collapse

Recently, the New York Times published an editorial on "A Question of Blame When Societies Fall." In it the author discusses theories of Jared Diamond, put forth in his popular books, "Guns, Germs, and Steel," and "Collapse." The focus is especially on the latter work, which is understandable as it is a tale of destruction and loss and invariably brings up the question who is to blame. The first book, about how societies become powerful, also met with controversy but since it is more upbeat, much less so.

What is novel about Guns, etc. is that the prime movers of success appear to be accidents of geography, presence of raw materials, ease to grow crops, a hospitable climate, accessible trade routes and shapes of continents and their coastlines. People do not like such notions and human history books only mention these items in passing. Nobody wants to acknowledge that their success was due to being at the right place, at the right time. Surely individual choices must matter? What about the Yankee spirit?

But in general, since Guns, etc. is a tale of success, it is much less bothersome to read. And especially for us, since we are the ones who are successful.

When it comes to Collapse though, the roles are reversed in more ways than one. Here we have the tale of how societies failed. And although the book does mention some partial successes -after all there is no way to tell whether these will hold- the main focus is on failure. And unlike the first book, in Collapse, Diamond does seem to point a finger at humans. Perhaps he did so for no other reason than to attempt to convince us to be careful so we don't end up where some of our ancestors did. But pointing a finger is dangerous and it is likely to anger people, especially those whose forefathers were part of the collapse. And there is no shortage of these either.

And so a criticism like the one that ends the article, where the authors ask why Tikal, Chichen Itza, etc. are seen as signs of failure for the Mayans, but Stonehenge is not seen as a sign of failure for the British, are to be expected. The criticism is misplaced though. And there are several reasons.

One is that Diamond lost track of his story and in attempting to warn humans, gave them back the role that he had denied them -rightfully so- in Guns, etc. What is very easy to see in the stories about Easter Island, the Greenland Norse, and to some extent Iceland and Japan, is that geography, climate, resources, etc. play the key roles. The Icelanders and Japanese only survived because another resource was nearby and available, i.e. fish. But now that fish is running out, where will they go? Today, Japan is unable to feed more than 1/3 of its population and its food security ranks lowest among first world nations.

Humans do play a role in the demise of societies of course, but it is overall, average human behavior that matters, not individual choices. Another recent NYT article about the brain clearly illustrates this matter. For decades now neuroscientists have focused on single neurons. Led by advances in technology and by reductionism, many people have spent their lifetimes studying individual nerve cells. And surprise, surprise, they found them to be very complex. Add to that that the "single neuron guys" have been much more successful than the people studying the system as a whole.

So, in spite of all the medical evidence to the contrary, the single neuron people are now putting forth theories about the brain that rely on the magical abilities of individual cells. This by the way is a flattering notion for readers. Imagine having a brain that has billions of wonder cells. Does this not make you feel good?

But as any physicist would tell you, transistors are very complex too. We do not yet fully understand everything about them. Yet a transistor in a given circuit -such as a radio or a computer- plays a very simple role and one that is easily understood and that utilizes but a very small part of its "potential" as a computing device.

And the same is true for the brain. Single cells play a small role here. A role that is easily taken over by other cells should the first one die -and they do. The brain is an organized whole and our mental abilities operate at that level. The contribution of an individual cell is nearly immaterial at that level.

And the same applies to an individual human in a society. No matter how complex and gifted that person is, there is always someone else or a collection of others that can and do take over. The path they follow will not be identical, but except in truly rare cases, it won't matter. Because a society, like a brain has complex control mechanisms to deal with such events. Societies do not fall apart when one individual dies. And while some may accelerate or slow the demise, the individual contributions are puny compared to the other forces at work.

To be continued.