Using Human History as a guide Could Our Present Civilization Fall Into a New Dark Age?

[sknox]

>Getting society back on its feet again

This is key, I think. The natural impulse for humans after a disaster is to "return to normal" in some fashion. This is well documented with floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. There's often great optimism and determination in the immediate wake.

After a while--years--the reality is far different. Lots of evidence of depression. Many in the younger generation move away. The aid that had poured in for the first year or two dries up. Few communities have "bounced back" twenty years later.

Now, that arc assumes there's "normal" society all around the catastrophe, making it easier for young folk to move out and providing a painful example for those who stay. If the catastrophe is wider, the human dynamic gets more interesting. I think there would still be a sense of determination, or at least resignation (On the Beach, Forge of God, Childhood's End), in the aftermath and that this would erode over time. New communities would form and these would be rather more isolated than now. I can see varying degrees of success in these communities, especially in the first two generations. But overall, I believe people would come to understand there was no going back, no recovering. There would only be going forward into a new sort of world.

They might still speak in terms of recovering. A frequent phrase in the central Middle Ages was restoratio et renovatio--restore and renew. Kings and such still used much of the old Roman vocabulary, but in new ways. They still looked to the ancients as exemplars. Curiously, the fifteenth century was far more enamored of ancient Rome and Greece than was the seventh or eleventh. I could see a post-apocalyptic world doing much the same, cherry-picking the past and profoundly misunderstanding it.

At least in the Middle Ages, they had a common past on which to draw. Our post-modern survivors would, in any surviving library, have access to the entire planet's past. It would be interesting to see how knowledge pre-apocalypse China or Africa might influence post-apocalypse Europe or India.

 

[Montero]

It would be interesting to study the aftermath of the Medieval black death (not the 17th century one). I remember fragments that it was a game changer because a 1/3 of the population died - so there was a big labour shortage. In England this made for some big social changes as peasants were suddenly a valuable commodity. Not necessarily universally well treated, but the brighter landowners made conditions more welcoming to attract more labour. The historians here probably know more about this.

 

[BAYLOR]

It would be interesting to study the aftermath of the Medieval black death (not the 17th century one). I remember fragments that it was a game changer because a 1/3 of the population died - so there was a big labour shortage. In England this made for some big social changes as peasants were suddenly a valuable commodity. Not necessarily universally well treated, but the brighter landowners made conditions more welcoming to attract more labour. The historians here probably know more about this.

It pretty much ended Serfdom.

 

[Toby Frost]

Someone (Harry Harrison?) once said that it would be reasonably simple to get a country back to the level of the 19th century in the right circumstances, but nearly impossible to get back to the 20th. In The Day of the Triffids, John Wyndham makes the point that you need the basics to work properly and deliver in the short-term (to keep everyone alive) before you can support people whose work is geared towards long-term aims (such as scientists).

 

[Justin Swanton]

One aspect worth considering is whether the catastrophe is natural or man-made. Natural catastrophes in the past that decimated the population had surprisingly little effect on human civilisation: the recurring bouts of Yersinia pestis from Justinian to the Black Death killed millions of people but societal structures remained intact and often grew in sophistication.

Man-made catastrophes however are a different story. The collapse of the Western Roman Empire was a paralysis of political and military command, when generals were pitted against emperors in an ongoing cold war that lasted until the end of the West, making the Western Empire incapable of responding effectively to the barbarian threats. The barbarians by and large had no intention of destroying the empire but just wanted their slice of its wealth, which they got with relatively little fuss. Problem is that they didn't know how to maintain the imperial system, so its infrastructure gradually frayed away. One can see exactly the same thing in African states. I grew up in Zimbabwe when it was Rhodesia. I visited my old junior school, Nettleton, which had been built on the site of an old RAF airfield (the hangar had been converted into the school hall). When I returned the tennis court had rotted away, the swimming pool was empty, and the running track had lost its grass, but everything else, down to the school rules and schedules on the noticeboard, was exactly the same.

I would put my money on a future catastrophe being man-made. It could be of two kinds: in the first scenario fossil fuels run out in the second half of this century and people discover that nothing can replace them. Green energy is cute, but it requires such a massive infrastructure for such relatively little power output that it is not self-sustaining - and the evidence that green energy is a dead end is growing.

The second scenario has a drastic breakdown of confidence in the current political system. The Western Empire went to the wall because the people had absolutely no say in the political system and were passive onlookers, whilst those who did have a say were in it for themselves, having no sense of commitment to keeping the Empire afloat - or rather they may have had some sense of commitment but their primary goal was self-preservation and self-aggrandizement, in that order. They were quite prepared to sacrifice the well-being of the state if that furthered their own ends and by the time they realised the state was going to the wall it was too late.

I see something similar happening today: Western democracy works on live-and-let-live: you do your thing and I'll do mine, and we won't bother each other. But that only works if everyone has the same fundamental moral code - which underpins the laws - in common. Since live-and-let-live makes it impossible to defend any moral code it gradually fades away, and people eventually discover they have nothing in common that can act as a social glue. They lose faith in the system which is supposed to hold society together and begin to turn against each other, and the game is on.

In both of these scenarios the collapse of civilisation takes a little time: there is a downward slide punctuated by attempts to restore things which may result in a temporary improvement, inevitably followed by a further slide, and so on. A few decades to a century or so. What is abundantly clear is that there is no fixing it: people die in millions as the ongoing decay explodes in one crisis after another, and the whole thing only stops when the infrastructure finally stabilises at the pre-industrial levels or when a new political system arises from the ashes of the old. The new system will naturally be far more authoritarian as it has to impose order on chaos. 'Freedom of speech', 'human rights' and all the rest become treason, severely punished. A code of conduct is imposed and woe to anyone who objects to it. Buuuuut.....humanity has survived.

 

[Don]

It pretty much ended Serfdom.

Workers held real power for a brief period. At least until the Lord Mayor of the the world's richest square mile put them back into their place.

Peasants' Revolt - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Labourers could charge more for their work and, in the consequent competition for labour, wages were driven sharply upwards. In turn, the profits of landowners were eroded. The trading, commercial and financial networks in the towns disintegrated.

The authorities responded to the chaos with emergency legislation; the Ordinance of Labourers was passed in 1349, and the Statute of Labourers in 1351. These attempted to fix wages at pre-plague levels, making it a crime to refuse work or to break an existing contract, imposing fines on those who transgressed.

 

[BAYLOR]

Workers held real power for a brief period. At least until the Lord Mayor of the the world's richest square mile put them back into their place.

The Peasants got sick of the Status quo.

 

[.matthew.]

I liked -K2-s input on the survival side of things but people seem to have ignored the human factor in all this.

As Joshua mentioned, there are plans in place for emergencies (albeit many that assume outside help will be coming). So naturally, everyone will pretty much accept local rule from bureaucrats or other authority figures in the short-term and those who take power are often reluctant to give it up. Now if the national government stepped in they would be all humble and resume their positions as though nothing happened, but how many do you think would call for elections if they were left alone for months or years?

Difficult decisions would have to be made;
"That farm should be taken for the good of the community. The produce now belongs to the people. Of course, we'll pay you when everything is back to normal."
"We can't accept any refugees, we don't have enough food for ourselves. We don't care that they're family."
"Protesting doesn't help anyone. In fact, it hurts the recovery efforts so you'll be punished if you do."
"We can't feed everyone? Who is the least valuable? Us? No, we're necessary to maintain order. How about the elderly?"
"Your child will die without antibiotics? We're sorry, but our supply has nearly run out and we need to save some for... emergencies."

There will be order, of that I have no doubt. After the chaos has subsided and the strong are forcing obedience. We see the same thing even with basic riots, so it'd be much worse when everyone feels threatened and people are being told their families will starve.

Now we'd begin to see a return to an almost feudal society. How would your suffering town respond if another nearby demanded you send them food or other supplies? Maybe they have the 'legal' right to do so by the measure of being the official authority, but that won't make people turn over their last meals.

Maybe that would lead to caravans sent out to collect what's 'owed', which would lead to skirmishes and raids, possibly even small scale war. Many places would be abandoned to chaos or local rule by any of the national government that survived unless they had the resources to keep them under control. Let's not forget the simmering tensions that exist even in unified nations between different regions, many of whom would whip their people into an independence fervour.

I've run out of time to finish this, so I'll jump onto skills.

Farming will be taught quickly and will be considered important. Other skills not so much as there won't be that much need for them - we have plenty of homes and furniture to last for generations, but food and water are what will cause the problems.

Many studies will be pointless and people who live through all this would be shoehorned into only a few occupations, mostly manual labour.

 

[sknox]

The Black Death emphatically did not end serfdom. Serfdom as an institution increased after the Black Death in Poland, Hungary, Russia and other lands east of the Elbe River. It was already in decline in the West. There's some evidence the plague may have accelerated the process, but effects were so varied and localized that it's difficult to draw a straight line of cause and effect.

As for the Peasant Revolt in England, that was a reaction to the poll tax and was just one of many such revolts as nobles--especially in France and England--became increasingly demanding and increasingly effective in levying taxes. For structural change, look more to the cities than to the countryside.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

but effects were so varied and localized that it's difficult to draw a straight line of cause and effect.

That is the situation in a nutshell. There are no straight lines in the interactions. They swirl around with localized eddy currents, long shots streak out like lightning, stuff lurches, jumps, falls by the way side, sometimes succeeds, sends out ripples that hit or die out or just get ignored. All this is happening in a wave front of time that has no solid dividing line between past and future. It has places lagging the present time, other sections are leading the present time, and the present time front line is wobbling back and forth and up and down, left and right, which ends up marking time as well as progressing through time or regressing.

 

[.matthew.]

The Black Death emphatically did not end serfdom.

Wasn't there some law passed to increase the nobles control after peasants started trying to leverage the scarcity?

 

[AE35Unit]

Quite easily I think

 

[sknox]

Wasn't there some law passed to increase the nobles control after peasants started trying to leverage the scarcity?

I'm guessing you mean in England. I'm not sure what you mean by increasing control. There were attempts at wage controls, and not only in England, and that was in part a reaction to the population losses. The attempts did not work.

It's worth pointing out that the Peasant Revolt in England came in 1381. The Ciompi Revolt in Florence came around the same time. That's a full 35 years after the Black Death, though only twenty or so after the second outbreak in 1360. The plague recurred throughout the later 1300s, both before and after manifestations of civil unrest.

 

[.matthew.]

Yup, poorly worded there. I looked it up and I meant the Ordinance of Labourers 1349 which was then followed by the Statute of Labourers in 1351 to enforce the ordinance. Apparently it was pretty much a failure in that regard but it was set out to amongst other things, freeze wages, prices of goods, and prevent poaching of other nobles workers.

 

[Montero]

Many studies will be pointless and people who live through all this would be shoehorned into only a few occupations, mostly manual labour.

And those who are entertaining, whether story tellers, singers, tumblers - will have just a little extra clout. Travelling entertainers go way back - they are the ones with more record of them. So some studies will have their uses.......

 

[MikeAnderson]

The way technology has advance all-around, I do not see another Dark Age happening, barring a massive disaster. And even then, with the sheer volume of the human population alone ensures it would not be a long depressive era. However, what I am seeing is a trend with traditional powers making way for a new generation. Let's face it...

-The U.S. and U.K. are in massive declines, and most of the traditional European powers, with the exception of Germany, are non-factors.
-The Russian and Chinese systems are too bloated, and rely too heavily on either force or mass industrial output at the expense of conservation and fiscal responsibility to sustain their models.
-Brazil is probably going to literally burn itself out. They're torching their greatest resource by the square kilometer. I see that country becoming a total disaster in less than 30 years, a No Man's Land the rate they're going.

No, what I see is an era of "smaller is better" powers. look at some of the countries on the rise...

-South Korea, Nigeria, Poland, South Africa.

Smaller, less concerned with external expansion than internal development, do not butt their noses into world affairs. Basically, they're implementing the Swiss model, and it's starting to work. Especially Korea; that nation has evolved quickly, and is become a force.

I see an era of less is more. Not a global Dark Age; merely a massive paradigm shift.

 

[.matthew.]

Any noticable blanks here are probably from when I realised it was veering into the political, hopefully I got it all out

-The Russian and Chinese systems are too bloated, and rely too heavily on either force or mass industrial output at the expense of conservation and fiscal responsibility to sustain their models.

Not going to speak for Russia, but China is probably in one of the best places in terms of survival. First off they have massive amounts of agricultural land and a ridiculous amount of industrial capacity that would allow them to eat and rebuild, plus like 1.5 billion people... They would have far less trouble dealing with internal unrest than the rest of the world. Remember as well that they've had this total control since the communist party ousted the last government and that was pre 'modern' technology like the internet.

-South Korea, Nigeria, Poland, South Africa.

South Korea has benefitted from massive external subsidies given to counter the threat of the north. Also, without the threat of other powers intervening, you can safely assume there would be a conflict there.

Poland gets a good deal of their development from ex-pats who work elsewhere and then bring the money back a few years later. I've worked with several Polish people who have gone on to do that and many more with that stated intention.

Not too sure about Nigeria or South Africa though, so you may be right about them

Basically, they're implementing the Swiss model, and it's starting to work.

The Swiss model is to have the most heavily fortified country on earth with assault weapons in nearly every home. Plus they handle everybody elses dirty money and have historically pandered to outside threats.

I see an era of less is more. Not a global Dark Age; merely a massive paradigm shift.

I agree with that, but you also have to remember that almost all the technology we rely on, relies on a great deal of rare earth metals that are mined all over the world. Depending on the disaster, we may see access to these things disappear, along with noticeable shortages of everything from food to everything else.

But... to answer the main question of the thread, I think you're right and it wouldn't be a dark age (as I've argued in another thread). There is simply too much knowledge scattered around for us ever to get too far backwards. We may suffer greatly and be knocked back to a less silicon-based society but most places would survive.

 

[AE35Unit]

With the way things are here in England at least, the government continuing to be out of touch with the lives of most people (especially us up north), and with tighter restrictions enforced there could be rioting. Marshall law could be put in place. And very quickly things could descend into chaos, ultimately resulting in a collapse of society. Also if some terrorist organisation were to take it upon themselves to destroy the comms satellites we could easily be plunged into a middle age type form of existence.

 

[Narkalui]

I started trying to read this thread from the beginning and on page 4 I 'Good Griefed' and skipped to the end. A lot of interesting ideas (and a few scary ones - I'll mention no names).

Not sure if the point has been made yet on the subject of barter versus continued use of currency in post apocalyptic environment: if before The Fall we've adopted a cashless economy and we're only using credit/debit cards, then after The Fall, it's definitely heading towards barter...

 

[-K2-]

Not sure if the point has been made yet on the subject of barter versus continued use of currency in post apocalyptic environment: if before The Fall we've adopted a cashless economy and we're only using credit/debit cards, then after The Fall, it's definitely heading towards barter...

I agree 100%. In fact, day 1 no plastic/checks. And soon enough folks will realize cash means nothing. Water/food/bullets, in that order, will become the standard currency. Everything else including services, all barter and trade.

As silly as it may sound, a great business will be using a well drilling truck (gas powered) to punch a well in, with the simple addition of a hand pump or windmill. Then all you have to do is defend it and not get too greedy.

K2