Human Social Evolution (in the face of civilization collapse)

I am currently doing some research on humans and their environment and I thought I would pose a question or two (I'll see how it goes) to those on this board on their view on human adaptability in the face of civilization collapse. I would like to focus my first question on whether humans, in the aftermath of a large scale collapse of 'civilization' will be able to retain knowledge and skills necessary for their survival? (think: Europe after collapse of Rome or Easter Island, roughly 1000 years after for this scenario.)ps. I would expect that some or a few humans would be able to adapt but that many of us would have a hard time figuring out how to make a bow or trap; light a fire without matches; make a 'home' comparable to those made by earlier indigenous populations; know how to cook using locally available food resources...Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add "(in the face of civilization collapse)" part to topic title.

I hope you'll forgive my late responses, and not mistake this for a lack of interest in my own subject but only due to a hectic schedule.As far as your replies to my question, I would like to clear up any misconceptions about what it is I am asking. I am positing the collapse as one that is Global, for whatever reason, though I can think of a few that are more likely than not (you could call me a closet pessimist). I should have given a better example for such a collapse instead of using the fall of Rome as one. It's true that Asia did not have such a decline and the Middle East, with it's repository of knowledge, was an integral part of the recovery of Europe from its darker period.As far as matches go, I don't believe I made any reference to the collapse of what we know about quantum physics or even chemical reactions . The ability to make matches is another story. While, a chemist might be able to reproduce the mixture of stable chemicals that are used to make today’s matches, it would be another thing for him to set up the factory to produce those matches on a large scale and from the ground up. The complexities involved in the running of our present society are enormous, and these complexities, in my opinion, make it even harder for us to overcome a collapse of civilization.The questions that I am considering are: How many people know how to grow their own food? Do they even know what grows in their region? What soils are required or watering requirements for the food they do wish to grow? If we lose the ability to produce the things necessary for the production of ammunition, which I am assuming would happen in the face of a global collapse, who knows how to make those things (bows and arrows, traps, fishing gear, even spears) we would need to use for hunting our food? How much knowledge do you think we could retain or rediscover? If we had to use stone tools again, how long would it take before we achieved the technical knapping ability of the Clovis people? How many people know how to make bronze or even copper tools? I would hazard a guess that not many people if any, even know what temperatures a fire must be to smelt those materials necessary for the tools. How many people today can make a clay pot that won’t fall apart the first time it is used? Do they know what material goes into making such a ‘primitive’ object?The passing down of knowledge, as far as I know, is not an easy prospect. It takes time, and willing participants. While an engineer might understand how to produce a piece of machinery, he would have a hard time actually producing the ‘metals’ base on which he would ‘carve’ out the pieces of his machinery. A machinist might be able to make a gear using the tools we have now, but if he lacked those tools, could he recreate them? Does he have the requisite knowledge of materials to be able to even make the base material for that gear? How many people does he know that have that kind of expertise, who are living in his immediate vicinity.There are examples of societies, which, after some form of long term/large scale disaster, ‘forget’ how to create those objects which their forerunners made. The people of Easter Island, who’s ancestors were a great seafaring people who also built those towering Moa, were living a wretched existence, subsisting on chickens and rats and living in caves, when the island was ‘rediscovered’ by Europeans. Then you have the Moche, Maya, Hohocam, Babylon, Anasazi, all great societies that built amazing things, but whose descendants lost a great portion of that knowledge they had likely taken for granted.Again I apologize for the late reply and I hope you can give me some more input into your idea of how we, as a society, would cope with such a disaster.As a side note, I picked 1000 years after a collapse, because it would have given time for most of our everyday objects (excepting plastics) and buildings to have ‘gone back to the earth,’ so to speak.

Thank you for your reply. After reading your replies, it seems to me you have grasped pretty clearly what direction my question was pointed toward. You’re right that I am positing a ‘global’ collapse and I am asking the question of how society would fare in such a scenario.As far as infrastructure goes, I am not so sure about the survivability of such a complex and intricate one as we have today. You might be interested in Alan Weisman’s book The World Without us for a fascinating and revealing look at how much energy and time is required to keep our world up and running smoothly. While I am definitely not suggesting humans would all disappear, I do believe that the complexities of our age would exacerbate any global collapse. As you suggested, if people are more inclined to be concerned with their survival, it would be difficult in the extreme to keep up the running of those institutions and infrastructures in which we so thoroughly depend upon.I am a little more pessimistic about how much knowledge we would be able to pass on to the future generations if such a scenario would develop. I would like to think that there may be enclaves of knowledge, ie the monks of Europe’s middle ages, but even those enclaves would be hard pressed to survive, especially considering our vast population. There are few areas untouched and livable these days. In a scramble for survival, how many people would have the foresight to create these refugia’s?Other books which I might point you and others reading these posts would be (if you haven’t read them already): ‘Collapse’ by Jared Diamond, ‘Flood, Famines, and Emporers’ by Brian Fagan, and a somewhat more technical book, ‘Human Impact on Ancient Environments’, by Charles Redman. I think they all give a good idea of the complexities of our societies, the thin thread of a stable environment upon which groups rely for their continuation, and the scale of societal disasters that societies have had with natural and human induced disruptions to our environment.

I have some great books on northwest indian fishing/hunting techniques and how they made their tools as well as detailed basket weaving and wood carving (making cedar boxes) techniques used. I'm currently on the hunt for a book on native flora use for the northwest. Nothing to trade, but I'm sure if TSHTF and I survive, I'll have items to barter.If the friendly neighborhood archaeologist could teach me how to make those items I would need, I would be his best friend.

quote:

---

I'm more asking for a clarification on these statements then anything else.

---

This is what I believe Stile was basically expressing:The collapse of civilization would cause there to be some amount of looting and riots, which would likely enhance the degree of collapse. Those that survive, would have a tough time passing on their knowledge to future generations if they were unable to find some refuge, mainly because they would be most concerned with being able to find shelter and food to live another day. Such a monumental collapse, as presented, would likely result in future generations (1000 years later) losing much of the knowledge of their forefathers.I am not positive, but I think that would be the gist of what Stile is presenting.As far as my original topic is concerned:

quote:

---

Without knowing how the civilization fell in the first place, how can the question be addressed beyond this point?

---

If your question is whether the collapse is catabolic or drasticly quick, it is open to your interpretation. I only wonder, and may question, what likely outcome you would perceive there to be. As far as whether it is by a large scale extinction level mechanism, does it matter? Whether it is an asteroidal impact or the eruption of a super volcano, both, I think, would have deleterious effects on our ability to survive.PS. To clarify any misconceptions about what I mean by 'civilization collapse'. I am positing a Global collapse (feel free to tell me whether it will be slow or fast) and asking what the human 'condition' will look like, 1000 years after.

quote:

---

If the friendly neighborhood archaeologist knew all of these things, and you did not, you would be his slave!

---

If you put a chain around the neck of a slave, the other end fastens itself around your own.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Thanks for your replies. You’re correct I should have said Global. I wrongly assumed ‘large-scale’ would be sufficient to reveal the immensity of the collapse.I think I am getting the gist of your position in regards to my OP. Feel free to correct me if I’m mistaken.Your position is that in a post-collapse world, there would still be sufficient numbers of people able to pass on the knowledge they have to others. Either the knowledgeable members or access to written materials will allow the future descendants to continue living in some ‘vague’ form similar to contemporary society.The reason I say ‘vague form similar to contemporary society’ is that I am not sure if you believe a collapse of civilization is even possible? Your argument seems to suggest that even if civilization collapses, it would be temporary or only localized, that, there will be others who will pick up the pieces if the original inhabitants could not.I am confused with your example of the difference between today’s widespread knowledge and access to information and the paucity of same in the past. Rome, before and during its collapse, was not some wasteland of plebeian dolts held together by the thin thread of educated patricians. Neither was Easter Island or any other society which suffered a collapse, full of simpletons with little access to knowledge. Some were literate societies, with schools while others had oral traditions and ‘on the job training’ which might have allowed certain groups or individuals to retain knowledge lost by the society at large. What does seem to have occurred, as far as I my knowledge of history is concerned, is that there was a loss of knowledge, [bold]among those people affected[/bold], that occurred after those societies collapsed. For example, the loss of the knowledge of how to make cement as the classical civilizations had done. The loss of much knowledge about human anatomy, astronomy, and math, among others. (That these were regional or local collapses is not the issue, since there was still a loss of knowledge and society took a while to recover from that loss.)I am not suggesting that this would be permanent. Knowledge lost can be rediscovered. What I am asking is the opinion, of those interested, about what amount of knowledge would be retained or rediscovered 1000 years after a global collapse?Do you, Evlreala, feel by the virtue of today's vast mass of information and access to information that discussing a global collapse would be an exercise in fultility? That there is so much momentum in human civilization, that a global collapse would likely be a blip in history, to be discussed in some future forum?

This question has been discussed on many different level, from books to movies. It is a hard question to answer, and I can think of many anthropologists and non-anthropologists who have ventured into that unknown.The question first came to me while reading the companion book to the 'Connections' series by James Burke. In the pre-face, he questioned how connected we are to our technology and disconnected we seem to be to how things work. Today's world is so interconnected with so many moving parts and pieces that it is impossible for one person to understand everything about how things work. It is so interconnected that the failure of even a small device can lead to massive failure of a system. His example is the blackout that hit the Northeast in 1972(?). A small electrical device which few people remembered being there and few people knew how it worked, tripped and shut down an eletrical line which then caused a cascade of failures to ultimately lead to the loss of electricty to a large part of the Northeast United States. People described being in elevators for hours on end, and stayed there because 'what else were they supposed to do?' They couldn't fathom a permenant change to their world and couldn't beleieve that the world would NOT continue just as it had been for all their life. They froze, waiting to be rescued. If civilization should collapse, how would we survive?

Thanks for your reply.All I can say is that I think your scenario is one that I have also considered and I consider it one that would be very likely.

I think here is where I am having the difficulty in understanding how you understand a collapse might take place, and likely vice versa. As I look at the complexities of today's civilization, I began to wonder how demanding are these industries and technologies for our constant attention. As an example, New York's subway infrastructure would likely collapse within only a couple of decades because it requires constant upkeep to retard rust and to repair rusting parts. According to the civil engineers and other experts, the roof of the subway system would collapse and the subway would become a river of sorts. Or take books, for example. Without a dry environment, they would fall apart very quickly. The point being that, dramatic or slow, in any 'collapse' of civilization, there would be a dramatic loss of infrastructure and knowledge. Otherwise it wouldn't be a 'collase' and this discussion would be pointless. If you could explain to me how one collapse would be different than another I would definitly consider the ramifications, but as it stands right now, with what I know and learned about our resent civilization, I am having a hard time seeing it.And finally...In my mind, any 'global collapse' that came about it would have the an outcome something like this: a return to a more agrarian, perhaps hunter gatherer lifestyle, with a likely return hundreds if not thousands of years later, back to some resemblence of 'civilization' as we might describe it. Books, as fragile as they are, would have a tough time surviving the many riots, wars, civil wars, book burnings for warmth or religion, and infrastructure collapse that I at least envision a 'global collapse of civilization' entailing (among the many other depravations possible).If I could summarize my post, I would just say this: if it was possible for me to find a book I required as easily as you suggest, in the face of any world-wide collapse of civilization, and use such a book (techinical or otherwise) to continue life as I know it, then I would suggest that no collapse would ever be possible except for the complete extinction of our secies.