Jared Diamond, in “The Last Americans,” presents an interesting discussion of the fall of the Maya, and the parallels that may be drawn between that collapse and the present day. Sociological and climatological factors contributed to the fall; how they did may be useful in understanding the trajectory of modern civilization as well.
According to Diamond, the primary causes that brought on the decline were four: population increase to the very limits of the supportable amount, increased warfare, a severe drought, and governmental/elite decadence. There was very limited arable land in the Maya area, and water was scarce as well. By the peak of the Mayan civilization, there were over 5 million people in an area smaller than the state of Colorado. At that point, the methods of agriculture used caused increasing loss of farmland as the hillsides eroded. Warfare became very prevalent as the population pressure mounted and everyone began to feel the strain. In addition, a drought came upon the Maya when they were already at the limits of their resources: there was no new land, and the water supplies were at their limits. People began to move away or die. Finally, the political system, the rulers and nobles, became an increasing burden, solely looking to their own personal interests, and not to the common good. Monuments, wars, and wealth were their primary occupation, when they should have been working on averting the impending crisis. The four factors of population pressure, warfare, drought, and governmental excess brought about the fall of the Maya, and the loss of 90% of the population.
These strands are present to some extent in the present age. However, instead of having the limit of the civilization be the Yucatan, the limit is the whole world—so there is no where to flee. Right now there is some pressure on the limits of agricultural resources, at least in some parts of the world. Even in some sections of the United States, the limits of the water resources are felt. Many of the third-world nations barely have enough food to go around. This stress helps increase warfare, which we have already seen as well—if people are desperate, warfare happens. Many third-world nations have recently had civil wars or genocides as one segment of the population tries to obtain a greater share of the resources. Of course, this tends to decrease the resources through destruction, and greater problems can ensue. There is, perhaps, global climatoligical change that parallels the drought of the Maya. The evidence for this is not as clear as the other strands, nor are the impacts well understood. However, this definitely could play the role of the drought in the decline of the present civilization. Finally, there is the governmental and elite decadence, the tendency to ignore problems until too late. This is certainly present, and probably reflects human nature, selfishness. Diamond points out three reasons the declines are not attacked: the trends are hard to see through the natural variations in climate, those in power have interests putting pressure on them to focus on aggrandizement of sections of the population, and finally, the solutions may clash with the society’s long standing values.
Can the fall be averted? Diamond says that some peoples in the past have acquired the environmental sense to prevent a collapse from these factors. If all of the people have a common interest in preventing the collapse, then more effective steps may be taken. The Dutch, for instance, all work on keeping the polders dry. A number of different environmental resources have been and are being managed properly to sustain them. If the elites are not focused on their own interests at the expense of society, the crisis may be averted. Appropriate steps may be taken. We shall see.