Friday, December 31, 2004
|
Richard Sears forwarded this review originally posted at The New Yorker.
Jared Diamond
Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed
A Book Review by Malcom Gladwell
A thousand years ago, a group of Vikings led by Erik the Red set sail
from Norway for the vast Arctic landmass west of Scandinavia which came
to be known as Greenland. It was largely uninhabitable—a forbidding
expanse of snow and ice. But along the southwestern coast there were
two deep fjords protected from the harsh winds and saltwater spray of
the North Atlantic Ocean, and as the Norse sailed upriver they saw
grassy slopes flowering with buttercups, dandelions, and bluebells, and
thick forests of willow and birch and alder. Two colonies were formed,
three hundred miles apart, known as the Eastern and Western
Settlements. The Norse raised sheep, goats, and cattle. They turned the
grassy slopes into pastureland. They hunted seal and caribou. They
built a string of parish churches and a magnificent cathedral, the
remains of which are still standing. They traded actively with mainland
Europe, and tithed regularly to the Roman Catholic Church. The Norse
colonies in Greenland were law-abiding, economically viable, fully
integrated communities, numbering at their peak five thousand people.
They lasted for four hundred and fifty years—and then they vanished.
The story of the Eastern and Western Settlements of Greenland is
told in Jared Diamond’s “Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or
Succeed” (Viking; $29.95). Diamond teaches geography at U.C.L.A. and is
well known for his best-seller “Guns, Germs, and Steel,” which won a
Pulitzer Prize. In “Guns, Germs, and Steel,” Diamond looked at
environmental and structural factors to explain why Western societies
came to dominate the world. In “Collapse,” he continues that approach,
only this time he looks at history’s losers—like the Easter Islanders,
the Anasazi of the American Southwest, the Mayans, and the modern-day
Rwandans. We live in an era preoccupied with the way that ideology and
culture and politics and economics help shape the course of history.
But Diamond isn’t particularly interested in any of those things—or, at
least, he’s interested in them only insofar as they bear on what to him
is the far more important question, which is a society’s relationship
to its climate and geography and resources and neighbors. “Collapse” is
a book about the most prosaic elements of the earth’s ecosystem—soil,
trees, and water—because societies fail, in Diamond’s view, when they
mismanage those environmental factors.
There was nothing wrong with the social organization of the
Greenland settlements. The Norse built a functioning reproduction of
the predominant northern-European civic model of the time—devout,
structured, and reasonably orderly. In 1408, right before the end,
records from the Eastern Settlement dutifully report that Thorstein
Olafsson married Sigrid Bjornsdotter in Hvalsey Church on September
14th of that year, with Brand Halldorstson, Thord Jorundarson,
Thorbjorn Bardarson, and Jon Jonsson as witnesses, following the
proclamation of the wedding banns on three consecutive Sundays.
The problem with the settlements, Diamond argues, was that the
Norse thought that Greenland really was green; they treated it as if it
were the verdant farmland of southern Norway. They cleared the land to
create meadows for their cows, and to grow hay to feed their livestock
through the long winter. They chopped down the forests for fuel, and
for the construction of wooden objects. To make houses warm enough for
the winter, they built their homes out of six-foot-thick slabs of turf,
which meant that a typical home consumed about ten acres of grassland.
But Greenland’s ecosystem was too fragile to withstand that kind of
pressure. The short, cool growing season meant that plants developed
slowly, which in turn meant that topsoil layers were shallow and
lacking in soil constituents, like organic humus and clay, that hold
moisture and keep soil resilient in the face of strong winds. “The
sequence of soil erosion in Greenland begins with cutting or burning
the cover of trees and shrubs, which are more effective at holding soil
than is grass,” he writes. “With the trees and shrubs gone, livestock,
especially sheep and goats, graze down the grass, which regenerates
only slowly in Greenland’s climate. Once the grass cover is broken and
the soil is exposed, soil is carried away especially by the strong
winds, and also by pounding from occasionally heavy rains, to the point
where the topsoil can be removed for a distance of miles from an entire
valley.” Without adequate pastureland, the summer hay yields shrank;
without adequate supplies of hay, keeping livestock through the long
winter got harder. And, without adequate supplies of wood, getting fuel
for the winter became increasingly difficult.
The Norse needed to reduce their reliance on livestock—particularly
cows, which consumed an enormous amount of agricultural resources. But
cows were a sign of high status; to northern Europeans, beef was a
prized food. They needed to copy the Inuit practice of burning seal
blubber for heat and light in the winter, and to learn from the Inuit
the difficult art of hunting ringed seals, which were the most reliably
plentiful source of food available in the winter. But the Norse had
contempt for the Inuit—they called them skraelings, “wretches”—and
preferred to practice their own brand of European agriculture. In the
summer, when the Norse should have been sending ships on
lumber-gathering missions to Labrador, in order to relieve the pressure
on their own forestlands, they instead sent boats and men to the coast
to hunt for walrus. Walrus tusks, after all, had great trade value. In
return for those tusks, the Norse were able to acquire, among other
things, church bells, stained-glass windows, bronze candlesticks,
Communion wine, linen, silk, silver, churchmen’s robes, and jewelry to
adorn their massive cathedral at Gardar, with its three-ton sandstone
building blocks and eighty-foot bell tower. In the end, the Norse
starved to death.
Diamond’s argument stands in sharp contrast to the conventional
explanations for a society’s collapse. Usually, we look for some kind
of cataclysmic event. The aboriginal civilization of the Americas was
decimated by the sudden arrival of smallpox. European Jewry was
destroyed by Nazism. Similarly, the disappearance of the Norse
settlements is usually blamed on the Little Ice Age, which descended on
Greenland in the early fourteen-hundreds, ending several centuries of
relative warmth. (One archeologist refers to this as the “It got too
cold, and they died” argument.) What all these explanations have in
common is the idea that civilizations are destroyed by forces outside
their control, by acts of God.
But look, Diamond says, at Easter Island. Once, it was home to a
thriving culture that produced the enormous stone statues that continue
to inspire awe. It was home to dozens of species of trees, which
created and protected an ecosystem fertile enough to support as many as
thirty thousand people. Today, it’s a barren and largely empty
outcropping of volcanic rock. What happened? Did a rare plant virus
wipe out the island’s forest cover? Not at all. The Easter Islanders
chopped their trees down, one by one, until they were all gone. “I have
often asked myself, ‘What did the Easter Islander who cut down the last
palm tree say while he was doing it?’” Diamond writes, and that, of
course, is what is so troubling about the conclusions of “Collapse.”
Those trees were felled by rational actors—who must have suspected that
the destruction of this resource would result in the destruction of
their civilization. The lesson of “Collapse” is that societies, as
often as not, aren’t murdered. They commit suicide: they slit their
wrists and then, in the course of many decades, stand by passively and
watch themselves bleed to death.
This doesn’t mean that acts of God don’t play a role. It did get
colder in Greenland in the early fourteen-hundreds. But it didn’t get
so cold that the island became uninhabitable. The Inuit survived long
after the Norse died out, and the Norse had all kinds of advantages,
including a more diverse food supply, iron tools, and ready access to
Europe. The problem was that the Norse simply couldn’t adapt to the
country’s changing environmental conditions. Diamond writes, for
instance, of the fact that nobody can find fish remains in Norse
archeological sites. One scientist sifted through tons of debris from
the Vatnahverfi farm and found only three fish bones; another
researcher analyzed thirty-five thousand bones from the garbage of
another Norse farm and found two fish bones. How can this be? Greenland
is a fisherman’s dream: Diamond describes running into a Danish tourist
in Greenland who had just caught two Arctic char in a shallow pool with
her bare hands. “Every archaeologist who comes to excavate in Greenland
. . . starts out with his or her own idea about where all those missing
fish bones might be hiding,” he writes. “Could the Norse have strictly
confined their munching on fish to within a few feet of the shoreline,
at sites now underwater because of land subsidence? Could they have
faithfully saved all their fish bones for fertilizer, fuel, or feeding
to cows?” It seems unlikely. There are no fish bones in Norse
archeological remains, Diamond concludes, for the simple reason that
the Norse didn’t eat fish. For one reason or another, they had a
cultural taboo against it.
Given the difficulty that the Norse had in putting food on the
table, this was insane. Eating fish would have substantially reduced
the ecological demands of the Norse settlements. The Norse would have
needed fewer livestock and less pastureland. Fishing is not nearly as
labor-intensive as raising cattle or hunting caribou, so eating fish
would have freed time and energy for other activities. It would have
diversified their diet.
Why did the Norse choose not to eat fish? Because they weren’t
thinking about their biological survival. They were thinking about
their cultural survival. Food taboos are one of the idiosyncrasies that
define a community. Not eating fish served the same function as
building lavish churches, and doggedly replicating the untenable
agricultural practices of their land of origin. It was part of what it
meant to be Norse, and if you are going to establish a community in a
harsh and forbidding environment all those little idiosyncrasies which
define and cement a culture are of paramount importance. “The Norse
were undone by the same social glue that had enabled them to master
Greenland’s difficulties,” Diamond writes. “The values to which people
cling most stubbornly under inappropriate conditions are those values
that were previously the source of their greatest triumphs over
adversity.” He goes on:
To us in our secular modern society, the predicament in which the
Greenlanders found themselves is difficult to fathom. To them, however,
concerned with their social survival as much as their biological
survival, it was out of the question to invest less in churches, to
imitate or intermarry with the Inuit, and thereby to face an eternity
in Hell just in order to survive another winter on Earth.
Diamond’s distinction between social and biological survival is a
critical one, because too often we blur the two, or assume that
biological survival is contingent on the strength of our civilizational
values. That was the lesson taken from the two world wars and the
nuclear age that followed: we would survive as a species only if we
learned to get along and resolve our disputes peacefully. The fact is,
though, that we can be law-abiding and peace-loving and tolerant and
inventive and committed to freedom and true to our own values and still
behave in ways that are biologically suicidal. The two kinds of
survival are separate.
Diamond points out that the Easter Islanders did not practice, so
far as we know, a uniquely pathological version of South Pacific
culture. Other societies, on other islands in the Hawaiian archipelago,
chopped down trees and farmed and raised livestock just as the Easter
Islanders did. What doomed the Easter Islanders was the interaction
between what they did and where they were. Diamond and a colleague,
Barry Rollet, identified nine physical factors that contributed to the
likelihood of deforestation—including latitude, average rainfall,
aerial-ash fallout, proximity to Central Asia’s dust plume, size, and
so on—and Easter Island ranked at the high-risk end of nearly every
variable. “The reason for Easter’s unusually severe degree of
deforestation isn’t that those seemingly nice people really were
unusually bad or improvident,” he concludes. “Instead, they had the
misfortune to be living in one of the most fragile environments, at the
highest risk for deforestation, of any Pacific people.” The problem
wasn’t the Easter Islanders. It was Easter Island.
In the second half of “Collapse,” Diamond turns his attention to
modern examples, and one of his case studies is the recent genocide in
Rwanda. What happened in Rwanda is commonly described as an ethnic
struggle between the majority Hutu and the historically dominant,
wealthier Tutsi, and it is understood in those terms because that is
how we have come to explain much of modern conflict: Serb and Croat,
Jew and Arab, Muslim and Christian. The world is a cauldron of cultural
antagonism. It’s an explanation that clearly exasperates Diamond. The
Hutu didn’t just kill the Tutsi, he points out. The Hutu also killed
other Hutu. Why? Look at the land: steep hills farmed right up to the
crests, without any protective terracing; rivers thick with mud from
erosion; extreme deforestation leading to irregular rainfall and
famine; staggeringly high population densities; the exhaustion of the
topsoil; falling per-capita food production. This was a society on the
brink of ecological disaster, and if there is anything that is clear
from the study of such societies it is that they inevitably descend
into genocidal chaos. In “Collapse,” Diamond quite convincingly defends
himself against the charge of environmental determinism. His
discussions are always nuanced, and he gives political and ideological
factors their due. The real issue is how, in coming to terms with the
uncertainties and hostilities of the world, the rest of us have turned
ourselves into cultural determinists.
For the past thirty years, Oregon has had one of the strictest sets
of land-use regulations in the nation, requiring new development to be
clustered in and around existing urban development. The laws meant that
Oregon has done perhaps the best job in the nation in limiting suburban
sprawl, and protecting coastal lands and estuaries. But this November
Oregon’s voters passed a ballot referendum, known as Measure 37, that
rolled back many of those protections. Specifically, Measure 37 said
that anyone who could show that the value of his land was affected by
regulations implemented since its purchase was entitled to compensation
from the state. If the state declined to pay, the property owner would
be exempted from the regulations.
To call Measure 37—and similar referendums that have been passed
recently in other states—intellectually incoherent is to put it mildly.
It might be that the reason your hundred-acre farm on a pristine
hillside is worth millions to a developer is that it’s on a pristine
hillside: if everyone on that hillside could subdivide, and sell out to
Target and Wal-Mart, then nobody’s plot would be worth millions
anymore. Will the voters of Oregon then pass Measure 38, allowing them
to sue the state for compensation over damage to property values caused
by Measure 37?
It is hard to read “Collapse,” though, and not have an additional
reaction to Measure 37. Supporters of the law spoke entirely in the
language of political ideology. To them, the measure was a defense of
property rights, preventing the state from unconstitutional “takings.”
If you replaced the term “property rights” with “First Amendment
rights,” this would have been indistinguishable from an argument over,
say, whether charitable groups ought to be able to canvass in malls, or
whether cities can control the advertising they sell on the sides of
public buses. As a society, we do a very good job with these kinds of
debates: we give everyone a hearing, and pass laws, and make
compromises, and square our conclusions with our constitutional
heritage—and in the Oregon debate the quality of the theoretical
argument was impressively high.
The thing that got lost in the debate, however, was the land. In a
rapidly growing state like Oregon, what, precisely, are the state’s
ecological strengths and vulnerabilities? What impact will changed
land-use priorities have on water and soil and cropland and forest? One
can imagine Diamond writing about the Measure 37 debate, and he
wouldn’t be very impressed by how seriously Oregonians wrestled with
the problem of squaring their land-use rules with their values, because
to him a society’s environmental birthright is not best discussed in
those terms. Rivers and streams and forests and soil are a biological
resource. They are a tangible, finite thing, and societies collapse
when they get so consumed with addressing the fine points of their
history and culture and deeply held beliefs—with making sure that
Thorstein Olafsson and Sigrid Bjornsdotter are married before the right
number of witnesses following the announcement of wedding banns on the
right number of Sundays—that they forget that the pastureland is
shrinking and the forest cover is gone.
When archeologists looked through the ruins of the Western
Settlement, they found plenty of the big wooden objects that were so
valuable in Greenland—crucifixes, bowls, furniture, doors, roof
timbers—which meant that the end came too quickly for anyone to do any
scavenging. And, when the archeologists looked at the animal bones left
in the debris, they found the bones of newborn calves, meaning that the
Norse, in that final winter, had given up on the future. They found toe
bones from cows, equal to the number of cow spaces in the barn, meaning
that the Norse ate their cattle down to the hoofs, and they found the
bones of dogs covered with knife marks, meaning that, in the end, they
had to eat their pets. But not fish bones, of course. Right up until
they starved to death, the Norse never lost sight of what they stood
for.
Copyright © CondéNet 2004
See the book at Amazon.