I just finished Tainter's "The Collapse of Complex Societies", and it was a very thought provoking read - it lays out a thesis for why complex societies (such as the Roman Empire, or the Mayans) collapsed) - and why others (like the Byzantines) stayed up until they were overrun. To summarize a lot, he states that: Complex societies in the ancient world could collapse when the marginal costs of complexity got to the point where the returns on that complexity had vanished: basically, the cost of civilization got too high In the modern world, where the civilization in danger is surrounded by peer states (like the Byzantines were), collapse isn't an option, but being conquered (or something similar) is

That's a vast over-simplification of the book, which I liked a lot. Tainter does case studies on Rome, the Maya, and the Chacoan (Southwest Pueblo) civilizations to make his point. Well worth reading in my opinion. This really stuck with me, based on a lot of things floating around today:

Here is a reason why proposals for economic under-development, for living in balance on a small planet, will not work. Given the close link between economic and military power, unilateral economic deceleration would be equivalent to, and as foolhardy as, unilateral disarmament. We simply do not have the option to return to a lower economic level, at least not a rational option. Peer polity competition drives increased complexity and resource consumption regardless of costs, human or ecological.

Food for thought, that

Technorati Tags: books, archeology