An interesting comparison between two interesting authors. As I see it, the "sociologcal" stuff doesn't really matter when it comes to genuine catastrophes- nor does how you arrived at the catastrophe once you are there. And from a planning perspective, what matters (and I agree with Posner here), is ranking the catastrophes that may hit you in terms of probability and severity, and then attempt to prepare as best one may.
I think both arguments are important- it's not as if events that end civilizations are only of one kind. Diamond is laying out the eco-nature of possible ends- and it is clear such ends can loom large. I haven't read Iin the summary of his book in the article Karen posted) about the Indians in Calif who suffered arsenic poisoning from their water supplies, or the possibility that the Romans poisoned themselves with lead- thus leading to the end of that empire- better drains and destroyed brains. But Diamond is so encyclopedic, those examples are probably in there :-)
With Posnerian events- like meteors- clearly the human race is not "at fault". But it's still a civilization ender when one of those babies plunks down and takes out a continent, or even a state.
This question '"Why," as his book jacket puts it, "do some societies, but not others, blunder into self-destruction?" "Why do some societies make disastrous decisions?" "What does it all mean to us today?" ' is the main one- obviously. And the "why" is often luck. If you have a lot of stable societies around you, to help you pick up the pieces, then you might recover- like the Tsunami victims. I think hope is a huge aspect of recovery, and of men and women not falling to the lowest level of their animal selves. Where societies really go retrograde is when all hope is gone- because then there truly are no brakes on humanity, and the wheels come off. There were two great books I read a long time ago- The Mountain people, and the Forest People, and they have quite a lot to do with this whole issue. Those two books (a shade romantic and narrative- by today's scientific standards) show how society degrades when people have no hope, and are in the grip of relentless suffering. Turnbull wrote both books- and I'd hope both Posner and Diamond have read him. He has a lot to say on life in a dying culture. I don't think what culture you are in matters a bit- what matters is - do you think you have a shot at survival? If the answer to that question is "no"- then no culture on this planet is going to hold together, imo.
edit-This is what I was addressing- I forget to clip it-"What is most striking about both Diamond's and Posner's views of human behavior is how sociologically thin and how lacking in psychological depth they are"
I think if there is structure left, after your catastrophe, then sure, society matters- but the main point with most huge catastrophes (the kind the two authors seemed to be addressing), where people die en masse, or turn on each other, is that there is no one TO help. And it seems to me those cases just need to be prevented (and if you can't prevent them, pray you are one of the first to die). |
