"Barbarism is Mankind's Natural State..."
Reading Aloud John Michael Greer's 'The Cimmerian Hypothesis'
A Dystopian Future After Civilization’s Fall: A dystopian future where the collapse of global society has forced humanity to revert to its most primal instincts. Towering skyscrapers, once symbols of human achievement, now lie in ruins, overtaken by nature. Nomadic tribes wander through the wreckage, armed with crude weapons and scavenging for survival. The few remaining traces of advanced technology are used sparingly, their purpose mostly forgotten. In the distance, tribal warlords lead clans into battle over dwindling resources, as law and order have completely dissolved. The image conveys a harsh world where civilization has regressed into violent barbarism, echoing the belief that beneath the thin veneer of modernity, humanity’s true nature is one of conflict and survival.
It’s rather fashionable nowadays to think of Technology, Progress, & Science as a Golden trifecta, unencumbered by limits of any sort & marching onward without opposition toward heralding for Mankind a Golden Age sans the familiar brutishness of life:
Nick Bostrom, in his essay ‘The Future Of Humanity,’1 noted that there are four families of Human futures that thinkers have historically examined, namely Extinction, Posthumanity, Recurrent Collapse, & Plateau, with the former two being the most common.
Those in the Extinction camp have been around for a long time…
Apocalypse & The End of Days is a common metanarrative that has existed since at least the invention of writing 5,000+ years ago. Some say these stories pre-date even said timeline!2
People of old, like modernists of today, have gone at length speaking about such topics. However, their arguments have been more Theological in orientation, with the ‘Scientific Apocalypse’ sub-genre only appearing much later on the scene, some centuries ago.
Yet, what are we to make of all this new talk spouted by Techno-Utopians, who endlessly dream of mankind’s destiny of marching out of the caves & into the stars?
No doubt, fascination for the heavenly bodies is something that one finds in Ancient Cultures worldwide, with Civilizations across the world revelling in their wonders.3
But it is an entirely different thing altogether to be obsessed with the vast emptiness of Space & reaching outward infinitely into the void of nothingness pervading Earth & beyond…
Oswald Spengler, the German polymath, observed in The Decline of The West (1926):
“The Faustian soul looks for an immortality to follow the bodily end, a sort of marriage with endless space, and it disembodies the stone in its Gothic thrust system (contemporary, we may note, with the "consecutives" in Church music) till at last nothing remained visible but the indwelling depth- and height-energy of this self-extension.”
~ vol I p.1884
There is then, in the Faustian soul of today’s Westerner, an innate propensity for ‘an eternal outward surge into an emptiness without limit,’ something that has normalized the Cornucopian thinking of the Modern West worldwide in sundry Technophilic circles:
The obsessions with Interstellar Migration, Fusion Power, & Artificial Intelligence are simply the natural outgrowths of said outward surge without limit. However, there are no doubt other contributing factors, such as the boundless plenty with which Modern Man surrounds himself.
Westerners today are surrounded by energy sources (i.e., Fossil Fuels) that are simultaneously Abundant, Fungible & Affordable. Yet nothing else on Earth (that we know of) possesses all three of said attributes, thereby making a Full-fledged ‘Energy Transition’ a Pipe Dream.5
Even if we adopt en masse Renewables & a whole suite of other alternative energy sources (such as Nuclear Fission & Biofuels), it would still be nowhere near enough to meet Energy Demand once Fossil Fuels inevitably peak off & Plateau downwards.
Thus, the Technophiles are incorrect.
The future will have *less* energy available for extraction & consumption, thereby making Anthropocenic talking points regarding a ‘Vulnerable World’ farcical.6
The notion that the era we live in is one in which Man has Conquered Nature & subjected her to his whims is not just ludicrous but a dangerous delusion which has real-world impacts into the future, given the hubris & arrogance with which Modern man conducts himself:
The various Cornucopian talking points raised about Interstellar Migration, Fusion Power, & Artificial Intelligence may seem to some like quaint, adorable Daydreams. However, when Public Policy & matters of Statecraft dole out significant resources to such delusions:
That is a recipe for disaster, from which there will be no Recovery.
As Fossil Fuels worldwide peak off & then Plateau downward, courtesy of the easily accessible, higher quality reserves running out first, it is all but guaranteed that mankind’s first Global Civilization built on said Fossil Fuels will also be his last:
Whatever civilizations follow, even if they take on a global character, will not have access to said energy sources, which require several million years to replenish. Posthumanity, therefore, is forever out of reach courtesy of fundamental limitations on energy.
Over a decade ago, Graham M. Turner revisited The Limits To Growth (1972) by looking at The 30-Year Update (2005). He noted back then that with well over three decades of data to analyze, the ‘Standard Ruin’ scenario was well underway for Industrial Society:7
The original writers of The Limits noted that should ‘business as usual’ continue, then sometime in the next hundred years or so, the limits to growth (a la energy, food, clean water, etc.) would be reached across the globe, yielding population declines & civil strife.8
‘Collapse’ is rarely a one-off Catastrophic event heralded by lots of fanfare & noise.
Instead, it is a continuous process whereby, slowly but surely, the quality of life for the individual & family unit declines over time. While not noticeable initially, the aggregate effects on peoples’ lives become more transparent over several years & decades:
Today’s American family is far worse off than ever before, with around 80% of households seeing a drop in their standard of living compared to pre-pandemic levels.9
As the Global American Empire retreats from West Asia ( & beyond! ), the Long Decline will continue as more & more Americans find out that the Global South no longer subsidizes their lavish lifestyles, opting instead to turn towards Eurasia & its sundry alliances & frameworks.10
However, delusions of grandeur persist regardless of these facts.
Westerners, writ large, still think ‘someone, somewhere, will figure something out,’ despite the walls closing in from all directions. Energy shortages, Geopolitical ruin, the loss of Lifestyle a la the collapse of Living Standards notwithstanding, even the Petrodollar is at risk:
Pater (i.e. , writes ) has noted, time & again, in his excellent Stack that there is no saving the Petrodollar system.11
Thus, Western Civilization, as we know it, will soon see its Hegemon (i.e. America) fall apart. If so, what constitutes ‘civilized living’ in North America, Europe & beyond will be jeopardized as lifestyles adapt to the ‘New Normal’ of Catabolic Collapse.12
Some things from the Old World will no doubt survive into the future. But Western Civilization as we know it is coming to an end… withering away with a mundane finality.
The Dark Age, Deindustrial societies that succeed in the wake of said Civilizational Plateau will have several important characteristics, such as being more localized & agrarian.
Many people will return to the subsistence lifestyles of their ancestors, which were the norm worldwide before the advent of Industrialization & its fruits. Quite a few will cluster around the ruins of once-abandoned cities & suburbs to eke out a living from said rubble.
But above all else, they will, for the foreseeable future, favour the use of violence & naked force to resolve disputes & other matters in this new, more primal world:
Good Sir , with whom I co-host the ‘Eurabiamania!’ podcast, noted in his essay from over a month ago that the world that is shaping up is one in which those willing, ready & able to use violence will best those not prepared to do so.
Of course, he is correct… but it is much worse than this! 😉
The downward-sloping Plateau of energy usage, & extraction in the Deindustrial Dark Age will make dense urban centres a thing of the past. The age of the metropolis is fast coming to an end, as declining energy usage per capita is now here to stay…
‘Less Oil for all of society’ will mean likewise less oil per head.13
Megacities like Tokyo, Delhi, etc., will soon hollow out, first slowly & then rapidly. The infrastructure, energy expenditures, & overall insight necessary to maintain said centres of Technological Civilization are all but spent, with the dying embers slowly going out…
The crises of the 21st century will result from the Trifecta of population decline, environmental degradation & energy shortages.14
Ancillary effects (such as Mass migration) will take shape courtesy of the interplay among these variables & the DOOM nexus that they sculpt in the coming years & decades.
Civilization-proper, complex societies characterized by the development of the state, urbanization, social stratification & symbolic communication systems beyond signed or spoken languages (i.e., writing systems & graphic arts)…
Such societies will implode wholesale worldwide as the Deindustrial Dark Age takes hold.
There will undoubtedly still be ‘Points of Light in the Darkness.' However, if history is to be any guide, energy usage and extraction are intricately tied to the building, maintenance, and flourishing of Civilizations across Human Cultures worldwide.15
Civilization, as a large-scale energy Information System16, has complexities inherent to its structure that will, in a lower energy setting, Ipso Facto simplify to make do with the fewer resources available. This predicament will yield degrowth and hollow out urban centres.
Mankind, then, will not be marching out of the caves & into the stars. Instead, he will be trying to eke out a subsistence living from the rubble & ruins left behind by the most wasteful, shortsighted Global Human Civilization to have ever existed.
Enter .
Grandmaster of DOOM, Grand Archdruid, prolific author & polymath… he notes that what passes as Civilization will not ‘make it’ in the Age of Decline & Fall.
While His Eminence John Michael Greer does not write on SubStack, one can find his writings elsewhere on Cyberspace:
Ecosophia.net (Official Blog)17
( If you have not done so already, Please Subscribe to the Grandmaster on Ecosophia.net, Dear Readers & Listeners! His work is a must-read for DOOM-ers of all shapes & sizes & Young, aspiring DOOM Merchants like Yours Truly! 😘 )
In his Trilogy of Essays, The Cimmerian Hypothesis (2015)18, he examines the legacy of Robert E. Howard & Conan The Barbarian (protagonist to many a Howard Weird Tale from the 1930s), & how Civilization is an exceptionally fragile thing overall:
In Part I: Civilization & Barbarism, the Grandmaster outlines the markers of Civilization & how such a society differs from one that lacks an urban centre.
The former is distinguished by human hands shaping the immediate surroundings for its population, while the latter’s immediate surroundings are sculpted less so by said hands.
In Part II: A Landscape of Hallucinations, the Grandmaster examines the sundry ways in which feedback loops & systems theory play a critical role in the life cycles of both Civilized & Barbarian living, which distinguish both said human societies considerably over time:
The former comprises a more ‘positive & reinforcing’ set of such loops, while the latter deals with more ‘negative & corrective’ loops. Civilized living is more of an ‘echo chamber,’ while Barbarian life is more ‘raw, naked & brutish reality.’
Finally, in Part III: The End Of The Dream, the Grandmaster examines how while the ‘echo chamber’ of Civilization can undoubtedly create great Human Achievements in a short period, doing so means descending deeper & deeper into delusion.
Specifically, the delusion whereby the actual, physical realities of the Environment & The Natural World get sidelined in favour of abstractions, minutia & related silliness. These, in turn, ultimately DOOM Civilizations to ruin…
They rise & fall much faster than their Barbarian cousins, who rise & fall at slower rates, courtesy of existing outside of said ‘echo chamber.’ While this means fewer Achievements & a more brutish, physical lifestyle… it also means a longer lifespan than Civilized living.
Once again, here are a set of alternate links to all three of said essays:
Part I: Civilization & Barbarism
Part II: A Landscape of Hallucinations
Part III: The End Of The Dream
Yours Truly has linked all three essays above for those willing to read them at Resilience.org instead! Please do so in addition to Subscribing to the Grandmaster at Ecosophia.net! 😉
As for those of you who choose to stay & listen to my Full Read Aloud & Dictation of the Grandmaster's Complete The Cimmerian Hypothesis (2015) Trilogy...
Without further adieu, here is the complete Trilogy of essays noted earlier!
The Cimmerian Hypothesis
Originally Published By The Archdruid Report;
Now Hosted at Resilience.org: Part I, Part II & Part III
July 15, July 23 & July 30, 2015
Barbarism as the Natural State: A bleak world where the Cimmerian Hypothesis has been fully realized. In this dystopian landscape, civilization has long since collapsed, and humanity has reverted to a state of barbarism. The remnants of ancient cities--now crumbled and overgrown--lie scattered across the land, with nomadic tribes surviving by raiding and scavenging. The tribes, dressed in furs and makeshift armor, live by ancient, brutal codes, where strength and cunning are the only laws. In the distance, the ruins of a once-great technological wonder--perhaps a space elevator or a futuristic megacity--loom, half-submerged in the earth. The scene highlights the core of the Cimmerian Hypothesis: that despite technological advances, humanity is destined to return to a more primal, barbaric state.
Contents
II. A Landscape of Hallucinations
What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs—I was a man before I was a king. [...] When I was a fighting-man, the kettle-drums they beat, The people scattered gold-dust before my horse's feet; But now I am a great king, the people hound my track With poison in my wine-cup, and daggers at my back.
~ Robert E. Howard; excerpts from The Phoenix on the Sword (1932), novelette; Weird Tales 20 6, December, 1932
Gleaming shell of an outworn lie; fable of Right divine—
You gained your crowns by heritage, but Blood was the price of mine.
The throne that I won by blood and sweat , by Crom, I will not sell
For promise of valleys filled with gold, or threat of the Halls of Hell!
[...]
The Lion strode through the Halls of Hell;
Across his path grim shadows fell
Of many a mowing, nameless shape
Monsters with dripping jaws agape.
The darkness shuddered with scream and yell
When the Lion stalked through the Halls of Hell.
~ Robert E. Howard; excerpts from The Scarlet Citadel (1933), novelette; Weird Tales 21 1, January, 1933
I. Civilization & Barbarism
The Collapse of a Great Empire: The aftermath of a fallen empire, where the remnants of civilization are engulfed by barbarism. In the foreground, the ruins of a once-great palace or government building are overtaken by vines and moss, symbolizing nature reclaiming what was lost. Survivors, dressed in ragged clothes, move through the decayed streets, scavenging and living off the remains of their former world. Nearby, a group of raiders on horseback, reminiscent of ancient barbarian hordes, ride through the city, asserting control by force. The scene captures the moment when the veneer of civilization collapses, and the forces of chaos and survivalism return, showing how fragile human achievements can be in the face of adversity.
One of the oddities of the writer’s life is the utter unpredictability of inspiration. There are times when I sit down at the keyboard knowing what I have to write, and plod my way though the day’s allotment of prose in much the same spirit that a gardener turns the earth in the beds of a big garden; there are times when a project sits there grumbling to itself and has to be coaxed or prodded into taking shape on the page; but there are also times when something grabs hold of me, drags me kicking and screaming to the keyboard, and holds me there with a squamous paw clamped on my shoulder until I’ve finished whatever it is that I’ve suddenly found out that I have to write.
Over the last two months, I’ve had that last experience on a considerably larger scale than usual; to be precise, I’ve just completed the first draft of a 70,000-word novel in eight weeks. Those of my readers and correspondents who’ve been wondering why I’ve been slower than usual to respond to them now know the reason. The working title is Moon Path to Innsmouth; it deals, in the sidelong way for which fiction is so well suited, with quite a number of the issues discussed on this blog; I’m pleased to say that I’ve lined up a publisher, and so in due time the novel will be available to delight the rugose hearts of the Great Old Ones and their eldritch minions everywhere.
None of that would be relevant to the theme of the current series of posts on The Archdruid Report, except that getting the thing written required quite a bit of reference to the weird tales of an earlier era—the writings of H.P. Lovecraft, of course, but also those of Clark Ashton Smith and Robert E. Howard, who both contributed mightily to the fictive mythos that took its name from Lovecraft’s squid-faced devil-god Cthulhu. One Howard story leads to another—or at least it does if you spent your impressionable youth stewing your imagination in a bubbling cauldron of classic fantasy fiction, as I did—and that’s how it happened that I ended up revisiting the final lines of “Beyond the Black River,” part of the saga of Conan of Cimmeria, Howard’s iconic hero:
“‘Barbarism is the natural state of mankind,’ the borderer said, still staring somberly at the Cimmerian. ‘Civilization is unnatural. It is a whim of circumstance. And barbarism must always ultimately triumph.’”
It’s easy to take that as nothing more than a bit of bluster meant to add color to an adventure story—easy but, I’d suggest, inaccurate. Science fiction has made much of its claim to be a “literature of ideas,” but a strong case can be made that the weird tale as developed by Lovecraft, Smith, Howard, and their peers has at least as much claim to the same label, and the ideas that feature in a classic weird tale are often a good deal more challenging than those that are the stock in trade of most science fiction: “gee, what happens if I extrapolate this technological trend a little further?” and the like. The authors who published with Weird Tales back in the day, in particular, liked to pose edgy questions about the way that the posturings of our species and its contemporary cultures appeared in the cold light of a cosmos that’s wholly uninterested in our overblown opinion of ourselves.
Thus I think it’s worth giving Conan and his fellow barbarians their due, and treating what we may as well call the Cimmerian hypothesis as a serious proposal about the underlying structure of human history. Let’s start with some basics. What is civilization? What is barbarism? What exactly does it mean to describe one state of human society as natural and another unnatural, and how does that relate to the repeated triumph of barbarism at the end of every civilization?
The word “civilization” has a galaxy of meanings, most of them irrelevant to the present purpose. We can take the original meaning of the word—in late Latin, civilisatio—as a workable starting point; it means “having or establishing settled communities.” A people known to the Romans was civilized if its members lived in civitates, cities or towns. We can generalize this further, and say that a civilization is a form of society in which people live in artificial environments. Is there more to civilization than that? Of course there is, but as I hope to show, most of it unfolds from the distinction just traced out.
A city, after all, is a human environment from which the ordinary workings of nature have been excluded, to as great an extent as the available technology permits. When you go outdoors in a city, nearly all the things you encounter have been put there by human beings; even the trees are where they are because someone decided to put them there, not by way of the normal processes by which trees reproduce their kind and disperse their seeds. Those natural phenomena that do manage to elbow their way into an urban environment—tropical storms, rats, and the like—are interlopers, and treated as such. The gradient between urban and rural settlements can be measured precisely by what fraction of the things that residents encounter is put there by human action, as compared to the fraction that was put there by ordinary natural processes.
What is barbarism? The root meaning here is a good deal less helpful. The Greek word βαρβαροι, barbaroi, originally meant “people who say ‘bar bar bar’” instead of talking intelligibly in Greek. In Roman times that usage got bent around to mean “people outside the Empire,” and thus in due time to “tribes who are too savage to speak Latin, live in cities, or give up without a fight when we decide to steal their land.” Fast forward a century or two, and that definition morphed uncomfortably into “tribes who are too savage to speak Latin, live in cities, or stay peacefully on their side of the border” —enter Alaric’s Visigoths, Genseric’s Vandals, and the ebullient multiethnic horde that marched westwards under the banners of Attila the Hun.
This is also where Conan enters the picture. In crafting his fictional Hyborian Age, which was vaguely located in time betwen the sinking of Atlantis and the beginning of recorded history, Howard borrowed freely from various corners of the past, but the Roman experience was an important ingredient—the story cited above, framed by a struggle between the kingdom of Aquilonia and the wild Pictish tribes beyond the Black River, drew noticeably on Roman Britain, though it also took elements from the Old West and elsewhere. The entire concept of a barbarian hero swaggering his way south into the lands of civilization, which Howard introduced to fantasy fiction (and which has been so freely and ineptly plagiarized since his time), has its roots in the late Roman and post-Roman experience, a time when a great many enterprising warriors did just that, and when some, like Conan, became kings.
What sets barbarian societies apart from civilized ones is precisely that a much smaller fraction of the environment barbarians encounter results from human action. When you go outdoors in Cimmeria—if you’re not outdoors to start with, which you probably are—nearly everything you encounter has been put there by nature. There are no towns of any size, just scattered clusters of dwellings in the midst of a mostly unaltered environment. Where your Aquilonian town dweller who steps outside may have to look hard to see anything that was put there by nature, your Cimmerian who shoulders his battle-ax and goes for a stroll may have to look hard to see anything that was put there by human beings.
What’s more, there’s a difference in what we might usefully call the transparency of human constructions. In Cimmeria, if you do manage to get in out of the weather, the stones and timbers of the hovel where you’ve taken shelter are recognizable lumps of rock and pieces of tree; your hosts smell like the pheromone-laden social primates they are; and when their barbarian generosity inspires them to serve you a feast, they send someone out to shoot a deer, hack it into gobbets, and cook the result in some relatively simple manner that leaves no doubt in anyone’s mind that you’re all chewing on parts of a dead animal. Follow Conan’s route down into the cities of Aquilonia, and you’re in a different world, where paint and plaster, soap and perfume, and fancy cookery, among many other things, obscure nature’s contributions to the human world.
So that’s our first set of distinctions. What makes human societies natural or unnatural? It’s all too easy to sink into a festering swamp of unsubstantiated presuppositions here, since people in every human society think of their own ways of doing things as natural and normal, and everyone else’s ways of doing the same things as unnatural and abnormal. Worse, there’s the pervasive bad habit in industrial Western cultures of lumping all non-Western cultures with relatively simple technologies together as “primitive man”—as though there’s only one of him, sitting there in a feathered war bonnet and a lionskin kilt playing the didgeridoo—in order to flatten out human history into an imaginary straight line of progress that leads from the caves, through us, to the stars.
In point of anthropological fact, the notion of “primitive man” as an allegedly unspoiled child of nature is pure hokum, and generally racist hokum at that. “Primitive” cultures—that is to say, human societies that rely on relatively simple technological suites—differ from one another just as dramatically as they differ from modern Western industrial societies; nor do simpler technological suites correlate with simpler cultural forms. Traditional Australian aboriginal societies, which have extremely simple material technologies, are considered by many anthropologists to have among the most intricate cultures known anywhere, embracing stunningly elaborate systems of knowledge in which cosmology, myth, environmental knowledge, social custom, and scores of other fields normally kept separate in our society are woven together into dizzyingly complex tapestries of knowledge.
What’s more, those tapestries of knowledge have changed and evolved over time. The hokum that underlies that label “primitive man” presupposes, among other things, that societies that use relatively simple technological suites have all been stuck in some kind of time warp since the Neolithic—think of the common habit of speech that claims that hunter-gatherer tribes are “still in the Stone Age” and so forth. Back of that habit of speech is the industrial world’s irrational conviction that all human history is an inevitable march of progress that leads straight to our kind of society, technology, and so forth. That other human societies might evolve in different directions and find their own wholly valid ways of making a home in the universe is anathema to most people in the industrial world these days—even though all the evidence suggests that this way of looking at the history of human culture makes far more sense of the data than does the fantasy of inevitable linear progress toward us.
Thus traditional tribal societies are no more natural than civilizations are, in one important sense of the word “natural;” that is, tribal societies are as complex, abstract, unique, and historically contingent as civilizations are. There is, however, one kind of human society that doesn’t share these characteristics—a kind of society that tends to be intellectually and culturally as well as technologically simpler than most, and that recurs in astonishingly similar forms around the world and across time. We’ve talked about it at quite some length in this blog; it’s the distinctive dark age society that emerges in the ruins of every fallen civilization after the barbarian war leaders settle down to become petty kings, the survivors of the civilization’s once-vast population get to work eking out a bare subsistence from the depleted topsoil, and most of the heritage of the wrecked past goes into history’s dumpster.
If there’s such a thing as a natural human society, the basic dark age society is probably it, since it emerges when the complex, abstract, unique, and historically contingent cultures of the former civilization and its hostile neighbors have both imploded, and the survivors of the collapse have to put something together in a hurry with nothing but raw human relationships and the constraints of the natural world to guide them. Of course once things settle down the new society begins moving off in its own complex, abstract, unique, and historically contingent direction; the dark age societies of post-Mycenean Greece, post-Roman Britain, post-Heian Japan, and their many equivalents have massive similarities, but the new societies that emerged from those cauldrons of cultural rebirth had much less in common with one another than their forbears did.
In Howard’s fictive history, the era of Conan came well before the collapse of Hyborian civilization; he was not himself a dark age warlord, though he doubtless would have done well in that setting. The Pictish tribes whose activities on the Aquilonian frontier inspired the quotation cited earlier in this post weren’t a dark age society, either, though if they’d actually existed, they’d have been well along the arc of transformation that turns the hostile neighbors of a declining civilization into the breeding ground of the warbands that show up on cue to finish things off. The Picts of Howard’s tale, though, were certainly barbarians—that is, they didn’t speak Aquilonian, live in cities, or stay peaceably on their side of the Black River—and they were still around long after the Hyborian civilizations were gone.
That’s one of the details Howard borrowed from history. By and large, human societies that don’t have urban centers tend to last much longer than those that do. In particular, human societies that don’t have urban centers don’t tend to go through the distinctive cycle of decline and fall ending in a dark age that urbanized societies undergo so predictably. There are plenty of factors that might plausibly drive this difference, many of which have been discussed here and elsewhere, but I’ve come to suspect something subtler may be at work here as well. As we’ve seen, a core difference between civilizations and other human societies is that people in civilizations tend to cut themselves off from the immediate experience of nature to a much greater extent than the uncivilized do. Does this help explain why civilizations crash and burn so reliably, leaving the barbarians to play drinking games with mead while sitting unsteadily on the smoldering ruins?
As it happens, I think it does.
As we’ve discussed at length in the last three weekly posts here, human intelligence is not the sort of protean, world-transforming superpower with limitless potential it’s been labeled by the more overenthusiastic partisans of human exceptionalism. Rather, it’s an interesting capacity possessed by one species of social primates, and quite possibly shared by some other animal species as well. Like every other biological capacity, it evolved through a process of adaptation to the environment—not, please note, to some abstract concept of the environment, but to the specific stimuli and responses that a social primate gets from the African savanna and its inhabitants, including but not limited to other social primates of the same species. It’s indicative that when our species originally spread out of Africa, it seems to have settled first in those parts of the Old World that had roughly savanna-like ecosystems, and only later worked out the bugs of living in such radically different environments as boreal forests, tropical jungles, and the like.
The interplay between the human brain and the natural environment is considerably more significant than has often been realized. For the last forty years or so, a scholarly discipline called ecopsychology has explored some of the ways that interactions with nature shape the human mind. More recently, in response to the frantic attempts of American parents to isolate their children from a galaxy of largely imaginary risks, psychologists have begun to talk about “nature deficit disorder,” the set of emotional and intellectual dysfunctions that show up reliably in children who have been deprived of the normal human experience of growing up in intimate contact with the natural world.
All of this should have been obvious from first principles. Studies of human and animal behavior alike have shown repeatedly that psychological health depends on receiving certain highly specific stimuli at certain stages in the maturation process. The famous experiments by Henry Harlow, who showed that monkeys raised with a mother-substitute wrapped in terrycloth grew up more or less normal, while those raised with a bare metal mother-substitute turned out psychotic even when all their other needs were met, are among the more famous of these, but there have been many more, and many of them can be shown to affect human capacities in direct and demonstrable ways. Children learn language, for example, only if they’re exposed to speech during a certain age window; lacking the right stimulus at the right time, the capacity to use language shuts down and apparently can’t be restarted again.
In this latter example, exposure to speech is what’s known as a triggering stimulus—something from outside the organism that kickstarts a process that’s already hardwired into the organism, but will not get under way until and unless the trigger appears. There are other kinds of stimuli that play different roles in human and animal development. The maturation of the human mind, in fact, might best be seen as a process in which inputs from the environment play a galaxy of roles, some of them of critical importance. What happens when the natural inputs that were around when human intelligence evolved get shut out of the experiences of maturing humans, and replaced by a very different set of inputs put there by human beings? We’ll discuss that next week, in the second part of this post.
II. A Landscape of Hallucinations
The Fragility of Progress: A grand library, a beacon of knowledge and learning, standing in the heart of a once-thriving city. The outside walls are covered in intricate carvings of great philosophers, scientists, and leaders from past civilizations. However, the library’s doors have been broken down, and its shelves are being ransacked by barbaric figures in the midst of a destructive frenzy. Books, ancient scrolls, and delicate manuscripts are being torn apart or used for fuel, while the flames from makeshift fires light up the scene. Outside, the city’s elegant buildings are crumbling as tribal warriors pillage and destroy. The image reflects the idea that progress and knowledge can quickly be undone by violence and chaos, highlighting the fragility of civilization.
Last week’s post covered a great deal of ground—not surprising, really, for an essay that started from a quotation from a Weird Tales story about Conan the Barbarian—and it may be useful to recap the core argument here. Civilizations—meaning here human societies that concentrate power, wealth, and population in urban centers—have a distinctive historical trajectory of rise and fall that isn’t shared by societies that lack urban centers. There are plenty of good reasons why this should be so, from the ecological costs of urbanization to the buildup of maintenance costs that drives catabolic collapse, but there’s also a cognitive dimension.
Look over the histories of fallen civilizations, and far more often than not, societies don’t have to be dragged down the slope of decline and fall. Rather, they go that way at a run, convinced that the road to ruin must inevitably lead them to heaven on earth. Arnold Toynbee, whose voluminous study of the rise and fall of civilizations has been one of the main sources for this blog since its inception, wrote at length about the way that the elite classes of falling civilizations lose the capacity to come up with new responses for new situations, or even to learn from their mistakes; thus they keep on trying to use the same failed policies over and over again until the whole system crashes to ruin. That’s an important factor, no question, but it’s not just the elites who seem to lose track of the real world as civilizations go sliding down toward history’s compost heap, it’s the masses as well.
Those of my readers who want to see a fine example of this sort of blindness to the obvious need only check the latest headlines. Within the next decade or so, for example, the entire southern half of Florida will become unfit for human habitation due to rising sea levels, driven by our dumping of greenhouse gases into an already overloaded atmosphere. Low-lying neighborhoods in Miami already flood with sea water whenever a high tide and a strong onshore wind hit at the same time; one more foot of sea level rise and salt water will pour over barriers into the remaining freshwater sources, turning southern Florida into a vast brackish swamp and forcing the evacuation of most of the millions who live there.
That’s only the most dramatic of a constellation of climatic catastrophes that are already tightening their grip on much of the United States. Out west, the rain forests of western Washington are burning in the wake of years of increasingly severe drought, California’s vast agricultural acreage is reverting to desert, and the entire city of Las Vegas will probably be out of water—as in, you turn on the tap and nothing but dust comes out—in less than a decade. As waterfalls cascade down the seaward faces of Antarctic and Greenland glaciers, leaking methane blows craters in the Siberian permafrost, and sea level rises at rates considerably faster than the worst case scenarios scientists were considering a few years ago, these threats are hardly abstract issues; is anyone in America taking them seriously enough to, say, take any concrete steps to stop using the atmosphere as a gaseous sewer, starting with their own personal behavior? Surely you jest.
No, the Republicans are still out there insisting at the top of their lungs that any scientific discovery that threatens their rich friends’ profits must be fraudulent, the Democrats are still out there proclaiming just as loudly that there must be some way to deal with anthropogenic climate change that won’t cost them their frequent-flyer miles, and nearly everyone outside the political sphere is making whatever noises they think will allow them to keep on pursuing exactly those lifestyle choices that are bringing on planetary catastrophe. Every possible excuse to insist that what’s already happening won’t happen gets instantly pounced on as one more justification for inertia—the claim currently being splashed around the media that the Sun might go through a cycle of slight cooling in the decades ahead is the latest example. (For the record, even if we get a grand solar minimum, its effects will be canceled out in short order by the impact of ongoing atmospheric pollution.)
Business as usual is very nearly the only option anybody is willing to discuss, even though the long-predicted climate catastrophes are already happening and the days of business as usual in any form are obviously numbered. The one alternative that gets air time, of course, is the popular fantasy of instant planetary dieoff, which gets plenty of attention because it’s just as effective an excuse for inaction as faith in business as usual. What next to nobody wants to talk about is the future that’s actually arriving exactly as predicted: a future in which low-lying coastal regions around the country and the world have to be abandoned to the rising seas, while the Southwest and large portions of the mountain west become more inhospitable than the eastern Sahara or Arabia’s Empty Quarter.
If the ice melt keeps accelerating at its present pace, we could be only a few decades form the point at which it’s Manhattan Island’s turn to be abandoned, because everything below ground level is permanently flooded with seawater and every winter storm sends waves rolling right across the island and flings driftwood logs against second story windows. A few decades more, and waves will roll over the low-lying neighborhoods of Houston, Boston, Seattle, and Washington DC, while the ruined buildings that used to be New Orleans rise out of the still waters of a brackish estuary and the ruined buildings that used to be Las Vegas are half buried by the drifting sand. Take a moment to consider the economic consequences of that much infrastructure loss, that much destruction of built capital, that many people who somehow have to be evacuated and resettled, and think about what kind of body blow that will deliver to an industrial society that is already in bad shape for other reasons.
None of this had to happen. Half a century ago, policy makers and the public alike had already been presented with a tolerably clear outline of what was going to happen if we proceeded along the trajectory we were on, and those same warnings have been repeated with increasing force year by year, as the evidence to support them has mounted up implacably—and yet nearly all of us nodded and smiled and kept going. Nor has this changed in the least as the long-predicted catastrophes have begun to show up right on schedule. Quite the contrary: faced with a rising spiral of massive crises, people across the industrial world are, with majestic consistency, doing exactly those things that are guaranteed to make those crises worse.
So the question that needs to be asked, and if possible answered, is why civilizations—human societies that concentrate population, power, and wealth in urban centers—so reliably lose the capacity to learn from their mistakes and recognize that a failed policy has in fact failed. It’s also worth asking why they so reliably do this within a finite and predictable timespan: civilizations last on average around a millennium before they crash into a dark age, while uncivilized societies routinely go on for many times that period. Doubtless any number of factors drive civilizations to their messy ends, but I’d like to suggest a factor that, to my knowledge, hasn’t been discussed in this context before.
Let’s start with what may well seem like an irrelevancy. There’s been a great deal of discussion down through the years in environmental circles about the way that the survival and health of the human body depends on inputs from nonhuman nature. There’s been a much more modest amount of talk about the human psychological and emotional needs that can only be met through interaction with natural systems. One question I’ve never seen discussed, though, is whether the human intellect has needs that are only fulfilled by a natural environment.
As I consider that question, one obvious answer comes to mind: negative feedback.
The human intellect is the part of each of us that thinks, that tries to make sense of the universe of our experience. It does this by creating models. By “models” I don’t just mean those tightly formalized and quantified models we call scientific theories; a poem is also a model of part of the universe of human experience, so is a myth, so is a painting, and so is a vague hunch about how something will work out. When a twelve-year-old girl pulls the petals off a daisy while saying “he loves me, he loves me not,” she’s using a randomization technique to decide between two models of one small but, to her, very important portion of the universe, the emotional state of whatever boy she has in mind.
With any kind of model, it’s critical to remember Alfred Korzybski’s famous rule: “the map is not the territory.” A model, to put the same point another way, is a representation; it represents the way some part of the universe looks when viewed from the perspective of one or more members of our species of social primates, using the idiosyncratic and profoundly limited set of sensory equipments, neural processes, and cognitive frameworks we got handed by our evolutionary heritage. Painful though this may be to our collective egotism, it’s not unfair to say that human mental models are what you get when you take the universe and dumb it down to the point that our minds can more or less grasp it.
What keeps our models from becoming completely dysfunctional is the negative feedback we get from the universe. For the benefit of readers who didn’t get introduced to systems theory, I should probably take a moment to explain negative feedback. The classic example is the common household thermostat, which senses the temperature of the air inside the house and activates a switch accordingly. If the air temperature is below a certain threshold, the thermostat turns the heat on and warms things up; if the air temperature rises above a different, slightly higher threshold, the thermostat turns the heat off and lets the house cool down.
In a sense, a thermostat embodies a very simple model of one very specific part of the universe, the temperature inside the house. Like all models, this one includes a set of implicit definitions and a set of value judgments. The definitions are the two thresholds, the one that turns the furnace on and the one that turns it off, and the value judgments label temperatures below the first threshold “too cold” and those above the second “too hot.” Like every human model, the thermostat model is unabashedly anthropocentric—“too cold” by the thermostat’s standard would be uncomfortably warm for a polar bear, for example—and selects out certain factors of interest to human beings from a galaxy of other things we don’t happen to want to take into consideration.
The models used by the human intellect to make sense of the universe are usually less simple than the one that guides a thermostat—there are unfortunately exceptions—but they work according to the same principle. They contain definitions, which may be implicit or explicit: the girl plucking petals from the daisy may have not have an explicit definition of love in mind when she says “he loves me,” but there’s some set of beliefs and expectations about what those words imply underlying the model. They also contain value judgments: if she’s attracted to the boy in question, “he loves me” has a positive value and “he loves me not” has a negative one.
Notice, though, that there’s a further dimension to the model, which is its interaction with the observed behavior of the thing it’s supposed to model. Plucking petals from a daisy, all things considered, is not a very good predictor of the emotional states of twelve-year-old boys; predictions made on the basis of that method are very often disproved by other sources of evidence, which is why few girls much older than twelve rely on it as an information source. Modern western science has formalized and quantified that sort of reality testing, but it’s something that most people do at least occasionally. It’s when they stop doing so that we get the inability to recognize failure that helps to drive, among many other things, the fall of civilizations.
Individual facets of experienced reality thus provide negative feedback to individual models. The whole structure of experienced reality, though, is capable of providing negative feedback on another level—when it challenges the accuracy of the entire mental process of modeling.
Nature is very good at providing negative feedback of that kind. Here’s a human conceptual model that draws a strict line between mammals, on the one hand, and birds and reptiles, on the other. Not much more than a century ago, it was as precise as any division in science: mammals have fur and don’t lay eggs, reptiles and birds don’t have fur and do lay eggs. Then some Australian settler met a platypus, which has fur and lays eggs. Scientists back in Britain flatly refused to take it seriously until some live platypuses finally made it there by ship. Plenty of platypus egg was splashed across plenty of distinguished scientific faces, and definitions had to be changed to make room for another category of mammals and the evolutionary history necessary to explain it.
Here’s another human conceptual model, the one that divides trees into distinct species. Most trees in most temperate woodlands, though, actually have a mix of genetics from closely related species. There are few red oaks; what you have instead are mostly-red, partly-red, and slightly-red oaks. Go from the northern to the southern end of a species’ distribution, or from wet to dry regions, and the variations within the species are quite often more extreme than those that separate trees that have been assigned to different species. Here’s still another human conceptual model, the one that divides trees from shrubs—plenty of species can grow either way, and the list goes on.
The human mind likes straight lines, definite boundaries, precise verbal definitions. Nature doesn’t. People who spend most of their time dealing with undomesticated natural phenomena, accordingly, have to get used to the fact that nature is under no obligation to make the kind of sense the human mind prefers. I’d suggest that this is why so many of the cultures our society calls “primitive”—that is, those that have simple material technologies and interact directly with nature much of the time—so often rely on nonlogical methods of thought: those our culture labels “mythological,” “magical,” or—I love this term—“prescientific.” (That the “prescientific” will almost certainly turn out to be the postscientific as well is one of the lessons of history that modern industrial society is trying its level best to ignore.) Nature as we experience it isn’t simple, neat, linear, and logical, and so it makes sense that the ways of thinking best suited to dealing with nature directly aren’t simple, neat, linear, and logical either.
With this in mind, let’s return to the distinction discussed in last week’s post. I noted there that a city is a human settlement from which the direct, unmediated presence of nature has been removed as completely as the available technology permits. What replaces natural phenomena in an urban setting, though, is as important as what isn’t allowed there. Nearly everything that surrounds you in a city was put there deliberately by human beings; it is the product of conscious human thinking, and it follows the habits of human thought just outlined. Compare a walk down a city street to a walk through a forest or a shortgrass prairie: in the city street, much more of what you see is simple, neat, linear, and logical. A city is an environment reshaped to reflect the habits and preferences of the human mind.
I suspect there may be a straightforwardly neurological factor in all this. The human brain, so much larger compared to body weight than the brains of most of our primate relatives, evolved because having a larger brain provided some survival advantage to those hominins who had it, in competition with those who didn’t. It’s probably a safe assumption that processing information inputs from the natural world played a very large role in these advantages, and this would imply, in turn, that the human brain is primarily adapted for perceiving things in natural environments—not, say, for building cities, creating technologies, and making the other common products of civilization.
Thus some significant part of the brain has to be redirected away from the things that it’s adapted to do, in order to make civilizations possible. I’d like to propose that the simplified, rationalized, radically information-poor environment of the city plays a crucial role in this. (Information-poor? Of course; the amount of information that comes cascading through the five keen senses of an alert hunter-gatherer standing in an African forest is vastly greater than what a city-dweller gets from the blank walls and the monotonous sounds and scents of an urban environment.) Children raised in an environment that lacks the constant cascade of information natural environments provide, and taught to redirect their mental powers toward such other activities as reading and mathematics, grow up with cognitive habits and, in all probability, neurological arrangements focused toward the activities of civilization and away from the things to which the human brain is adapted by evolution.
One source of supporting evidence for this admittedly speculative proposal is the worldwide insistence on the part of city-dwellers that people who live in isolated rural communities, far outside the cultural ambit of urban life, are just plain stupid. What that means in practice, of course, is that people from isolated rural communities aren’t used to using their brains for the particular purposes that city people value. These allegedly “stupid” countryfolk are by and large extraordinarily adept at the skills they need to survive and thrive in their own environments. They may be able to listen to the wind and know exactly where on the far side of the hill a deer waits to be shot for dinner, glance at a stream and tell which riffle the trout have chosen for a hiding place, watch the clouds pile up and read from them how many days they’ve got to get the hay in before the rains come and rot it in the fields—all of which tasks require sophisticated information processing, the kind of processing that human brains evolved doing.
Notice, though, how the urban environment relates to the human habit of mental modeling. Everything in a city was a mental model before it became a building, a street, an item of furniture, or what have you. Chairs look like chairs, houses like houses, and so on; it’s so rare for humanmade items to break out of the habitual models of our species and the particular culture that built them that when this happens, it’s a source of endless comment. Where a natural environment constantly challenges human conceptual models, an urban environment reinforces them, producing a feedback loop that’s probably responsible for most of the achievements of civilization.
I suggest, though, that the same feedback loop may also play a very large role in the self-destruction of civilizations. People raised in urban environments come to treat their mental models as realities, more real than the often-unruly facts on the ground, because everything they encounter in their immediate environments reinforces those models. As the models become more elaborate and the cities become more completely insulated from the complexities of nature, the inhabitants of a civilization move deeper and deeper into a landscape of hallucinations—not least because as many of those hallucinations get built in brick and stone, or glass and steel, as the available technology permits. As a civilization approaches its end, the divergence between the world as it exists and the mental models that define the world for the civilization’s inmates becomes total, and its decisions and actions become lethally detached from reality—with consequences that we’ll discuss in next week’s post.
III. The End Of The Dream
Barbarians at the Gates: The moment when the forces of barbarism overtake the last stronghold of civilization. The grand walls of a once-great city are breached, and nomadic, primal warriors pour through the gates, overtaking the citizens who have long lived in comfort and peace. The contrast between the city’s elegant architecture--tall columns, intricate carvings, and advanced technology--and the brutal, chaotic energy of the invading force is stark. Fires rage in the streets, statues of once-revered leaders are toppled, and the symbols of order are shattered. The city, which once represented the height of human progress, is now engulfed in chaos and destruction. This moment represents the ultimate end of the dream that civilization could forever hold back the forces of chaos and violence.
Let’s take a moment to recap the argument of the last two posts here on The Archdruid Report before we follow it through to its conclusion. There are any number of ways to sort out the diversity of human social forms, but one significant division lies between those societies that don’t concentrate population, wealth, and power in urban centers, and those that do. One important difference between the societies that fall into these two categories is that urbanized societies—we may as well call these by the time-honored term “civilizations”—reliably crash and burn after a lifespan of roughly a thousand years, while societies that lack cities have no such fixed lifespans and can last for much longer without going through the cycle of rise and fall, punctuated by dark ages, that defines the history of civilizations.
It’s probably necessary to pause here and clear up what seems to be a common misunderstanding. To say that societies in the first category can last for much more than a thousand years doesn’t mean that all of them do this. I mention this because I fielded a flurry of comments from people who pointed to a few examples of societies without cities that collapsed in less than a millennium, and insisted that this somehow disproved my hypothesis. Not so; if everyone who takes a certain diet pill, let’s say, suffers from heart damage, the fact that some people who don’t take the diet pill suffer heart damage from other causes doesn’t absolve the diet pill of responsibility. In the same way, the fact that civilizations such as Egypt and China have managed to pull themselves together after a dark age and rebuild a new version of their former civilization doesn’t erase the fact of the collapse and the dark age that followed it.
The question is why civilizations crash and burn so reliably. There are plenty of good reasons why this might happen, and it’s entirely possible that several of them are responsible; the collapse of civilization could be an overdetermined process. Like the victim in the cheap mystery novel who was shot, stabbed, strangled, clubbed over the head, and then chucked out a twentieth floor window, that is, civilizations that fall may have more causes of death than were actually necessary. The ecological costs of building and maintaining cities, for example, place much greater strains on the local environment than the less costly and concentrated settlement patterns of nonurban societies, and the rising maintenance costs of capital—the driving force behind the theory of catabolic collapse I’ve proposed elsewhere—can spin out of control much more easily in an urban setting than elsewhere. Other examples of the vulnerability of urbanized societies can easily be worked out by those who wish to do so.
That said, there’s at least one other factor at work. As noted in last week’s post, civilizations by and large don’t have to be dragged down the slope of decline and fall; instead, they take that route with yells of triumph, convinced that the road to ruin will infallibly lead them to heaven on earth, and attempts to turn them aside from that trajectory typically get reactions ranging from blank incomprehension to furious anger. It’s not just the elites who fall into this sort of self-destructive groupthink, either: it’s not hard to find, in a falling civilization, people who claim to disagree with the ideology that’s driving the collapse, but people who take their disagreement to the point of making choices that differ from those of their more orthodox neighbors are much scarcer. They do exist; every civilization breeds them, but they make up a very small fraction of the population, and they generally exist on the fringes of society, despised and condemned by all those right-thinking people whose words and actions help drive the accelerating process of decline and fall.
The next question, then, is how civilizations get caught in that sort of groupthink. My proposal, as sketched out last week, is that the culprit is a rarely noticed side effect of urban life. People who live in a mostly natural environment—and by this I mean merely an environment in which most things are put there by nonhuman processes rather than by human action—have to deal constantly with the inevitable mismatches between the mental models of the universe they carry in their heads and the universe that actually surrounds them. People who live in a mostly artificial environment—an environment in which most things were made and arranged by human action—don’t have to deal with this anything like so often, because an artificial environment embodies the ideas of the people who constructed and arranged it. A natural environment therefore applies negative or, as it’s also called, corrective feedback to human models of the way things are, while an artificial environment applies positive feedback—the sort of thing people usually mean when they talk about a feedback loop.
This explains, incidentally, one of the other common differences between civilizations and other kinds of human society: the pace of change. Anthropologists not so long ago used to insist that what they liked to call “primitive societies”—that is, societies that have relatively simple technologies and no cities—were stuck in some kind of changeless stasis. That was nonsense, but the thin basis in fact that was used to justify the nonsense was simply that the pace of change in low-tech, non-urban societies, when they’re left to their own devices, tends to be fairly sedate, and usually happens over a time scale of generations. Urban societies, on the other hand, change quickly, and the pace of change tends to accelerate over time: a dead giveaway that a positive feedback loop is at work.
Notice that what’s fed back to the minds of civilized people by their artificial environment isn’t simply human thinking in general. It’s whatever particular set of mental models and habits of thought happen to be most popular in their civilization. Modern industrial civilization, for example, is obsessed with simplicity; our mental models and habits of thought value straight lines, simple geometrical shapes, hard boundaries, and clear distinctions. That obsession, and the models and mental habits that unfold from it, have given us an urban environment full of straight lines, simple geometrical shapes, hard boundaries, and clear distinctions—and thus reinforce our unthinking assumption that these things are normal and natural, which by and large they aren’t.
Modern industrial civilization is also obsessed with the frankly rather weird belief that growth for its own sake is a good thing. (Outside of a few specific cases, that is. I’ve wondered at times whether the deeply neurotic American attitude toward body weight comes from the conflict between current fashions in body shape and the growth-is-good mania of the rest of our culture; if bigger is better, why isn’t a big belly better than a small one?) In a modern urban American environment, it’s easy to believe that growth is good, since that claim is endlessly rehashed whenever some new megawhatsit replaces something of merely human scale, and since so many of the costs of malignant growth get hauled out of sight and dumped on somebody else. In settlement patterns that haven’t been pounded into their present shape by true believers in industrial society’s growth-for-its-own-sake ideology, people are rather more likely to grasp the meaning of the words “too much.”
I’ve used examples from our own civilization because they’re familiar, but every civilization reshapes its urban environment in the shape of its own mental models, which then reinforce those models in the minds of the people who live in that environment. As these people in turn shape that environment, the result is positive feedback: the mental models in question become more and more deeply entrenched in the built environment and thus also the collective conversation of the culture, and in both cases, they also become more elaborate and more extreme. The history of architecture in the western world over the last few centuries is a great example of this latter: over that time, buildings became ever more completely defined by straight lines, flat surfaces, simple geometries, and hard boundaries between one space and another—and it’s hardly an accident that popular culture in urban communities has simplified in much the same way over that same timespan.
One way to understand this is to see a civilization as the working out in detail of some specific set of ideas about the world. At first those ideas are as inchoate as dream-images, barely grasped even by the keenest thinkers of the time. Gradually, though, the ideas get worked out explicitly; conflicts among them are resolved or papered over in standardized ways; the original set of ideas becomes the core of a vast, ramifying architecture of thought which defines the universe to the inhabitants of that civilization. Eventually, everything in the world of human experience is assigned some place in that architecture of thought; everything that can be hammered into harmony with the core set of ideas has its place in the system, while everything that can’t gets assigned the status of superstitious nonsense, or whatever other label the civilization likes to use for the realities it denies.
The further the civilization develops, though, the less it questions the validity of the basic ideas themselves, and the urban environment is a critical factor in making this happen. By limiting, as far as possible, the experiences available to influential members of society to those that fit the established architecture of thought, urban living makes it much easier to confuse mental models with the universe those models claim to describe, and that confusion is essential if enough effort, enthusiasm, and passion are to be directed toward the process of elaborating those models to their furthest possible extent.
A branch of knowledge that has to keep on going back to revisit its first principles, after all, will never get far beyond them. This is why philosophy, which is the science of first principles, doesn’t “progress” in the simpleminded sense of that word—Aristotle didn’t disprove Plato, nor did Nietzsche refute Schopenhauer, because each of these philosophers, like all others in that challenging field, returned to the realm of first principles from a different starting point and so offered a different account of the landscape. Original philosophical inquiry thus plays a very large role in the intellectual life of every civilization early in the process of urbanization, since this helps elaborate the core ideas on which the civilization builds its vision of reality; once that process is more or less complete, though, philosophy turns into a recherché intellectual specialty or gets transformed into intellectual dogma.
Cities are thus the Petri dishes in which civilizations ripen their ideas to maturity—and like Petri dishes, they do this by excluding contaminating influences. It’s easy, from the perspective of a falling civilization like ours, to see this as a dreadful mistake, a withdrawal from contact with the real world in order to pursue an abstract vision of things increasingly detached from everything else. That’s certainly one way to look at the matter, but there’s another side to it as well.
Civilizations are far and away the most spectacularly creative form of human society. Over the course of its thousand-year lifespan, the inhabitants of a civilization will create many orders of magnitude more of the products of culture—philosophical, scientific and religious traditions, works of art and the traditions that produce and sustain them, and so on—than an equal number of people living in non-urban societies and experiencing the very sedate pace of cultural change already mentioned. To borrow a metaphor from the plant world, non-urban societies are perennials, and civilizations are showy annuals that throw all their energy into the flowering process. Having flowered, civilizations then go to seed and die, while the perennial societies flower less spectacularly and remain green thereafter.
The feedback loop described above explains both the explosive creativity of civilizations and their equally explosive downfall. It’s precisely because civilizations free themselves from the corrective feedback of nature, and divert an ever larger portion of their inhabitants’ brainpower from the uses for which human brains were originally adapted by evolution, that they generate such torrents of creativity. Equally, it’s precisely because they do these things that civilizations run off the rails into self-feeding delusion, lose the capacity to learn the lessons of failure or even notice that failure is taking place, and are destroyed by threats they’ve lost the capacity to notice, let alone overcome. Meanwhile, other kinds of human societies move sedately along their own life cycles, and their creativity and their craziness—and they have both of these, of course, just as civilizations do—are kept within bounds by the enduring negative feedback loops of nature.
Which of these two options is better? That’s a question of value, not of fact, and so it has no one answer. Facts, to return to a point made in these posts several times, belong to the senses and the intellect, and they’re objective, at least to the extent that others can say, “yes, I see it too.” Values, by contrast, are a matter of the heart and the will, and they’re subjective; to call something good or bad doesn’t state an objective fact about the thing being discussed. It always expresses a value judgment from some individual point of view. You can’t say “x is better than y,” and mean anything by it, unless you’re willing to field such questions as “better by what criteria?” and “better for whom?”
Myself, I’m very fond of the benefits of civilization. I like hot running water, public libraries, the rule of law, and a great many other things that you get in civilizations and generally don’t get outside of them. Of course that preference is profoundly shaped by the fact that I grew up in a civilization; if I’d happened to be the son of yak herders in central Asia or tribal horticulturalists in upland Papua New Guinea, I might well have a different opinion—and I might also have a different opinion even if I’d grown up in this civilization but had different needs and predilections. Robert E. Howard, whose fiction launched the series of posts that finishes up this week, was a child of American civilization at its early twentieth century zenith, and he loathed civilization and all it stood for.
This is one of the two reasons that I think it’s a waste of time to get into arguments over whether civilization is a good thing. The other reason is that neither my opinion nor yours, dear reader, nor the opinion of anybody else who might happen to want to fulminate on the internet about the virtues or vices of civilization, is worth two farts in an EF-5 tornado when it comes to the question of whether or not future civilizations will rise and fall on this planet after today’s industrial civilization completes the arc of its destiny. Since the basic requirements of urban life first became available not long after the end of the last ice age, civilizations have risen wherever conditions favored them, cycled through their lifespans, and fell, and new civilizations rose again in the same places if the conditions remained favorable for that process.
Until the coming of the fossil fuel age, though, civilization was a localized thing, in a double sense. On the one hand, without the revolution in transport and military technology made possible by fossil fuels, any given civilization could only maintain control over a small portion of the planet’s surface for more than a fairly short time—thus as late as 1800, when the industrial revolution was already well under way, the civilized world was still divided into separate civilizations that each pursued its own very different ideas and values. On the other hand, without the economic revolution made possible by fossil fuels, very large sections of the world were completely unsuited to civilized life, and remained outside the civilized world for all practical purposes. As late as 1800, as a result, quite a bit of the world’s land surface was still inhabited by hunter-gatherers, nomadic pastoralists, and tribal horticulturalists who owed no allegiance to any urban power and had no interest in cities and their products at all—except for the nomadic pastoralists, that is, who occasionally liked to pillage one.
The world’s fossil fuel reserves aren’t renewable on any time scale that matters to human beings. Since we’ve burnt all the easily accessible coal, oil, and natural gas on the planet, and are working our way through the stuff that’s difficult to get even with today’s baroque and energy-intensive technologies, the world’s first fossil-fueled human civilization is guaranteed to be its last as well. That means that once the deindustrial dark age ahead of us is over, and conditions favorable for the revival of civilization recur here and there on various corners of the planet, it’s a safe bet that new civilizations will build atop the ruins we’ve left for them.
The energy resources they’ll have available to them, though, will be far less abundant and concentrated than the fossil fuels that gave industrial civilization its global reach. With luck, and some hard work on the part of people living now, they may well inherit the information they need to make use of sun, wind, and other renewable energy resources in ways that the civilizations before ours didn’t know how to do. As our present-day proponents of green energy are finding out the hard way just now, though, this doesn’t amount to the kind of energy necessary to maintain our kind of civilization.
I’ve argued elsewhere, especially in my book The Ecotechnic Future, that modern industrial society is simply the first, clumsiest, and most wasteful form of what might be called technic society, the subset of human societies that get a significant amount of their total energy from nonbiotic sources—that is, from something other than human and animal muscles fueled by the annual product of photosynthesis. If that turns out to be correct, future civilizations that learn to use energy sparingly may be able to accomplish some of the things that we currently do by throwing energy around with wild abandon, and they may also learn how to do remarkable things that are completely beyond our grasp today. Eventually there may be other global civilizations, following out their own unique sets of ideas about the world through the usual process of dramatic creativity followed by dramatic collapse.
That’s a long way off, though. As the first global civilization gives way to the first global dark age, my working guess is that civilization—that is to say, the patterns of human society necessary to support the concentration of population, wealth, and power in urban centers—is going to go away everywhere, or nearly everywhere, over the next one to three centuries. A planet hammered by climate change, strewn with chemical and radioactive poisons, and swept by mass migrations is not a safe place for cities and the other amenities of civilized life. As things calm down, say, half a millennium from now, a range of new civilizations will doubtless emerge in those parts of the planet that have suitable conditions for urban life, while human societies of other kinds will emerge everywhere else on the planet that human life is possible at all.
I realize that this is not exactly a welcome prospect for those people who’ve bought into industrial civilization’s overblown idea of its own universal importance. Those who believe devoutly that our society is the cutting edge of humanity’s future, destined to march on gloriously forever to the stars, will be as little pleased by the portrait of the future I’ve painted as their equal and opposite numbers, for whom our society is the end of history and must surely be annihilated, along with all seven billion of us, by some glorious cataclysm of the sort beloved by Hollywood scriptwriters. Still, the universe is under no obligation to cater to anybody’s fantasies, you know. That’s a lesson Robert E. Howard knew well and wove into the best of his fiction, the stories of Conan among them—and it’s a lesson worth learning now, at least for those who hope to have some influence over how the future affects them, their families, and their communities, in an age of decline and fall.
The Cyclical Rise and Fall of Civilizations: A grand timeline divided into cycles of rise and fall, where each era of civilization reaches its peak before collapsing into barbarism. In the center, an ancient city, reminiscent of Mesopotamian or Roman grandeur, stands tall, but the surrounding edges show it crumbling as nature reclaims the ruins. New nomadic tribes emerge from the wilderness, living primitively in the ruins of the once-great city. The atmosphere is dark, with storm clouds gathering over the fallen city, symbolizing the inevitable fall of all societies. The image emphasizes the Cimmerian Hypothesis--civilizations, no matter how advanced, are doomed to repeat cycles of decline and renewal.
-What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. -Why isn't anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What's the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they'll do the legislating. -Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city's main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor's waiting to receive their leader. He's even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. -Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. -Why don't our distinguished orators turn up as usual to make their speeches, say what they have to say? Because the barbarians are coming today and they're bored by rhetoric and public speaking. -Why this sudden bewilderment, this confusion? (How serious people's faces have become.) Why are the streets and squares emptying so rapidly, everyone going home lost in thought? Because night has fallen and the barbarians haven't come. And some of our men who have just returned from the border say there are no barbarians any longer. Now what's going to happen to us without barbarians? Those people were a kind of solution.
~ Constantine P. Cavafy; Waiting For The Barbarians (1904), Full Poem
Your Support is vital for Smelting the DOOM & keeping it HOT & FRESH off the Furnace!
If you enjoyed the read, I would greatly appreciate it if you subscribed to a Monthly or Yearly pledge to support my work so that I may continue Smelting DOOM for your displeasure!
Alternatively, you can tip here:
Thank You, Dear Readers, for all your Support!
https://www.au.dk/fileadmin/www.au.dk/subuniversity/Undervisningsmateriale_DS3__15-16_/Litteraturhistorie_2.pdf
https://www.hilo.hawaii.edu/campuscenter/hohonu/volumes/documents/TheEndofDays-TalesofApocalypseAcrossTimeandSpaceArielMoniz.pdf
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10556790215590
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.49906/page/n207/mode/2up
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Naeem-Abas/publication/274718268_Review_of_Fossil_Fuels_and_Future_Energy_Technologies/links/5a1183f3aca27287ce293c6d/Review-of-Fossil-Fuels-and-Future-Energy-Technologies.pdf
https://nickbostrom.com/papers/vulnerable.pdf
https://tuda.triumf.ca/evolution/environment/club_of_rome.pdf
https://donellameadows.org/archives/the-history-of-the-limits-to-growth/#:~:text=In%20the%20book's%20conclusion%2C%20the,the%20next%20one%20hundred%20years.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/staggering-80-american-households-worse-120000535.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAA1keSp4F_tyL1v_doou_vdVkCi01zO393mBBKPVzFMy26wRIqTRriBoBj6OGw_LdAYqpBKpsPIhWighjTXOrxBOlOOxUpN7vpHYAXcFz38hW9jafnUElczKAmwMZ47JJMJaArObPWdsaROOy2ys4DECm0AAL2CGlYiI1ZvnaB78
https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/113678237/Kirton_20and_20Larionova-libre.pdf?1713882080=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DThe_First_Fifteen_Years_of_the_BRICS.pdf&Expires=1726595008&Signature=G2A27lY3edX4KHTB48IRwOzjZfxh3J3ycOhDMx35kEySnSY5vcfLb8pie4qAITDSUOMVepKiPPVQVhnW3t1yBz3XgKfQmNqOWJJewzAHZUS-s7ofasz3AWpjzlhitCzvROJzlTAAQAX~oxtO2euLMDeNtyxcuIOOqeg4y3ZmrmX-y5U9UnkbjQeWq6PtGUFnUXefbbSyl7qVHSfUR0aw128wMw3n5GyN~YUPM4jAdIGF0tliYPJ7lyEj8toCBBOkQX7oan6bZnKx7s3ZQmcRIRaO74pZQYfUFTuPKzxJhD48zertgZtxyOJz1cVYMFffcRAPRuHTjnJRqArNE1RinA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA
To Support Pater
& his work, please consider purchasing Running on Empty: How the Imminent Collapse of the Petrodollar System sets the Stage for World War III (2023) from Amazon!https://www.ecoshock.org/transcripts/greer_on_collapse.pdf
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/FACULTY/ITO/GG410/Peak_Oil/Hughes_Future_Word_Oil_GrowthPlateauPeak_EnvSust11.pdf
https://tamugjournalclub.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/jones-and-warner-2016-the-21st-centruy-population-energy-climate-nexus.pdf
https://canupub.me/Docs/2014/258-Trans-New%20Soc/Transition%20to%20a%20New%20Society%20-%2028%20-%20Loucas%20G.%20CHRISTOPHOROU.pdf
https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/civilization-as-a-large-scale-energy-information-system
If you have not done so already, Please Subscribe to the Grandmaster on Ecosophia.net, Dear Readers & Listeners! His work is a Must Read for DOOM-ers of all shapes & sizes, as well as Young, Apsiring DOOM Merchants like Yours Truly! 😘
For those interested, here are the links to Part I, Part II & Part III at Resilience.org
The issue is capitalism, not “globalism”.
The post growth crowd took root in the western elites with its nodes in the Club of Rome, WEF, and other "globalist" groupings - all roads leading to the money changers. The bankers have never missed an opportunity and transformed this into a process for rent extraction under such umbrellas as "carbon credits". These same people regard the lower echelons as "useless eaters" whose time as "money" batteries is to be supplanted by robots and AI. At first blush the idea of nuclear erradication has been replaced by biowarfare. Wuhan was the cuckoos egg and likely there will be more attempts to target populations, but with agents like Fauci its become globalist modus SNAFU.