[abelardlindsay]

Here is a six minute audio interview with Dr. Joseph Tainter of Collapse of Complex Societies fame that reviews strategies throughout history that societies have used to deal with civilization threatening problems, like Peak Oil today.

In fact in the the essay that this interview is based on Tainter alludes directly to peak oil:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')ur societies and institutions have increased greatly in complexity
over the past few centuries. This complexity is sustained by our current
energy subsidies, primarily fossil fuels. We do not know how long this dependency
can continue. Campbell and Laherre`re (1998) argue that the petroleum
basis for our present complexity may begin to diminish within a
few years. We can prepare for this with a full understanding of how problem-
solving systems develop, cognizant of the options of (a) complexity
and diminishing returns, (b) simplification, or (c) growing complexity based
on further subsidies. Or we can hope for a repeat of the luck enjoyed by
Europeans and some of the colonies they established.

[PhilBiker]

Thanks for digging that up and sharing it. Fascinating!

[Jack]

Somehow, I cannot imagine us following the Byzantine model...

[theshadypeach]

I thought the Byzantines were the Eastern Half of the Roman Empire which rose after it's predecessor fell? Or my history could be a little rusty.

So it seems we'll end up like the Romans and hopefully recover and follow the byzantine model of localization and simplification.

[ronstoo]

how do you explain Chinese civiliztion throughout the centuries...they have adapted. They don't fit all these "cookie -cutter" civilization "role model" theories. America is a blip on the radar screen comapred to them. Why have they survived intact.... and look at it collectively.


Hmmm... perhaps the Tao means something ..in the long run.

[BorneoRagnarok]

Hello, I am an Han Chinese (maybe). May I share Chinese History with ronstoo.

Ancient Chinese civilization adapted because they recycled poop (shit) into their farms. Most of the other solar civilizations collapsed due to the decreasing yields from the crops as topsoil are depleted such as Third Dynasty of Ur or Maya empire.

Actually Chinese solar civilization is not sustainable even if they recycled all the shit back into the food cycle. It is based on wars and conquests. Even up to today, Chinese are still debating among themselves "Who is Chinese" " Do Chinese have races within the Chinese?". As you can see, there are hundreds of race in China. Even so call Han Chinese (Western just call them Chinese) are consisted of many ethnic groups. Some of these groups look like Vietnamese and their dialects sounds like Vietnamese language. So in other word, I am a Vietnamese as my ancestor just like next door from modern Vietnam. I can speak in Vietnam language without learning many new words. I only notice that when I visit Vietnam.

However, all those different groups have 1 common language (Mandarin) and 1 common cultural (Chinese cultural- dress code,bla,bla). So you people call us Chinese.

My ancestor 's ancestor are been called barbarians by the 'Chinese'. Their land lied far from the original Great Wall of China. Later our land are been conquered and integrated into 'Greater China' aka 'Greater Serbia' by invasion and rape. After that, we are called 'Chinese' too. The famous phrase is "Go North for Peking duck, go south for pig skin."

The b@st@rd Northern Chinese have depleted their land and expand to the south. Of course, my ancestors cannot fight back, they don't even stand a chance. They still wear grass cloth with a wooden hoe while the Northern armies are more advanced than the mighty Roman Empire.

The current hot topic here is "Can Chinese aborigines grow facial hair?" You can think of them like Ainu in Japan or Red Indian in USA. So as you can see 'Chinese' is a generic term.

So don't have high hope on so-called Chinese civilization.

[RobintheDruid]

Hi Han, Robin the Druid here from the UK. Interesting post. First, lack of civilisation is probably a good thing given PO, because it seems soon we'll have to adapt to small agricultural village communities. The Vietnamese model of villages in rice fields with water buffalos etc (and sorry if I'm stereotyping) seems to be a good way to go rather than heading into industrialisation, which may soon collapse.

Second, I'm curious about the Chinese, and especially their leadership. With what we know about Tibet and their claims over Taiwan, is China seeking to create a 'Chinese Empire', sucking even more Asian countries into its domain, rather like the Japanese tried to do during World War 2, or any number of 'empires' before that (including the British).

Also, how do neighbouring countries like Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia etc view the Chinese? Are they nervous of them? Do they feel threatened or are they relatively confident at the moment?

[BorneoRagnarok]

Hi Robin The Druid. My grandfather's younger brother still alive in China. His sons still use water buffaloes in his paddy field. And we like to eat dogs like the Vietnamese too. Tasty And pig skin is melt down and used as cooking oil. I prefer piggy cooking oil than normal one.

Actually my grandfather escaped the draft in China back in 1921 and run to Borneo Island as the British in Borneo promised land and citizenship if you grow natural rubber for the British Empire.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Second, I'm curious about the Chinese, and especially their leadership. With what we know about Tibet and their claims over Taiwan, is China seeking to create a 'Chinese Empire', sucking even more Asian countries into its domain, rather like the Japanese tried to do during World War 2, or any number of 'empires' before that (including the British).

[RobintheDruid]

I remember reading that book "The Ten Thousand Day War" about Vietnam. It began with a potted history of the country, and that before and after the Japanese during WW2, it was the French, and before them the Chinese. You would think that nations would learn from history about the futility of empire building, but it seems both the US and China still refuse to learn the lesson.

I have to say I don't like the Chinese, I mean the leadership, not the people. I don't like the way they occupied Tibet, I don't like what happened in Tianemen Square, and I don't like the way they're sabre rattling over Taiwan. I don't trust them at all. But I trust the blasted US even less. I just hope those two idiot governments don't bring us into WW3.

So dogs are that tasty huh? The British find that idea apalling, but you never know, we might have to explore the idea if things really go pear-shaped

By the way I'm into Taoism as well as Druidry. Asian cultures I find really interesting. Go well and in peace.

[Tyler_JC]

Hey abelardlindsay.

I think you hit the nail on the head there. We have two options, the Western Roman Empire model and the Eastern Roman Empire model. Being libertarian in my philosophy, I hope we follow the Byzantines.

Governments almost never chose to become less powerful. Therefore it is highly unlikely that anyone in Washington DC will choose the path of simplicity. Eventually the American Empire (such as it is) will crumble and leave a major power vacuum in the lower 48. I think we might see a return to state's rights as the federal government begins to dissolve. Maybe large states like California and Texas will break up into several smaller states that would be easier to manage (much like the Romans did under Diocletian).

I can see people in Montana welcoming this collapse of federal power but I wonder what the response will be from the Bourgeoise...

[OilyMon]

Hello,

I think that modern society draws many parallels between the Roman empire and (hopefully) the Byzantines. In fact, we live in a composite society that has been made up of what were percieved to be the greatest parts of each past civilization. I think we should focus on what differentiates our society from the other societies of history. Fundamentally they may be similar, but the fine details that are harder to resolve may be what prove to be important. The big impact the Roman empire had was not what they took with them when they collapsed, but what they left behind. I wonder at how the residue of our society will from on the sides of the tanker...

Of primary concern here: the Romans increased in complexity by increasing the size and changing the mandate of thier military. For the Romans, the easiest and fastest way to make thier military more powerful was to increase the size and effectiveness of thier most powerful fighting unit: the Roman legion. For our society, what is the definition of our largest and most powerful fighting unit? The bomb? The M1 Abhrams? The F22? The Aircraft carrier? Which is likely to be the most effective in a pinch? I don't think it takes a nuclear scientist to figure that one out.

[MicroHydro]

"For our society, what is the definition of our largest and most powerful fighting unit?"

Easy, an infantry soldier.

All WMDs can do is destroy. Soldiers (in sufficient number - a proper occupation of Iraq would have required 500,000) can control territory and people. Much more useful than WMD. At full mobilization, North America could field 50 million foot soldiers with cheap assault rifles. I am talking a Soviet style army, conscripts on little or no pay.

[BiGG]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BorneoRagnarok', 'H')i Robin The Druid. My grandfather's younger brother still alive in China. His sons still use water buffaloes in his paddy field. And we like to eat dogs like the Vietnamese too. Tasty

[airstrip1]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('theshadypeach', 'I') thought the Byzantines were the Eastern Half of the Roman Empire which rose after it's predecessor fell? Or my history could be a little rusty.

[abelardlindsay]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('airstrip1', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('theshadypeach', 'I') thought the Byzantines were the Eastern Half of the Roman Empire which rose after it's predecessor fell? Or my history could be a little rusty.

[RobintheDruid]

Hey BiGG, totally agree with what you say about hanging dogs from trees etc. Just one thing, make sure you know where that latest deodorant you used came from, it could have been smeared on the skin of a beagle dog which had its head locked in a brace and was previously disembowled and then operated on, blinded in one eye, had a red hot poker shoved up its ***** etc etc.

Vivisection is even sicker!

[airstrip1]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('abelardlindsay', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('airstrip1', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('theshadypeach', 'I') thought the Byzantines were the Eastern Half of the Roman Empire which rose after it's predecessor fell? Or my history could be a little rusty.

[abelardlindsay]

There are many aspects to a society but the ones that matter, with regard to how long it's got to go before it reverts to a less complex state (collapses) are given by Tainter as roughly the complexity and nature of its systems and their marginal return on investment.

What people call them is not one of these factors. For instance, Vladimir Putin may call himself a Russian as did the earlier czarist rulers of Russia but if one was going to do a Tainteresque civilizational analysis one would not consider Czarist Russia and The current Russia as one system. Their institutional systems, economic structures, etc are totally and completely different. When you get down to the nitty gritty as to how the major institutions of Rome worked vs Byzantium (The Military, The Court, The Local Administrations, The Agricultural system, The Religious hierarchy) they are totally different and deserve to be analyzed as separate civilizational systems. Of course that's not to say that Byzantium was not influenced by Rome. Of course modern Russia has been influenced by Czarist Russia but they just aren't close enough to be considered as a cohesive unit of analysis.

[wilburke]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'a')belardlindsay wrote:
airstrip1 wrote:
theshadypeach wrote:
I thought the Byzantines were the Eastern Half of the Roman Empire which rose after it's predecessor fell? Or my history could be a little rusty.


You are perfectly correct. The inhabitants of Constantinople in the period 500-1450 AD still regarded themselves as Romans. They would not have known what you were talking about if you described their world as the Byzantine Empire.



We might as well call Canada, Australia and New Zealand part of the British empire then, as they are technically under the Queen's rule. The important part of answering, "Is the Western Roman Empire equivalent to the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium)?", is to examine and compare how the various components of these two civilizations work. Each civilization is defined by its system of governance, its religion, its hierarchy of societal relations, its economic structure, and its culture. These factors are the ones that determine each civilization's destiny and are not easily altered, or when they are greatly altered, represent fundamental re-organizations that seperate civilizations. This is at the core of what Tainter means when he evaluates the factors affecting the destiny and trajectory of civilizations. What the inhabitants call themselves cannot tell us much in this regard. I think that by the yardstick of the nature and composition of civilizational components that Tainter is interested in, Byzantium was different enough from the Western Roman Empire to be considered a seperate civilization.

[EnergySpin]

The Byzantine (or Eastern Roman Empire) as they used to call themselves was an extremely complex society. And the structural organization was modelled after the Roman Empire (without the distraction of a senate which was a dead body in the last years anyway). They did have a hierarchical multilayer organization and the "Akrites" military body (militias organized by land owners - very similar to the feudal organization in Western Europe) was only functioning at the borders where the empire was challenged.
Initially Constantine moved the capital of the Roman Empire to the city that is called Instabul in our days) to decrease the influence of the old Roman aristocracy. However the structure was pretty much preserved (without the Senate). The Roman Empire did manage to survive another century and when Rome was sacked the Eastern Part went its way, still using Latin as an official language. Greek was made the official language of the empire a couple of centuries later while the complexity of the administration was increasing not decreasing.
The switch to a lightweight type of empire (i.e. with the "akrites") initially affected only the provinces interacting with the Arabs and latter the Turks but eventually spread throughout the imperium.
The diffusion of power though eventually led to the downfall with the sucking of Constantinople (now known as Istanbul).
I'm not so sure that one can generalize easily on the Byzantine Empire: it followed cycles of expansion and contraction throughout its 1000 history. Around the 10 century AD they contracted when the Bulgarians made an attack from the North, but they eventually hit back crushing the Bulgarians under Constantine B'.
Some characterestics of relevance to the modern day:
1) The decline started after they became extremely introverted, involved only with their petty political schemes and religious matters (which was a form of politics there). That trend was evident 5-6 centuries before the decline
2) Religious zealotism played a BIG role in the downfall (i.e. the schism between the Orthodox and Catholic churches) lead to wars (remember Constantinople was sucked twice in 1206 by the Crusaders and 1453 by the Ottomans) and inability to mount an effective response to the Ottomans (who were stopped in the battle of Vienna, marking their 6 century long decline)
3) They took their infrastructure for granded. After a complex network of cities, castles, forts were built across the Balkans, Asia Minor and Eastern Europe the empire did not bother to maintain the infrastructure till it was very late
4) They decayed to a hedonistic culture that did take great pride in small pseudointellectual endeavours without really building much of a technology in the later years
So ... it is way too simplistic to think that simplicity "saved" or doomed Byzantium ... it is a fascinating area of study