What is "collapse"?
The word "collapse" is, like "civilization", often used
to mean very different things. When someone says that civilization
is "going to collapse," do they mean that the power grid is going
to go out at the stroke of midnight, and never come back on? Do they
mean that it is going to crumble away over decades of gradual decline?
The word certainly brings to mind things like the Y2K scare, or the
Mad Max movies. Really though, it could mean any number of things,
from a very rapid, catastrophic, overnight failure to a years-long
economic and industrial decline.
Archaeologist Joseph Tainter is the author
of The Collapse of Complex Societies. His book is a survey
of numerous historical collapses which includes suggestions about
their likely causes and common threads. Tainter writes: "A society
has collapsed when it displays a rapid, significant loss of an established
level of sociopolitical complexity." He elaborates:
"Collapse
is manifest in such things as:
- a lower degree of stratification and social
differentiation;
- less economic and occupational specialization,
of individuals, groups, and territories;
- less centralized control; that is, less regulation
and integration of diverse economic and political groups by elites;
- less behavioural control and regimentation;
- less investment in ... those elements that define
the concept of 'civilization': monumental architecture, artistic
and literary achievements, and the like;
- less flow of information between individuals,
between political and economic groups, and between a center and
its periphery;
- less sharing, trading, and redistribution of
resources;
- less overall coordination and organization of
individuals and groups;
- a smaller territory integrated within a single
political unit."
And any given number of those changes could occur in a given place
during the process of collapse. These changes could occur over a short
or longer period of time (although in our case, the timescale is likely
to be relatively short).
What one may see also depends on the scale
that one is looking at. For example, collapse could include
"less sharing, trading, and redistribution of resources"
at an international level as increasing fuel costs shrink the global
shipping industry. But at the same time, there could (and will) be
an increase of sharing and barter at the community level, which will
strengthen bonds between people.
Some of these changes are just the sorts of things that social justice
activists have been working towards for years. For example, a "lower
degree of stratification" -- that is, a (more) classless and equitable
society. We also strive for "less centralized control," "less behavioural
control and regimentation," and so on. These are some of the aspects
of collapse that we can work to accelerate and emphasize.
Other aspects are less appealing to some people. Those who closely
identify with the dominant culture may be displeased at the prospect
of a decrease in "monumental architecture, artistic and literary achievements,
and the like." I don't value most of the artistic creations that have
emerged from civilization -- with the exception of those artistic
creations that oppose the unequal power relations and exploitation
inherent to civilization. Most of the "culture" created is simply
a form of entertaining propaganda created to reinforce the insane
assumptions of the status quo, and to distract people from the serious
problems and injustices in the world.
I will be glad to see television go, and look forward to an when people,
unencumbered by bad jobs in a wage economy that benefits the richest,
will again have time to create culture and art that appeals to them.
In other words, I look forward to a time when humans aren't passive
consumers of manufactured "culture," but instead develop the stories
and art that speaks to them, to their communities and landbases.
I often use terms like "industrial collapse" or "the collapse of
industrial civilization." I use the term "industrial" to refer to
a society with a mechanized means of production -- that is, the
essentials of life in this society are made by or with the essential
aid of a machines. (And a more detailed definition and description
of the terms "industrial" and "machine" is coming soon.) So an industrial
collapse is a collapse of that industrial system, of
a machine system. It means "less flow of information" between machines
and more flow of information between people. It means less "redistribution
of resources" by machines, and more sharing of the essentials of life
between humans and communities.
So
as a refined definition of collapse, I'll say that industrial
collapse is a short-term, rapid decline in the size and productivity
of an industrial system. Since the industrial system is dependant
on enormous and increasing amounts of cheap oil, and oil production
is peaking and will soon be on the decline, an industrial collapse
is inevitable. The internal interdependence of the industrial system
will greatly accelerate the speed of that collapse. That interdependence
and complexity is here because civilizations tend to solve their problems
by becoming more complex. Almost never do civilizations get rid of
a machine or technology or institution because it causes too many
problems. Rather, they create a new institution or technology to "solve"
the problems of the first, which in turn creates new problems and
spawns new "problem-solving" institutions and technologies.
Eventually the problems become too severe to be solved (like Peak
Oil), and the society can't revert to a "slightly simpler"
industrial system because modern technologies are all dependent on
having their problems solved by other modern technologies. So the
system comes apart very quickly.
There are a couple of properties of an industrial collapse
which aren't noted in the changes listed by Tainter (which isn't
surprising, since he was looking at societies which weren't
industrial). These include:
-
A significant and continuing decline in industrial agriculture
yields.
-
A significant and continuing decline in the production and availability
of consumer goods in general, and an increase in their prices.
-
The potential for collapse to be very rapid. (This is because
machines already do things extremely rapidly, and because of the
interconnectedness of the industrial machines, such as the dependence
of almost all machines on either gas or electricity or both.)
And, of course, collapse yields many resulting effects, be they a
global rebirth of community or a nuclear war over resources. I'll
examine some more specific scenarios and timeframes for industrial
collapse in greater detail soon.
Now, a couple of people have said things to me like "Well,
if we build ecovillages and permaculture gardens fast enough, and
provide alternatives, a collapse won't happen." That's
when I clarify my definition to them: Even if there were, somehow,
a smooth movement of people from the industrial system to an earth-based
system,
there would still be an industrial collapse. That's because
the industrial system will still have undergone a rapid, short-term
decline towards non-existence. The ship is sinking, and will sink
whether there are people on it or not.
My goal isn't to prevent collapse through the use of photovoltaics
or other industrial technologies. Matt Savinar and others have exhaustively
shown why this is impossible. Rather, my goal is to alter the course
of collapse through a variety of creative means, in order to
create the healthy and ecological communities we want, with the
world experiencing a minimal level of violence in the process.
Indeed, not only is industrial collapse part of the process of creating
such communities, it is an absolute necessity.
_________________________________
|
Return
to top