Jared Diamond is the author of Collapse, a book that looks at why certain societies collapsed, and in particular why some societies col ... lapsed with extraordinary swiftness,writes Breda O'Brien.
Although he had studied such societies for years, he says it was the students to whom he presented his findings that caused him to really look at one very important question. Over and over, his students would ask him how intelligent people did not take action to avert an obvious disaster.
For example, the society on Easter Island collapsed because of deforestation. The huge statues for which it is most famous demanded huge quantities of timber and rope to manoeuvre into place. Even when the disastrous effects on their environment of cutting down the trees must have been obvious, they continued relentlessly. One of Diamond's students asked him what he thought the person who cut down the last tree said as he was doing it. This led Diamond to reflect on what motivates such destructive and apparently bizarre behaviour.
We now have overwhelming evidence that climate change is real and accelerating due to human actions and inaction. Yet another heavy-hitting report to this effect was issued yesterday. Will someone, some day, ask why our society was not willing to put in place crucial changes to avert the worst effects of global warming and climate change? Are human beings simply too stubborn, too stupid to change? Diamond does not think so. He says there are four sets of factors present in faulty decision-making. A group may fail to anticipate a problem before it arrives. A group may fail to recognise a problem when it does arrive. They may fail even to try to solve it, or they may try to solve it and fail.
The most interesting turns out to be the third scenario, that societies may fail even to try to solve a problem. People tend to evaluate what everyone else is doing, and tailor their behaviour accordingly. A state park in Arizona discovered this to its cost, when they put up signs all over the park stating that visitors were destroying the park by taking home petrified wood samples, a small piece at a time. Ironically, the fact that so many other people were doing it meant visitors felt justified in doing it too, and the problem intensified after the signs went up. Diamond refers to this problem writ large in a phenomenon known as the "tragedy of the commons". If it is obvious that a resource is going to be destroyed through exploitation, it would only seem to be common sense to halt the process, because it is in everyone's interests that it be preserved. But humans don't work that way.
People either reason that the small actions they are taking as individuals will not worsen the situation significantly, or else rationalise that if they don't take the destructive action, someone else will. Usually, as seen in the case of overfishing, they are right. An individual refraining from fishing makes no sense if others are willing to step into the breach. So in the absence of strong leadership, and strong sanctions, people will persist in behaviour even if it is patently going to result in the destruction of a resource crucial for survival. Fortunately, Diamond's book also points to several societies where strong leadership reversed a destructive process, thus ensuring that the society survived.
At the moment, there is very little leadership coming from Government. The report issued by the Department of the Environment during the week, Ireland's Progress towards Environmental Sustainability, is a case in point. To give just one example, the Government declares that better insulated homes will lead to less energy expenditure, without mentioning the fact that by deciding to phase in insulation regulations over four years, thousands of new homeowners are sitting in houses where their heat is literally flowing out through the walls and roof, in a way which will become more and more unsustainable, not to mention making the houses difficult to re-sell.
The upcoming election presents a golden opportunity. For political parties, the doorsteps function as a kind of giant focus group. For climate change to become an issue on the doorsteps, people will have to hear it from credible sources, and not just in scary articles in newspapers. Sometimes all it takes to start a national conversation is getting a key group to embrace an issue. For example, an American organisation, Human Rights First, wanted to force the Bush administration to take action on humane interrogation of prisoners. The organisation decided against lobbying politicians directly, but instead focused its efforts on approximately 40 retired military figures. Once these respected figures started speaking in favour of the guidelines, a national conversation started.
The good news is that people are often willing to change if they believe two things: that their actions will have an impact, and that there are sufficient other people acting in the same way. Women in Australia took concrete steps to become more energy-efficient after attending the equivalent of a Tupperware party in a friend's house that dealt with issues such as insulation and clear steps to cut energy expenditure. When the women saw that friends were taking change seriously, it was as if permission had been given to take it seriously, too. The same happens when respected public figures begin to give leadership.
Who are the key people with influence? Chances are they are people who already have credibility in other areas. Religious leaders still have a great deal of authority, despite the battering of recent years. People who are respected for service in one area, whether it is in non-governmental organisations working for change and justice, or even key figures in the public service who are now retired, can also be very influential. Media personalities have important gatekeeping functions, in that they can keep the issue to the forefront of our minds, or dismiss it. Most importantly, friends and neighbours can influence and support each other.
Diamond contrasts the fate of Easter Island with other islands that thrived and survived in spite of facing serious challenges. He remains hopeful that global change can happen. For the sake of our children and grandchildren, let's hope he is right.