is not the Dark Ages, but the Pueblo. Secondly, having once been one of the top 25 researchers in the world on post-Roman Britain, edited a peer-reviewed journal and presented at academic conferences on the subject–the “Dark Ages” is a term most historians shy away from because of its wholly inaccurate value judgments. Quality of life in “the Dark Ages” was not nearly so awful as the poor Roman aristocrats who lost their wealth and power made it out to be. For most people, daily life barely changed at all. See Kenneth Dark’s Civitas to Kingdom for the case for continuity in Britain.

And given that most recent watershed event, humans chose not to remain hunters and gathers but to crawl forward as soon as possible and begin to build and climb again.

Because that option was available to them, because the fall of Rome was a maintenance crisis, not a catabolic collapse. Our situation is less like Rome, and more like Chaco Canyon.

Nor will the future humans ever chose to willing remain as primitives, but certainly will strive to rebuild and push forward again.

Why not? Once forced to try it, they’ll find–like all other primitives–that it is a far superior life. No one ever adopted agriculture because it was a better life; it was always forced on them, whether by circumstance or conquest. History tells of primitive people after primitive people resisting civilization to their last ounce of strength, and ultimately choosing death rather than submit to such a horrible way of life.

The hard thing for us as humans to grasp when we contemplate the myriad evils of our vast civilisation is that we are right where we are supposed to be now. We are fulfilling our biological imperative, or if you prefer our DNA encoding. We are so close…. space travel, controling our own evolution, long life without disease, all are almost within our reach.

All of that is a mirage. It’s not achievable. We’re at the limits–this is pretty much as far as any technological progress could ever get, before it begins to fall in under its own weight. You’ve fallen for it, friend–all of those are lies and false promises to keep you going along with a system that was doomed from the very beginning.

If we fail then Hoyle notwithstanding, DNA will put forward another contender, and have another go of it. Given enough time our Earth will cough up more high grade ores from the mantle.

After the passage of geological time, yes, perhaps. And once again, it will be a system doomed from the very beginning.

But live that way for the rest our lives? How cosmically sad.

Why is that? Can you provide any answer to that, that offers anything more than ethnocentrism at best, or blatant racism at worst? It would be the first such answer I’ve ever heard.

Ummm… it was called the Dark Ages because of the lack of information WE have about it… the decrease in documentation, histories, scientific advancement… but scholars are now quite often quoted as saying that ‘The Dark Ages’ is really a misnomer… there was plenty going on and we learn more every day…

Janene

PS Civilisations allow for the creation of ruling elites, and not ruling elites creating civilisations.