March 1, 2005 , 2005
Kamloops Daily News



While corporate and political leaders dither over the modest
proposals of the Kyoto accord, the world slips into an
environmental crisis from which our industrial society might
never recover.

It won’t be the first time.  Many great societies have
dissolved into the dust of history.  "Few people," says
geography professor Jared Diamond, "realize that the primary
cause of the collapse of those societies has been the
destruction of environmental resources on which they
depend."

Even fewer people realize that great civilizations fall
quickly, often only a few decades after they have reached
peak power, population, and wealth.

Prevailing attitudes prevent national leaders from
perceiving, let alone resolving,  imminent crises.  Those
attitudes are based on a few misconceptions says Diamond.

One misconception is that the environment must be balanced
against human needs.  That logic is upside-down.  Human
needs are dependent on the environment - - the environment
is not an adjunct of human needs.  Without a clean water and
air, without ecosystems that replenish oceans and soil,
there is no life.

The best argument for a healthy environment is selfish.  We
want it for ourselves, not the spotted owl or the Furbish
lousewort. 

Another misconception is that technology can save us from
environmental disaster.   Blind faith in technology hints
that important solutions are just around the corner.

But technology serves consumer whims, not the environment. 
If people want cars that use more fuel and pollute,
technology will build them regardless of the harm to the
environment.

The nations of the world are cutting down trees and
polluting air and water like there is no tomorrow.   The
bleak world of  tomorrow is already here for five billion of
the earth’s inhabitants. For them, the rivers have dried up,
the soil is depleted, civil society has collapsed, and
governments have disintegrated into anarchy.

For the remaining one billion of the world’s population, 
it’s business as usual as we blissfully go about our daily
business - - despite indications that they are only decades
away from disaster.

There are many examples of rapid decline of societies but
few are more dramatic than the fall of the Maya, says
Diamond.   The Mayan civilization occupied the Yucatan
peninsula for about 2500 years.   Their population peaked in
the 8th century A.D.  Suddenly, in a  few decades the mighty
Maya were all gone.

So, when Cortes and the Spanish army arrived in 1524 there
were so few native Yucatan people from whom he could acquire
corn that he nearly starved to death.  Mayan monuments
remained but the people disappeared.

Environmental degradation was their downfall.  Professor
Diamond traces the sequence of events.

Mayan farmers could produce about twice as much food as
required by their families.  The surplus went to the king
and his administrators.  In return the king pacified the
gods to ensure rain and fertile soil to grow corn.

The Maya had just enough corn and water to last through the
dry season from January to April, so it was crucial that the
gods be pacified.

As the Mayan population increased, more food was produced at
the expense of soil fertility.  When valley soil started to
fail, crop production moved to the hillsides.

Trees were removed from the hillsides to make way for the
crops, and for fuel and dwellings.   Now the bare hills were
more susceptible to erosion and the acidic hillside soil
washed down to the valley, further reducing the fertility of
the soil.

Trees help recycle water, so deforestation decreased
rainfall.  When rainfall declined, the Mayan civilization
began to fall apart.  Farmers killed the king and
administrators for failing to appease the gods.  The
remaining Mayan starved to death as food and water ran out.

Why did the Mayan king fail to act in the face of impending
disaster?  He could taken measures to ease the natural
cycles of low rain.  Likely, he proclaimed human measures as
insignificant in the face of natural forces and the whim of
gods.

Second, leaders often face a conflict of interest.   Mayan
kings clung to power and wealth.   Their power was dependent
on the unsustainable stripping of natural resources. 

Lastly, personal behaviour that is deleterious on global
scale is seen as necessary on a personal level for survival.

Like us, Mayans were simply trying to survive.  Wishful
thinking on a personal scale and greedy, short-sighted
leaders ensure environmental destruction.  Mighty nations in
their prime soon follow.

go back to my Columns in the