Talk:Societal collapse/Archive 1

Archive 1

Discussion on end of civilization

Editors input would be appreciated at Talk:End_of_civilization. There seems to be some disagreement what the end of civilization actually means. nirvana2013 17:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

proposed merge of fall of a civilisation with societal collapse

• oppose. these are really different topics. Fall of a civilisation is centered on Gibbon's concepts of the inevitability of "a fall" and the rotation of world power. societal collapse need not be connected to industrialisation or globalization arguments, and in fact many societal collapses are purely regional (eg Mayan) and have nothing to do with rotation of world power. in any case the two articles should be allowed to develope for now and see where they go. Anlace 16:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Manifestations of societal collapse

Clearly dysgenics is a mode of societal collapse, otherwise that page wont exist.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Paruta (talk • contribs)

We don't use ourself as a reference. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Confusing Categorization of Collapsed Societies

The list of societies that have collapsed "by the first method" and "by the second method" is confusing. Several methods are listed above, but I'm not sure what applies where. Perhaps these should be relabeled in a clearer way? 68.148.38.255 (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agree. At a minimum, there should be some explanation for most of the examples. Even with a fairly good knowledge of Byzantine history (well, more than WP's own article on the empire, anyway ;-), I could not see how -- or for what era(s) -- it fits into a collapse scenario "by the second method". In fact, the general problem is that "the second method" does not seem to be a collapse at all. For example, France, though its own efforts, has integrated itself into the EU. Indeed, it largely created the EU. But that evolution is no collapse!

I would hope to learn something from this section, but it's hard without more detail than the author(s) chose to include. Jmacwiki (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Disintegration/collapse merge

Against: Isn't it possible for disintegration to be occuring before and regardless of a possible collapse, for example a few centuries ago in London, before actions were taken to fix the sewerage, water supply and disease problems. It is possible a collapse may occur without a disintegration precursor, for example because of a volcanic eruption, tidal wave or other large natural disaster. Because of this distinction, I don't believe Social disintegration and Societal collapse should be merged. - Shiftchange 07:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Against. Social disintegration is a term used in Sociology with specific meaning and history. Societal collapse is a popular phrase with broad meanings, depending on who uses it, when they used it, and in what context they used it. -- Stbalbach 13:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Against: Stbalbach is right. Social disintegration is a sociological concept, implying the collapse of social links and bonds, which is quite different that the collapse of a society. A society's collapse may indeed involve social disintegration in the sociological sense, but such a collapse may be equally caused by events such as war or natural disaster. In contrast, social disintegration is less an event, and more of a process. See individualization.

Neutral: I think that it is important to note that Social disintegration and Societal collapse are very much related via the mechanism of some type of entropy based factors (whether people can allocate, utilise and make the BEST use of a limited amount of resources by finding a configuration of such resources in a manner which optimises their long term best interests - say, for example, energy generation). Note that such resources INCLUDE not merely material wealth, but also people, places and energy. The obvious reference to entropy based factors comes into play when one bears in mind that self-similarity and emergence are the types of behaviour that a functional society might exhibit (self-similarity is, information-theoretically speaking, one of the simplest self-evident ways that a society can emerge, AND adapt to a changing natural world).

In short, a highly ordered, yet complex society^ will fare better than a highly disordered and complex one PROVIDED that the self-similar behaviour of that society enables adaptation at a rate which can cope with changing circumstances (finite resources, for example).

In particular, societal organisation is heavily influenced by the way that people interrelate with one another and to their ability to act as 'entropy stable' agents in the sense that they are capable of comprehending the reality around them (intelligence) and that they act in some moral fashion so as to utilise that comprehension (morality), enabling the preservation of a (prefarably) well structured and adaptable society. My attempt in mentioning these, perhaps seemingly arbitrary, points is that these notions seem self-evident in some scientifically/mathematically valid sense - these various behaviors are exhibited in a limited sense by bacteria, animals and humans (though humans benefit vastly from moral behaviour and thus any meaningful comparison with other organisms is questionable).

Thus, Social disintegration can act (and OFTEN does act) as a trigger for Societal collapse as it destroys/undermines the effectiveness of those organisations/structures upon which society relies upon for adaptation to changing circumstances (obviously). Though I do accept that (technically) the two separate notions are different.

My bottom line is this. There should be a link from either article to the other. I'm also going to request a link to economic entropy for this article (for whatever use that might be for anyone).

^ (for some, there may be a contradiction in terms here - though it is possible for an ordered society to have high complexity if it is, in some sense, scientifically organised to deal with the naturally occurring complexity of the real world).

ConcernedScientist (talk) 01:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

A dissenting voice

Societal isn't a real word. (Americans are dumb) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.170.39.35 (talk) 09:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I really don't[[ see much in common from all these examples. The Norse in Greenland were driven out by the Little Ice Age in Europe. Nobody knows why the Olmec civilization ended - or maybe it just became the Maya. The "Izapa" are not a society -- it is an archaelogical site. No one knows why Cahokia was abandoned.

Did every civilization end in a "societal collapse"? Is every abandoned town the result of a "societal collapse"? ]] The definition is so lacking in detail ("a breakdown in society") as to be meaningless, IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madman2001 (talk • contribs)

I didn't write or really contribute to the article (yet) but im currently reading Collapse (book) by Jared Diamond and why societies collapse is a complex question. This article currently appears to be just a list of societies that are thought to have collapsed, being the common element. -- Stbalbach 05:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, MilitaryTarget, you really put some rigor into this article. Keep up the good work. Madman 03:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This article needs complete revision

This article is confused and confusing. Social collapse is not the same as the collapse of civilisation. For example, Australian Aboriginal society collapsed as a result of the culture contact and invasion by settlers, but it would not be included here. The fact that we are currently losing one language every two weeks would also be evidence of social collapse amongst many cultures, but it too is not included. Colin Turnbull in "The Mountain People" describes the social collapse of the Ik of Uganda, but this is nowhere included. Where is Spencer, where is Diamond, where is the discussion of Derrick Jensen? This needs a complete re-edit. John D. Croft (talk) 07:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone should try turning it into a Wikipedia article instead of the tendentious essay mishmash it is now. 70.91.238.74 (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Catabolic collapse

I know a Wikipedia talk page isn't the right place to critique a person's work, but in the section on catabolic collapse, it is said that industrial society is likely to grow through a series of crises on it's way to decline and fall. Widespread industrialization may certainly be curtailed in the future, but saying all of it will collapse is like predicting the collapse of agricultural civilization (which does not depend on steel and oil based industries, although it's benefits immensely). Even if America, Europe, Asia, and Africa annihilate the industry out of each other, I'll bet there'd still be pockets of organization who'd be willing to enslave a local population and force them to industrialize, and so continuing the cycle between dark ages and light ages, with kingdoms becoming empires and vice versa. Xaxafrad 22:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Xaxafrad, you need to read Derrick Jenzen's "Endgame". Civilisations, from Latin "Civilis" = a town dweller, are always dependent upon a hinterland, as cities are defined as dense population centres where the bulk of the population is not engaged in food production. Historically they proceed by depleting the stock of non renewable resources in the vacinity, and frequently also deplete renewable resources at a greater rate than their recovery rate (Plato speaks of this in his Timaeus, describing how the felling of trees in Attica led to the loss of soils and the impoverishment of the countryside for anything except the growing of olives). For this reason civilisations are compelled to be expansive, and we find since the first civilisations in the Middle East, in southern Iraq, Egypt and the Indus, these are epicentres for the spreading deserts which characterise these regions today. It also explains why the Western Civilisation (the only planetary civilisation to ever exist), is bigger than Islamic civilisation, which is bigger than Roman civilisation, which in turn was bigger than the Greek civilisation, bigger than Mycenaean, which in turn was bigger than Minoan. Civilisations have generally eiyther come to be incorporated into one of the larger ones, or else have collapsed through a dark age. The collapse usually occurs when for some reason or another they come to deplete and destroy the environment on which they depend, resources become scarce, timber demands need to deforestation, soils erode, warfare breaks out between competing elites, and they either get incorporated into a larger temporarily more successful culture or else they collapse when centralisation disappears.

Our civilisation is not exempt from this cycle, except in our case we are destroying the atmosphere of a planet, and depleting all easily accessible resources of available non-renewable resources. Our collapse will be longer, and darker than all that came previously, because with the collapse of globalised culture there is no new civilisation awaiting in the wings to help us this time. New stone age, here we come. John D. Croft 09:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

So maybe there's a tale here of a 30,000 year dark age, which, with the right mathematics and societal engineering, might be shortened to a mere 1,000 years. It's been done. ;-) Jmacwiki (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The Egyptians lived in a relative balance with nature for a few centuries. Let's posit that they could've lived in an isolated world, without so-called barbarian raids or competitive civilizations. How long would such a situation last? Breeding must be controlled, or else more homes will be built, cities will enlarge, one, two, or a handful of families will strike out for the wilderness and found a new city of their own. Environmental isolation (ocean, desert, mountain) is necessary to prevent the founding of colonies. The environment is far from stable, as oceans and mountains rise and fall, and deserts come and go. The nature of DNA is to spread, but I won't announce the primacy of the fitfulness of human genes until they've decisively overcome their planetary origins and limitations.

The only thing that can save us from another stone age will be the electronic preservation of knowledge, which requires the preservation of access to such information. With such information, those who can read it will retain some measure of civilization (that is, social stratification, by whatever means necessary, as there has always been somebody willing to kill somebody else to get what they want (it's the one law of nature that needs to be replaced with a law of man)). Assuming a genetically viable breeding population is retained every generation, civilization will come back eventually (at least, over the next couple million years, until evolution or the genetic industry introduce an unpredictable paradigm).

We are simultaneously approaching the limits of foreseeable environmental and technological exploitation at the speed of an iron horse. The human mind's ability to adapt to a variety of situations has enabled us to put enough band-aids on our society that it would be indistinguishable from a stereotypical mummy (which can lead us to a whole different metaphor...). Something's gotta give, but nobody knows what will give first, or if we can invent yet another band-aid before it gives. (this is a fun conversation, but I'm afraid it's not on-topic with the article, but I won't tell if you won't ;) although if anybody wants to shout WP:OR I'll stop typing right now) Xaxafrad 22:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Xaxafrad, even in the case of Egypt, there was a need to expand its region of environmental exploitation, once local sources of minerals and other materials were depleted. The New Empire Phase rose to heights not reached in the Old Kingdom preciisely due to the fact that Kuushite Gold replaced the depleted Egyptian deposits. John D. Croft (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

A certain POV

The following recent edit has been removed and placed here for discussion. WBardwin 03:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Some including Nobel Prize winner William Shockley have suggested that the average individual in a civilization may eventually become weaker through the process of dysgenics. This process occurs because the most intelligent actually reproduce least leaving the population less able to perform complex functions. This effect is presently being observed in almost every country on earth, and has been named the Demographic-economic paradox. The inherent differences between races, with the high population growth of blacks and high rates of intermarriage between blacks and other races is likely to cause another global societal collapse.

It's well sourced and should be included. AuNO305:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an ancient racist view, expressing a concern that in fact extends back to Roman times, with the fears that the Roman Senatorial class was not reproducing itself. Pro-natalist policies were instituted, but over time it is no problem. Despite rascist claims to the contrary, there is no evidence that blacks are intellectually inferior to whites. The collapse in such cases only occurs when the elite form a closed caste and prevent upward mobility of other groups. Blacks and Hispanics in the US are only an issue if whites close ranks and prevent others moving into their circles. John D. Croft 04:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It's actually been scientifically proven through 30 years of intelligence testing. This article in slate provides a good summary of the research to date. http://www.slate.com/id/2178122/entry/2178123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.190.179 (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

That's your view. I think something as well sourced as that paragraph should definitely be included. AuNO321:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If it were to be included, I would only agree if the countervailing point of view I have shown here were also included, in the name of balance. John D. Croft 04:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The user who wrote the paragraph made a racist comment on the Kevin Strom page stating he wanted to kill off all black people. It should not be here. AuNo3 should also be banned as he was warned many times but blanked his talk page to appear as if he was not warned.YVNP 01:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not tolerated on Wikipedia. I have never cleared my talk page, as my edits will confirm. Learn to use the website and know its rules before you make any more statements. Gold Nitrate

You blanked your page here, here, and most recently here. As for the racist comment, YVNP is referring to this edit by 128.32.77.32, who was first to add the bullet point. It should be mentioned that some of this IP's edits are eerily similar to yours, for example in your style of vandalizing the Heidi Klum article ([1], [2]).

As for the Shockley statement, if it needs to be included then it should be properly attributed to the original source. This does seem like an antiquated viewpoint, so it's probably best to include some sort of rebuttal in the bullet point. - 71.179.102.236 05:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have the right to clear my talk page, and did it after you posted your comments and not because of them. You need to learn to use this website.

You can clear your talk page as I am now aware. apologies. I didn't attack you because you have been warned enough to be banned. IYVNP 20:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

actually you can change only when prove you have read the warnings and will try to learn from them. Since you deleted them but denied doing it, I am wondering if you learned anything from themYVNP 05:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted to put some balance in the so-called race-and-intelligence piece by presenting a contrary point of view. Some say that the results of the Flynn Effect are due to the improvement in the environment - particularly for the disadvantaged groups who earlier tested poorly. This effect shows that the so-called gaps between so-called "races" in fact are a measure of cultural disadvantage. Overcome the cultural disadvantage and the intelligence of the whole population improves. John D. Croft 12:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Two paragraphs were repeated twice, and the whole argument here deserves to be footnoted, rather than put into the text as it was. The reference to the Wikipedia article Race and Intelligence was deleted as the article is currently locked due to irreconcilable disputes over the racial basis of intelligence scores. I have attempted to give greater balance between the dysgenic and the alternative view, and make it less an apologetics for the eugenic argument. Even still the first part of the argument belongs in an article on Dysgenics rather than Societal Collapse. John D. Croft 03:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that "Julian Huxley (the first director of UNESCO) was concerned by dysgenics and described eugenics as of "of all outlets for altruism, that which is most comprehensive, and of longest range" is irrelevant to the article. It has a place on the dysgenics page, not here. It is a fact that eugenic theories did fall into disrepute because of their association with Nazi practices. See the article on Eugenics. The points made and the references cited are well covered in the dysgenics article and do not need to be repeated here. Please sign your name if you are going to edit. John D. Croft 08:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

John Croft, your edit brings your own sway to the article. You mention that dysgenic effects is due to the environment which is a broad statement with no source and is far more POV than anything in the original statement. Gold Nitrate 15:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have included sources and have included the edits I have made to show that there is a range of arguments about the so-called dysgenic effects, and attempted to give some balance here. You keep excluding the balance which shows that the points about dysgenic effects are controversial and disputed (which they are). The points about Dysgenics are still included in the footnotes. To include them in the text of the article, without balance of the opposite points of view is a POV error and I will continue to change as shown here. Continued deletion of this is to weaken the article altogether, and to make it a POV error that includes no alternative, or shows that these arguments are controversial and not universally accepted. John D. Croft 08:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Everyone has agreed? Not me! WBardwin 01:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The only agreement I see (for inclusion) is by User:Auno3 a.k.a. Gold Nitrate. A user currently blocked for a second 3rr violation. Vsmith 01:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I smell a puppet --Michael Johnson 01:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The same material is being added again.[3] There's no consensus to include it. The newest material doens't give a source for the connection to the topic of the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Over-intellectualized hodge-podge much?

Goddamn this page needs to be rewritten SO BAD. I just don't have the energy for it. Most people who read this stuff aren't, contrary to the original poster's apparent belief, comfy graduate students studying for a sociology final. If someone reads this note, please rewrite the page such that all these apparent "facts" are restated to be the theories of specific scholars. Sloggerbum (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this article needs a major rewrite. Rlsheehan (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The Soviet Union...

"A simple example would be the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The abrupt disappearance of a global superpower in the course of a few months, without any external attack, was evidently caused by some kind of structural change in its internal complex system."

This is laughable, treating the Soviet Union as if it were some kind of extraterrestrial lifeform and one whose decline hasn't been studied in depth by infinite historians and economists. This sentence makes this article like something on a crank conspiracy site --99.3.18.24 (talk) 07:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Things in general are getting back there, at least for an american observer. People are totally insane. they look at the movie the book of eli as if it were canon... it's a fucking movie, and the provenance of the "book" - a primary plot point - was never established. americans are stupid and psychotic. they will assert provenance with NO PROOF. so you tell me, what should be on wikipedia - the collapse of a former republic of USSR which is factually supported, or a stupid movie which is popular fever? Note the date of my post. It's not a new movie... and it's STILL argued about.75.134.26.34 (talk) 04:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Sub-Replacement fertility due to high levels of urbanization

The overcrowding hypothesis is not original research as mentioned in this NIMH published article

http://tomax7.com/HeyGod/misc/MousePopulationStudy.PDF

Also the primary sources of antiquity support a sub-replacement fertility in those civilizations that were highly urbanized.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0234%3Abook%3D37%3Achapter%3D9

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JdGQNIxBMh0C&redir_esc=y

According to the studies John B Calhoun and using the theory of the Behavioral Sink as humanity spends more time living in high density overcrowded conditions the fertility rate should decrease over a generational period of time. The study suggests that humans who have evolved in low-density conditions are socially unprepared for life in high-density conditions. The violation of the Dunbar number seems to have consequences that may decrease the fertility of a group over time. Also many Ancient civilizations who have lived under high-density conditions such as the highly urbanized Ancient Greeks and Ancient Romans seemed to have suffered rapid depopulation at the end of their existence which can be found in the archaeological evidence of Late Antiquity. Also the Greek Polybius describes the dearth of children that he observed in Ancient Greece. And Cassius Dio a historian who lived in Ancient Rome documented the low birth rates that were affecting the Roman nobility. Low-density nations who lived close to these civilizations eventually took over their territory as is usually described by the Barbarian invasions. Also between 1206 and 1150 BC, the cultural collapse of the Mycenaean kingdoms, the Hittite Empire in Anatolia and Syria,^[1] and the New Kingdom of Egypt called the Bronze Age Collapse can be attributed to sub replacement fertility rates due to overcrowding in those civilizations. The fairly rapid depopulation and abandonment of most cities in those civilizations can be attributed to low fertility rates. Further back the urban Minoan and Sumerian civilizations were also depopulated, and their territory was later taken over by people who lived under low density conditions that lived nearby.

Demographic-economic paradox also supports this theory as the richer nations are highly urbanized.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Promet14 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC) 

Promet14 (talk) 05:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

"consequences that may decrease the fertility of a group over time". While I would not object to using sources that support this theory, there were other factors leading to reduced fertility.

Take ancient Greece as an example. Hellenistic Greece experienced high urbanization, but the major population centers of the era were no longer in the Balkans. They were Alexandria, Antioch, Pergamon, Ephesus, Rhodes and Seleucia. Vital population segments migrated out of Greece towards the Hellenistic cities of the East. The Greco-Bactrian Kingdom and the Indo-Greek Kingdom were the easternmost reaches of the Greek migration movement. Roman Greece was also a prosperous province with about 80 cities by Late Antiquity, but Romanized Greeks probably still migrated to Rome and other population centers of the Roman Empire. And Constantinople was eventually far more prosperous and populous than the Greek cities. By the early 6th century, it had reached a population of 500,000 people and probably benefited by the tendency of people to migrate to large urban areas in search of opportunity.

When it comes to the Romans, do not confuse the supposed low fertility of the upper classes with the tendency of the whole population. See our article on Marriage in ancient Rome. By the 1st century BC: "Among the upper classes, marriage was less frequent, and many couples who did marry failed to produce offspring. Augustus implemented a series of laws pertaining to marriage and family life, aimed at increasing the population of native Italians in Italy, encouraging marriage and having children, and punishing adultery as a crime (see Adultery below). Heavier taxes were assessed on unmarried men and women without husbands, but privileges and recognition were granted for marriage and childbearing."

By what we know of various Roman biographies, members of the upper classes were often either celibate or had frequent sexual relationships out of wedlock. Which led to less legitimate children, but not necessarily less bastards. For example, Julius Caesar had only 2 known children, but sources speak of many sexual partners and there were rumors of illegitimate children. And there are certainly major exceptions to the rule of unmarried and childless Romans. Mark Antony, a contemporary of Augustus, married 5 times and had 8 known legitimate children. According to Cicero, Antony actually had more children than are named in the sources, and this is still counting only legitimate ones. He is reported to have also had several love affairs in his youth, and this could mean the fertile Antony also had bastard children. Dimadick (talk) 08:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I am aware of both of these trends however they do not explain the almost complete depopulation of Rome. And the reversion of the population to subsistence farming.

Rome went from a population of 800,000 in the beginning of the period to a population of 30,000 by the end of the period, the most precipitous drop coming with the breaking of the aqueducts during the Gothic War. A similar though less marked decline in urban population occurred later in Constantinople, which was gaining population until the outbreak of plague in 541. In Europe there was also a general decline in urban populations. As a whole, the period of late antiquity was accompanied by an overall population decline in almost all Europe, and a reversion to more of a subsistence economy. Long-distance markets disappeared, and there was a reversion to a greater degree of local production and consumption, rather than webs of commerce and specialized production.[13] Taken from Late Antiquity.

Cassius Dio the historian describes a speech by Tiberius, in which he says Rome is perishing from a lack of children.

[-1-] Tiberius returned to Rome after the winter when Quintus Sulpicius and Gaius Sabinus were consuls. Augustus went out into the suburbs to meet him, accompanied him to the Sæpta, and there from a platform greeted the people. Next he performed the ceremonies proper on such an occasion and had the consuls give triumphal spectacles. And since the knights on this occasion with great vigor sought for the repeal of the law regarding the unmarried and the childless, he assembled in one place in the Forum the unmarried men of this number and in another those who were married or had children. Seeing that the latter were much fewer in number than the former he was filled with grief and addressed them to the following effect:

"A strange experience has been mine, O—What shall I call you?—Men? But you do not perform the offices of men.—Citizens? But so far as you are concerned the city is perishing.—Romans? But you are undertaking to do away with this name.—Well, at any rate, whoever you are and by whatever name you delight to be called, mine has been an unexpected experience. For, though I am always doing everything to promote an increase of population among you and am now about to rebuke you, I grieve to see that you are numerous. I could rather wish that those others to whom I have just spoken were so many than to see you as many as you are; or, still better, to see you mustered with them,—or at least not to know how things stand. It is you who without pausing to reflect on the foresight of the gods or the care of your forefathers are bent upon annihilating your whole race and making it in truth mortal, upon destroying and ending the whole Roman nation ...

You have incurred blood guiltiness by not begetting those who ought to be your descendants; you are sacrilegious in putting an end to the names and honors of your ancestors; you are impious in abolishing your families, which were instituted by the gods, and destroying the greatest of offerings to them,—the human being,—and by overthrowing in this way their rites and their temples. Moreover, by causing the downfall of the government you are disobedient to the laws, and you even betray your country by rendering her barren and childless: nay more, you lay her even with the dust by making her destitute of inhabitants. A city consists of human beings, not of houses or porticos or fora empty of men. Think what rage would justly seize the great Romulus, the founder of our race, if he could reflect on the circumstances of his own birth, and then upon your attitude,—refusing to get children even by lawful marriages! ...

You see for yourselves how much larger a mass you constitute than the married men, when you ought by this time to have furnished us with as many more children, or rather with several times your number. How otherwise shall families continue? How can the commonwealth be preserved if we neither marry nor produce children? Surely you are not expecting some to spring up from the earth to succeed to your goods and to public affairs, as myths describe. It is neither pleasing to Heaven nor creditable that our race should cease and the name of Romans meet extinguishment in us, and the city be given up to foreigners,—Greek or even barbarians. We liberate slaves chiefly for the purpose of making out of them as many citizens as possible; we give our allies a share in the government that our numbers may increase: yet you, Romans of the original stock, including Quintii, Valerii, Iulli, are eager that your families and names at once shall perish with you.

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/10883/pg10883.html

Also Polybius specifically talks of a dearth of children during that time in Greece, not emigration.

In our time all Greece was visited by a dearth of children and generally a decay of population, owing to which the cities were denuded of inhabitants, and a failure of productiveness resulted, though there were no long-continued wars or serious pestilences among us. Taken from the Histories. Added Link

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0234%3Abook%3D37%3Achapter%3D9

A similar process has been observed in the Bronze Age Collapse, with the complete depopulation of most urban cities.

Between 1206 and 1150 BC, the cultural collapse of the Mycenaean kingdoms, the Hittite Empire in Anatolia and Syria,[1] and the New Kingdom of Egypt in Syria and Canaan[2] interrupted trade routes and severely reduced literacy. In the first phase of this period, almost every city between Pylos and Gaza was violently destroyed, and often left unoccupied thereafter: examples include Hattusa, Mycenae, and Ugarit.[3] Drews writes "Within a period of forty to fifty years at the end of the thirteenth and the beginning of the twelfth century almost every significant city in the eastern Mediterranean world was destroyed, many of them never to be occupied again" (p. 4) Taken from Bronze Age Collapse

A similar effect has happened to the Maya civilization.

The Classic Period of Mesoamerican chronology is generally defined as the period from 250 to 900, the last century of which is referred to as the Terminal Classic.[1] The classic Maya collapse is one of the greatest unsolved mysteries in archaeology. Urban centers of the southern lowlands, including them Palenque, Copán, Tikal, Calakmul, went into decline during the 8th and 9th centuries and were abandoned shortly thereafter Taken from Maya Collapse

Depopulation trends can be observed in the Minoan civilization as well.

Around 1450 BC, Minoan culture experienced a turning point due to a natural catastrophe, possibly an earthquake. Another eruption of the Thera volcano has been linked to this downfall, but its dating and implications remain controversial. Several important palaces in locations such as Mallia, Tylissos, Phaistos, Hagia Triade as well as the living quarters of Knossos were destroyed. The palace in Knossos seems to have remained largely intact. This resulted in the Dynasty in Knossos being able to spread its influence over large parts of Crete, until it was overrun by Mycenaean Greeks.[17] Taken from Minoan civilization

Sub-replacement fertility should be added as a principal reason for the collapse of advanced civilizations. And the principal cause to the decline of fertility seems to be urbanization or overcrowding which is widely supported by many sources. Urbanization and fertility are inversely related.

Promet14 (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Modern examples?

Rwandan genocide? Soviet Union? Somalia?

A textbook example is underway in East Timor right now. --Dave 07:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Union seems like a textbook example, and one that should be salient in the mind of everyone born before 1980 (at least), perhaps more than any other collapse. Jmacwiki (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

America for the early stages Jeffery Thomas 15:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Societal collapse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130527170154/http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/Newsletters/GINL9603/PopCrises3.htm to http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/Newsletters/GINL9603/PopCrises3.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080423014420/http://www.sfusd.k12.ca.us/schwww/sch618/Ibn_Battuta/Battuta%27s_Trip_Three.html to http://www.sfusd.k12.ca.us/schwww/sch618/Ibn_Battuta/Battuta's_Trip_Three.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110405081151/http://home.vicnet.net.au/~ozideas/poprus.htm to http://home.vicnet.net.au/~ozideas/poprus.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161018045326/http://www.foet.org/books/Entropy-toc.pdf to http://www.foet.org/books/Entropy-toc.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

PLEASE Update this page and harness many more to contribute

I am very impressed by this page, and by its relevance to our time of troubles today. I urge those who have knowledge and time to contribute, to consider ramping up this page in the next year, as I believe it is quite helpful. A couple of months ago I had occasion to ask Alvin Toffler what his greatest concern was, and he said "the collapse of all our institutions." It is now clearly established that the extremists Republicans (I am an estranged moderate Republican) have taken over and are disrespectful of all of us who believe in creativity (e.g. science as well as humanities), moderation, sharing, and cross-cultural collabiration and understanding. I consider this page to be one of the most important Wikipedia pages available to the general population. I plan to point to it from www.oss.net. Anyone who contributes to this page is doing something for humanity at large and the US population in particular. fkjgskfjgsk With respect, ~~

Somebody signed incorrectly. Nerd271 (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Citations

There needs to be more citations for where this information came from. As it stands now, it appears to be one writer's treatise, rather than having the references that allow it to be a guide to sources for scholarly work. It is not written is a way that is consistent with other Wikipedia entries. Further, the references that do appear are often repeated.

Somebody forgot to sign. Nerd271 (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Tags

The tags

no longer appear to be on any use to the editing process and are just a distraction. I have removed them.

Somebody forgot to sign. Nerd271 (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Merging social disintegration into this article

Social disintegration appears to have been originally created as a POV statement, and it never really got off the ground since then. Conceptually, I think it's more or less synonymous with the ideas explored in this article, and I'm not aware of it having a distinct academic history as a term of art separate from what's explored here in societal collapse. Chubbles (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support. This article is much better developed while that one needs a lot of work is should cover the same ground anyway. Nerd271 (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment Social disintegration is mostly unsourced. What verifiable information can be merged here? Dimadick (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dimadick: I'd say redirect it here. Nerd271 (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support redirecting - nothing worth saving. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Chubbles, Dimadick, and Crossroads: It has been a couple weeks since this discussion started. It appears we have consensus for redirecting or merging "social disintegration" here. Shall we wrap this up? Nerd271 (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chubbles, Dimadick, and Crossroads: I redirected that page here. Nerd271 (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts on adding overpopulation or population concentration to the causes of societal collapse?

I'm not a Wiki editor and so I don't want to touch this article, but someone with more experience might want to consider adding references to John Calhoun's Mouse and Rat Utopia experiments, in which experiments with crowded societies lead to a behavioral sink and actions within the collective population that contribute to its collapse. This was theorized to have implications for human society, as well as connections to other fields of study such as environmentalism through the concept of Overshoot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Calhoun https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-mouse-utopias-1960s-led-grim-predictions-humans-180954423/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overshoot_(population) https://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/washington-post/us-national/history-in-rat-research-a-warning-for-human-society-1.20770638 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:2260:55C0:612C:1C0F:C62F:F96A (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. Calhoun's mouse experiments already has a link in the "See also" section. I'll see what I can do about the rest. Nerd271 (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Misguided article

Particularly the examples "By absorbtion" are misguided, since conquest does not mean societal collapse. E.g. Constantinople flurished as Istanbul, Ottoman even continuing roman tradition, such as using the name for themselfs.

Over large parts of the article societal collapse is not even directly talked about.

In my opinion it needs serious editorial work. Nsae Comp (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Given that in the introduction, loss of cultural identity and population are signs of decline or collapse, it seems appropriate. (It was there before I started editing this article.) Nerd271 (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thats exactly the problem that I have with the article: is it now talking about every other type of societal change or really about the literal and implied collapse. I think the problem lies with the used references for defining the concept. Thats why I saw the need of introducing a chapter to collect references that attempt to define the concept. Nsae Comp (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Bottom line as so often in the case of Wikipedia: it falls victim to the lacking or incomplete literature. (We depend on you out there!) Nsae Comp (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

After some basic research I have tried my luck with a renewed attempt to bring in some clarity. I didnt get that far, if it includes conquest (aka "absorbtion") as collapse. Nsae Comp (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

"See also" section

@Nsae Comp: Please do not put more links in that section. We have way too many already. Please see MOS:ALSO. Nerd271 (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Lack of proper references

I am having with User:Nerd271 a dispute about a part about the Han dynasty (chapter "after the collapse"). I do not care to get into discussing chinese history, since my argument is that the provided references is not talking about societal collaps.

In my opinion the text is an original analysis by its author, as several other parts of this by one user dominated article.

PS: please refrain from ridiculing me, I very well know chinese history and the respective periodization like the period of the Three Kingdoms, afterall I have been studying chinese history for decades. But as I said I do not want a battle of who-knows-how-much.

Bottom line is that stating history is not enough to explain its use in this article. Nsae Comp (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure where you got the idea I was ridiculing your from. But I advise you to refrain from making accusations and assume good faith. I never accused you of anything. That section is intended to give examples of what happens to a civilization or society after its collapse. One nation falling into multiple pieces constantly warring among themselves is definitely a case of decline and collapse. But that, as we all know, was not the end of China. Nerd271 (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Well I am glad to hear it wasnt meant ridiculing. In any case my unadressed argument is that the questioned text is in my opinion original analysis without topic related references. Nsae Comp (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

No, it was a pretty chaotic and violent period in Chinese history. Various sources confirmed this. This was a case of collapse. But for the purposes of the section, the posthumous fame of the Han Dynasty receives the focus. Nerd271 (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me but you are not answering why the text has no reference that says that it constitutes a case of collapse. Its not your place to decide that it does constitute one without a source saying it. Nsae Comp (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Look at the top of the article for a definition of decline and collapse. Any reasonable person with that in mind would realize that one country disintegrating into multiple constantly warring factions has suffered societal collapse. It may recover, and China certainly did on multiple occasions, but that does not mean it did not collapse. That was not really a normal transition period. Nerd271 (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

But thats not how Wikipedia works. You need references stating that claim, not references for establishing that claim, no matter how obvious the case might be. Nsae Comp (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Nsae Comp here. With regard to the text on the Cham people over which there has also been some edit warring, the information Nerd271 is seeking to add is interesting but not appropriately sourced. There is also the question of whether it goes into too much detail for an article of this level of generality, per WP:SUMMARY. Generalrelative (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

FYI I went and WP:BOLDly cut the whole "Aftermath" section because it had similar sourcing issues and didn't seem to me to be encyclopedic in its focus. If there is disagreement I will of course be happy to discuss. Generalrelative (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The National Geographic is certainly appropriate for this purpose, as is the Ancient History Encyclopedia. (If you are concerned about the current state of NatGeo, this was from the early 2000s.) The level of detail is suitable, because it gives some background and takes up only one paragraph. I am not trying to replicate an article here. Nerd271 (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

1) National Geographic is generally a reliable source, but what was cited here was a 2007 book called the National Geographic Essential Visual History of the World. This book gives an extraordinarily cursory outline of the topics it covers and has no attributed authors whose expertise we can evaluate. It could perhaps be used for the most uncontroversial of claims but why wouldn't we look instead to a textbook or secondary source written by a subject matter expert?

2) I checked at RS/N and haven't seen any debate on Ancient History Encyclopedia. It is an okay resource for students but again it is not written by subject matter experts. For instance the "Early Three Kingdoms Period" article you'd cited is written by Mark Cartwright, whose highest degree is an MA in political philosophy. Again, for the most uncontroversial of claims this might be fine, but why wouldn't we use something by an expert?

3) These points are separate from, and I would suggest obviated by, the fact that this section as written didn't discuss the topic in a general way –– connecting general ideas to specific historical examples. Rather it simply focused in on one or two or three apparently arbitrarily chosen historical moments (depending on which recent version we're talking about): the late Etruscan / early Roman, the post-Han, and the Cham migrations in SE Asia. No rationale was given for presenting these three examples and no overarching discussion of the aftermath of societal collapse was offered. I'd be in favor of a section that offered such a discussion, but so far none of the material here appeared constructive toward that goal.

I hope that's helpful, and I don't want to diminish the hard work you've clearly put into this. But sometimes the progress is in the learning rather than in the lasting results. Others may disagree with my assessments here, but for the time being I'd suggest not restoring this material until a consensus appears to support it. Generalrelative (talk) 05:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Dutton and Woodley's book and biased point of view

A book written by a noted white supremacist is referenced in the section on the obsolete theory of cognitive decline and loss of creativity. The text references this extremely controversial fringe text without mentioning that its ideas are totally beneath the consideration of the overwhelming majority of social scientists, being in a paradigm correctly superseded a hundred years ago. I don't think we should be in the business of misleading people that failed journalist charlatans like these are any more qualified to write on this topic than the average milkmaid.

Aside from this there are problems with tone and impartiality throughout. Generally, there seems to be a very clear point of view of a particular, rather unsavoury, kind, and authorial bias is rampant (e.g. "Toynbee's masterpiece": the term "masterpiece" does not belong anywhere on Wikipedia except in a quotation, or to note that something is generally considered to be a masterpiece).

Prevailing theories of societal collapse in the social sciences (including that it is a very rare exception, that 'collapse' is an ethnocentric misreading of transformation, that much of the historical evidence of supposed collapse is predicated on the notion that the observer knows better than the historical agents what constitutes a positive versus a negative development, and so forth) are given less time than obsolete and fringe theories.

I don't really know what do with this mess except suggest that it should be deleted and edit-protected so that responsible authors can start again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.11.179 (talk) 03:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I have removed content sourced to Dutton and Woodley. There is a discussion over at Talk:Edward Dutton (author) about possibly deleting that article due to a lack of notability. That led me here, since this is one of very few articles that links to Dutton's article.

As a primary source it might, arguably, be briefly summarized with attribution. But not like this. The article's use of that source was unacceptable for many reasons. As noted by the IP last year, there are a lot of WP:TONE problems in this article. Removing this one WP:FRINGE source is barely even the start of what's needed. Grayfell (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Reading of Hall et al

This article doesn't seem to be a very faithful reading of Hall et al's paper. They conclude that solar PV has an EROI of 10:1, comparable to that of contemporary fossil fuels. They also point out the very good EROI of hydroelectric, and pretty good of wind energy. This is hardly contributing to the "paradox that renewables will need more fossil fuels", quite the contrary.

They also note that the power coming from renewables is of much higher quality than fossil fuels tend to be, and so EROI isn't such a good measure in the first place. For an example, an internal combustion engine uses only like 20% of the energy for propulsion, the rest is lost as heat, whereas in an electric engine, most of the energy is used for propulsion. Taking this into account, renewables will give at least a factor of 3 more driven distance for the initial energy investment.

I was about to the make major changes to the article to reflect this, but figured I'd open a discussion first. --Kjetil Kjernsmo (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Kjetil Kjernsmo, I assume good faith, but what are you talking about? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

The article, as it stands, says that "Paradoxically, therefore, expansions of renewable energy require more consumption of fossil fuels", and to support that, it refer to a paper by Charles Hall. But the paper by Hall et al supports no such paradox, to the contrary, it shows that certain renewable energy sources has the same EROI as fossil fuels have now. Moreover, it notes that EROI is itself a bad measure for the issue at hand.

Therefore, the article currently contradicts the sources that it references, and that should not occur.

As far as I can tell, the historical parts of this article are sound, but certainly not the forward-looking parts. Kjetil Kjernsmo (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I noticed something vaguely strange about that section before checking this talk page. I have already removed much of that paragraph. As I mentioned a few months ago the entire article has POV issues, WP:TONE issues, and smells too much like WP:SYNTH. Someone needs to do a deep dive of all of these sources to make sure they actually support the attached statements. Grayfell (talk) 05:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

What is “quality” of power? SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

"secular decline of cognitive abilities"

What is meant here?--Vergänglichkeit (talk) 13:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Idiocracy, dysgenics Nashhinton (talk) 02:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I just found out that "secular" can also mean "long-term" so I changed that word in the article to not confuse others in the future who did not know that too. Best wishes,--Vergänglichkeit (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)