Limitations of Civilisation?

Or Rise and Fall of them? It seems to be a truism that civilisation rise and fall and with this comment there are examples to which this idea can be attached to, as is often said when linked to the Roman Empire or others that are related to particular points in time. For example: Mesopotamia, Egypt, Ancient India, Ancient China, Peru (Inca –Maya-Aztec etc) Greece and Persia. This is not an exhaustive list; however they are probably notable for the period and length of time in which they existed and impacted to leave lasting evidence of their existence and also they had what might be seen as a cohesive people with organised cultural presence. Into this mix could be added the Aboriginals of Australia as a civilisation; thought as the oldest, although there is little in the way of written text or physical artefacts, it is a claim supported on the basis of a DNA analysis and cultural time line. It is largely ignored for any founding influence into other civilisations. In being named as a civilisation, it is probably a nomination tag (one thinks) that is done for convenience, placing an accumulation of historical information attached to certain peoples within a territory set in a created period of time. It does seem (to one) that civilisation are amorphous and rolled up in the idea of a nation defined by a territorial integrity in which there may have been different people with diverse backgrounds / cultures but bound by some controlling influence and it is the controlling influences that depict the appellation of being a civilisation. However for the sake of understanding the path of where they came from and where they go it is convenient to think of them in a cohesive way and holding too the main physical evidence of their past existence.

One can assume that those architects of history have the hard evidence of past civilisation to place them as such but for the purpose of this spiel, in weak broad terms, the main attribute to be a civilisation might be that when they existed they where dominant enough to leave behind a convincing residue of their existence as artefacts, writings, or evidence of reshaping cultural practices morphing into a new milieu over centauries i.e. with an indisputable impact ‘on the ground’ and clear weight of presence perhaps linking to a new nation. However with such stretched temporal evidence, it is difficult to really know just what constituted their overall binding cultural norms, as a civilisation, which were in operation as cultural mores that formed and may be taken as the being the prime constitute that held such old civilisation structures together.

If one looks at what constitutes a civilisation and what is about it that is different from a nation, much of the identifiers are easily transposed to the other. E.g. defined territory, organisation, authority, laws, trade, codified language, writing, if obvious - dominate homogenous culture strength, notable artefact output, structures, evidence of applicable knowledge to their existence, cultural mores (tricky) and philosophical, scientific, technical etc progression. Throughout history, with the movement of people between large pockets of population (nations?) or continents it does seem likely that there will have been different ‘cultural aspects’ that will have been interspersed into or help form a definitive civilisation as above and although it is uncertain that such different cultural mores could be causes of a fall in a past civilisation, they do rise and fall. It does seem probable that past nascent civilisations did not know they were morphing into a known civilisation as named today, nor did they understand the means or impending duration of their demise. There are notable indicators that are assumed now to be causes of past civilisations collapse; crop failure, famine, water exhaustion, soil erosion, conflicts, war, environmental degradation and consequential natural calamities. Part or elements of all of these are taken as probable roots for failures and it is these external forces that assist a demise of past civilisations more effective than inserted culture differences, this perhaps due to its low, narrow and limited ability to have impact.

With the use of historical archaeological and anthropology data that has been gathered, it does strongly indicate the prime reason civilisations fail are unwittingly self inflicted, unsustainable ecosystems abuse and external forces. In the main they were ignorant of their means of continued survival. They did not have expansive natural knowledge, substantiation, chronological data or the technical means to interpret, analyse, test or have recourse to recordable means for sharing forward any knowledge they gain as to the changes that afflict them; with this, it all presented little opportunity to develop mitigating forces. In the main it may be that all past civilisations existed on the basis of the essential consumption of available existing resources for everyday civil subsistence, therefore primarily unable to ‘plan’ ahead or at the time see no need to.

Looking at the past falls of civilisations, they have been used as an indicator to the think where current civilisation(s) may trip up. There are plenary of opinions (see wiki) and some “forecast”, one being "How likely is the collapse of society? (1). Scientists in the 1970s at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology predicted the fall of society. “Using the LtG model, the fall of society will take place around 2040; The 2100s will be comparable to the 1900s in terms of the world's population, industrial output, food and resources” (they claimed) (1). There are other suggestions of causes built largely on the premise of overextended populations, eco degradations, complexity of conflicts with population exodus etc that are also thrown in the causes range as listed above. (2) These entire probabilities look at the material structures that form ‘society’ and the range of potential external forces, which can also incorporate whatever comprises identifiable forms of culture as may be existent, to a form an identifiable nation. As there are many nations (193 formally recognised by UN) it has to be debateable that any of them standing alone can be given as a notable civilisation, it is though with caricaturist latitude possible to offer that there are some that may be thought of as being distinct in geographical, global presence/impact or apparent sturdy cultural nature to be named as civilisations. So if one can classify such, is there, or are there civilisations today which can be facing limitation possibilities or be severely at risk to their continuance? (3)

Taking a global view one might argue that the whole world is a civilisation, as a human race. Because of the location and spread of saps within it there are numbers of them that exist with distinct differences even though there is an interconnection between them all and there is disparity in how they present in groups. With this disparity it makes it very difficult to pin down the prescient fall of a civilisation(s) or (within restraint) fixing limitation of growth, particularly when trying (for the sake of this spiel) to untangle the importance of society/culture and its relationship to the definitions of these foundation ideas (as above) to a unique civilisation(s).

Perhaps to gain a base name for a civilisation(s), or some nomenclature, one might unfold some of the traits that fall into a society/culture first, such as:- A ‘culture’ can be defined as a body of shared actions and predominate things like a general way of life that involves: language, art, dress, manners, rituals, social beliefs/ forms, attitudes, organisations, knowledge integration to pass on such accumulated knowledge to subsequent generations, forethought investment and unity for the greater good. All this is of course is dependent on whether it, culture, is looked at from evidence offered from the inside and by whoever is being immersed in it to record / interpretive and therefore participating in it to make some assessment of its binding culture; or from existing outside and with incomplete evidence and not having a biased/ prejudicial stance to form a compounded view that makes an argument for a definite identifiable understandable culture. In general there are usually obvious setting entanglement that should show up which can enable a unifying culture to be stated as operational in the form of a civilised structure and hence with clear coordinated complexity gaining being known as a civilisation(s).

Of course there can be unscripted attributes that can have a profound effect on defining a culture but overall using this inventory may give an indication to the naming of a modern civilisation(s). It is known that civilisations rise and fall but it is, in historical terms, a transitory process that throws out influences that move too or shape the rise of another. It is assumed from this that none of the past civilisations have been totally eradicated even though finding evidence of their archaeological historic place and uniqueness has taken time and study of the residue evidence. Assuming that the world is taken as a homogenous Homo sapiens culture despite pronounced differences and taking it as a whole civilisation, there has never been a period when it faced terminal limits (over some 12K years) to its progress or extinction; it has managed to reshape itself via different civilisations to move on. In doing this, it has had expandable space for relocations, resources, slow growth population and applied knowledge for development reaching the existing global state. Although there are global challenges (no need to list them) there is little to indicate a fall of this civilisation but it does face limitation to augmentation and will have to adapt. This does not really cover the naissance proposition within this spiel; the probable limitation to nomenclature civilisations rises and fall.

Creating as an enveloping classification and trying to establish the base for naming civilisations of today and for the sake of simplistic territorial presence, one might offer the following as potential civilisations due to them having sturdy cultural defences; not in a preferred order: - Chinese, America, Russian, British/English, African, Eurasia, Canadian, South American, Australian, Persian, Indian and Middle Eastern combined; might all be categorised as civilisations. There may be a cause to also include the European Union, as a ‘newish’ inter-trading block of nation's but it is not a singular constructed 'civilisation' yet individually or as a body it may demonstrate comparable problems as nomenclature ones; perhaps more so, as it does not have solid political, administrative, democratic or singularity cultural social cohesion.

The causes of civilisations and their rise to achieve this given status are complex and serve little purpose to analyse independently their historical progression to today. They all exist, in an interdependent state of flux, with a range of specific strengths and weaknesses, any element of which could be the catalyst for their longer continuance of their ultimate demise. The known and unknown threats will, it is assumed, be causes on a global level to force change on them all of varying degrees and dependent on the availability or acquisition of resources from whatever sources, may offer a means to ride out potential disappearance; if they are free, willing and able to adapt for change. This of course is excluding a ‘global war’ or a cataclysmic ELE.

Although it is near impossible for those immersed in a civilization to know specific points at which its demise starts, is may be possible to assess when looking at its administrative directions, stresses and culture whether it is in a state of progression, stability or declination over say 100 years and if within this period any attention of risk known to its survival were noted or being attended to. For those exiting today there will have been changes to their structures by way of territorial influences, administrative power and assets/resources use but the primary attributes of the culture of a population will not have dramatically shifted not to note that it, as a civilisation, it still exist. A cursory look at the collapse or decline of past civilisation cultures does have indication of the 'reasons' why they failed, after what it seems to have been built upon a developed foundation, at least as archaeological historians would have it, the reasons fall loosely into environment or conflicts however there is little broad evidence from written contemporary proofs that the knowledge of decline was understood by the majority of a population of their unfolding predicament. They were forced to react to circumstances and to absorb adaptations often losing their integrated presence as a civilisation but carrying some knowledge forward.

So far as offering propositions for the limitation to such civilisations continuance today, what might cause civilisations / cultures to collapse or lead to what might be thought of as a distinct change to its civil structural presence? Well one might offer, having said leaving out the probable global influences, that there are three factors that link them together but singularly with a seismic contraction could be the undoing of any one of them. It would be superfluous to elaborate the reason behind the suggested dangers for it must seem clear how already they are putting pressures on the continuance of civilisations ‘business as usual’. The issues are: - Markets, Economics and Trade. There is ample evidence to indicate that civilisation just do not constructively roll up into another form without the imposition of external forces but there is also within civilisations potential influences that offer a willing means to pre-empt or work with the external forces to adjust to necessary changes against the inertia of enforced stability. Of their own these forces may not be seen as principle factors that lead to a collapse but the power of them can tear a culture apart generating grounds for terminal decline.

It may be a somewhat hypothetical to suggest the following (with the three factors above) as potential issues that will have draining power to the continuance of civilisations, for it seems prosperous that the idea of a civilisation can collapse given their current strengths of presence. However taking a long view pushing into the next century, major changes will occur and be preceded by schisms in a cultures civilisation, some of it occurring right now. So with flight of imagination the first thing to discern as precursors to collapse is to observe strains within the culture of a civilisation, the diversionary and stress fractures that seem not to be attended to and consider the applied differentials in the use of influencing forces within a culture to maintain privilege status. Also probably take into account where there is no widely held majority optimistic future view or where there is a distinct split or separation of cohesion / use of influential power systems e.g. as in the views held by say a political party such as the difference in the views taken by republicans/democrats, conservatives/ labour, extremism right or left or oppressive dictatorial rule and none of which can count on unity of support. Other indicators are the deviousness of minority observable rich vs. majority disfranchised poor with the noticeable disparity in the dispersal of assets resource. Has there been or is the commonweal improving or not? Is there a broad aspirational desire and confidence for some form of ‘betterment’ for all? In reality does authorities control insure that such commonweal desire, although verbally proffered by authorities, is not going to allow structural changes that will release the prevalent controls to the detriment vested interest? Is there is in effect a wishful aspirational cultural sense which is held in an anomie / anomic structural rigidity, that must be broken before seismic change occurs? Is there regression from the best period of its civilisation cultural social structures and are there indication of slow cultural implosion of accepted ideals, disengagement from morality norms and more poplar dissent? Are there special pleadings by a disconnected contingent or minority for injecting disingenuous idiotic (?) influence onto the norms of the majority? Are there signs of an increasing lack of trust in popular authorities’ use of powers? Are such authorities willing and seeking expanding use of created laws for control of its (some dissenting?) population and pursuing the limitation of information dissemination and creating mendacious narratives?

In most cases of nomenclature civilizations, it can be clear that there are major differentials in the construction of authorities power and use (executive, legislative, representative, dictatorships) though with each there will be a shading of operational attitudes held individually but associated to and held in the prominent cohort, yet this undercurrent of alternative view will not be having any impact on the presentation of the powers used and played out; such as demonstrated in a tensional democracy or elective dictatorship. It generally takes unconstructed paradigm forces to shift the rigidity in a power base that does not accept the requisition for the transformation of its controlling influence, particularly when the evidence of its applied separation powers are divorced from the reality of evident civil /social disinvestment motioning the erosion of the civilisation structures; i.e. ‘things’ clearly get worse rather than better.

There is much print being expressed on the likely limitations of civilisation or collapse, most of it concentrates on the external material limitations or the acquisition, use of resources or “sustainability”. Articles play out on the putative reasons of why, how, when, etc civilisation rise, develop, decline, change or fall but it is possible that so far as the current era is playing out everyone alive today, mostly live in the moment and do not give much attention to “How it all ends”, (if it does). Some of persuasions have the time and luxury to be aware and intend rigorously waving the red flags to spark the anxiety levels to make those less inclined to be concerned perhaps look at just what is at risk by apathetic ignorance. However the external limitations make themselves present, as surly they must over the next 2 decades with just three curbing factors: energy, combination of ecological population pressures and unattended civil stress will slowly force change. Whether that change is managed with the knowledge and organisational ability of the transformation required, or it sweeps over civilisations, is in tension now. Probably in localised limited way it is about within a few nomenclatures of the worlds grasp to act but it appears that as no civilisation of the past has avoided eventual cataclysmic destruction (external or self inflicted e.g. war?) some civilisation will eventually be consigned to history. (Perhaps like the continuing fragile concept of GB, EU or USA?)

Are the above proposition for identifying potential collapse to a civilisation anywhere near exemplary ‘reasons’ to really suppose there are limits to the growth of civilisations and their continuance? There are very strong indicators of confidence to offer that although there has been and are hindrances to expansion and stability, saps “ingenuity” general happenstance, “inventiveness” etc and survival instincts has performed so far, although the incidental tendencies for self destruction has often compelled and assisted in the removal of barriers to force in changed realities.

Is anything in the above pointing to exemplary reasons for the limitations of civilisations? The past gives some imperfect indicators but has little to say about the implication of the internal social dynamics and the determining ‘attitudes’ of the majority. Their rise may have been via subtle flexible opportunism to the times and no planned design on building a civilisation; they came and went passing limited information into the future. Their failure, might be verbally compressed by, ignorance of their dependency state of existence and external forces. Compared to civilization today and looking at the past 200 years short history of the current civilisations, it is plain to see that a majority of them started from a point where the powers they controlled; productive, economically, trading and perhaps geopolitical position allowed them to develop, make future investment, exploit for (loosely or incidentally) the internal common good. All operating by discriminatory self interest and applied command and control to meet economic desires at the expense of any ‘not of them’. It might be coincidental that the most successful progressed under something like a disputable democratic mandate however it is not impossible for a civilisation to move in the same progressive way via ‘benevolent dictatorship, forms of autocracy or gamed corruption /criminality; in which case they are more susceptible to rapid internal degradation, unsuccessful in holding off external influences and hence not show signs of progression to meet internal generational attitudes deemed incompatible to “stability”.

Today there are scientific proofs to know that change is taking place which will continue to inflict the world. There is the means to accurately record and disseminate such proofs. There are steps that can be taken, if chosen, to make some mitigating impact. The accumulated knowledge can be passed through to the new generations and despite all the obliviousness to challenges now known, it seems sure a civilisation will continue and the future form it may take might be manageable. However there are some other precursor weaknesses that indicate disquiet in the ability to peacefully manage change. There are those nomenclatures that are too integrated in the application and use of essential resources that are often positioned in other civilisations that have to be fractiously negotiated with (trade). There is a high dependency on external productivity and a distinct lack of durable self sufficiency in the event of terminating stress. In the case of massive disruption there is not the ability to relocated huge population shifts. Most civilisations have high dependence on energy generation via limit sources. All have electronic means of recording and transmitting information; in event of a cataclysmic impact on any one civilisation the certainty that such (electronically held) information is durable, to be held over time and available to a succeeding nascent civilisations must be in doubt. Some of it will be lost as there is no global information resource holding facility; each civilisation holds its own. In the event of a long term power outage, some things will be lost. All have a range sophisticated assets structures, civil utilities and intellectual knowledge specialism that could be generational sensitive to loss unless future-proofing investment in unabridged factual instruction of what is known to be true in the sciences is maintained. In saying this, what is a new modern twist to the nature of civil cultures in developed nomenclatures, is a creeping irrationality, the ability to infect onto elements of a population a perversion of truth/factual information to submerge reality and viciousness at any contradictory opposition to it with provable veracity. To some extent this is driven by the sharp contrasting opening divisions in the way administrative authority is evidenced in political and civil policy, managing the direction of the progression (?) of a civilisation. Attached to this is the distorting rise of influencing power by Twitterata, QAnon, Facebook, Reddit, etc with an extraordinary ability for pervasion of provable facets in the sciences. For impressionable youth that generally do not undertake discrimination research into media source output, erroneous information takes on a realism of its own to infect an element of a generation that could have an impact on the way civilisation fails amalgamating with the other internal and external influences.

One has to bear in mind that certain civilisations (and people) of the past 200 years have developed in ‘fortuitous times of expansion’ many people of which have lived in a privileged time of the last 100 years largely untroubled from ‘want’ and some now having nothing better to be worried about other than to be assisted by concerns of a psychosis of physical Dysphoria.

It will be said that one has taken extensive liberties with looking at the probable limitation to civilisation continuance, perhaps overly negative however does it do to ignore the range of destructive elements that are in action now impacting some prime civilisation and already showing that room for independent manoeuvre to counter the stresses being afflicted on them, are dependent on own resource strengths which are limited. One can be certain that change is occurring, pressures are increasing and the ability to develop out of decline independently is inadequate without the use of willing interconnected civilisations. It may seem improbable that any civilisation of the modern era can fail completely, no doubt they have to adapt and adjust to change given time but the key foundations upon which they rest are corrosively progressive with a shortening opportunity phase. Currently from one perspective it is more likely that a modern sophisticated civilisation can implode and fail by its own hand. They rot from the inside by the obstinate apathetic avoidance of the weaknesses and divisions their administrative forces create themselves, infecting their social structures. Look for the underbelly of any civilisation and there may be ‘stuff’ that is no longer working, (that should) ‘stuff’ is deteriorated, unrepaired/replaced) there is less social optimistic futurism, less commonweal investment, less holist social progression, further extension of civil constraining ‘laws’ and more of a population have less opportunity or sustenance and see a greater division of resourcefulness is being transferred to a minority cadre. Is it any wonder a population then seek change, of any kind, to breakout?

The rise and fall of past civilisations may have been incidental to national holdings, those of the past probably did not know they were creating one and could not foresee their fall. Elements of that still applies today but one thinks there are differences; today there is the ability to create a sustainable civilisation (some nations will never develop an aspiring one) and there is the easy allowed capacities to eradicate one. Do saps now, compared to past, have any greater application of intelligence to decide which?

Well is any of this important? Probably not, things are as they are until they are not and by the time it is, one will have gone home; with some features of civilisation: marmalade, marmite and dark chocolate.

© Renot 2512221533.

(1) https://thehill.com › climate-change

(2) https://www.bbc.com/future/article. BBC Future, are-we-on-the-road-to-civilisation-collapse

(3) https://www.resilience.org. Resilience.org stories Four Reasons Civilization Won't Decline: It Will Collapse