I have been pondering two different world views lately and wondering whether, in fact, they are as divergent as is generally supposed. I have a tendency to view the world as interconnected, a series of Venn diagrams that overlap to infinity. I watched yesterday as thousands marched on the US Supreme Court building to protest on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion in the US and based on the numerous nuns and priests, a good deal of them were Catholic. Today, I listened to an environmentalist on Science Friday on NPR discuss the need to keep the population engaged in saving the world. He sounded, frankly, a little evangelistic -- and I am quite the environmentalist myself. He even condemned the dissent among scientists regarding global warming since it damages their program for converting the public.
I thought about these two "religions." One would be recognized widely as religion, Catholicism, and the other, Environmentalism, is generally only called a religion by its opponents. However, one need not disapprove of the goals of environmentalists to note the comparisons to religious belief and activity (see, for example, my earlier post on Environmental Repentance).
Religion naturally led me to eschatology and I began to think about the collapse of civilizations throughout time. There have been, despite historians' wrangling over what a golden age actually means, ups and downs from renaissances to economic and political collapses. Pharaonic Egypt collapsed, Rome fell, the Mayans imploded, Andalusia crumbled. The eternal question and perhaps the original question of political science is why. The man who was arguably the father of modern sociology and political science, who brought together the philosophical inquiry of the Greeks with the bold empirical science of the Arabs, was Ibn Khaldun. His famous magnum opus began with its even more famous introduction which discussed historical theory and the whys of history, the first time that had ever been done. Simplifying it greatly, he argued that great societies endured so long as their cohesion or self identity endured. As people began to see their destinies as separate from that of the state, then the state weakened until a new group capable of coalescing the identities of the people around them overthrew the old empire and established a new one.
The whole history of political science since then has been trying to understand, empirically, the life cycle (or lack thereof) of the state and, in consequence of this understanding, how to guide, sustain, prevent, or direct this process as deemed necessary. It reached its positivistic ne plus ultra with Hegel whose teleological models have entranced authors from Marx to Fukyama.
Now, to return to my thoughts, which are truly not any less teleological than Hegel's, but rather less sanguine. History does not show progress to me as it did to the nineteenth century mind. I see at best cycles. I believe that modern civilization will collapse, eventually. I do not expect it soon, but it will be, when it comes, sudden. Change always is.
What causes a society to collapse? I thought about what I have been taught in Sunday School and I have tried to understand how it relates to all that I have been taught in political science and history courses. Ibn Khaldun believed that it was primarily internal, the result of the deterioration of society. More modern scholars have argued that it is structural, though this does not preclude internal disintegration. Jared Diamond in his famous book argued that societies rose and fell as a result of their relationship with their natural environment and that environmental stress either through natural climatic changes or through environmental destruction will lead to their collapse. It is demonstrably true that climate and environment has had a profound impact on human society. We are only just beginning to appreciate how climate shift has shaped history by driving migrations, sparking war for sparse resources, and so forth. However, and Diamond admits this, the relationship is complicated by the nature of the society thus afflicted and its ability to react. We cannot, therefore, predict empirically what will happen.
As a Latter-day Saint (or a Latter Day Saint if I wish to be bothersome and heretical (see www.strangite.org), I believe in the writings of the Prophet Historian Mormon as inspired texts. Mormon's narrative argues repeatedly that righteousness leads to success which leads to class differentiation (something denounced fiercely by Mormon) which leads to internal strife which weakens the society until it is unable to confront disaster and war. It is a surprisingly subtle argument. Mormon and some of the prophets of the Book of Mormon show that when the people were righteous they worked hard. The lack of strife amongst them during these times meant that all their efforts were focused on building their society, but this virtue became a vice as some amongst changed from building society and themselves to accumulating wealth. One remembers the Parable of the Savior in which the wealthy man finds he has too much to fit in his barns and so rather than giving it away, he builds bigger barns only to die in the night and be condemned for his avarice. Jacob condemns those who sought after wealth and neglected the people around them. He describes in at least three places explicitly that wealth led to class distinctions and that those with greater opportunities for education and business began to persecute the poorer classes.
In Mormon's sparse prose, we see how a society can dissolve from within because of sin. A historian, however, would not see it in that terms, but I believe it can be fairly described so. Lincoln, the bicentennial of whose birth we celebrate this year, saw this. In his famous second inaugural address, he noted that the American Civil War could be seen as a punishment or atonement that must be endured to end slavery. I do not wish, however, to oversimplify things.
What is the relationship between sin and society's decay? This has troubled me for sometime. I believe however, that the link is there and empirically defensible. A society given over to sin is a society given over to selfishness and pleasure seeking. A society like that loses its ability to sacrifice for others and for the future. Good and bad exist in all times and in all places, but when the time comes that the majority of the people of the society care more for themselves than for others -- and this pride is at the heart of all sin -- then that society cannot endure. They will seek for wealth, establish impenetrable barriers, hardened class lines that oppress and corrupt. Each individual will seek after his own god, his own wealth, his own glory, his own fame, his own good. They will tear down the mountains in search of worthless minerals to make themselves rich, because only by having more can they be satisfied, but more is a relative and is insatiable. A society given over to lusts and riches will not stop to plan for the future, but will consume itself into self destruction.
Mormon says almost offhandedly that there came a time in the northern part of Nephite civilization that trees became so scarce that no one cut them down anymore, hoping to reforest the land. This is born out by archaeological discoveries showing that deforestation was a continual problem in Mesoamerica. Much of the rain forests we associate with the Yucatan was once all gone, having been stripped by the Mayans. It was a problem for the ancient Greeks as well who had to enact laws forbidding the cutting of trees for construction. A bad day for foresters, but a great day for stone masons.
The continual greed, lust, and conflict of a sinful society cannot endure and eventually, as King Mosiah tells us, the majority will choose evil. Conflict will destroy the cohesion of the society and leave them vulnerable and incapable of defending against war, crime, and environmental threats. I believe that this would be precipitated in a breakdown of social bonds amongst family -- and I refer not just to nuclear families, but also to extended families and amongst society in general. People would be left without hope. Without hope, there can be no civilization.
Just a few thoughts. I hope to elaborate and improve the many deficiencies in this draft.
No comments:
Post a Comment