How will civilization handle its dwindling resources?

It will collapse like it does every millennia or so. IDGAF, the world has already become a horrible place for me and its not worth saving anymore. I used to care but now I don't, and besides 47 years from now I'm gonna be dead or old as shit by the time this joke of a civilization reaches the punchline.

What am I fighting for? to preserve what's already gone? to protect the shit that is "the new normal"?

Pass...
47 years of oil left
I remember when peakoil was the meme of the day and we were going to become The Road by 2010 or so. Its all bullshit, but there were people having panic attacks over this crap.
 
The more people there are, the more opportunities there are to discover new energy sources.
People always say this, but this only applies if the people are educated & well provided for. If you're too busy trying to survive, you won't have to time to work towards discovering energy. More people is good provided that there's a feasible + sustainable way for these people to reach their potential. How do you think we can do that? (Not saying it's impossible, but it's a detail people need to flesh out if they bring out the "more people = more innovation" argument).
 
Last edited:
The more people there are, the more opportunities there are to discover new energy sources.

Third Worlders, all five billion of them, haven't ever discovered a single new source of energy. Not even one. Nearly every advance in petroleum extraction, coal mining, nuclear fission, wind, and solar has come from the Europe or the USA.

The Infinite Niggers => Infinite Wealth hypothesis has no evidence backing it up.
 
an interesting, if somewhat superficial, article (archive) on the potential threats to civilizations ...

WIRED / KATE YODER / SCIENCE
OCT 21, 2023 8:00 AM

Why Have Climate Catastrophes Toppled Some Civilizations but Not Others?​

Researchers are honing in on what helps societies survive climate shocks, like the volcanic eruptions that helped fell the Roman Empire or the drought that plagued the ancient Mayans.

The Roman Empire fell more than 1,500 years ago, but its grip on the popular imagination is still strong, as evidenced by a recent trend on TikTok. Women started filming the men in their lives to document their answers to a simple question: How often do you think about the Roman Empire?

“I guess, technically, like every day,” one boyfriend said, as his girlfriend wheezed out an astonished “What?” He wasn’t the only one, as an avalanche of Twitter posts, Instagram Reels, and news articles made clear. While driving on a highway, some men couldn’t help but think about the extensive network of roads the Romans built, some of which are still in use today. They pondered the system of aqueducts, built with concrete that could harden underwater.

There are a lot of reasons why people are fascinated by the rise and fall of ancient empires, gender dynamics aside. Part of what’s driving that interest is the question: How could something so big and so advanced fail? And, more pressingly: Could something similar happen to us? Between rampaging wildfires, a rise in political violence, and the public’s trust in government at record lows, it doesn’t seem so far-fetched that America could go up in smoke.

Theories of breakdown driven by climate change have proliferated in recent years, encouraged by the likes of Jared Diamond’s 2005 book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. The Roman Empire, for example, unraveled during a spasm of volcanic explosions, which led to a period of cooling that precipitated the first pandemic of bubonic plague. The decline of the ancient Maya in Central America has been linked with a major drought. Angkor Wat’s downfall, in what is now Cambodia, has been pinned on a period of wild swings between drought and monsoon floods. So if minor forms of climate change spelled the collapse of these great societies, how are we supposed to survive the much more radical shifts of today?

Focusing too closely on catastrophe can result in a skewed view of the past—it overlooks societies that navigated an environmental disaster and made it through intact. A review of the literature in 2021 found that 77 percent of studies analyzing the interplay between climate change and societies emphasized catastrophe, while only 10 percent focused on resilience. Historians, anthropologists, and archaeologists have recently tried to fill in that gap. The latest entry is a study that analyzes 150 crises from different time periods and regions, going off a comprehensive data set that covers more than 5,000 years of human history, back to the Neolithic period. Environmental forces often play a critical role in the fall of societies, the study found, but they can’t do it alone.

Researchers with the Complexity Science Hub, an organization based in Vienna, Austria, that uses mathematical models to understand the dynamics of complex systems, found plenty of examples of societies that made it through famines, cold snaps, and other forms of environmental stress. Several Mesoamerican cities, including the Zapotec settlements of Mitla and Yagul in modern-day Oaxaca, “not only survived but thrived within the same drought conditions” that contributed to the fall of the Maya civilization in the 8th century. And the Maya, before that point, had weathered five earlier droughts and continued to grow.

The new research, published in a peer-reviewed biological sciences journal from The Royal Society last month, suggests that resilience is an ability that societies can gain and lose over time. Researchers found that a stable society can withstand even a dramatic climate shock, whereas a small shock can lead to chaos in a vulnerable one.

The finding is in line with other research, such as a study in Nature in 2021 that analyzed 2,000 years’ worth of Chinese history, untangling the relationship between climate disruptions and the collapse of dynasties. It found that major volcanic eruptions, which often cause cooler summers and weaker monsoons, hurting crops, contributed to the rise of warfare. But it wasn’t the size of the eruption that mattered most: Dynasties survived some of the biggest climate-disrupting eruptions, including the Tambora eruption of 1815 in present-day Indonesia and the Huaynaputina eruption of 1600 in what’s now Peru.

What matters most, the Complexity Science Hub’s study posits, is inequality and political polarization. Declining living standards tend to lead to dissatisfaction among the general population, while wealthy elites compete for prestigious positions. As pressures rise and society fractures, the government loses legitimacy, making it harder to address challenges collectively. “Inequality is one of history’s greatest villains,” said Daniel Hoyer, a coauthor of the study and a historian who studies complex systems. “It really leads to and is at the heart of a lot of other issues.”

On the flip side, however, cooperation can give societies that extra boost they need to withstand environmental threats. “This is why culture matters so much,” Hoyer said. “You need to have social cohesion, you need to have that level of cooperation, to do things that scale—to make reforms, to make adaptations, whether that’s divesting from fossil fuels or changing the way that food systems work.”

It’s reasonable to wonder how neatly the lessons from ancient societies apply to today, when the technology is such that you can fly halfway around the world in a day or outsource the painful task of writing a college essay to ChatGPT. “What can the modern world learn from, for example, the Mayan city states or 17th-century Amsterdam?” said Dagomar Degroot, an environmental historian at Georgetown University. The way Degroot sees it, historians can pin down the time-tested strategies as a starting point for policies to help us survive climate change today—a task he’s currently working on with the United Nations Development Programme.

Degroot has identified a number of ways that societies adapted to a changing environment across millennia: Migration allows people to move to more fruitful landscapes, flexible governments learn from past disasters and adopt policies to prevent the same thing from happening again, and establishing trade networks makes communities less sensitive to changes in temperature or precipitation. Societies that have greater socioeconomic equality, or that at least provide support for their poorest people, are also more resilient, Degroot said.

By these measures, the United States isn’t exactly on a path to success. According to a standard called the Gini coefficient—where 0 is perfect equality and 1 is complete inequality—the US scores poorly for a rich country, at 0.38 on the scale, beaten out by Norway (0.29) and Switzerland (0.32) but better than Mexico (0.42). Inequality is “out of control,” Hoyer said. “It’s not just that we’re not handling it well. We’re handling it poorly in exactly the same way that so many societies in the past have handled things poorly.”

One of the major voices behind that theme is Peter Turchin, one of the coauthors on Hoyer’s study and a Russian-American scientist who studies complex systems. Once an ecologist analyzing the rise and fall of pine beetle populations, Turchin switched fields in the late 1990s and started to apply a mathematical framework to the rise and fall of human populations instead. Around 2010, he predicted that unrest in America would start getting serious around 2020. Then, right on schedule, the Covid-19 pandemic arrived, a reminder that modern society isn’t immune to the great disasters that shaped the past. “America Is Headed Toward Collapse,” declared the headline of an article in The Atlantic this summer, excerpted from Turchin’s book End Times: Elites, Counter-Elites, and the Path of Political Disintegration.

The barrage of climate catastrophes, gun violence, and terrorist attacks in the headlines are enough to make you consider packing up and trying to live off the land. A recent viral video posed the question: “So is everyone else’s friend group talking about buying some land and having a homestead together where everyone grows separate crops, [where] we can all help each other out and have a supportive community, because our society that we live in feels like it’s crumbling beneath our feet?”

By Turchin’s account, America has been at the brink of collapse twice already, once during the Civil War and again during the Great Depression. It’s not always clear how “collapse” differs from societal change more generally. Some historians define it as a loss of political complexity, while others focus on population decline or whether a society’s culture was maintained. “A lot of people prefer the term ‘decline,’” Degroot said, “in part because historical examples of the collapse of complex societies really refer to a process that took place over sometimes centuries” and would perhaps even go unnoticed by people alive at the time. Living through a period of societal collapse might feel different from what you imagined, just like living through a pandemic did—possibly less like a zombie movie and more like boring, everyday life once you get accustomed to it.

The Complexity Science Hub’s study suggests that collapse itself could be considered an adaptation in particularly dire situations. “There is this general idea that collapse is scary and it’s bad, and that’s what we need to avoid,” Hoyer said. “There’s a lot of truth in that, especially because collapse involves violence and destruction and unrest.” But if the way your society is set up is making everyone’s lives miserable, they might be better off with a new system. For example, archaeological evidence shows that after the Roman Empire lost control of the British Isles, people became larger and healthier, according to Degroot. “In no way would collapse automatically be something that would be devastating for those who survived—in fact, often, probably the opposite,” he said.

Of course, there’s no guarantee that a better system will replace the vulnerable, unequal one after a collapse. “You still have to do the work of putting in the reforms, and having the support of those in power, to be able to actually set and reinforce these kinds of revisions,” Hoyer said. “So I would argue, if that’s the case, let’s just do that without the violence to begin with.”
 
jared diamond (the author of guns, germs, and steel) wrote about this topic in an interesting and informative book entitled collapse: how societies choose to fail or succeed.

the book discusses a number of specific historical and contemporary societies, and how those societies experienced failure or success depending on the way in which they addressed threats such as environmental damage, climate change, hostility from neighboring societies, and/or the withdrawl of support from other friendly societies.

reading this thread, i think that it's important to point out that, as "globalized" as the world may seem, we're still a tribal species. we generally value what is closest to ourselves - our family, our friends, our communities - more than we do what is beyond ourselves. this is of immediate benefit to us, but is often detrimental to our society.

civilizations are comprised of myriad societies, and, unfortunately, history indicates that civilizations collapse when individuals refuse to recognize and respond appropriately to that which threatens their society.
Jared Diamond was a politically motivated propagandist, not someone engaged in any type of real science. The supposed facts are arranged and manufactured exactly so that you make the right conclusions for his goals. His work may be very influential, but it's not very well supported by reality.

Whatever the fabric of different tribes, when a couple of nerds thought up the idea to get people to take vaccines by force they were able to vaccinate almost the entire world population. It did expose the WEF somewhat as a nucleus of this activity, but the next schemes are in the works again.

Wars of course an easy one to keep your mind occupied and the 15 minute cities are an ongoing goal.
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: .iota. and Perun
We round up all the faggots, the trannies, the niggers and the retards, and we grind them into a coarse granulate, which we dry and compact into fuel pellets. That will create lebensraum, and it will keep us supplied with energy for a few decades, until we figure something out. No problemo.
 
It's all Malthusian nonsense. Like I recall reading in National Geographic as a kid in the early 00s that we were going to hit peak oil in the mid-2010s. Instead the price of oil was the lowest in 20 years. We have resources that will last centuries at the current rate of consumption, and if that rate were to ever increase, we'd probably have a glut of energy that would let us use all sorts of new ores or technology like filtering it from seawater. Literally every "crisis" you hear about now could be solved if our elite weren't so greedy and invested in proven technology like nuclear energy or spent the time improving existing tech like producing ethanol from switchgrass or other cellulose-heavy plants.

The only resource that's actually hard to get more of is land, and that's probably why that in the greatest of ironies, actual meat (or at least beef and lamb) is going to be the only resource which can't scale to match consumption. Maybe that's why the elite want us all to eat bugs since bugbars and cockroach milk actually can scale. But fuck it, we can still build giant floating islands and space colonies so even that has its limits.
jared diamond (the author of guns, germs, and steel) wrote about this topic in an interesting and informative book entitled collapse: how societies choose to fail or succeed.

the book discusses a number of specific historical and contemporary societies, and how those societies experienced failure or success depending on the way in which they addressed threats such as environmental damage, climate change, hostility from neighboring societies, and/or the withdrawl of support from other friendly societies.

reading this thread, i think that it's important to point out that, as "globalized" as the world may seem, we're still a tribal species. we generally value what is closest to ourselves - our family, our friends, our communities - more than we do what is beyond ourselves. this is of immediate benefit to us, but is often detrimental to our society.

civilizations are comprised of myriad societies, and, unfortunately, history indicates that civilizations collapse when individuals refuse to recognize and respond appropriately to that which threatens their society.
Ah, the book where Diamond makes bizarre assumptions like "Vikings in Greenland didn't eat fish", despite written historical sources saying they did and the evidence being based on archaeology methods and tools from before the 1950s when small, fragile material like 800 year old fish bones were frequently destroyed or otherwise missed during excavation. A lot of Diamond's other assertions are also based on politically motivated Danish archaeology. Like did you know that archaeologists had to make sure their conclusions did not "offend communal harmony" (lest they not be published or denied grants and visas), so they had to downplay archaeological evidence of historical facts like the Inuit violently slaughtering the Norse and also tweak the data to try and state that medieval Norse farming/livestock raising was as ecologically devastating as the mostly failed farming programs the 20th century Danish government funded in Greenland.

The Greenland Norse are a big reason why you cannot trust pop science/pop history because you get stupid assertions that absolutely riddle that book. People like the idea of climate change/the environment being some major source of downfall for historic civilizations because we're told 24/7 it's about to happen to us. And maybe it will, like if a small volcano in Iceland can cause billions of dollars of damage and shut down European air travel for 2 weeks, then imagine what a VEI-7 like Mount Tambora would do globally?
Jared Diamond was a politically motivated propagandist, not someone engaged in any type of real science. The supposed facts are arranged and manufactured exactly so that you make the right conclusions for his goals. His work may be very influential, but it's not very well supported by reality.
Hey now, he actually is a scientist, it's just his degree is in physiology and his actual published science works are in that field or in ornithology. He's not a historian, archaeologist, anthropologist, or anything similar.

I'd put him on the same tier as Klaus Schwab's evil genius Yuval Noah Harari in that he's a smart person who frequently speaks in fields he has minimal understanding of, just like how Harari is a medieval historian who believes he's going to usher in the technological singularity or whatever.
 
Hey now, he actually is a scientist, it's just his degree is in physiology and his actual published science works are in that field or in ornithology. He's not a historian, archaeologist, anthropologist, or anything similar.
I mean when writing guns germs and steel. It's probably also true for "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed", but I admit I haven't read that book of his and looked into its foundations.
 
If you believe the breathless media coverage, based on the prognostications of people with a vested interest in attracting attention, we've had only 40 to 50 years of oil left for the past century. You, and they, are falling for the belief that "proven reserves" are the sum total of all the oil left in the ground, but that's a fundamental misunderstanding of the term.

Proven reserves are not all reserves, they're merely the known reserves that have been explored sufficiently to prove their viability. Unproven reserves - those that have been explored sufficiently to be certain they exist, but whose full extent hasn't been conclusively tested - generally tack another 50 years on, and known fields - those that have been discovered but not explored - are estimated to tack another 50 on top of that. oil companies generally only maintain about 40 to 50 years of proven reserves at any given point in time, as there's little economic justification to conclusively proof more than that. They will move more reserves into the proven category as needed, to maintain that buffer, and continually explore to find more fields that can later be proofed as required. Or they would, if governments weren't restricting their activities so tightly. There are known fields throughout the world that are currently untouchable due to government intervention.

Point being, breathless doomerism aside, there's a lot more oil out there than just the proven reserves.
Thing is, and this is true of any resource, it's not that the resource has a depletion date, but that the marginal cost of extraction increases.
When gasoline was made as a byproduct of kerosene it used to just be thrown out. There was oil so easy to access it literally bubbled up to the surface like tar pits.
If oil was as easy to access now as it was in 1850 there wouldn't really need to be deep sea drilling or fracking.



We may be producing oil or coal or lithium or whatever for a century more but unless you think gas will remain at only $4/gal forever it seems silly to trash react the OP.
Never before has there been 8 billion humans who all want air conditioning and daily showers and a new phone every year and fresh fruit in the winter, something *will* give eventually.
 
Anyone who buys this Malthusian bullshit is a retard.

There are no dwindling resources.

There is no overpopulation problem.

There's plenty to go around, and the resources are replenishing themselves at an astonishing rate. Even if you buy the notion that we'll run out of hydrocarbons, we'll find an alternative before they run out, or find a way to dig up even more. Or maybe said resource replenishes itself at a faster rate than we could have imagined.

The real problem we have is people too retarded (like in the third world) or too chickenshit (western liberals and progressives) to actually use the resources under their fucking feet. Too selfish and childish to take the condom off and have some kids already.
 
Last edited:
Anyone who buys this Malthusian bullshit is a retard.

There are no dwindling resources.

There is no overpopulation problem.

There's plenty to go around, and the resources are replenishing themselves at an astonishing rate. Even if you buy the notion that we'll run out of hydrocarbons, we'll find an alternative before they run out, or find a way to dig up even more. Or maybe said resource replenishes itself at a faster rate than we could have imagined.

The real problem we have is people too retarded or too chickenshit to actually use the resources under their fucking feet. Too selfish and childish to take the condom off and have some kids already.
There is overpopulation, but it's in shithole nations that don't know how to use their resources properly like Haiti, Yemen, and Bangladesh so all the women shit out 6-7 kids and half of them grow up to be gang members/terrorists/etc. and the other half grow up to be "refugees" and collect welfare from the West.
 
There's no 'x years left' when it comes to oil reserves or most other resources, it's just that tapping them gives diminishing returns over time as we exhaust the low-hanging fruit and move on to sources that don't provide as much output pound-for-pound . So Energy Return on Investment (EROI) is a really useful lens. Modern developed-nation lifestyles are fueled by an extremely favourable EROI and this is drawing down. As a result, a whole lot of things look to be on a declining path.

But that's still only one way to look at things. Personally, I expect the unintended consequences of our extreme energy usage/extraction will be our downfall, not exhaustion of the resource. Microplastic pollution, climate change, environmental degredation, biodiversity loss. With the right kind of eye it's easy to link a frightening amount of worrying stuff back to this root cause. Consider how a piece of fruit or vegetable today has far less micronutrient value than one from fifty years ago due to modern farming practices, which are are a consequence of today's energy richness. Or how rainwater globally is no longer safe to drink.
47 years of oil left, after that we are back to the 1850s. Meanwhile we are saying that climate change is the biggest threat to humanity.
IMO they're all the same issue.

Hey now, he actually is a scientist, it's just his degree is in physiology and his actual published science works are in that field or in ornithology. He's not a historian, archaeologist, anthropologist, or anything similar.
Better to dig into the source material (e.g. Overshoot by Catton) but far drier and harder to digest than the pop-sci takes that ride on top. There's so much lit available on the topic (and on both sides, e.g. 'The Resourceful Earth' by Simon/Kahn) but it's preaching-to-the-choir kinda stuff through and through. Whatever opinions you form on the subject, almost all the literature is heavily polarized. There's some stuff like 'Poles Apart' by Morgan/McCrystal attempts to take a balanced view, but with limited success because it's nearly impossible for an author to be both emotionally detached from the issue and also sufficiently informed.
 
Last edited:
Are you retarded? (The answer is yes.)
You sound like a person that keeps parroting the muh sea level hoax even as Obama buys himself a nice estate on Martha's Vineyard. Did you hide in the basement as Pelosi got her hair done at the salon and Boris was snorting cocaine out of a prostitutes asshole?

You might even believe importing shitskins benefits white people, oh my. Either a golem or a jew, which one is it?
 
  • Autistic
Reactions: cybertoaster
There is no overpopulation problem.
There were 80m people in Africa around 1800. There are now over one billion. Do you not think that will cause issues?

In the 1800s on the western frontier of the US land was given away for free or sold for pennies to get people to settle out there. Where is my free 20 acres of arable farmland with homestead? There is a smooth line that goes from 0 people = free land, to billions of people = paying out the ass to live in <1000sq ft apartments.
 
You sound like a person that keeps parroting the blah blah blah blah blah
Its nice to see you responded. You must care what I think.
You might even believe importing shitskins benefits white people, oh my. Either a golem or a jew, which one is it?
Doesn't matter to me! Neither anti-white leftists or anti-color rightists matter to me. You call me a shitskin? I laugh! You call me a white? I laugh! You think your little words and barbs hurt me? Even "jew" slides off me like water off a raincoat. Tell me what difference does skin color make when one is so thin-skinned?
 
In terms of actual resources, we're not going to run out very quickly. We have access to a lot more than is currently being exploited, the UK for example sits on 500 years worth of high quality coal, tin, steel, and similar deposits. The issue is one of skill, and exploiting them. We are in danger of catabolising our own industrial power to appease fuckwit political agendas that preach alarmism. We are rapidly undergoing a competency crisis where advanced legacy systems are not able to be maintained. For a recent example of this, The British Empire, once build some of the finest, most advanced, highest quality warships and economic ships.
It is now incapable of making such things, because everyone involved is dying of old age, the industry has not been effectively replenished with engineering talent. This is not the sort of thing that can just be jump started from scratch, expertise once lost, will be lost for good until relearned through hard trial.
 
There's no 'x years left' when it comes to oil reserves or most other resources, it's just that tapping them gives diminishing returns over time as we exhaust the low-hanging fruit and move on to sources that don't provide as much output pound-for-pound . So Energy Return on Investment (EROI) is a really useful lens. Modern developed-nation lifestyles are fueled by an extremely favourable EROI and this is drawing down. As a result, a whole lot of things look to be on a declining path.

But that's still only one way to look at things. Personally, I expect the unintended consequences of our extreme energy usage/extraction will be our downfall, not exhaustion of the resource. Microplastic pollution, climate change, environmental degredation, biodiversity loss. With the right kind of eye it's easy to link a frightening amount of worrying stuff back to this root cause. Consider how a piece of fruit or vegetable today has far less micronutrient value than one from fifty years ago due to modern farming practices, which are are a consequence of today's energy richness. Or how rainwater globally is no longer safe to drink.
This.
Don't expect oil (or any other natural resource) to run out in your lifetime or even your grandchildren's lifetime. Just expect the iron laws of economics to react naturally to the rising costs of extraction, refining and transport.

Also all these people talking about how we're going to find new innovative solutions to the death of cheap energy, my kiwis in Christ, our first world societies are having trouble keeping the knowledge base we already have from slipping away from us due to the competency crisis. Shit, son. We have the civilizational equivalent of the Xhosa Cattle-killing Movement or the Wari "Our civilization is in trouble, let's just all get drunk and burn it down ourselves." happening around us.

In short, get used to lowered expectations.
 
Jared Diamond was a politically motivated propagandist, not someone engaged in any type of real science. The supposed facts are arranged and manufactured exactly so that you make the right conclusions for his goals. His work may be very influential, but it's not very well supported by reality.
but I admit I haven't read that book of his and looked into its foundations.

oh, so you have very strong opinions about an author and his book, which you haven't read? opinion disregarded.

Ah, the book where Diamond makes bizarre assumptions like "Vikings in Greenland didn't eat fish", despite written historical sources saying they did and the evidence being based on archaeology methods and tools from before the 1950s when small, fragile material like 800 year old fish bones were frequently destroyed or otherwise missed during excavation.

it's interesting that your claim is almost word-for-word the same as that made by paul cooper in his fall of civilizations documentary on the greenland vikings, where he comments (at 58:27) that:
They never carved fish hooks out of bone the way the Inuit did, and some writers like Jared Diamond have seized on a lack of fish bones found in the settlements of the Norse. They argue that this shows a cultural aversion to eating fish, that the Norse thought themselves simply too good for this lowoly food. But I think the numerous references to salmon that we find in the Icelandic sagas seems to refute this, and it's worth remembering the fish bones are very delicate and fragile. In the harsh environment of Greenland, they may be simply more prone to breaking down or being blown away.

yet, you neglect to mention that diamond's premise is in complete agreement with cooper's assertions that:
In Greenland, temperatures would now plummet to as much as six to eight degrees lower than summer temperatures today. Soon, sea ice would choke up the fjords and prevent ships from landing. The ice would crush the ship's hulls in a vice-like grip and freeze the ground to stone so that nothing would grow. The number of storms coming in from the sea also increased dramatically during this time. Studies of ice cores show that around this time, the Greenland ice contained a greater amount of salt, since the harsh ocean winds were blowing sea mist across it with greatest strength and ferocity. As the weather got worse, the Greenland Vikings had a simple choice; they could continue living their essentially European lives, the lives of growing crops and grazing livestock, or they could adapt. They could learn from their Inuit neighbors and change their lifestyles to that of subsistence hunter-gatherers, relying on hunting and fishing instead.
The Norse also seemed to have clung largely to their European eating habits. They never copied the Inuit in learning to cut holes in the ice and fish the waters beneath.
Vikings clung to their European culture even when conditions worsened. Archeologists have recovered clothing left behind by the Greenland Norse, perfectly preserved in the ice. Some even have the brilliant red dyes still on their fabrics, as bright today as the day their owners left them. From these clothes, we can see that well into the 15th century, the Greenland Vikings still wore woollen clothing and even kept up with the latest European fashions; hooded clothing with long capes. Meanwhile, their Inuit neighbors knew that seal skins and furs provided the best protection against the cold.
Over the centuries, the Norse also cut down the low trees and vegetation that grew in the Greenland landscape, partly to create pastures for their farm animals. While the Inuit burned seal blubber to heat and light their homes, the Norse continued to burn wood in their stoves and hearths just as they would have in Europe. This deforestation gradually exposed the land to the brutal icy winds, and soon the topsoil was blown away, and covered in sand and ice.

The Greenland Norse are a big reason why you cannot trust pop science/pop history because you get stupid assertions that absolutely riddle that book. People like the idea of climate change/the environment being some major source of downfall for historic civilizations because we're told 24/7 it's about to happen to us.

i'm not here to defend jared diamond, but i will argue that his book is not "pop history". it thoroughly questions how societies address the threats that challenge their civilizations, both to their benefit, and to their detriment.

it's interesting to me that, on one hand, you seem to be relying on a claim made by a yt content creator (whom i greatly enjoy, btw) to dismiss diamond as a reputable author, while on the other hand, that same yt content creator has documented that the failure of the greenland vikings was a direct result of their inability to adapt to, and overcome, the clearly-established criteria for collapse that is discussed in diamond's book:

- self-inflicted environmental problems? yep, they deforested the land for pasture and firewood.
- climate change? yep, temperatures dropped, sea ice expanded, and soils became more salinized.
- problems with friendly trade partners? yep, the materials from europe ceased with the arrival of the plague.
- problems with neighboring enemies? yep, with the indigenous of both greenland and north america.
- political, economic, and social problems? yep, they failed to adequetely adapt their culture to their needs.

like it or not, climate change is a source of collapse, but it's only one of many by which civilizations, past and present, are threatened. the premise of diamond's book is that the threats are simply less important than the responses.
 
Back