Environmental Anthropology: 5400

Dr. Pankaj Jain

Heather Williams

4/14/2016

Collapse of the Ancient Maya Civilization: Environmental Causes and Current Sociological

Comparison to Contemporary Climate Change

1

Introduction

In contemporary society, as climate change has more seriously impacted various areas there has

been an ongoing increasing interest in the study of ancient causes for environmental changes, in part

to find methods to address current climate challenges, and understand what factors created problems in

the past (Iannone 2013: 2). There is a connection to understanding human vulnerability to climate

change, and human vulnerability to drought, as both create similar sociological responses within

human societies to try and adjust to food shortages, and reduction in water access, as well as both

causing potential collapse of a society and it's economy due to these hardships (Ingam & Hunt 2015:

132).

The purpose of this paper is to discus how the ancient Maya were influenced by drought in the

past, as a correlate to climate change, what factors influenced their sociological “collapse” and offer a

comparison to contemporary environmental conditions in light of this information. In closing,

discussing some of the implications on our current society, and what steps can be taken to confront

these problems, with the previous information in hand. The effort is not to try and discuss the full

possibilities of what caused the “collapse” of the ancient Maya culture, but to use the research

discussed as a type of spring-board of discussion, and possibly find if there is a direct correlation to the

current problems that face humanity.

The Maya will function as a method of analyzing the differing issues within “Collapse” theory,

as well as offer information for comparison to contemporary social stability, or lack thereof. Their

culture had a detailed history, and there has been a great deal of research concerning the sociological

and political environment that occurred in their ancient history. This being the case, the issues that arise

with any long term archaeological research will be mentioned, but not completely discussed due to a

lack of space.

2

According to Bodley, cultural evolution beyond the size of domestic-scale culture is a

fundamentally political process, driven by elites, and may be in fact badly adapted for humanity on the

whole ( 2012: 37). Studying the “collapse” of the Maya can prove, or disprove this theory, if examined

through the lens of contemporary comparison. There is considerable evidence that there are issues with

the scale of a society, “Just as the size and shape of organisms are limited by physical laws within

relatively narrow ranges, the size and form of human societies must also be limited....” (Bodley 2012:

38).

The example used of the ancient Maya is purposeful, in that there is a strong likelihood that the

ancient Maya's social collapse was caused by drastic changes in climate, to which their society was

unable to sufficiently adapt, having a lack of necessary resilience (Iannone 2013:4). Resilience as

defined by the author is, “... is the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance; to undergo change and

still retain essentially the same function, structure, and feedbacks” (Iannone 2013: 3). Resilience in the

context of understanding system collapse, is the ability for a society to maintain its shape, despite

stresses, or shocks, it emphasizes the dynamic aspects of human and natural systems, and is more

useful than the idea of equilibrium in that it is a natural flowing context, that might, or might not hold

(Bodley 2012: 36). Studying the resilience of an ancient society, or it's lack of resilience, can give

important clues to create forward looking assessment tools, which in the past has contributed greatly to

the study of global change archaeology, but has only recently turned towards resilience theory with

forward based projections (Iannone 2013: 3-4).

The purpose of discussing the reactions, and social changes that occurred in the distant past is

to attempt to take into account how humans react when resources are depleted (Bodley 2012: 58) As it

stands currently, there is considerable evidence that human beings making too many demands on

nature, through overconsumption of resources that cannot be recovered, by having a reliance on

resources that were “banked” millions of years ago current wealthy societies maintain consumptive

3

rates that would be far beyond anything would be possible if we were reliant on renewable resources

(Bodley 2012: 58). We have “overshot” our renewable resource margin by a great deal, and have

depleted water, soil, forests, and fisheries in order to feed a system of consumption that measures

success, and human-well being by GDP, rather than human happiness, or generalized human

possession of goods that benefit them, such as clean water, housing, and safety (Bodley 2012: 124).

Sociopolitical Context of Study

The date of people arriving in the, “Maya World” is uncertain, but the first migrations to the

area likely happened before 11,000 BC (Iannone 2013: 33). These first small mobile bands mainly

sustained themselves off of megafauna, and plants in the area (Iannone 2013:33). This Paleo-Indian

period was followed by a warmer, and much wetter, Archaic Period, in which agriculture became more

important, and the development of maze, and pottery, occurred though Archaic remains are seldom

found in the area (Iannone 2013: 33). In the early Pre-Classic Period Maya agricultural centers grow

markedly, with advancing developments in architecture, burial rights, and advancing settlement

hierarchies (Iannone 2013:33). According to the text,“Some of the more precocious centers included

Nakbe, and its successor El Mirador, as well as other centers in the highlands, such as Kaminaljuyu.

This developmental sequence would eventually be punctuated by the first postulated era of

demographic and political decline beginning around AD 150” (Iannone 2013:33).

The authors describe in more detail the abandonment of differing Maya locations that had

gained influence, and power, growing to such an extent that they were not able to resist the shock of

severe drought, “... that drought-induced abandonment, hiatuses, or both have been documented at the

end of the Late Pre-Classic (ca. AD 100–200) for at least twenty-four centers across the Maya region,

including Dzibilchaltun, Tikal, Uaxactun, Seibal, Komchen, Cerros, and possibly Quirigua (Gill

4

2000:315)” (Iannone 2013:34). Elsewhere, “... two of the most important centers, Nakbe and El

Mirador, were also apparently abandoned in the Late Pre-Classic (400 BC–AD 250): Nakbe around 200

BC (Hansen et al. 2002), and El Mirador around AD 100–150 (Dahlin 1983; Dunning, Beach, and

Luzzadder-Beach 2006; cf. Hansen 1990:211–13)” (Iannone 2013: 33).

The authors describe the eventual collapse, or decline of the Maya culture, caused by over

productivity of agricultural products:

During the transition to the Early Classic period, the abandonment of these communities

coincided with populations relocating to higher ground, where they constructed more active

“convex microwatersheds” (Scarborough 2007a:54–55). Norman Hammond et al. (1988) also

documented a Pre-Classic hiatus at Nohmul in northern Belize .Bruce Dahlin (1983) and others

have argued that the Late Pre-Classic was a very dry period, but human activity in colonized

ecosystems also seems to have been an important factor. Vernon Scarborough (2007a:55) has

posited that agricultural “overproductivity” caused sediments to erode into the shallow lakes,

which affected the flow of the various water sources and disturbed the natural seals that had

traditionally contained the water in the lake (such forest clearance may have also exacerbated

drought conditions, as posited by Griffin et al., Chapter 4 in this volume) (Iannone 2013: 33).

In the Middle Classic period there was a “Hiatus” of building within the large urban city of

Tikal, where monuments were not built for a long period, and there seemed to be a great deal of

internal strife within the elite (Iannone 2013: 36). Though, oddly during this same time, there was

construction of water systems and reservoirs in the cities of Tikal, Caracol, and Calakmul. The theory

offered is that Tikal had a period where it was fighting with another city, or where it's leaders were

fighting among themselves causing monument destruction and damages (Iannone 2013: 38).

5

There were multiple causes to the “hiatus” of Tikal, most of which were based around evidence

of likely social instability, and there is also the problem of assuming that monument construction is the

sole determining factor of describing a society that is flourishing, that presumption is the only

evidence of this “mini-collapse” and supposed drought. (Iannone 2013: 40).

The transition to the Middle to late Classic period is marked by the return of Tikal to

prominence, caused by a successful campaign against the rival city of Calakmul, which caused the

destruction of it's alliance network (Iannone 2013: 40). Many see this Late Classic period as the height

of Maya civilization, though in fact it involved advanced political divisions, and power-sharing across

the southern lowlands (Iannone 2013: 40).

The Terminal Classic period occurred 250 years after the Late Classic period, during this time

there was an abandonment of large city centers, reduced settlement, and a vast reduction of the

creation of elite projects such as monuments and polychrome pottery (Iannone 2013: 41). The likely

cause of this “collapse” is the failure of kingship, and the proliferation of royal titles, which demanded

more resource and tax demands on the people (Iannone 2013: 42). During periods of drought, and due

to the degradation of the soils the upper classes were not able to maintain themselves and there was a

loss of social cohesion, in addition it is likely that the land-less poor did not fair well, the middle class

farmers with decent soil having a better hold on sustain themselves (Iannone 2013: 42).

Main Issue: Desertification and Drought

The main discussion of this study is to attempt to effectively create environmental and cultural

sequences that can describe the complex social reactions that occur when a society encounters frequent

droughts (Iannone 2013: 1). In this study the discussion centralizes around the theory of what cased the

final “collapse” of the Maya society, and how useful it is as a concept within Maya studies, and within

6

environmental studies in general. Then attempting to form a comparison of the environmental risk

factors that contribute to resilience, and how the ancient Maya's drought cycles could be used to

analyze contemporary environmental issues (Iannone 2013: 1). The effort of this study is to discuss

how vulnerability of an ancient human society might offer insight into the current environmental

conditions of contemporary climate change (Iannone 2013:2). The method of discussion used in this

study is resilience theory, with an orientation towards sustainability, or the ability to balance the needs

of the current population with the needs of future generations (Iannone 2013: 3).

The expressed goal of contemporary research into the coevolutionary nature of human societies

with their environment in order to create sustainable models of societies that are flexible, and

consistently adjust themselves to contemporary changes to meet the needs of current human beings, as

well as protect the interests of future generations (Iannone 2013: 2). Societies that are capable of this

are considered resilient, and can withstand the environmental changes that occur through time, such as

drought, or some other ecological disaster that puts a great deal of stress on the society at the macro,

and micro levels (Bodley 2012: 36).

According to the research, “...deforestation by the Maya may have induced warmer, drier,

drought conditions, which in combination with the natural climate variability potentially contributed to

the collapse of the Maya” (Iannone 2013: 71) There are two processes that link deforestation to local

climate and hydrology: decreased evapotranspiration and increased albedo, or the ratio of solar

radiation reflected off the earths surface (Iannone 2013: 76). Trees, with their extensive and usually

deep root systems and leaf area, are very efficient at extracting water from the soil, a process known as

evapotranspiration (Iannone 2013: 76). When trees are cut down, the vegetation that replaces them—

be it grassland, shrubs, or agricultural plantings—extract much less water from the ground (Iannone

203: 76).

The secondary purpose, is to then break down how periods of “collapse” relate to one another,

7

and how those events influence the regional, sub-regional, and micro-regional sociological parts of the

Maya culture (Iannone 2013: 2).

Collapse is defined by the authors of this study as:

...any situation where the rate of change to a system”: (1) “has negative effects on human

welfare, which, in the short or long term, are socially intolerable”; (2) “is more rapid and

usually in the opposite direction to that preferred by at least some members of society,” (3)

“will result in a fundamental downsizing, a loss of coherence, and/or significant restructuring of

the constellation of arrangements that characterize the system”; and, (4) “cannot be stopped or

controlled via an incremental change in behavior, resource allocation, or institutional values

(Iannone 2013: 5).

The main issue that this study presents is more detailed analysis of the varying “collapses” that

have occurred during the ancient Maya civilization, with a focus on using differing methods of

analysis, and determining if the concept of “collapse” is useful, and what exactly contributes do

discussion. ). The authors of this study state that their view, at least in reference to the Maya culture is

that it is a negative event that drastically changed a society for the worse:

To reiterate, we believe that for the label collapse to be appropriate, the intensity of negative

change in a political system should be severe enough to stand out within a long-term

developmental sequence marked by normal periods of growth and decline. Most “collapses”

documented by archaeologists have, in fact, been recognized as such precisely because they do

stand out so dramatically in the archaeological record. We also feel that for something to be

deemed a collapse, the rate of negative change should be relatively rapid, at least in terms of

“two or three generations” (as per Tainter’s definition) (Iannone 2013:28).

The collapse of the Maya culture due to specific droughts that occurred can be viewed through

several lenses of analysis, these being 1) political cycling 2) adaptive cycle theory 3) and the “Dynamic

8

Model” and the concept of “Collapse”. These differing ways of examining the problem breaks down

the ways that collapse can be viewed, when compared to the resilience model of flexibility, or

inflexibility of a societies social systems (Iannone 2013: 5).

These differing manners of description are helpful due to their ability to describe the differing

processes that most likely influence a society when drastic environmental changes are at play. In the

case of the Maya civilization collapse, each differing view point can fill out, and make more clear the

influences that occurred for each individual instance of drought. It cannot be assumed that the Maya

civilization did not react differently to these circumstances, as their culture had changed over time

(Iannone 2013: 22).

Political cycling can be described best as shifting periods of centralization, and division, it is

easily identifiable through “chiefdoms” where dynasties rise, and fall in their power in an almost

predictable pattern (Iannone 2013: 22). Adaptive cycle theory is an extension of the previous, in that it

is the accumulation of “lower level, flexible, rapid growth” in the r-phase, and “slower-accumulation,

greater efficiency, strong connection, and rigidity) in the K-phase, and “Collapse” in the Omega phase,

restarting the cycle with a reorganization phase, called Alpha (Iannone 2013: 23). This theory states

that human societies in the r-phase have a great deal of adaptability, due to having highly diverse biota,

and necessary goods are at a low cost of investment. Societies that have passed into the K-phase,

particularly the late-K state, are not flexible, and there is an ever increasing investment in the

necessities to get minimum work done, for example when water becomes overpriced it makes every

other action much more expensive, and higher cost (Iannone 2013: 24).

The Dynamic Model was created by Gordon Willey (1986) and describes a series of peaks and

valleys in the development of the Maya, these are period dips to low levels have been called

“collapses”. There are two definitions of collapse that are generally considered appropriate, the first is

the “catastrophic” definition, or that a collapse occurs and is negative towards human beings, for

9

example the reduction of population size, or sociological complexity in a short time frame (Iannone

2013:28)

The second, and more adaptive view is that it is “transformation”, in the case of the Maya some

would claim that there was a transition, in that many millions of people still speak the Mayan

language, and retain parts of the culture (Iannone 2013:28). This second definition is essentially the

view that “collapse” is a restructuring process within human communities, and is necessary for

eventual progress and is a product of short-term, and long term social changes (Iannone 2013: 28).

The data of this study discusses the issues of how to determine when droughts happened, and

how seriously they can be directly correlated to the total “collapse” of the Maya (Iannone 2013: 61)

For example, “... during this time the area containing centers that erected monuments “remained

stable,” but the number of centers that erected monuments grew dramatically.” The data shows that,

“the number of dedicated monuments peaked at AD 721, and the period between AD 751 and 790

appears to have been an era of “incipient collapse” (Iannone 2013: 61). There is considerable evidence

that due to the changes in drought frequency, along with increasing sociopolitical competition between

city-states, and nobles, were hugely influential in the eventual “collapse” (Iannone 2013: 60). In

addition, deforestation within the Maya Lowlands is likely to have increased the frequency of drought,

by increasing the average ambient temperature and reducing the amount of moisture in the air (Iannone

2013: 65).

The causes for the collapse of the ancient Maya civilization are based in a complicated

interaction between the differing city-states, and their environment. The society progressed to a very

highly specialized point, and after reaching critical mass, collapsed under the pressures of drought and

a lack of resources, caused by the very efforts to increase complexity, occurring through human caused

desertification.

10Analysis and Criticism

In the book “in Defense of the Land Ethic” by Baird Callicott, the author states that:

Today we are witnessing the painful birth of a human super community, global in scope.

Modern transportation and communication technologies, international economic

interdependencies, international economic entities, and nuclear arms have brought into being a

“global village” (Callicott 1989: 81).

This being the case, environmental studies of societies in ancient history could offer some

information of great importance, for example how human beings have historically reacted to

environmental changes, and what caused negative outcomes. In the case of the Maya the study

discusses how social influences, and desertification could have worsened drought conditions,

eventually leading to the final “collapse” of the society in question. What this approach might not offer,

and might be a considerable criticism, is that it fails to be able to take into account the importance of

scale.

Small societies, which are based on direct or, domestic-scale culture transmission have a

greater ability to duplicate themselves, and reproduce quickly (Bodley 2012: 37). In essence they are

flexible, easily repeated through direct transmission, and have a higher amount of resilience when it

comes to environmental, or climate changes. They can also practice democratic decision making in

ways that become impossible in a larger society (Bodley 2012: 37). This context of direct democratic

participation can broken down into the idea of investment, when ones voice is directly heard, and is

considered a large contribution to the group decision, it makes sense that there would be more stability

when it comes to later outcomes. Indirect democracies, as are necessary in large societies lose this

effect, as shown by low voting numbers and lack of general participation, according to the article

11

“Does Who Votes Matter? Income Bias in Voter Turnout and Economic Inequality in the American

States from 1980 to 2010” by author James Avery:

While the economically advantaged enjoy resources available to other citizens like voting, they

can also seek influence by contributing money to interest groups and political campaigns. Low-

income Americans, however, must seek influence in politics through methods that do not

require significant amounts of money, such as through voting and the activities of labor unions

(2015: 955).

Larger societies are inflexible, and are less able to reproduce themselves, the more complex a

society becomes, the harder it is to maintain itself, larger societies are not physically the same as

smaller societies, influencing everything from social structure, function, and adaption (Bodley 2012:

38). Cross-cultural research shows that human settlement density actually decreases the larger a

society becomes, and cover more land in total than they otherwise would in smaller societies (Bodley

2012: 39). This is shown in action by how the Maya society grew greatly in complexity, creating more

nobles, and more cities, losing centralized administration, which in combination with the

desertification caused a worsening of the normal drought conditions, such that the society was unable

to maintain itself.

Comparing this idea to the earlier concept of resilience, our “global village” has created a

situation which is very likely untenable, and places not just the rest of the planet at risk, but humanity

itself. In our effort to gain connection, and wealth, it seems that we might have crossed a point of

stability to which our ancestors clung tightly. Becoming, “one society” has been a dream of human

beings for time eternal, discussed as if it would end all the problems that faced us individually. Though

it seems in reality that we have through our desire for more progress, reached a point where we

12

endanger our very lives. Explained by Bodley in the work, “Anthropology and Contemporary Human

Problems,”

In its most basic sense, the environmental crisis is a deterioration of environmental quality with

a corresponding reduction in carrying capacity due to human intervention in natural processes.

At the present, given the existing global social order, we are clearly running up against basic

limits to the earth's ability to supply the resources we consume at the same time to absorb our

industrial byproducts. (2012: 19)

We are using resources faster than they can be replaced, and forever attempting to expand on

the social progresses that have created great swaths of wealth inequality, and environmental

degradation, for the benefit of the few and the powerful. Taking this into account, the authors attempt

to extend the sociological and environmental causes of the collapse of the ancient Maya culture would

not be as informative as one might hope. It gives us a baseline of comparison, but does not come close

to providing a basis for the sheer amount of damage that has already been done, and the changes that

are necessary if human beings are to be able to try an assure a stable future. Collectively, would need

to make a conceptual leap forward in terms of magnitude, if it is in fact the case that we live in a

globalized society and have to in some way come to understand the actual position of the “global

village” in terms of how to try and change potentially disastrous outcomes.

As it stands, the current “global village” is based on the idea of commercialization, the process

of capital accumulation as being the primary objective of life, it produces huge amounts of inequality

in that small numbers of people do everything in their power to get maximum monetary returns, to the

determent of many other human beings, and the environment (Bodley 2012: 17) Individual households

may flourish, and gain impossible wealth, but millions may be impoverished by their decisions,

minimizing the importance of vast swaths of human beings to nothing more than consumers, and

possible minimum wage workers (Bodley 2012: 18).

13

One method that might be useful to attempt to make this leap of scale would be to apply the

“Dynamic Model” as previously discussed. By taking the tools offered in the smaller scale, we might

gain a better idea of how severe the situation is, and what state our society is currently in. This model

breaks down the cycles that human societies take, and with it we could have a better idea of where the

“global village” is heading, and attempt to make decisions accordingly.

If one applies the idea that increasing connectedness, loss of centralized administration, and a

proliferation of “titles” or human interests vying for power shows where societies are on this model;

then currently we are in the late K-phase where a society is in a state of degeneration, and is unstable.

The continuing pressures on water consumption caused by a growing world population, urbanization,

and a lack of protecting consumable water and lack of regulatory adherence to human rights law seems

to add some credence to this view (Barlow & Clark 2002:7)

According to this theory, then the globalized village will deteriorate, and we will lapse into a

“collapse” in which resources will become harder to come by an cohesion is lost. If this does occur

due to the increasing frequency of natural disasters, the Maya may teach us something of differing

groups potential fates. The very elite would have a hard time maintaining social control if water

becomes to rare of a resource, the idea of capitalism obviously failing to keep up with the advancing

environmental changes impacting peoples lives. The very wealthy, and powerful might well be able to

avoid the consequences of many of these impacts, but long term their power is built on a system that

demands the input of millions of people (Bodley 2012: 19).

As in the case with the Maya, those who have access to their own land, and can produce their

own goods, might weather this storm when it occurs, but that would depend on the availability of

water, and it people can sufficiently grow their own food. Within the “planetary model” of

globalization the “Dynamic Model” could offer something of a bridge to the criticized science of

climate studies (Haenn & Wilk 2006: 408).

14

This would be possible due to the model necessarily taking into account the differing positions

of people, and nations, within the “global village”. One nation who produces very little of the worlds

waste, and causes very little of the climate change that is occurring, would not be held to the same

standard as a nation that consumes the most resources. The technocratic model of Climate change holds

that one centralized system will predict the “correct outcomes” and then all individuals, governments,

and other bodies will align with those decisions (Haenn & Wilk 2006: 409).

This model has the same basic problem as the first, in that it assumes that there is no positional

difference between those who will be influenced by the decision. To be put simply, it is one thing to

tell a very wealthy person to lower their rate of consumption of water, it is another to say that to a

farmer who is doing everything they can to feed their family. To hold both groups to the same standard

denies that one has benefited from the economic system of elite control, and another has suffered the

worst consequences for others decisions (Haenn & Wilk 2006: 409).

Conclusion and Recommendations

In light of the basic issue being that our society has become globalized, there might be some

important lessons to consider. The example of the Maya has shown how there was a great deal of strife

in the continual competition for resources, and prestige, that when combined with the desertification

made their traditional homes natural drought sequences stronger than the society could withstand.

It seems to outline a consistent problem that occurs for human beings, in that we work to

complicate and advance our societies, thus adjusting our needs, and desires, upwards. Driving

ourselves towards a seemingly never ending obsession with gaining more of what is useless, to the

detriment of what is meaningful, and has purpose.

The ultimate representation of his idea being the contemporary capitalist globalized system of

15

commerce, an effort to sell everything, to everyone, everywhere. No venture could be more descriptive

of attempting to get the benefits of one place, to spread to every other, and yet the costs are becoming

more and more dangerous, as extreme climate events start to change our very interactions with the

world.

The historical facts shown in the Maya case, when compared with the contemporary climate

change that is happening all over the world speaks to trying to create strong alternative social routes.

That the best course of action should be to proliferate as many individualized communities as possible,

who are not reliant on the complex system that seems to exist on nothing more than quicksand. These

routes have natural starting points that have always held power, even if those powers are often

unacknowledged by those with the social, and financial power to form media publications. In the

article “A Popular Environmentalism” By Ruth Soundlings, the author states that:

If any government wishes to know how passionately people feel about their local landscapes,

green spaces and wildlife, they need simply threaten to destroy an iconic place, or remove an

ancient right - as the current government did in their ill-judged attempt to sell off the nation's

woodlands. Politicians from all parties may also wish to reflect on the fact that historically, it

has been the working class who have organised the most effective resistance against such

enclosures. The mass trespasses onto the moors and mountains of the Peak District - protests

that ultimately led to the creation of the National Parks - were carried out by industrial workers

from nearby towns and cities, for example, not by middle-class tree-huggers.

Having small communities that use a minimum of resources, and rely on transmission of

information on the local level would be a start, and one can see the desire for this type of life-style in

the ongoing-community experiments across the United States (Gilbert 2014). Working class people,

those who are capable of taking hard work to heart, would have a great deal of sway if they bought into

16

the idea of having “small villages” again. What large-scale benefits have they had in the corporate

system? As previously discussed, the representation of their voting has been minimized through

constant wealth gathering at the very top, and their debts have built to such a point that investment in

the system seems almost ludicrous. For such people, the idea of going back to a simpler time, and

living with less pressure in the globalized marketplace might have a great deal of sway. What is to hold

them to the system that refuses to share its benefits?

In fact, that is the only way the general population would have the sheer numbers to overwhelm

the elite driven consumerist society that we live within. When the middle, and lower classes have had

enough of serving the very rich, those who hold the sociopolitical power, there could be a chance to

transform into something different, and more sustainable in the long term.

That by setting limits on what they want, they in turn give more than a future to their children,

but even just for themselves. Potentially choosing our own “Hiatus”, where rather than collapsing into

total social destruction, there could be a differing form of society that takes the better parts of

corporate development, and adjusts them to fit the needs of the earth, and for the benefit of human

beings. Taking the best parts, for example the free access of knowledge on the internet, and connecting

it with people not having huge homes that take up thousands of square feet, instead living next to a

garden that they till for their vegetables. Even really encouraging children, and their parents, to learn

how to keep chickens could change a whole industry towards a more sustainable outcome that is not

reliant on outside intervention.

The most ironic idea that this research has really brought forward is that human beings do not

need to live in a globalized world, that we really might be better off living in small homes, with few

conveniences, so that we might have a future to look forward to at all. It would benefit individuals to

take to heart the idea that their food should come from the ground, near them, and that their homes

need not be as large as possible.

17

I think the most likely action is something that is occurring already in low amounts, people

attempting to “simplify” their lives so that they consume as little as possible. Using glass jars, not

buying bottled water, refusing to buy anything a box. These small actions are the pulse of the people,

things that they do because they want the world to be a better place, such sentiments are not

meaningless.

Expansion of livestock agriculture is the leading cause for desertification in South America, and

livestock is the largest anthropocentric use for land world-wide (Steinfield 2006: XX). So, larger

numbers of people turning towards vegetarianism in order to minimize the amount of meat being

eaten, can vastly help the effort of conserving resources by feeding grains to human beings, rather than

to meat animals ( Steinfeld 2006:XX)

Additionally, the growing local food movements show that commercialization has it's critics,

and many people are no longer content to accept the aim of human life being the accumulation of

wealth. There is little financial benefit to growing your own food, but the joy in doing so, and the

pleasure of eating something ripened in the sun, are experiences that human beings are realizing have

significantly more worth than previously thought possible.

Within the philosophical tradition, the “Land Ethic” as described by Callicott offers a unique

perspective worthy of consideration in light of these previously mentioned goals:

The land ethic, happily, implies neither inhumane or inhuman consequences....The land ethic

may, however, as with any new accretion, demand choices which affect, in turn, the demands of

the more interior social-ethical circles. Taxes and the military draft may conflict with family-

level obligations. While the land ethic, certainly, does not cancel human morality, neither does

it leave it unaffected (1989: 93-94).

It will be on us, individual human beings, to carve out a life that does not support the capitalist

system, or at least provide enough adaptability for ourselves that we could survive if such a system fell

18

a part due to a severe financial down-turn, or other political movement which we would have no

control.

The methods of doing so are surprisingly very simple, learning how to farm yourself, how to

relate and work with your neighbors to solve problems, building local communities that do not rely

overly on technology. Teaching children to treasure the natural world, and most importantly, learning

that happiness is accepting that “less” might just be less weight for you to carry around, that not having

so much is not a curse, or a burden. And that if we all have a bit, that means there would be no one who

had nothing at all. This is a radical idea to suggest in a capitalist society, that constantly demands that

we find our happiness in the outside, to suggest that we can choose to be happy without having many

belongings, or any prestige, is for the powerful to lose their ability to control the masses (Bodley 2012:

265).

These steps are how you put the “Land Ethic” on the ground, it is not the overly complicated

explanations of why people should care about the earth, but simply allowing them to express their

natural desire to be in nature. Children think flowers are beautiful without being told, and they laugh

when they see any animal at all, even if adults have been taught not to care, that is not our natural

inclination. If we can just sustain that, and nurture it, rather than demanding that our children meet the

expectations of a society that does not value them, and sees them only as a minimum wage commodity

to be use until they are no longer productive.

Encouraging this instinct in ourselves, to be content, despite what challenges we might face,

and what society might say is our failure, is necessary if humanity on the whole has any hope of

transforming itself into a less risk-prone form. The “Hiatus” of the Maya is somewhat of an ill fitting

idea, this likely was not intentionally chosen by the people it involved, and had a lot to do with

sociological warfare and an unsteady city state. But as an idea, the suspension of our obsession with

material gain might offer benefits that we had never considered before. For a time, such as a few

19

generations, would this really be so bad? To want to possess not corporate produced goods, but the

goods of life, such as companionship, safety, well-being, a family that you know will have enough

water to quench their thirst. These are things that we offer up in order to gain objects that we do not

need, ...the question I ask, is this. Is the trade worth it? Why can't we consider something else,

considering all the violence done to the earth, people, and our happiness in the name of profit?

Such ideas have always occurred to us, though for the most part I do not suggest the shrinking

of our homes, our cars, our very lives for the purpose of mere simplicity, but because it is the best

chance we have at surviving long term. By consuming less, there will be more to go around, and that

idea seems to me one that should at least be offered. If the alternative is a never-ending

commercialization of life, and of society, ending in abject poverty for millions upon millions of people,

with no access to water, food, or safety, what will it have all been worth? What will all the supposed

“progress” be worth?

When we demand that the goods of society not be given to just those who have much, and

refuse to cooperate with those who sustain such a system, then environmentalism could be driven not

by the elite, but by the needs of humanity as a whole. How this will look, and what it will require is

something of a mystery, in that a world wide participatory democracy is not possible, we cannot all be

professional voters. What might be more likely is that people are forced to reconsider what is the right

kind of life for them to be living, and what they can do to minimize the amount of consumption in

which they participate. The previously mentioned methods are just some basic ideas, there will of

course be specific circumstances that lead to new ideas I cannot begin to outline here; but I do think the

overarching message will be that humans need to simplify their lives, and their wants, if there is to be

any hope of safety and well-being for the earth, and for us.

Taking into account the existing tendency of locked in colonialism in which there are unequal

exchanges with the industrialized core of our planet (Bodley 2012: 265). This, in the future will

20

become more, and more necessary, and it is likely that as environmental conditions deteriorate over

time, the lower and middle classes will not participate within the current system of capitalist “perpetual

growth” (Bodley 2012: 19). They can, and will demand that the “80-20” distribution be limited, so as

to not cause the negative effects of power concentration, and poor over-all decision making for the

group (Bodley 2012: 19).

References

Avery, J. M. (2015). Does Who Votes Matter? Income Bias in Voter Turnout and Economic Inequality

in the American States from 1980 to 2010. Political Behavior Polit Behav, 37(4), 955-976.

doi:10.1007/s11109-015-9302-z

Barlow, M., & Clarke, T. (2002). Blue gold: The fight to stop the corporate theft of the world's water.

New York: New Press.

Bodley, John H. 2012. Anthropology and Contemporary Human Problems (6th edition). Altamira Press:

Lanham, MD.

Callicott, J. B. (1989). In defense of the land ethic: Essays in environmental philosophy. Albany, NY:

State University of New York Press.

Gilbert, K. (n.d.). Communes still thrive decades after the '60s, but economy is a bummer, man.

Retrieved April 12, 2016, from http://america.aljazeera.com/multimedia/2014/12/communes-still-

thrivedecadesafterthe60sbuteconomyisabummerman.html

Iannone, G. (2013). The Great Maya Droughts in Cultural Context : Case Studies in Resilience and

Vulnerability. Boulder, Colorado: University Press of Colorado.

https://libproxy.library.unt.edu:9443/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=712762&scope=site&ebv=EB&ppid=pp_76

Ingram, S. E., & Hunt, R. C. (2015). Traditional arid lands agriculture: Understanding the past for the

future. Tuson: University of Arizona Press.

Hannen, Nora and Wilk, R.(editors), 2006. The Environment in Anthropology: A Reader in Ecology,

Culture, and Sustainable Living. New York University Press: New York, NY.

Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., & Haan, C. (2006).Livestock's long

shadow: Environmental issues and options. Rome: FAO.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/climatechange/doc/FAO%20report%20executive%20summary.pdf