Those of us who have done any traveling or watching of travel programs on television have encountered the ruins of ancient civilizations. It is not uncommon to hear possible explanations for the demise of those great cultures. And it is not surprising that many really have no clear explanation.
The fall of the Roman Empire has been the subject of much scholarship. For most people, Gibbon’s explanation, the moral decay of Rome, is enough. But those of us who have stood in the empty pueblos in New Mexico sites or walked the steps of Mochu Pichu or stood beside effigy burial mounds in Wisconsin have wondered if Gibbon’s theory applied to them too.
Looking at the history available and at sociological insights that have or have not been discussed or put into books, I got to wondering if there is a common thread that might be far simpler, an idea needing some serious consideration. Let me carry this thought forward.
Every successful culture featured significant population growth. They were successful in our eyes because evidence exists to some of them lasting centuries and becoming vast, crossing major portions of the continents where they prospered. To survive so long and expand so much, they needed imaginative sources of food and water as well as technologies.
Some writers, Malthus among them, posit that such expansion of population had limits and that with disease and war, each expansion came to a halt. As significant as those limits have been in human history, population has continued to grow even with the demise of those great cultures
Maybe rather than looking at characteristics of culture, such as technology, political structures, or even societal values, all of which can be easily criticized in hindsight, maybe we need to look at something far simpler. Maybe we need to look at growth of the sub-groups as populations expanded. The longevity and complexity of great cultures like the Mayans and Egyptians would show that the genius group of engineers, political leaders, and exemplars of cultural values grew apace as their cultures expanded. Those capable of algebraic thought, the technicians upon whom everyone depended for consistency and adequacy of adapting and expanding, also grew. But let me point out that another group was also growing all along in every great empire: the stupid.
Before I expound further, let me admit that this particular term is loaded and offensive to most folks. So let me illustrate the concept of sub-group growth with that of another sub-group, homosexuals.
Those of us over 65 years old grew up in times where homosexuals were seldom known. Reference to them was usually in the form of bullying with swear words none of us ever personally experienced or even thought were real.
I posit that the reason American society has changed so dramatically in a half of a century is because with the expansion of population, and hence the expansion of each sub-group, the number of homosexuals reached the point where there were enough of them to be noticeable, first to themselves, then to everyone else. By sheer numbers, they burst out of the closet and the rest of us had to deal with that. Of course not all have dealt the same way, but enough have now met homosexuals and have begun to realize they are just Richard and John and Judith and Diane. They are really no different than everybody else, just maybe in one aspect of their lives, like left-handers.
Every group expands as populations grow.
If you now understand that concept, then you can apply it to those who do not have the capacity to think things through beyond the first and most obvious possibility, who do not trust anyone else for what is true but what they feel is true. In fact, they tend to operate on emotional terms more than thoughtful terms and hence do not argue but presume, do not question, but accept what they are most comfortable with, true or false!
Imagine the problems that the geniuses and technocrats of any culture face when the stupid find a way to dominate, either by fearful ignorance or by force. The values of listening and learning, of diplomacy over armed conflict, of flexibility and compromise over rigidity and true belief, values that with technology brought the culture to greatness, crumble before the onslaught of ignorance and emotion.
Imagine the pueblo people, the Anasazi (ancient ones), who faced persistent draught and were unable to sustain their population with corn, had to leave the security of their cliff dwellings in order to find a place where they could subsist and then thrive again. The genius group would see the necessity and be flexible enough to consider such a major change. The stupid group would not. If the stupid group is large enough to prevent any changes, the culture will eventually die out.
Imagine the Romans, unwilling to admit that another nation (tribal horde) could defeat their great army because they stupidly believed they were they greatest on the earth, and refused to listen to the ones who knew what was actually happening. Such an empire despite its former greatness, would crumble.
Of course one could throw in stories of people who refused to move away from Mt. Vesuvius, people who could not survive the ravages of war and disease such as the Aztecs when faced with the Spanish, and other catastrophes that even the genius group could not fully adapt to (though there are remnants of nearly all the great cultures still living in our midst).
But finally, my simple premise holds: the stupid who choose not to adapt can bring down the greatest civilization.
Now if only I can find a better term than “stupid.” Or if this concept of small groups growing into larger and more influential bodies as a population grows could be better stated and illustrated . . . . We need a good macrosociologist.
