Which human cultural adaptations are irreversible?

[UndercoverElephant]

For the purposes of this thread let's imagine that by 2123 the global population has collapsed back down to below 1 billion. That's a pretty drastic reduction, and it is safe to say that civilisation as we know it cannot possibly survive. By "civilisation as we know it" I mean what Francis Fukuyama declared to be "the end of history" -- western liberal democracy, by which he meant "neoliberal consumerist capitalism". Growth-based economics in general is one example of what cannot survive (obviously, given that die-off is the opposite of growth).

However, we cannot go back to the stone age either. We cannot unlearn agriculture or the phonetic alphabet and we can't destroy all the books or forget how to print them. Books mass-produced in the 20th and 21st centuries may well survive for millenia, and the more important people believe them to be then the more likely it is that they will be retained and copied. That means that all of the most important scientific and philosophical texts will survive.

This way of thinking about this sets up three categories of cultural advances:

(1) Things that can't survive (eg growth based economics and consumerism)

(2) Things that certainly will survive (eg agriculture, writing, books, science)

(3) Things that may or may not survive. By default this is everything else, but it includes some things we consider extremely important, such as democracy, satellites (working ones, anyway) and the internet.

We would each populate these list differently, I suspect. I'd be interested in knowing people's thoughts on this. What technological/cultural phenomena do you think can't survive, what will certainly survive, and what are the most important things that may or may not survive? All three categories are very important in shaping our individual expectations about the future. If growth-based economics can't survive then it will be replaced with something else, and right now not many people have a clear idea of what it will be. The survival or non-survival of the internet has massive implications. Etc...

[BritDownUnder]

I'd put my money on religion surviving, particularly if a good proportion of those surviving one billion are Muslims.

I doubt if democracy would survive except in possibly a slow managed collapse at a local level. However, democratic ideals may prove a constant irritant to local despots.

Gardening is probably here to stay.

It's a toss up on whether a primitive electrical system would survive. It may do quite well in a place like Norway with a lot of hydro. The complexity of things that go into wind turbines and solar cells and inverters may not allow large parts of flat regions to sustain electrical power. Wind mills for grain and sawing etc and wind propelled boats might survive quite well if the complicated construction techniques are remembered.

Modern medicine is probably a goner but surgery techniques might continue along with some interesting developments in anesthesia.

Steam power might be possible on a local basis if large amounts of wood are available.

I'd put my money on North America doing better than Europe. Global warming models at the more extreme end are indicating that a lot of lands between 30 degrees North and South are going to be uninhabitable.

To paraphrase Adam Smith, the hidden hand of EROEI will decide what succeeds or fails. There will be little opportunity for energy cross-subsidising in this brave new world.

I often think about what the best way that present society can help our successors. Ensuring there is a lot of basic infrastructure, railways, canals and water supplies kept in good condition. Seed banks and knowledge libraries might be another. Stocks of strategic materials.

[northernmonkey]

For the purposes of this thread let's imagine that by 2123 the global population has collapsed back down to below 1 billion. That's a pretty drastic reduction, and it is safe to say that civilisation as we know it cannot possibly survive. By "civilisation as we know it" I mean what Francis Fukuyama declared to be "the end of history" -- western liberal democracy, by which he meant "neoliberal consumerist capitalism". Growth-based economics in general is one example of what cannot survive (obviously, given that die-off is the opposite of growth).

Agree

However, we cannot go back to the stone age either. We cannot unlearn agriculture or the phonetic alphabet and we can't destroy all the books or forget how to print them. Books mass-produced in the 20th and 21st centuries may well survive for millenia, and the more important people believe them to be then the more likely it is that they will be retained and copied. That means that all of the most important scientific and philosophical texts will survive.

Don't agree. Or, at least, don't agree if we are talking deep cultural time of several thousand years. Sure, it's unlikely, in the near future of a hundred to even a few hundred years hence that humans will lose all of the knowledge gained since the reformation and renaissance. But, give it enough time and enough selective pressures of all kinds and anything can be forgotten. There is no more reason to believe that cultural evolution is a one way street any more than is the case for biological evolution.

This way of thinking about this sets up three categories of cultural advances:

(1) Things that can't survive (eg growth based economics and consumerism)

That's easy to agree with

(2) Things that certainly will survive (eg agriculture, writing, books, science)

For the next few centuries I agree. Though, as I've said elsewhere, in the absence of the kind of energy inputs civilizations have enjoyed for the last two hundred years or so, I think there is likely to be always a pressure towards simpler forms until those forms come back into balance with much lower energy inputs. The process is also highly unlikely to be uniform or all at once. It will depend on how far along the process any particular place is. So, "Science" will go pretty early on (not necessarily empiricism itself. Though, we should expect a steady resurgence of religiosity). At some point, books and reading will once more become the preserve of a few. Finally, even farming may go by the by if some parts of the world become ecologically degraded enough. Though my guess is that this final equilibrium of mankind will be in the form of some kind of late paleolithic state where farming exists, but is "primitive". On this last point, I am thinking thousands of years hence.

(3) Things that may or may not survive. By default this is everything else, but it includes some things we consider extremely important, such as democracy, satellites (working ones, anyway) and the internet.

In the short terms (decades), I think they'll likely survive on the same scale as now
In the medium to long term, they may end up being limited to a few remaining continental sized states who still have the power of large scale mass production and industrial infrastructure.
In the deep long term (stretching into the thousands of years), I don't think any of the above will survive.

[Default0ptions]

I think we have to assume an, at best, intermittent if not non existent power grid in the near to mid term future.

So all current data storage that are grid electrical dependent - books, research, bank accounts, etc - will at some point be inaccessible and left twisting in the wind.

I love your faith in books. Books I’ve bought only a few years ago are already falling apart and yellowing and are unlikely to last ten years let alone a lifetime. Our knowledge deposits are GONE once the grid goes down.

Do not discount the crapification of everything.

In your scenario I also think you discount the likelihood that the local tough guys disregard all your ideas and simply take what they want - even though this seriously hampers any attempt at basic food growing.

The only human adaptation that counts in such a situation is winner takes all.

As a species, we’re very good at that.

[Ralphw2]

I think human culture will survive longest in those areas where it came to latest, and where it is least energy and resource intensive. These are the most stable and have strong cultural values that constrain human greed and desire for individual power. Places like Nepal and Bhutan, which are remote and already have few resources that will interest nearby warlords. Unfortunately they are likely to be badly affected by climate change, and struggle to adapt quickly enough