The period of 470-1000AD encompassed what is now popularly referred to as the medieval ‘dark age’. During this time, human civilisation in the West saw a stagnation of not only culture but society itself. It was a time of great persecution, societal uncertainty and religious fanaticism. It cannot be helped that similarities seem to arise between this tumultuous period and that which we experience today. Some have even proposed that we stand on the brink of a new era, one that is set to repeat the stagnation of the medieval dark ages albeit with a more modern flavour. Current worldly happenings seem to support such a conclusion. If we are at such a point in the history of modern civilisation, what form would a ‘new dark age’ take? What factors are conspiring against humanity to usher in a period of uncertainty and danger? Do dark ages occur in predictable cycles, and if so, should we embrace rather than fear this possible development? These are the questions I would like to discuss in this article.
Historically, the dark ages were only labelled so in retrospect by scholars reflecting upon the past and embracing humanistic principles. It is with such observations that we cast our aspersions upon the society of today. Even so, humanity struggles for an objective opinion, for it can be argued that every great civilisation wishes to live within a defining period of history. Keeping such a proposition in mind, it is nevertheless convincing to proffer the opinion that we are heading towards a defining societal moment. A great tension seems to be brewing; on the one hand there is the increasing dichotomy between religion and science, with sharply drawn battle lines and an unflinching ideology. On the other we have mounting evidence suggesting that the planet is on the verge of environmental collapse. It may only be a matter of time before these factors destabilise the dynamic system that is modern society past its engineered limits.
Modern society seems to have an unhealthy obsession with routine and predictability. The uncertainty that these potential disasters foster act to challenge this obsession, to the point that we seek reassurance. Problems arise when this reassurance takes the form of fanatical (and untenable) religious, philosophical or empirical belief structures. Such beliefs stand out like a signalling light house, the search beam symbolising stability and certainty in stark contrast to the murky, dangerous waters of modern society. But just as the light house guards from the danger of rocks, so too does the pillar of belief warn against corruption. For it is, sadly, intrinsic human nature to take advantage of every situation (to guarantee the survival of oneself through power and influence), and in combination with personality, (propensity towards exploitation of others) beliefs can be twisted to ensure personal gain or the elimination of opposition. It seems that such a phenomenon could be acting today. Religion provides a suitable system upon which to relieve mental anguish and distress at the state of the world (reassurance that . So too does science, as it proscribes the fallacies of following spiritual belief and a similarly blind ‘faith’ in securing a technological solution to humanity’s problems. In that respect, empiricism and religion are quite similar (much to their mutual chagrin).
In such a system we see that de-stablisation is inevitable; a handful of belief structure emerge from the chaos as dominant and compete for control. Progressively extreme positions are adopted (spurred on by manipulators exploiting for personal gain), which in turn sets up the participants for escalating levels of conflict. Our loyalty to the group that aims to secure its survival, ultimately (and ironically) leads to the demise of all involved. It is our lack of tolerance and subservience to evolutionary mechanisms, coupled with a lack of insight into both our internal nature as a person and social interactions that precipitates such a conclusion.
This brings the article to its midpoint, and the suggestion that three main factors are responsible for the development of a new dark ages.
Human belief systems
As argued above, humans have an intrinsic desire to subscribe to certain world views and spiritual beliefs. Whether due to a more fundamental need for explanation in the face of the unknown (being prepared for the unexpected) or simply the attraction of social groupings and initiation into a new hierarchy, the fact remains that humans like to organise their beliefs according to a certain structure. When other groups are encountered whose beliefs differ in some respect, the inevitable outcome is either submission (of the weaker group) or conflict. Perhaps an appropriate maxim that sums up this phenomenon is ‘if you can’t convert them, kill them’. Thus we see at one level, our beliefs acting as a catalyst for conflict with other groups of people. At a higher level, such beliefs are then modified or interpreted in varying ways so as to justify the acts committed, reassuring the group of its moral standing (the enemy is sub human, ‘infidels’, wartime propaganda etc). Belief is also a tool that is used to create a sense of identity, which is another feature that conscious beings seem to require. Those that are lacking in individuality and guidance take to belief systems in order to perhaps gain stability within their lives. Without identity we are operating at a reduced capacity, nothing more than automatons responding to stimuli, so in this respect, belief can form a useful method for providing motivation and structure to an individual. Problems arise when beliefs become so corrupted or conflict so great that any act can be justified without cause for long-term planning; only the complete destruction of the enemy is a viable outcome. The conflict spirals out of control and precipitates major change; another risk factor for ensuring the New Dark Age is a plausible reality.
Economic/Political Collapse
Numerous socio-economic experiments have been conducted over the few millenia that organised civilisation has existed on this planet, with varying degrees of success. Democracy seems to be the greatest windfall to modern politics, ushering in a new era of liberation and equity. But has its time come to an end? Some would argue that the masses need control if certain standards are to be maintained. While a small proportion of society would be capable of living under such an arrangement, the reality that some large swath of the population cannot co-exist without the need for social management and punitive methods calls into question the ultimate success of our political system. Communism failed spectacularly, most notably for its potential for abuse through corruption and dictatorship. Here we have the unfortunate state of affairs that those who come into power are also those whom lack the qualities that one would expect from a ruler. Islamic states don’t even enter the picture; the main aim of such societal systems is the establishment of a theocratic state that is perhaps even more susceptible to abuse (the combination of corrupted beliefs that justify atrocities and unification of church with state causing conflict with other populations whose beliefs differ).
Is democracy and capitalism running our planet into the ground? Some would point to recent stockmarket collapse and record inflation as a sign that yes, perhaps human greed is allowed too much leeway. Others merely shake their heads and point to the cyclical nature of the economy; “it’s just a small downturn that will soon be corrected” they proclaim. Mounting evidence seems to counter such a proposition, as rising interest rates, property prices and living costs force the population to work more, and own less. Is our present system of political control and economic growth sustainable? Judging by recent world events, perhaps not, thus precipitating another factor that could lead to the establishment of a new dark age.
Ecological Destruction
Tied closely to the policies implemented by modern politics and economic propensities is the phenomenon of ‘global warming’, or more broadly, the lack of respect for our biosphere. It seems almost unbelievable that humanity has turned a blind eye to the mounting problems occurring within our planet. While global warming has arguments both for and against, I doubt that any respectable empiricist, or indeed, responsible citizen, could refute that humanity has implemented some questionable environmental practices in the name of progress. Some may argue that the things we take for granted (even the laptop upon which I type this article) would not have been possible without such practices. But when the fate of the human race hangs in the balance, surely this is a high price to pay in such a high stakes game. Human nature surely plays a part in this oversight; our brains are wired to consider the now, as opposed to the might or could. By focusing on the present in such a way, the immediate survival of the individual (and the group) is ensured. Long term thought is not useful in the context of a tribal society where life is a daily struggle. Again we are hampered by more primitive mechanisms that have exceeded their usefulness. In short, humanity has advanced a sufficiently rapid pace that has since overtaken the ability of our faculties to adapt. Stuck with a game of catchup (that most neglect to see the value or importance of) society is falling short of the skills it needs to deal with the challenges that lay ahead. The destruction of this planet, coupled with our inability to reliably plan and deal with future events could (in combination with previous factors such as deliberate political/economic oversight of the problem) precipitate a new dark age in society.
But is a new dark age all doom and gloom? Certainly it will be a time of mass change and potential for great catastrophe, but an emergence out the other side could herald a new civilisation that is well equipped to deal with and manage the challenges of an uncertain future. Looking towards the future, one can’t help but feel a sense of trepidation. Over population, dwindling resources and an increasing schism between religion and science are all contributing towards a great change in the structure of society. While it would be immoral to condone and encourage such a period in light of the monumental loss of order, perhaps it is ‘part of the grand plan’ so to speak in keeping humanity in check and ensuring that the Earth maintains its capacity of life. In effect, humanity is a parasite that has suitably infected its host, resulting in the eventual collapse of its life-giving organs. Perhaps a new dark age will provide the cleansing of mind and spirit that humanity needs to refocus its efforts on the things that really matter; that being every individual attaining individual perfection and living as the best they can possibly be.
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
7 February, 2008 at 4:10 am
Dennis Quine
V:
Our Greek and Roman predecessors seem not to have paid much attention to the collapse of societies, although they had several examples to hand. The decline of Egyptian civilization from its heights was certainly apparent, and also the collapse of the Persian Empire, so that it was easy pickings for Alexander just a couple of centuries after defeat by the Greeks in 480 BC.
Athens, the most powerful city state in Greece after defeating the Persians, collapsed a century later after loosing the Peloponnesian War. But so also did Sparta decline in power the subsequent century, so that Phillip of Macedon could extend his reign over all of Greece (before handing it off to Alexander, his son). By the time the collapse of Roman power was becoming apparent, the great Roman historians were centuries gone, and those writing in the period after 400 AD were mostly preoccupied with celestial salvation, not the mundane affairs of worldly societies.
Gibbon (1737-1794) (“Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”) thus becomes the first writer to explicitly address the collapse of a society, and the reasons for same. But he was not the only one to explore this theme. Oswald Spengler (1880-1936) (“The Decline of the West”) proposed a cyclic theory of growth, maturity, and decline of societies, that reads much better today than it did 50 years ago when I first ran across it in college. In a similar time period is Arnold Toynbee (1889-1975) (“A Study of History”). His masterwork of twelve volumes (making it largely unreadable for moderns) explored how great empires and civilizations rise and fall, and why. Toynbee also saw a natural cycle at work in the rise and subsequent collapse in the 20 or 22 great civilizations that he identified as having arisen in the historical record.
More modern authors have found indications that something may be rotten in the core of modern Western societies. Roberto Vacca (“The Coming Dark Age”, 1973) an Italian systems engineer, was concerned with the increasing dependence we have on technology for our survival. He felt the “machine” was not sustainable for more than another century on fossil fuels and continued rampant use of natural resources. Now that we can see how vulnerable dependency on foreign oil makes us, his cautionary book from decades ago seems very modern. It is a theme echoed in the “Club of Rome Report” on global modeling (1972, I believe).
More recent authors argue that the fertility of other civilizations (e.g., Muslims, Chinese, Indian) are outstripping the declining reproduction of mature Western nations, especially in Europe. This is projected to lead to a collapse of Western civilization and its physical replacement by stronger, more aggressive tribes (e.g., “Decline and Fall: Europe’s Slow Motion Suicide” by Bruce Thorton, 2007). The United States, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia are the remaining outposts of the Anglo-Saxon branch of the West, and they seem to be sustaining themselves in terms of reproduction. At least they do not have the immediate problem that Europe has of massive immigration by a hostile civilization from across the Med. The South American branch of Western civilization is also sustaining itself reproductively. Unfortunately, those nations, although possessing an historical lineage back to the great Renaissance thinkers in Italy and Spain, have not in the past century contributed much to science and technology. There haven’t been any Nobels go to South Americas in science in its entire history, unless I am mistaken. ‘Course, some societies do not value science and technology, and that seems to be the case for the South American branch of The West. Although Brazil is becoming an exception, perhaps.
There is a movement in the U.S. to promote the idea of a “North American Union” that would meld Canada, the US, and Mexico into a single political and economic union that would have the population and resources to compete with rising challenges from China, India, and a resurgent Islamic Empire. With millions of Mexicans already crossing the border and working in the US, and massive immigration from Central American and Caribbean countries, it is easy to see this happening in the next 50-100 years. It is also easy to see it gradually extending down to include South America, once US paternalism is gone.
The “United States of North America”, capitol in Texas somewhere. But to create a new society, the old structures have to collapse. There has to be a vacuum in social organization and stability that the new, emergent society’s institutions can fill. This is certainly happening in the U.S. The Greeks must have felt somewhat the same way we do now when their universe of city states collapsed and was superseded by a Roman Republic. The outlines of the new empire are still vague, and to get to it we may have to experience a “Dark Age” of decades to centuries.
A “Dark Age” arises when people forget their past and no longer respect the values and institutions that were the foundation of their societies. And also, when they loose the will to defend those values and the associated social structure against enemies (internal or external) that would see them destroyed. That’s what happened to Rome: at the end of the Empire the citizens were unable to remember what Rome stood for, and could not rouse themselves to defend it against enemies from without. The collapse began internally, in the will of people to preserve what had been built, before the external forces pushed it over, according to Gibbon.
Knowing what we know about the dynamics of social change and collapse, we should be able to do something to prevent the continuing decline of Western nations in the face of external threats. But with incompetent leaders and a divided citizenship, the prospects seem more remote every day that we can avoid the fate of most every society we have a record of. The internal rot has already taken hold.
Eat, drink, and enjoy the Circus, for tomorrow ….
DHQ
7 February, 2008 at 5:42 am
vulcanis
I would agree with your assessment in Europe. Having lived there for a year I saw the hostility to immigrating workers from Eastern bloc states, and the rising Muslim community. In addition to this, I noticed the rising dissatisfaction from the natives; ordinary English folk reacting with distaste at the state of their country. Almost everyone I spoke to mentioned that they were either planning to emmigrate or had relatives overseas. However, I would like to point out that cultural amalgamation is not something that I oppose; my ideal concept of a future world incorporates all cultures and races regardless of composition. The problem arises when concentrated pockets of immigrants fail to embrace aspects of the new culture, fostering increasingly radical beliefs as the attempt to establish a miniature city-state within the foreign country. In short, such people want the benefits of Western society without the harsh authoritarian rule of their homeland.
To accomplish a harmonious global culture it is vitally important for humanity to embrace a new ethos of tolerance. At present, there is simply too much prejudice and inability to appreciate the views of others. Western society is being taken for a ride as such, in that our political system allows its citizens to take on any belief they wish (within reason). Radical ideologies are thus permitted to coagulate. America is perhaps the exemplary manifestation of this phenomenon, with incredibly large allowances for individual freedom (as long as those beliefs are concomitant with American patriotism). Visiting an Islamic state would paint a very different picture, as its citizens are allowed, encouraged even, to discriminate against those they consider as different.
From your comment DHQ, it seems that you think of the coming dark age as a time of societal corruption through an invasion of hostile belief systems (and peoples). I think my views differ, and are perhaps slightly more morose in nature. Looking at the behaviour of New Orleans citizens in the aftermath of the flooding (rape, murder, social chaos), one cannot help but shake one’s head at how far our species has yet to come. While we class ourselves as ‘modern’ and ‘refined’ in comparison to our barbaric ancestors, there are still at least some of us who revert to such behaviours when authority is removed. That is great cause for concern.
Therefore I believe the dark age will be a time of great culling, with two possible outcomes. Either our existence will be reduced to a ‘Mad Max-esque’ environment where two peoples (say tribal, nomadic groups composed of society’s deviants and criminals versus the rich and influential, civilised types) eternally battle for control of habitable regions (simliar to the situation in Afghanistan or Iraq), or we emerge as a united society, with new appreciation for the diversity of this planet and a global perspective; a ‘future society’. The journey will be arduous and many lives will be lost, but I believe it is the only way the masses will be convinced of the need for radical change.
The concept is both frightening and strangely liberating. As a ‘Generation Y-er’, I have not been directly exposed to the chaos of two world wars and economic depression. A new dark age elicits feelings of fear in the event that daily life becomes an uncertainty, but is equalised by the feelings of liberation that a revised social structure will bring. Specifically, I believe that the societal organisation of the planet is in dire need of readjustment. Humanity wastes far too much of its life performing menial tasks that have little to no substance. Not only in terms of beliefs, but also politically, economically and from a point of future sustainability (urban planning etc). Only a select few are blessed with a job that is not only stimulating but enjoyable.
The inherent problem is that humanity is intrinsically greedy, and capitalism has bred a generation of insightless spoilt brats who have the tendency to live in the now rather than the future. It will be a difficult task indeed to reorganise humanity in such a way, therefore it is inevitable that violence and chaos are the only outcome. I only hope that we make it out the other side. We have never required the teachings of humanism in such an urgency as is the case now.
7 February, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Dennis Quine
V:
New Orleans (and Iraq right after the US invasion in 2003) both manifest a global truth: when the central authority in a society that maintains “law ‘n order” collapses, then we revert to tribes and gangs as the vehicle for maintaining some semblence of order in life. Those seeking an opportunity outside the law (always with us) rise to the top, because there is no police force that can stop them. Then we get the Mad Max universe.
After embracing the “New Dark Age” motif as a reasonable perspective on the coming era, I am trying to see some positive way the elements of modern society I value can survive, some place on the planet. Maybe a total collapse back to the 17th century (pre-enlightenment) can be avoided in some locations. More specifically, I’d like the values of the West to survive, and the progress in science and technology to continue. Thinking about these issues leads one to appreciate how fragile the Social Contract really is. We are only single a generation away from chaos, if education of the young fails, or, as seems evident now, we cease to value the accomplishments of our forbears in building the modern social world and its institutions.
Cheery thoughts,
DHQ
22 September, 2008 at 4:18 am
Philip Atkinson
Before disscussing a new dark age it is essential to know what a dark age is. And before this can be defined it is essential to now what a civilization is.
I have created the first useful and clear definition of civilization
see http://www.ourcivilisation.com/define.htm
along with an explanation why a civilization rises then falls.
see http://www.ourcivilisation.com/theory.htm
Only by reading my explanation of civilization can you understand yourself and your community and what then future holds.