5-Point Framework Environmental Damage, Climate Change, Hostile Neighbors, Friendly Trade Partners, Societys Response 1.

Environmental Damage (Modern Manufacturing) a. Extent of reversibility depends both on the properties of the people (ambitions included) and the properties of the environment itself i. Fragility (susceptibility to damage) vs. Resilience (potential recovery from damage) 1. Forests, soil, fish populations, water supply etc. 2. Climate Change (Global Warming, for example) a. Can be caused both by human action and by natural causes hotter/colder, wetter/drier i. Heat from sun, volcanic activity, distribution of land/ocean, orientation of Earths axis b. Can hurt societies but could also benefit them c. Often if climate change is relatively benign, societies can endure depleting environmental resources i. Vice versa, could exacerbate benign depletion 3. Hostile Neighbors (Competition) a. Essentially all societies (few exceptions) have contact with neighbors, potentially hostile whether intermittently or chronically b. Introduces military aspect, which can hide collapses due to ecological reasons i. Ex. Fall of Roman Empire in AD. 476 eventually overtaken by barbarians, but the reason for this could have gone two ways 1. Better organization, weaponry, more horses for barbarians a. More horses couldve been a profit of climate change in Central Asian steppes 2. Or: barbarians unchanged Rather, was Rome weakened by combination of some ecological, political, environmental issues, thus barbarians just took advantage of this? (Debatable but good to point out the possibility) c. Can be more subtle I think this applies to the example of the Norse who were not willing to learn from the Inuits ensured negative relationship (was the case with many European expansionists) 4. Friendly Trade Partners (Globalization) a. Inverse of hostile neighbors in the sense that it is a declined relationship, or weakening of outside party b. Often hostile enemy and friendly trade partner can be same neighbor, switching back and forth c. Weakening of a trade partner, even if relationship remains friendly, has negative consequences i. Cant trade as much, weakens your own society d. This is increasingly important in our globalized society i. Small scale example: Pitcairn & Henderson Islands linked to slowly unfolding environmental catastrophe hundred of miles overseas on their more populous island trading partner, Mangareva (p.121) 1. Basically as one declined, so did all the others until they were essentially extinct e. Isolation also bad example of Easter Island; destroyed itself by overexploiting resources, had nowhere else to turn to get them

i. Connectedness example here too: Easter Island had a myriad of different clans, all interconnected (like todays international system) 1. All countries share Earths resources [Eastern Island as isolated as Earth is in space modern civilizations have nowhere else to turn but here] ii. Implications we have far more tools than did those on Easter Island and they managed to pull off total deforestation (granted, smaller area, but also smaller population) 5. Societys Response to its Environmental Problems (Modern Policy) (Heres where IR/Policy ties in) a. Applies to all sorts of problems, not just environmental ones b. Different societies inherently respond differently to problems (Culture, government, history etc) i. Political, economic, social institution dictate decision making & cultural values ii. These institutions and values determine whether a society solves, or even attempts to solve environmental problems c. Norse example again, and Chinese both have/had top-down governments i. Norse chiefs, clergy 1. Imported prestigious goods 2. Needed to export wool 3. Couldve imported more useful resources such as iron, not luxuries ii. Chinese communists 1. Import of cars, want to increase economic growth manufacturing d. Both of the above examples there was a conflict between short term and long term interests of those in power