Rethinking Easter Island’s Collapse

[Igel]

6. GGS was interesting.

It actually made arguments which, if not conclusive, certainly point out plausible contributors to civilizations' rise and demise.


GGS, of course, ignored a lot of things and pretended to greater authority than it could have. A failing, but a common one--and forgivable in popular literature that is at least part-advocacy.

"Collapse" was pathetic. Couldn't read it. Had nothing better to do and found myself examining the floor in minute detail after about 10 pages. Then I'd focus, and 20 minutes later realize I was again examining the floor in minute detai. Or my socks. Or shoes.

The problem with "Collapse" is that it too narrowly tried to claim exclusive causes for civilizational collapse, and those causes were fairly few in number. It also ignored a fair number of really obvious causes, some of which were probably dominant in some of the "case studies." A little advocacy isn't a bad thing (not a good thing in every case, by any means); too much advocacy is always a bad thing.