Department of Geography and the Environment, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Mar 6;109(10):3632-9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1114845109. Epub 2012 Feb 27.
Historical collapse of ancient states poses intriguing social-ecological questions, as well as potential applications to global change and contemporary strategies for sustainability. Five Old World case studies are developed to identify interactive inputs, triggers, and feedbacks in devolution. Collapse is multicausal and rarely abrupt. Political simplification undermines traditional structures of authority to favor militarization, whereas disintegration is preconditioned or triggered by acute stress (insecurity, environmental or economic crises, famine), with breakdown accompanied or followed by demographic decline. Undue attention to stressors risks underestimating the intricate interplay of environmental, political, and sociocultural resilience in limiting the damages of collapse or in facilitating reconstruction. The conceptual model emphasizes resilience, as well as the historical roles of leaders, elites, and ideology. However, a historical model cannot simply be applied to contemporary problems of sustainability without adjustment for cumulative information and increasing possibilities for popular participation. Between the 14th and 18th centuries, Western Europe responded to environmental crises by innovation and intensification; such modernization was decentralized, protracted, flexible, and broadly based. Much of the current alarmist literature that claims to draw from historical experience is poorly focused, simplistic, and unhelpful. It fails to appreciate that resilience and readaptation depend on identified options, improved understanding, cultural solidarity, enlightened leadership, and opportunities for participation and fresh ideas.
古代国家的历史崩溃提出了有趣的社会-生态问题,也为全球变化和当代可持续性策略提供了潜在的应用。本文发展了五个旧世界案例研究,以确定退化过程中的相互作用输入、触发因素和反馈。崩溃是多因的,很少是突然的。政治简化破坏了传统的权威结构,有利于军事化,而解体则是由急性压力(不安全、环境或经济危机、饥荒)预先设定或触发的,崩溃伴随着或之后是人口减少。过度关注压力因素可能会低估环境、政治和社会文化弹性在限制崩溃破坏或促进重建方面的复杂相互作用。该概念模型强调了弹性,以及领导者、精英和意识形态的历史作用。然而,如果不根据累积信息和增加的大众参与可能性进行调整,就不能简单地将历史模型应用于当代可持续性问题。在 14 世纪至 18 世纪之间,欧洲西部通过创新和集约化应对环境危机;这种现代化是分散的、持久的、灵活的、广泛的基础。许多当前声称从历史经验中得出的危言耸听的文献都没有重点、过于简单且没有帮助。它没有意识到,弹性和适应取决于已确定的选择、更好的理解、文化团结、有远见的领导以及参与和新想法的机会。