The collapse of complex societies describes a comprehensive, well argued and very convincing theory as to why complex societies collapse. It’s essentially a long form academic paper, so it is exceptionally well written, it is stringent with facts and does not make any wild claims or value judgements.

I was incredibly impressed and enjoyed reading it, my mental model and understanding of history has of course been updated. In specific, I enjoyed the discussion on why Rome collapsed, just as a fan of Roman history.

This book has challenged how I view societal complexity too. Complexity is not necessarily an objective good, it is an adaptation to societal problems, therefore, when complexity has run its course and starts to face declining marginal returns, collapse is almost an economic decision.

I would recommend it to anyone with an interest in this kind of History. I’m of course not well read in this space but the book was engrossing, impressive and objective.

The essential thrust of the book is summarized in p.93:

n  1. human societies are problem-solving organizations;
2. sociopolitical systems require energy for their maintenance;
3. increased complexity carries with it increased costs per capita;
4. investment in sociopolitical complexity as a problem-solving response often reaches a point of declining marginal returnsn

I promise that you won’t get much more out of the book than this, it is overly academic in nature, full of citations and verbose commentary on the merits of one niche social science theory over another. It is highly repetitive.

It was interesting, however, to see him applying his theory not just to Rome but also to the Maya and briefly the Choacoan collapse in Chapter 5. This is mainly what I wanted to learn about. I had already seen his presentation on Rome’s debasement of the currency, increased taxation, Diocletian edict of prices, etc.

Another interesting point he made was how the elites have to maintain legitimacy. When the perceived benefits are exceeded by the costs, the supporting classes simply do not participate in the system, or join the barbarian war-bands. These “output expectations are continuous, and impose on leadership a never-ending need to mobilize resources to maintain support” (p.28), which can become a huge cost. Consider how many are on some form of welfare in the US, or how the Federal Reserve is printing money left and right to stabilize the economy during the pandemic.

It just goes to show you how the rule of law is maintained by a veil – a collective, unspoken agreement that the ruling elite are legitimate. You can kind of see the fraying in today’s society, where people are starting to just ignore the emergency lock-down orders. The US debt is now standing at over $25 trillion, or 118% of GDP. When this is paid through burdensome taxation or hyperinflation, significant sections of society will find it more attractive to “decompose” into simpler social arrangements (p.121). I predict we will see more people live off of the grid, or municipalities issuing their own currencies, people directly bartering for goods and services, etc. in the near future.

What is shocking is that collapse happens very rapidly, “taking no more than a few decades” (p.4). He also points out how the modern world is connected as a cluster of “peer polities” that can only collapse together all at once if they are to collapse at all (p.213). I think converging stresses on global industrial civilization like resource depletion, environmental degradation, economic instability, will be weathered very poorly by the complex networks we have in place. We may see the end of it all begin to unfold in our generation.

Anyway, you are also probably here after watching one of Tainter’s lectures on the subject. If so, then proceed no further. Reading this book for you will yield declining marginal returns.

I read this book to understand the risk of the collapse of modern-day nations. My objective was achieved. Except for a few words at the end, it makes no prediction about the current nations. It briefly explains the collapse of a list of societies and settles on four to investigate in detail. It's grad school thesis type of material, but still accessible to someone with at least some understanding of economic concepts that are woven in here and there, and a willingness to tangle with some complex ideas. It sets forth a lot of facts and concepts, which I had trouble keeping in mind. Fortunately, he reiterates them when they are needed. I found it fascinating.

Habe mir mehr vom Buch erhofft. Es läuft im Grunde auf folgende These hinaus:
"Aufrechterhaltung hoher Komplexität rentiert sich irgendwann nicht mehr und das System kollabiert."
(Verzeihung, wenn das nicht der exakte Wortlaut der These ist, so ist es bei mir hängengeblieben.)
Dieses Credo zieht sich durch das gesamte Werk.
Der Autor spart auch nicht an Kritik anderer Wissenschaftler, er kritisiert, dass es nicht damit getan sei zu sagen: "Ein Weltreich ist in die finanzielle Schieflage geraten" oder "eine Kombination von Problemen (Dürren, Krieg, etc.) führte zum Zusammenbruch". Es wird argumentiert, dass ein komplexes System routinemäßig solche Probleme meistert, daher könne man diese Ursachen ausschließen. Aber so richtig schlüssig ist das Argument nicht:
Vergleicht man beispielsweise eine menschliche Gesellschaft mit dem menschlichen Organismus (was laut Buch eine schwere Sünde ist), so dürfte doch klar sein, dass eine Kombination aus: hohes Alter, Treppensturz, Lungenentzündung im Krankenhaus + Krankenhauskeim am Ende dann doch den Organismus besiegt - auch wenn dieser mit einem einzigen dieser Probleme durchaus zurechtgekommen wäre.
In der Botanik gibt es die passende Analogie der Stressoren (Wassermangel, Hitze, Mineralstoffmangel), die - wenn sie alle gleichzeitig eintreffen - die Pflanze absterben lassen können. Wir sehen also, dass es bei Flora und Fauna ein eindeutiges Muster gibt. Aber laut Autor ist dies bei einer menschlichen Gesellschaft nicht der Fall.

Was mir in diesem Werk komplett gefehlt hat, war der Einfluss des Faktor's "Mensch". Der Autor geht soweit und macht sich sogar über Kollegen lustig, die "Hass, Neid, Egoismus, Gier, Machtkämpfe" usw. für den Untergang eines Weltreiches verantwortlich machen wollen - mit der simplen Begründung: Diese Faktoren sind nicht messbar und daher wissenschaftlich uninteressant. Hier macht es sich der Autor, der wohl zu verliebt in seine eigene These ist, viel zu einfach. Wer also menschliche Psychologie in diesem Werk sucht, wird enttäuscht werden. Diese wird komplett ausgeblendet. Es geht immer nur um "messbare" Zahlen - doch am Ende ist auch diese These nur dünn belegt, meiner Meinung nach. Denn die Kernaussage des Buches ist zu allgemein formuliert. Denn welche messbaren Zahlen haben wir vom Inka-Reich oder den Römern? Es gibt nicht viel zu vergleichen, abgesehen von Geldentwertungen (wie sie beispielsweise auch bei Gibbon's "Fall and Decline of the Roman Empire" beschrieben wird - übrigens kommt auch dieser Autor in diesem Buch hier nicht gut weg...)

Ein System kollabiert, wenn es einen bestimmten Grad an Komplexität überschreitet - aber wann genau dieser Punkt überschritten wird, ist leider ebenso wenig messbar, wie die Thesen, die u.a. auch den Menschen in seiner Unvollkommenheit verantwortlich machen. Da ähneln die Aussagen des Buches eher dem logischen Fehlschluss eines Zielscheibenfehlers: Man kann immer sagen: Hier war die Komplexität wohl nicht mehr rentabel, da das System hier kollabiert ist. Und so eine abstrakte Komplexitätskurve, wie sie im Buch dargestellt wird, hat keinerlei Stadien, die sie durchläuft, abgesehen von zunehmender Komplexität.

Ich denke, es gibt viele verschiedene Ursachen, weshalb Weltreiche kollabiert sind. Es ist selten derselbe Grund gewesen und wenn man den kleinsten gemeinsamen Nenner sucht, dann kommt so eine These dabei heraus. Ein interessanter Ansatz, aber wenig konkret, wenig hilfreifch beim Verständnis des Themas.

I thought this was a decent book about the collapse of various complex societies, but a few weeks after reading this book, I find that I can barely remember anything about it, which is not a great sign. I think this review of the book on ACX did a great job generally summarizing the book and some problems with it.

Some of the trends in the book seem... uh... concerning, given how expensive it is to build anything in major American cities, but I'm not entirely sure that it's completely transferable, or even if I should care whether American society "collapses" so long as some other human society is out there to pick up the slack. In some ways, "this society collapsed" feels less impactful if, for example, the Western Roman empire "collapsed" but Byzantium has all the same capabilities and even considers itself to have a continuum of identity with Rome.

Compelling thesis, but the evidence presented does not really square up with the theory. Stuffy academic style makes long segments virtually unreadable- skip to the Evaluation and conclusion segments

Very detailed (almost feels like research documentation), often interesting, sometimes dry knowledge on how societies become complex in the first place (and why ofc), how they gradually change, and finally collapse. Variables are explained in detailed, there are 3 very detailed examples of such societies that became very complex, then collapsed. The author is really hooked on the theory of "declining marginal returns to investments" and seems to view it as the main source of collapse for societies. Recommend it to those who want to learn history, sociology and even economy.

Çöksün Bu Dünya:
Eskiden toplumsal çöküşün kötü olduğunu düşünürdüm. Artık çöküşün hoşumuza gitse de gitmese de sorunlara bir çözüm getirdiğini fark ettim.

Kitap geçmişte varolmuş pek çok medeniyet neden çöktü sorusunu yanıtlamaya çalışıyor. Bu konuda pek çok açıklama var tabii. Uzun bir literatür var çöküşler hakkında. Fikirler listesi ormansızlaşma, çevresel tahribat, iklim değişimi, erozyon, istilacı topluluklar, dışlayıcı kurumlar diye uzayıp gidiyor. Sonuçta toplumlasal çöküşün tek bir kavrama indirgenemeyeceğini bilsek de önemli bazı ortak faktörlerin belirgin olduğunu da inkar edemeyiz.
Tainter de çöküşe kendi perspektifinden bakıyor. Ona göre karmaşıklık bir problem çözme aracı.
Toplumlar karşılaştıkları sorunlara karmaşıklaşan çözümler üreterek yanıt veriyorlar. Ancak karmaşık sitemleri yürütmenin de sürekli artan bir enerji maliyeti bulunuyor. Zamanla sorunlara toplumun getirdiği karmaşıklaşan çözümler maliyetleri karşılayamayacağı bir noktaya ulaşıyor. Bu noktada toplumlar çöküşe açık bir hale geliyor ve ortaya çıkan zaafiyet bazı toplumlarda uzun bir gerileme dönemine neden olurken bazılarında ise ani bir çöküşe yol açıyor.

Modern dünyamız da acaba çöküşe mi gidiyor? Eğer öyleyse bu gidişi tersine çevirebilir miyiz? Kitabı bu konulardaki merakım ve yazmakta olduğum kitabımın son bölümü için okudum. Tarihsel örneklere bakılırsa ve bir zihniyet değişimi olmazsa çöküş kaçınılmaz görünüyor. Ancak bu defa çöküş Babil'in, Roma'nın ya da Maya medeniyetinin çöküşü gibi olmayacak. Çünkü artık doğaya verdiğimiz zarar bölgesel değil, küresel boyutlara ulaştı. Çöküş de ona layık olacak şekilde küresel olacak ne yazık ki.

Her halukarda ekolojik ve soyal sorunlarımız çözülecek. Bir ihtimal yumuşak bir geçişle daha az acılı bir şekilde kendimiz çözeceğiz. Ama daha büyük bir ihtimalle çözüm bize, çocuklarımıza ve torunlarımıza açlık, kirlilik, küresel ısınma ve savaşlar gibi hiç hoşlanmayacağımız yollarla gelecek.

Sonuç olarak karmaşık toplumların çöküşünü ele alan en kaliteli çalışmalardan birisi. Türkçeye de çevrilmesi şart.

Siz ne dersiniz insanlık çöküşten kaçınabilir mi? Görüşlerinizi paylaşırsanız sevinirim.

Narj: Diamond vs Tainter http://narjsberk.blogspot.ca/2012/02/...

This is a dense and very intriguing read. The content is approached from an objective standpoint and attempts to draw parallels between different societies throughout history and the causes of their collapse as well as what the characteristics are of both complex and simple societies. He mentions several things that are harbingers of collapse such as the reduction of returns for being part of the complex society vs self sufficiency but also notes that defining that point is nigh impossible until the society collapses as societies grow and shrink or put efforts into various efforts over their lifetime.

Joseph Tainter's seminal work, "The Collapse of Complex Societies," provides a comprehensive analysis of the factors leading to the downfall of complex civilizations throughout history. Published in 1988, Tainter's book has become a cornerstone in the study of societal collapse, offering a framework that has influenced scholarly discourse in numerous disciplines, including archaeology, anthropology, history, and sociology.

Tainter's central thesis revolves around the concept of diminishing marginal returns on investment in complexity. He argues that as societies become more complex, they require increasing amounts of energy and resources to maintain their structures and functions. However, at a certain point, the returns on this investment begin to diminish, leading to a point of diminishing marginal utility. According to Tainter, it is at this critical juncture that societies become vulnerable to collapse.

The strength of Tainter's argument lies in his interdisciplinary approach, drawing on evidence from diverse historical case studies, including the Roman Empire, the Maya civilization, and the Chaco civilization. By examining these case studies, Tainter demonstrates how increasing complexity, coupled with declining marginal returns, contributed to the eventual collapse of these societies.

Moreover, Tainter's framework emphasizes the role of societal responses to environmental, economic, and political challenges. He highlights how societies facing diminishing returns on complexity are often confronted with crises such as resource depletion, environmental degradation, and political instability. Tainter argues that in response to these challenges, societies may attempt to maintain their complexity through innovation, intensification, or reorganization. However, these responses are often temporary solutions that ultimately fail to avert collapse.

While Tainter's thesis provides valuable insights into the collapse of complex societies, his deterministic approach has been a subject of criticism. Some scholars argue that Tainter's emphasis on diminishing returns oversimplifies the complex processes that contribute to societal collapse. Additionally, critics have pointed out that Tainter's framework neglects the role of contingency, agency, and external factors in shaping historical outcomes.

Despite these criticisms, "The Collapse of Complex Societies" remains essential reading for scholars interested in understanding the dynamics of societal collapse. Tainter's interdisciplinary approach, combined with his rigorous analysis of historical case studies, offers valuable insights into the factors that contribute to the downfall of complex civilizations. Moreover, his framework provides a useful starting point for further research and debate in the field of collapse studies.

GPT

Carino ma invecchiato male.