Civilisations born of hard times
Extreme climate change may have spurred people to work together.
Necessity is the mother of invention — and this adage may be true for the birth of entire civilizations. Extreme changes in the Earth's climate that happened around 3,000 years ago, during which the Sahara Desert became completely arid and the El Niño cycle strengthened, could have kick-started civilizations in some places on Earth, says Nick Brooks of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK.
Read the story here.
Comments
This story is some how related to the Lesson of Atlantis; in one of my papers on the subject I have discussed the Ancient Egyptian Law of the letter "N" on the relation between civilizations and natural disasters, the following is part of my paper that its direct link http://www.fotouh.netfirms.com/Aboulfotouh-Atlantis.htm#bm60
6- The lesson of the story of Atlantis and its utopian model.
If one read Timaeus, from A to Z, he may observe that, and this will be a false observation, the part about the story of Atlantis could be omitted without weakening the architectonic quality of this particular dialogue; i.e., what is the relation between God's scenario of creation and the story of Atlantis that upon which Plato was obliged to put its prelude in Timaeus? Why he did not include it with the dialogue of Critias, instead of adding it to a dialogue about something else?
One may answer these questions in a naïve way that reveal the architectonic illiteracy of the mind who may think for a moment that the scenario proceeded as follows. Imagine that the dialogues of Timaeus and Critias are the scripts of two live seminars in philosophical TV program, and Plato may was either the gifted director who organized and directed them or was the highly professional cameraman who recorded them. Socrates was their moderator, seating with the guest speakers before Plato's mental camera. If the two scenarios proceeded as we read them, and according to the regulations, Plato cannot make any changes on the script of the talk, the decision of including the prelude of the Atlantis story with the dialogue of Timaeus was not of him; it was spontaneous and unexpected talk by one of the guest speakers, or due to that the guest that was planned to speak first was absent and Socrates used his time for continuing other talk, and thus Plato was obliged to record it. As said earlier, this might be one of the naive assumptions.
Plato as a philosopher, has the power of decision making on every word and every sentence that he mentioned in his publications; when he decide to make this strange architectonic division of the Atlantis story, either was it true or only a myth, he must had in mind very reasonable answer that was clearly understood by the commentators of his days and the fellows of his school of thought. Taking into consideration that this specific division implies that the dialogue of Critias, I mean the story of Atlantis, was in his mind while he was writing Timaeus, and the opposite case is valid too.
Related to the above, to which dialogue-message the story of Atlantis is strongly correlated: the Republic or Timaeus? In the Republic, Plato did not mention any thing about Atlantis; he preferred to link its scenario with what Timaeus had said. He thought that its story is more related to the God-made perpetual laws of nature more than the man-made utopian laws. Atlantis's utopia was a man-made model; I mean a kind of ideology that was formulated by a gifted-mind of an ancient scientist/philosopher that was called the children of God because he was the best of the bests in his days to understand the laws of god in nature, he was Poseidon.
One of these laws, that any Egyptian priest know, is the one that the ancient Egyptians called the law of the letter "N", the law of Neshor قانون النشور presented by the form of the Hieroglyphic letter N and that Plato, Pythagoras, and the many other ancient philosophers, including Herodotus too did understand it by heart. That law simply says that the path of the man-made but perfect utopia goes side by side with the path of the God-made celestial cycles; any utopia reaches its climax of application at the point of time when such specific cycle reverses its direction of motion. At these particular points (knots) in the path of time and the history of mankind, unexpected events occur either natural or human; at that time the perfect utopia that every body did admire it reaches its end and decline by two simultaneous catastrophes: one of them is natural and the other is man-made.
Those who did not hear about the law of "N" may dedicate the decline of this type to man or societal-made causes and others may say it was due to a natural disaster. In any religious doctrine the law of N is termed as: because people had deviated from the correct path, God punished them. When and where on earth the people of any civilization deviate from the correct path of their perfect utopia and how to calculate the time interval between major and minor knots of their civilization is the whole idea of the law of the letter "N" that was coherent part of the ideology of ancient Egyptian priests. How many minor knots between two major knots? E.g., for any waterfront region, how many inundations will occur between two great deluges like that of the Deucalion?
In Timaeus [21], the elder priest said: "There have been, and will be again, many destructions of mankind arising out of many causes; the greatest have been brought about by the agencies of fire and water, and other lesser ones by innumerable other causes" In short, the lesson of the story of Atlantis, is giving an example on how the God-Law of the letter N works, not only in the past but in all times and in all places on Earth. The Ancient Egyptians did study this law and recorded it in detail, including its full sets of mathematical equations, using different means of presentations.
Based on the architectonic cosmic theories [22], the earth has a water cycle which was called the Hor-Mageedon's cycle and that its time-span is about 5070 Earth-years. Four of this cycle make the obliquity cycle of the earth. Each of the Hor-Mageedon's cycle is composed of 26 minor-cycles that the time-span of each equals 195 years. The major-disaster of the great deluge or great earthquake comes every 5070. The deluge that destructed the Atlantis was in 3070 BC. The one that followed it was that of the Indian Ocean that called the tsunami. It seems that the location of the destruction on earth changes its position by 90 degrees in each Hor-Mageedon cycle. Concerning the minor-cycle of 195 years, these are the cycles of the floods of the rivers, every two cycles of 390 years there will be major river flood in any region. The ancient Egyptian recorded this law of the latter N in the design of the great master-piece of the bent pyramid.
The key lesson of the story of Atlantis is recognizing the link between God's scenario of creation and man's ambition for a long-lasting utopian seat in any place on our mother Earth. When taking this into consideration man and nations must recognize when and where distraction will tack place on earth, calling for primary measures to conserve the people, the heritage and the acquired knowledge of man for the future generations, following the basic theme of sustaining the humanity to be able to live after the time of the great natural catastrophes/disasters.
Posted by: Dr. Hossam Aboulfotouh | September 7, 2006 08:36 PM
This is one of the most fascinating hypotheses that I’ve seen. If correct, it could explain a lot about the way we are.
Even if is turns out that areas like the Fertile Crescent were not experiencing climate change at that time, they very possibly were experiencing in-migration from areas that were suffering from climate change and this would promote a competition for finite resources.
The consciousness of scarcity may be the engine that drives the search for new technology. Why would anyone want to fix something that was not broken?
But history is written by the survivors and they quite understandably might call the cumulative impacts of development and technology "civilization" and "progress." Indeed, these terms are now so embedded in our language that it would be difficult to use these words to signal acts of desperation.
But, could it be that these words are really "worst case" outcomes? Could they simply be a habit that creates an endless cycle of reaching for techno-fixes to solve the problems created by the previously set of techno-fixes? Add another lane to the expressway until the system collapses.
As they say, "nature bats last." Perhaps thinking that nature can be controlled (or escaped) is both the civilized approach and the ultimate illusion?
It is noteworthy that the very same historical period that gave us civilization also gave us institutional religion. At first, they were religions of “oneness”, of conquest, power and control. Ultimately, they also generated a minority or counter tradition of compassion, forgiveness and detachment as strategies for obtaining release from the consequences of the bad habits that had originated in fear for survival.
Posted by: Lou Gold | September 8, 2006 01:54 AM
I'm so glad to hear this. I can hardy wait for the new improved civilizations that is to come. [/sarcasm]
Posted by: Dursun Sakarya | September 8, 2006 03:25 AM
I agree with an article. That's exactly our case. As a citizen of The Russian Federation I can assert that the hard climate is seemingly one of the main factors that lead to constantly renewing autocracy and dictatorship in my country, as well as to emerging the specific Russian culture and mysterious Russian soul. :)
Posted by: Roman | September 8, 2006 08:09 AM
I ponder the generalization of the article. Yes, civilizations may be born and indeed thrive secondary to hard times but how many have failed of which we will never know? Perhaps it was the social consciousness of the few who impacted the whole and therefore caused positive societal changes. Horray for each individual who cares enough for the whole! ...the "Man in the Mirror" thesis.
Posted by: Jody | September 8, 2006 04:10 PM
Yes, necessity can bring people to cooperate; it can also lead people to tear each other's eyes out in the struggle for survival. It would be very interesting to know how the values that shape a culture, or the over-arching framework of meaning, also shape social responses to crises as serious as these -- the breakdown of civilization because of sudden climate change, as we are now facing.
In the US, the content of that framework of meaning includes values of extreme individualism, aggressive competition as part of our self-identity, an economic hierarchy shaped by a belief that we have earned our wealth on our own and have a right to it, the assertion of military power and economic or corporate hegemony to control our access to the world's resources that we need for our own economic benefit, and on and on.
Sadly, these values are likely to shape how we respond to the coming crises of the new hot age accompanied by the depletion of most fossil fuels in the next generation.
As just one example, putting agricultural lands in the US under cultivation for GMO crops to produce ethanol may look good for the corporate bottom line, but when we can no longer transport our food because of oil depletion, how will we eat? Once we have destroyed this land for monoculture, how will we reconstruct agriculture for local farming and local markets, as will be necessary?
Many people will be ready to cooperate, but so much in the culture will work against this, or already have made the basis for local, bioregional cooperative life quite difficult, if not impossible.
Sadly, to weather the coming crises with some hope for dignified survival would require beginning this cooperation immediately, society-wide, with strong local, national, and international leadership among all the culture-shaping institutions. And that does not seem to be the path we are choosing.
Margaret
Posted by: Margaret Swedish | September 8, 2006 04:25 PM
I believe that the hypothesis of that sudden changes in climate conditions might bring on hard steal and spur people to work together takes the exploration or the chance find as an alternative: it is highly probable that the experience of joining efforts and with it to be more efficient is a universal experience since the man exists. Therefore the surprising challenges activated ancient answers already incorporated into the culture.
The collective life and work has complex requirements organizationals and of relation that cannot be improvised; at the same time it has so obvious advantages for the human species that difficultly they could be absent from the whiteness of the Homo Sapiens.
Posted by: Fernando Mandujano | September 8, 2006 06:53 PM
The Egyptian empire became unified around 3000 years ago? That must be a mistake, Around 5000 years ago would be plausible. In fact, the abstract of the referenced publication mentions "the 6th and early 5th millennia BP", which is 5000 years ago or 3000 years BC.
Posted by: Jens Luke | September 9, 2006 01:50 AM
I was struck by the generalization that "hunter-gatherer communities...ran on a consensus basis with no set leaders". I'm no student of anthropology but this seems extremely idealistis and rather unlikely. It also implies a lot of cooperation - so what would be new about a larger group of people (i.e. civilization) cooperating to survive?
Posted by: Elizabeth Crowe | September 11, 2006 06:03 PM
Civilisations are not created during hard times. But hard times force populations to "activate" innovations... the sum of which will be seen as a new civilisation. I wrote a short paper to illustrate this in the case of bread and agriculture (ftp://ext-ftp.fao.org/SD/SDR/Agromet/Documents/Hard_times.pdf).
Posted by: rene gommes | September 12, 2006 07:19 AM
Mr. Brooks talks as if inequality, social hierarchy and hard labor were not what civilization is. Furthermore, does Mr. Brooks or anyone really think a group of Garamantians, Egyptians or Iraqi tribesmen sat down together around a campfire one day, and decided what to do in order to develop a civilization? It seems Mr. Brooks’ ideas, popular as they maybe, do not consider the basic understanding of biological development explained by the Theory of Evolution, which plainly shows that the process of biological development is a pragmatic process, not a plan.
What may seem in hindsight purposeful, rationalized and planned practices by individual human beings or groups thereof are in actuality consequences of the surviving practices (natural selection) among various established practices in challenging environments over time.
Of course if you want to believe humans (or their likeness) are in control of destiny then I suggest you will not be among members of the post-civilization that will evolve from the destruction of Earth’s resources, climate changes, nukes in the hands of children, or any of other advanced weaponry including those from upcoming, race-specific biological weapons sure to evolve shortly.
It seems to me, only in the light of an accurate, comprehensive understanding of the nature of man and society will either survive the scientific era. We humans living now must be at a turning point that challenges all intelligent species everywhere in the universe. Do we change our basic nature or become extinct in seas of radiation or post-mordial soups.
Posted by: Tom Stanfield | September 12, 2006 08:52 PM
This Nature article actually wasn't that good, as evidenced by the suggestion in it that Dynastic Egypt emerged around 3000 years ago. The author has missed at least part of the point of the analysis of the Garamantes. A much better treatment can be found here: http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/culture_weather.shtml
You can download the paper on which the talk was based from my website (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~e118/welcome.htm). Go to publications and click on the pdf for the second paper down, from Quaternary International.
I certainly wasn't suggesting anyone planned civilisation - quite the opposite. Neither should we say "Ah, climate change stimulated civilisation, so it must be a good thing." This is idiotic and misses the point of the research and its conclusions. We're talking about a small cooling around 5000 years ago (much less than one degree) compared to a warming of probably 2-3 degrees by 2100.
It always pays to base your opinions of research on the research itself and not on media reports of it!
Posted by: Nick Brooks | September 19, 2006 11:58 AM