 |
| The statues of Rapa Nui on Easter
Island are called moai in the Rapanui language.
In the totem tradition of some other Polynesian
cultures to honor ancestors and display strength and
wealth, statues were carved from the island's lava
stone between 900 A.D. and around 1500 A. D. Approximately
half of the total of 887 statues documented to date
still remain in the immediate vicinity of Rano Raraku,
the quarry in which they were produced. The statues
were transported and erected with the leverage help
of the island's once abundant tall palm trees which
were eventually all cut down. Photograph ©
Cliff Wassman. |
 |
| The west coast of Chile is 2,300
miles to the east and Polynesia's Pitcairn Islands
are 1,300 miles to the west. |
 |
| Easter Island is triangular-shaped
and was created entirely from three volcanic eruptions
over the past few million years. The entire island
is only 9 miles long north to south, 1,670 feet high
and covers only 66 square miles. |
February 26, 2005 Los Angeles, California
- Among earth mysteries, some of the greatest are the
haunting remains of past civilizations such as the Mayan
pyramids of Mexico and Central America; the elaborate,
deserted temples of Angkor Wat in Cambodia; and the huge
and heavy stone statues on remote Easter Island, 2300
miles west of Chile' in South America. The island and
its strange statues were not discovered until Easter Day
on April 5, 1722 by a Dutch explorer named Jacob Roggeveen.
Like all subsequent visitors, Roggeveen was puzzled about
how the natives there had erected the large lava rock
statues, one as tall as 39 feet. And why?
Today after years of study by archaeologists,
anthropologists, historians and geographers such as Jared
Diamond, Professor of Geography at UCLA in Los Angeles,
it appears that Easter Islanders destroyed themselves
by cutting down all the many trees that originally grew
on the island. Perhaps the natives appealed to the gods
through the stone statues to restore the very land and
food supply they were destroying in their unconscious
ignorance. Pulitzer Prize-winning author and professor,
Dr. Jared Diamond, was so stunned by what he learned about
Easter Island that he focused an entire large chapter
on the island's deterioration and extinctions in his latest
book: Collapse, How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.
(The 575-page book also examines many other failed human
cultures, past and present.)
 |
| Treeless Easter Island once was
covered with tall palm forests, woody bushes and 25
nesting seabird species. But after all the trees
were cut down to transport and erect the stone statues,
the society collapsed. © Martin Gray photo |
Dr. Diamond writes: "No other
site that I have visited made such a ghostly impression
on me as Rano Raraku, the rock quarry on Easter Island
where its famous gigantic stone statues were carved. To
begin with, the island is the most remote habitable scrap
of land in the world. The nearest lands are the coast
of Chile 2,300 miles to the east and Polynesia's Pitcairn
Islands 1,300 miles to the west."
Today, Easter Island is governed by Chile
in South America. But modern DNA analysis of 12 skeletons
found on Easter Island proved the Easter Island natives
were Polynesian. Dr. Diamond concludes that Easter Island
is "the closest approximation that we have to an
ecological disaster unfolding in complete isolation."
Easter Island is a triangular-shaped island
made entirely from three volcanic eruptions over the past
few million years. The entire island is only 9 miles long
north to south, is 1,670 feet high and covers only 66
square miles. Even the surrounding Pacific Ocean is too
cold in temperature to sustain many fish species. There
isn't much fresh water and the wind blows so steadily
that the soil dries out. The only way to farm is to add
rocks to dirt to retain moisture.
Yet, around 900 A.D., some people from
Polynesia islands arrived by boat and found a subtropical
forest of tall palm trees, woody bushes and at least 25
nesting seabird species which once made the island the
"richest breeding site in all of Polynesia and probably
in the whole Pacific." Eventually, as many as 20,000
to 30,000 people might have lived on Easter Island.
But only a few centuries later around
1500, there were no more birds, no more trees, and the
natives were eating each other in cannibalism amid the
tall stone statues produced by competing Easter Island
political powers who wanted the biggest and best tributes
to the ancestors and gods. One of the unfinished statues
in the Rano Raraku quarry was 66 feet tall and weighed
an estimated 300 tons.
 |
Over time, the statues became
more elaborate with large, mysterious head dresses.
Photograph © Cliff Wassman. |
The very sad irony is that the carving
of the stone statues in the volcanic quarries required
long wooden tree trunks to lift and transport the statues.
The tall palms were the answer. Over time, like uncontrollable
dominoes falling, when all the trees that had provided
shade, protection and holding the fragile, dry soil together
were all cut down - the birds disappeared along with the
other few animals that could be eaten and the rock gardens
failed. The islanders had no wood left to build boats
that could sail to other lands for escape. After smallpox
came ashore with visitors in the late 1700s to 1800s,
the disease killed so many natives that by 1872, there
were only 111 Easter islanders left. It was the complete
collapse of a once-thriving society.
Could Easter Island-like Collapse Happen
to U. S. and Europe?
The arrogance of political leaders, who
competed by building the statues, accelerated the extinction
of the trees and the collapse. Could the same collapse
and extinctions happen in the United States and Europe?
Prof. Diamond says there is a 50/50 chance
the answer is yes. Already around the world, several countries
such as Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, Afghanistan and Iraq have
already collapsed. America and Europe have the huge challenge
of propping up governments in an effort to provide more
political and economic stability in the world. Iraq alone
has so far cost the United States taxpayers $280 billion,
plus more than a thousand military lives.
Prof. Diamond told me this week, "If
six more countries blow up into strife, that requires
double the number of troops that we've got. Six more countries
blowing up the world can't cope with it."
Interview:
Jared Diamond, Ph.D., Prof. of Geography
University of California - Los Angeles (UCLA)
Professor Diamond: "In the
past, societies that had not many people and with rather
simple technology still managed to destroy their environments.
For example, Easter Island with maybe 20,000 people with
just stone and wooden tools they did manage to deforest
the island and so doing, they destroyed their society.
It took them 850 years to do it. Today, though, (on the
Earth), we don't have 20,000 people. We have 6.5 billion
and we have bulldozers and nuclear power, so we're far
more people and far more potent and destructive technology.
We can destroy our environment much faster than the Easter
Islanders. In fact, there are many parts of the world
that have gotten de-forested within half a dozen years,
or within a few decades. That's what makes our present
situation serious."
Linda Moulton Howe (LMH): I THINK
I WAS STRUCK AT THE END OF YOUR BOOK WITH FEELING FOR
THE FIRST TIME THAT EVEN IF THE UNITED STATES AND EUROPE
ARE STRONG AND VIGOROUS IN TERMS OF SOCIETY AND ECONOMICS
RIGHT NOW, THAT ALL OF THE PROBLEMS WE ARE IN ONE SENSE
CAUSING WITH POLLUTION. YOU MADE THE POINT OF THE INUIT
NATIVES OF THE ARCTIC HAVING THE HIGHEST BLOOD LEVELS
OF TOXIC CHEMICALS SUCH AS MERCURY COMING FROM OUR INDUSTRY
THE REST OF THE WORLD COULD START COLLAPSING AND
LIKE DOMINOES, IT WOULD LEAVE THE UNITED STATES AND EUROPE
BEING PULLED DOWN.
That's a very serious concern. It has
already been happening. Somalia already collapsed in 1991
and American troops went in there. It did not pull us
down, but it did involve military intervention. Or what
has happened in Afghanistan and Iraq, which are virtually
collapsed governments particularly in the case of
Afghanistan. Those are two countries that blew up and
the result has been 200,000 American troops and $280 billion.
That has not caused our economy to collapse yet, but it's
an enormous drain on our economy. So, the United States
and Europe we can't insulate ourselves. Another
expression is that both the United States and Europe are
getting lots of immigrants from collapsing countries,
both legal and illegal.
LMH: WHEN YOU COMBINE WHAT YOU'VE
JUST SAID WITH WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO US IN OUR COMMITMENTS
IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN, YOU COULD ARGUE ON ONE SIDE THAT
THE ADMINISTRATION IS TRYING TO PREVENT FUTURE COLLAPSES
BY SHORING UP THOSE COUNTRIES BY GETTING RID OF TERRORISTS.
BUT THE ARGUMENT COULD ALSO BE MADE THAT WE MIGHT BE GETTING
INTO A TAR BABY IN WHICH THE MONEY AND COMMITMENT IS GOING
TO WEAKEN US SO MUCH ECONOMICALLY AT A TIME WHEN THE REST
OF THE WORLD COULD ALSO BEGIN TO COLLAPSE FASTER THAN
WE HAD EXPECTED. THAT GETS TO THE QUESTION: WHAT IS YOUR
PERSPECTIVE - LOOKING INTO THE NEAR FUTURE, SAY 10 OR
15 YEARS - ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A REAL POTENTIAL
THAT THE UNITED STATES COULD BEGIN TO COLLAPSE ECONOMICALLY?
Of course, there is a real potential and
lots of people in our government, many congressmen and
senators as well as a large fraction of the American population,
is very concerned about the U. S.'s future both
our power and our economy. The interventions in Iraq and
Afghanistan one can describe it as 'short term'
attempts to solve the problem. They are not attempts to
prevent a problem, but problems arose and they were met
with short term response. But there are literally dozens
of countries out there with the potential to become the
next Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia. It's perfectly obvious
that the U. S. is not rich enough to invest $280 billion
into each of about 25 countries, countries just waiting
to blow up: Nepal, where there was a coup from the top
within the last week; Haiti; Philippines; Indonesia; Solomon
Islands; Rwanda; Burundi. So, the United States is going
to have to get involved in long term problem solving
that is, addressing the underlying problems of environment,
public health and population planning that cause countries
to blow up.
LMH: YET,
THE UNITED STATES HAS NOT JOINED IN EVEN THE KYOTO PROTOCOL
TO TRY TO REDUCE CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS OF WHICH OUR
COUNTRY IS THE GREATEST EMITTER.
That's true. We are one of the two countries
(in First World), along with Australia, that has not signed
the Kyoto Protocol. But there again, it's helpful to remind
ourselves that our federal government is not monolithic.
Our president is opposed to signing the Kyoto Protocol.
But there are many Americans who are deadly serious about
the importance of dealing with climate change. For example,
my wife and kids and I spend part of our summers in Montana.
In the state of Montana which gets water for agriculture
from irrigation the irrigation comes from the snow
pack thanks to global warming and climate change,
the snow pack is melting. Glacier National Park is losing
its glaciers and Montana agriculture, in short order,
is going to be in deep trouble because of climate change.
LMH: RIGHT NOW, THERE DOESN'T SEEM
TO BE A LOT OF MOMENTUM MOVING FORWARD AT LEAST
IN THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION ABOUT TRYING TO SOLVE
SOME MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS IN WHICH CO2 BUILD UP
ON THE PLANET WOULD BE NEAR THE TOP IN TERMS OF CAUSING
GLOBAL WARMING AND ALL OF THE CONSEQUENTIAL ISSUES OF
CHANGING CLIMATE, PERHAPS MORE VIOLENTLY SWINGING EXTREMES
OF CLIMATE, THAT WILL CAUSE GREATER DAMAGE AND MEANS MORE
AND MORE MONEY GOING INTO RECONSTRUCTION, ALL OF IT LIKE
DOMINOES FALLING.
All of what you say is what could make
people pessimistic. And fortunately, there is more to
it than that. Elections are held every four years in the
United States. We've got Congressional elections coming
up in a little less than 2 years. We've got all the state
and local governments. The President's own party is not
monolithically in agreement with his policies. So, the
current policies preferred by the current leadership of
the United States they may not go on forever. I
hope they don't.
LMH: WHY DO YOU THINK THAT GLOBAL
WARMING AND ALL OF THE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES DOES NOT
RISE GLOBALLY ABOVE POLITICS AND BECOME A WORLD PRIORITY
TO SOLVE BECAUSE IT WILL AFFECT EVERYONE?
It's a problem of what is called 'creeping
normalcy.' It's not something that exploded like the Pinatubo
Volcano in the Philippines, nor like September 11, 2001.
[Editor's Note: In June 1991, Pinatubo
Volcano in the Philippines erupted so violently that
more than 5 billion cubic meters of ash and pyroclastic
debris were ejected. Eruption columns were 18 kilometers
wide at the volcano's base and ash rose 30 kilometers
into the sky.
Mount Pinatubo had been dormant for
500 years. Then on July 16, 1990, a magnitude 7.8 earthquake
struck about 60 miles (100 kms.) northeast of Mount
Pinatubo on the island of Luzon in the Philippines.
A year later on June 15, 1991, the volcano exploded
in a massive eruption that ejected more than 5 cubic
kilometers of volcanic material. The ash cloud rose
22 miles (35 kilometers) into the air.
847 people died, 184 were injured, 23
were missing, and more than one million people were
homeless. Hundreds of millions of dollars in private
properties and infrastructure lay in ruins which would
require tens of billions of pesos and several years
to rebuild. For months, the ejected volcanic ash circled
the Earth and caused the world's temperature to fall
by an average of 1 degree Celsius.]
Prof. Diamond: "Instead, the temperatures
get a little warmer and then a little colder and then
warmer and then colder. It's been gradually creeping along
and there hasn't been a moment in which someone said,
'My God, it's 10 degrees warmer this year. We've got to
start doing something.'
That's the reason why it has taken 30
years for essentially every knowledgeable climatologists
to agree that global warming is a serious problem and
that people are the cause of it. It's also why it's taken
30 years to get all, except the last two governments,
to agree about its importance.
LMH: BUT ISN'T GLOBAL WARMING,
IN A WAY, THE SAME COMPARABLE KIND OF THREAT TO SURVIVAL
THAT THE CUTTING DOWN OF ALL THE TREES ON EASTER ISLAND
ENDED UP BEING TO THE PEOPLE ON THAT ISLAND BECAUSE THAT
ONE ACTION SET IN MOTION ALL THE OTHER CONSEQUENCES THAT
ENDED UP IN THE TOTAL COLLAPSE OF EASTER ISLAND?
That's true. It's actually worse than
that. You and I are flipping back and forth between causes
for pessimism and optimism. A cause for pessimism is that
global warming, if unchecked, will be a mess for us. But
it's not the only problem because even if we solved global
warming, but we did not solve the world's problems of
water or of top soil or fish there are about a dozen
problems, any one of which could drag us down.
50/50 Chance of Collapse for Whole
World?
LMH: I HAD THIS SENSE UPON COMPLETING
YOUR BOOK THAT THE PROBLEMS FACING THE ENTIRE GLOBE RIGHT
NOW ARE SO HUGE AND SO MANY THAT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE
IS A 50/50 CHANCE THAT THEY WON'T BE SOLVED.
I would say you are roughly correct. One
could argue whether the chance is 20/80 or 80/20 or 50/50.
But that's why I've used the metaphor of an exponentially
accelerating horse race of unknown outcome. Yes, the damage
is getting faster and faster. Also, the environmental
movement is getting stronger and stronger. I can't predict
which of those two horses are going to win the race. Maybe
the odds are 50/50. That would be another way of putting
numbers on by saying we've got serious problems that will
ruin us if we don't solve them. But we could solve them
if we chose to do so.
LMH: WHAT DO YOU THINK IN THIS
AGE OF TELEVISION AND RADIO AS YOU MAKE THE EXCELLENT
POINT THAT WE ARE GETTING NEWS FROM EVERY SPOT ON THE
WORLD AND 24 NEWS CYCLES WHICH HELPS AT LEAST MAKE US
AWARE. BUT WHAT DO YOU THINK WOULD BE THE FIRST SIGNS
TO YOU THAT COLLAPSE WAS REALLY ONGOING AND IRRETRIEVABLE?
Irretrievable it's going to be hard
to judge when it's irretrievable. It's certainly not irretrievable
at the moment. Ongoing collapse is already ongoing. Think
of the countries that have already collapsed some
of them rather close to the United States: the state government
in Haiti, which is within a couple of hundred miles of
our shores. The state government there is close to collapse.
In Africa, the government collapsed in Rwanda; the government
has already collapsed in the Solomon Islands which has
been propped up by New Zealand and Australia troops.
So, when you ask what would it take to
convince me that collapse is ongoing it is already
ongoing.
LMH: IF IT'S ONGOING IN THOSE NATIONS
THAT WE THINK OF AS IMPOVERISHED AND POLITICALLY NOT DRIVING
THE POLITICS OF THE WORLD, WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO START
BRINGING DOWN EUROPE AND THE UNITED STATES?
Oh, about five more countries exploding,
requiring another $280 billion each. The estimated cost
of Iraq so far is $280 billion. Suppose Nepal, the Philippine
Islands, Haiti very close to our shores, Rwanda,
and Bangladesh all exploded that's 5 times $280
billion. That's $1.4 trillion. That would be more than
the United States could stand.
LMH: IF WE CAN'T PROP UP THE NATIONS
YOU HAVE JUST LISTED AND WE CAN'T PROP UP OTHER COUNTRIES
THAT MIGHT BE AFFECTED BY THE COLLAPSE AS IT KEPT EXPANDING,
THAT WE REACH A POINT WHERE WE DON'T HAVE ANY PLACE TO
SELL OUR PRODUCTS?
That's one we'll have other First
World countries to sell our products to, but those First
World countries as well as the United States economies
are linked now. I would say that a place to sell our products
is just one of our problems. It's not the biggest of our
problems.
Other big problems include: military action,
terrorists, getting cut off from essential imports such
as oil and metals. I would worry about those before I
would worry about loss of markets.
Economists Are Worried About Collapse
LMH: HAVE YOU TALKED OFF THE RECORD
WITH SOMEBODY WHO IS DEALING AT THE GLOBAL ECONOMIC LEVEL.
I'M THINKING OF PAUL VOELKER. [Chairman of the U. S. Federal
Reserve during the Jimmy Carter Administration, 1976-1980.)
HE RECENTLY WROTE AN ARTICLE HAVING TO DO WITH HIS FEAR
THAT THE DOLLAR COULD START GOING INTO A FREE FALL COLLAPSE
WITHIN FIVE YEARS OF 2005, WHICH WOULD BE BY 2010. IT
HAS TO DO WITH A SHIFT IN GLOBAL ECONOMIES TO THE EURO
AND OTHER CURRENCIES AND ISSUES AROUND PETROLEUM. HAVE
YOU TALKED WITH ANYONE ABOUT THAT?
Yes. I have not talked with Paul Voelker,
but with other economists. I have had discussions with
the famous economist, Jeffrey Sachs, at Columbia University.
His point of view is very similar to mine. He regards
as the biggest economic problem in the world today the
nexus between public health problems and environmental
problems and population problems. He has been going around
the world advising countries about how to improve their
economies, but also talking to First World countries about
the importance of solving these problems.
Another person I've talked to is a (Bush
Administration) cabinet minister who I cannot name, but
a cabinet minister of the current administration. This
cabinet minister has a point of view that is very different
from that of our president. This cabinet minister read
my book, Guns, Germs and Steel and read my book, Collapse,
and is convinced of the seriousness of these problems.
LMH: POTENTIALLY WE COULD BE FACING
A TOTAL COLLAPSE OF WORLD ECONOMIES?
That's the worst case scenario. The best
case scenario is that potentially we could be facing getting
a grip on our problems and solving them in a way that
the United States has made big progress in dealing with
our problems of air and water pollution, within the last
30 years. Air and water quality are much better now, even
though we've got far more people and far more cars. That's
something that gives one optimism.
LMH: COULD THE ULTIMATE TRIGGER
POINT FOR GLOBAL COLLAPSE OF JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING BE
OUR UNDERESTIMATING THE IMPACT THAT GLOBAL WARMING AND
CHANGING CLIMATE IS GOING TO HAVE ON EVERYTHING FROM FOOD
PRODUCTION TO SHORELINES?
That's one of the many possible trigger
points. I think there are other trigger points that will
come earlier than global warming, such as the collapses
of half a dozen more countries. Or such as water wars,
or such as the depletion of the world's remaining significant
fisheries on which most people in the Third World depend
for their protein.
Can Other Collapsing Nations Drag U.S.
and Europe Down With Them?
LMH: WHAT COULD THE FIRST WORLD
DO IF THERE WERE HALF A DOZEN MORE THIRD WORLD COUNTRY
BLOW UPS?
Not very much. We couldn't afford the
money. We don't have the troops. The American army is
not big enough. I think we've committed about one-third
of our troops to Iraq and therefore, if six more countries
blow up, that requires double the number of troops that
we've got. Six more countries blowing up the world
can't cope with it.
LMH: AND WHAT HAPPENS?
What happens, it's a big mess! More than
what we've got now. More immigrants. If six countries
collapse, instead of one or two, we've got far more immigrants
swamping our ability to deal with them. Bigger epidemics
of emerging diseases and bigger economic problems. The
worst case scenario is that it would be a collapse similar
to the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, or similar
to the collapse of Easter Island, or similar to the collapse
of Haiti. A worse case scenario is that all the world
gets to be like Haiti and Somalia. Somalia ripples out
until much of Africa and Asia and then Europe is in a
condition like Somalia. That's the worst case scenario.
But whenever one says something pessimistic
about that, let's reverse and say: it could go either
way. It could be that the rest of the world is going to
end up like Scandinavia or The Netherlands or Bhutan or
Australia getting a grip on their environmental
problems.
LMH: ARE YOU OPTIMISTIC OR PESSIMISTIC
ABOUT THIS COUNTRY'S FUTURE?
The phrase I use is 'cautiously optimistic.'
By that, I mean on the one hand, we do have serious problems.
And if the serious problems went on as they are going
now, then we are going to be in deep trouble within the
next several decades.
On the other hand, the problems are all
ones we are causing and we are perfectly capable of solving
them. We don't need new technology. We could solve them
if we chose to solve them. That's what makes me cautiously
optimistic neither pessimistic nor straight out
optimistic, but I would say, cautiously optimistic. We
could solve our problems if we chose to do so. Whether
we will, I can't predict."
Order
Professor Diamond's book at Amazon.com
|
