Comments on: We All Fall Down

By: Archdruid Watch: A Depopulation Explosion? (The Anthropik Network)

Archdruid Watch: A Depopulation Explosion? (The Anthropik Network) — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:32:20 +0000

[…] Greer suggests that all this simply means that the First World will have a taste of Third World poverty; that kind of statement ignores the fact that it’s the First World that creates the Third World, and that the First World is the only pillar propping up social complexity around the rest of an already-collapsed world. Modern examples of these various collapses, such as the Russian example Greer uses in his article, neglect this fact; as Tainter pointed out, true collapse cannot except occur except in a vaccuum. An isolated civilization can collapse, or a whole system can collapse, but a civilization surrounded by other civilizations cannot collapse; it will simply be absorbed by the civilizations around it. Russia, and to a greater extent the Third World, is held in a horrible limbo where much of the suffering of collapse is an everyday reality, but thanks to First World complexity, it cannot finish, so the suffering cannot end. When the last pillar of complexity collapses, there will be no other civilizations to catch its fall, and global civilization will collapse as one (see “We All Fall Down”). […]

By: Taking Public Health Beyond Civilization (The Anthropik Network)

Taking Public Health Beyond Civilization (The Anthropik Network) — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:54:21 +0000

[…] Collapse is only possible in a vacuum,1 so even with the loss of the complexity provided by outright European colonialism, Africa has not truly “collapsed.” Instead, it is caught in between, propped up by neocolonial elements, like the World Bank2 and the IMF.3 In this position, it is forced to take part and contribute to the system of global complexity, while recieving very little in return for that contribution. Last year’s Lord of War and The Constant Gardener provided popular cinematic treatments of the mechanisms by which the First World exploits the Third, creating the economic situation there. One particular element of that situation is the sale of “bushmeat.” […]

By: Thomas Rondy

Thomas Rondy — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 05:43:30 +0000

Probably the absolutely longest we could keep this going should we find some miracle save that would make some future generation foot the bill, is until somewhere between 2080 and 2100. At that point, there would probably be something like 12 billion people and the die-off would include the whole biosphere.

By: _Gi

_Gi — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:02:12 +0000

Russia has nothing to fear from Iran.
It is in far worst shape. It has less industries, less educated professionals, less business expertise, weaker military, no nuclear weapons, and it receives most of its weapon systems from Russia.
Having a different multinational as one’s employer is not the same as having one’s territory conquered by a military power. It doesn’t have quite the same effect to motivate a country to increase its complexity. If USA withdraws, Russia will not need an alliance with China to balance American domination. Russia does not need American protection because there are no threats Russians cannot handle themselves.

By: Jason Godesky

Jason Godesky — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 19:18:51 +0000

Russia is threatened by China, and many of the former Soviet Republics have seen a good deal of aggression in the Middle East. In fact, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan are good examples of “invasion” in the former USSR, as both countries are facing Islamic insurgencies aided by foreign fighters, like al-Qa’ida. Russia has been dealing with Chechnya (which is also linked to al-Qa’ida) for quite some time. You’re right that the U.S.’s position in the former USSR is getting weaker, but we veritably took the country over when the USSR fell through economic and business interests. Russia resents American domination, and is teaming with Iran and China to end that domination, but that domination is the only thing keeping Russia afloat. If the U.S. withdraws, Russia will be carved between China and Iran. The boundaries may remain the same, but the network of business agreements, economic alliances and other networks of influence that create the only real systems of power in our world will carve up Russia’s empty shell with little trouble.

By: _Gi

_Gi — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 19:03:27 +0000

Against what foe is Russia protected by American forces? Which country can invade Russia? Americans are thrown out of Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan is trying to charge US 200 million dollars to rent a military base. The American position in former Soviet Respublics is getting weaker. Russia and China are creating a new alliance and Iran is invited as well as India. I think they’ll be fine if US collapses.

By: Jason Godesky

Jason Godesky — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 18:28:05 +0000

Russia didn’t bounce back. “Russia is a collapsed state. Only two things hold it afloat in this sea of interlocked ‘peer polities’–a decaying military might and the ability to produce a few products that other states still need. “¹ Russia “fell down,” but it has not “bounced back.”

Russia was (and remains) quite open to invasion, as well as to dissolution. See, Chechnya. Because the former Soviet Union has proven such an excellent resource for American business, it has been absorbed by the United States. Oh, sure, we allow nominal sovereignty in the same manner that the Romans provided for “client kings,” but Russia doesn’t defend itself: the United States defends its annexed Eurasian colony. We found some time ago that multinational corporations and neocolonialism are far more effective than direct, military conquest.

If the U.S. were to collapse in a similar fashion, Russia would complete its collapse as its imperial patron fell. China would probably implode, since it’s at the brink of dissolving into civil war already, and has been for some time. If Europe was to collapse at the same time (very likely, since the U.S. and Europe are for all intents and purposes a single system–in fact, I can’t imagine how you could have the U.S. collapse without Europe), then we’d be seeing a global collapse, since complexity everywhere else is propped up by Euro-American complexity.

By: _Gi

_Gi — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 18:16:04 +0000

Russia was able to “fall down” and bounce back without dragging the rest of the civilized world to its level.
Still Russia remained invasion-proof even in its collapsed state. It lost a lot of complexity previously afforded by specialization of labor and economies of scale of the Soviet Union republics and Warshaw Pact countries. But it didn’t lose enough complexity to lose the nuclear weapons. All this loss of complexity had no corresponding effect here in USA.
If USA collapses in a similar fashion, Russia or China might find themselves unable to restore complexity here because they will not be able to invade, yet they may still find ways of preserving their own complexity or slowing and postponing their own decline.

By: Jason Godesky

Jason Godesky — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:24:40 +0000

The last 50 years show what’s wrong with that argument: there are other ways to invade, destabilize, and/or exploit a nuclear power that routes around its nuclear capability. Biological weapons, terrorism, etc.; the “Global War on Terror” is all about how you go about destroying a nuclear power. Bin Ladin isn’t being completely conceited when he claims to have brought down the USSR, after all: the Afghan War “bled” the USSR, pulling it into a foreign quagmire where it was forced to spend more and more of its resources. By the time it was able to pull out, it was too late. (I really think the biggest portion of the credit for the USSR’s fall really has to be given to Stalin, though.)

By: _Gi

_Gi — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:15:42 +0000

The fact that a country is a nuclear power places a lower limit on its complexity. Maintaining nuclear power requires a very high level of complexity. However, once that level is achieved, what could motivate a given country to increase it further? Certainly, a nuclear power is not at risk to be invaded.