This is the Way the World Ends....

In the New York Times magazine, Gregg Easterbrook criticizes the work of Jared Diamond, author of "Guns, Germs, and Steel" and the recently released "Collapse." Easterbrook argues that Diamond's first book fails to explain the failure of China to develop after around 1200 or so, while Europe did. Diamond says that China created a centralized monarchy while Europe remained divided, but fails to explain why. According to Easterbook, this is part of Diamond's lack of recognition of the power of ideas.

Easterbrook's more serious criticism is for Diamond's current work, where Diamond suggests that unsustainable environmental policies bring down civilizations with appalling regularity. Our own society bears all the hallmarks of such a system collapse. Easterbrook thinks that the environmental alarmism is overblown for the following reasons: 1) too much of the work on extinction comes from islands, while the world is not an island. Other research indicates that only 9% of vertebrates are going extinct - no big deal; 2) Diamond gives no solutions to population pressure and his endorsement of Meiji Japan's population control policies is mistaken given that Meiji's society collapsed; and 3) present trends to not necessarily indicate future events. Maybe technology will save us.

Now I will make two comments before defending Diamond. First, I read and liked his first book very much, although I did have some reservations about it. I agree that he gives short shrift to the relevance of intellectual history. Second, I have not read Collapse, so I am more in the mode of defending environmental "alarmists" than defending Diamond specifically.

Here is my rebuttal, in order. In regards to the China-Europe problem, Easterbrook is looking for an environmental explanation of China's "choice," which Diamond fails to provide. Okay, how about this one, pointed out by a prominent historian (whom I can't quote directly because I can't find the book!) who stated that the geography of China is dominated by a central plain, while Europe is divided by mountain ranges. It is far more difficult for one power to control western Europe, while once any state wins control of the central Chinese river valleys they will inevitably control the whole region. I'm NOT saying this is the only reason. I'm just providing the geographic explanation that Easterbook says Diamond lacks.

The attack on Collapse is a heck of a lot more relevant, so let me respond in order:

1) 9% of vertebrates is a lot. Easterbrook fails to appreciate the ripple effect of extinction. If one species goes extinct, then every animal associated with it is likely to go extinct, and every species associated with THAT species goes extinct, and so one. So humanity's elimination of a tenth of the world's species could result in a whole lot more going down with them (including us!)

2) To say that there is no solution to a problem is not to say that the problem doesn't exist. It could be that there IS not solution, or at least not an easy one. This is why makes Greek Tragedy what it is: there is no "right" answer to a problem. Overpopulation and the west's overconsumption of natural resources is a regrettable fact. Just because population controls are unpopular or might be considered violations of personal liberty is not to say that under some circumstances they might be necessary. (Now who's being P.C.?) As for Meiji Japan, Diamond was endorsing their population control policy, not Japanese civilization. And the collapse of the Tokugawa Shogunate can scarcely be considered a system collapse - it's not like the Japanese culture suddenly ceased to exist. Easterbrook is committing a sleight of hand here with the word "collapse": the "collapse" of the Shogun's government is not exactly the kind of collapse Diamond is interested in.

3) Finally, it is true that present trends do not necessarily lead to future results. But this does not mean that present trends will NOT continue either, does it? In conditions of moderate uncertainty (when you think you know but are not totally sure) the smart thing to do is plan for the worst. The rational approach to dealing with our environmental problems is to behave AS IF we are correct that there is a problem. Think of it as a Pascal's wager. If the environmentalists are right, we have prevented the collapse of civilization at what is really a very minor cost (slightly slower economic growth). If the environmentalists are wrong, then we have squeezed some economic inefficiencies out of the system of global capitalism at a short-term price (because pollution is by defintion a form of economic waste). Environmentalists aren't saying we need to just stop the train of the world economy, only that we need to take sustainable development and conservation seriously. It is just madness to hope for the Deus Ex Machina of technological progress to rescue us.

So there.