The Great divide: East And West

 

Looking at this population map of Australia, it is easy to see where the main economic, political and cultural divide is likely to be in Australia. WA, or more accurately the south-west corner of WA, and all the inhabited lands east of the Nullarbor Plains. A division of the south and north won’t exist or will be minor as the north has an almost insignificant population.

The population limit of the north coast under both the industrial support system and industrial agriculture seems to be about 250,000, without those support structures the north coast’s inherent population limit is likely to be around 10-50,000.  The north coast could support a higher population by importing food from either Asia or Australia and since its likely to be a trading hub the necessary wealth is well within reach.

An important feature is the massive disparity in size (in terms of populated land), population power and overall strategic importance. The west is a relatively small, weak, and sparsely populated outpost located at a strategic point along the clipper route. The east is the relatively large, strong, populous heartland that occupies a less strategic position along the clipper route, the eastern equivalent is occupied by New Zealand. While the west is likely to be an independent political, economic and cultural centre, and it will certainly be an important trading hub, it will never, for the simple lack of people, be the major half of Australia. It’ll be important, especially as it’s the first port after the Cap of Good Hope.

Another feature is the clipper routes affects on the east west divide. Since the route travels along the south coast and its unlikely for the wind currents to drastically change, there isn’t any effective way for trade to bypass one of the halves, especially since the sailing ships will need to be resupplied, and since its all open ocean, travel would be hard to cut off and none of the choke points of the Mediterranean exist in this part of the clipper route. The clipper route also connects the east and west far better (in terms of travel time) than most large (and some small) states have been throughout history; it took Rome months to move its legions from theatre to theatre, it took 6 months to travel the length of Archaemenid Persia, imagine travelling across Russia on foot or horseback. In terms of travel time, Australia isn’t anywhere near as big, it’s a 3 day train ride from Perth to Melbourne and the same rout by sailing ship is only a few days extra. Kingdoms carved out during decline periods have been bigger in travel time and almost all of them just subsumed the remaining governmental organisation. This isn’t to say that WA would necessarily stay united with the rest of Australia, having two separate governments is likely, but the cultures aren’t likely to wildly diverge and a Western and Eastern Australian is likely to have a similar (but not identical) worldview and cultural heritage.

The main variable is travel across the Nullarbor Plain, since that is the major land barrier between the eastern and western sections. The trans-Australian Railway (Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta) was finished in 1917 and its likely to still be operational for the next century and possibly after. The main danger to the Trans-Australian railway is that it will be merely maintained, instead of being retrofitted to deal with overshoot. If not, then as Australia slides down the path of overshoot, the land link will eventually be lost and the only reliable travel option will be sailing ships. So the variable is either having a strong transport link via sea and land or only sea. Communication isn’t likely to change either way, radio is unaffected, and unlikely to be lost, and it doesn’t matter hugely if a letter is a day or two later. How this could potentially affect unity is uncertain, these conditions haven’t existed before and are unique. 

The Tyranny of Distance

The man who coined that phrase, the Australian Historian Geoffrey Blainey, wrote an article a few weeks ago called ‘Tyranny of distance dies hard’ (Financial Review, so it’s not free online). In it he talks, as you can imagine, about the distance that still separates us from continental Asia. ‘Every city in Europe is closer to Continental Asia than are Melbourne, Sydney and Perth. Australia – or the region where most of us live – is not close to china’. And, as he argues, since the world is shrinking, it affects everyone and what matters is relative advantage. Now, Geoffrey Blainey is to the best of my knowledge not overshoot aware and he is using a simplification in the quote above, for fairly simple reasons based on the myth of progress and simplicities sake. Since sea travel is traditionally better than an equivalent land route, we are qualitatively closer to Asia than Europe is, however since in the progress view of the world air-travel is becoming more common and important, distance as the crow flys is more important. While a post overshoot world could still have airships to keep this trend, in an overshooting world the infrastructure necessary won’t be built on anything but a regional scale (if at all). As for Overshoot, well its affects from distance increase can only be seen with time, however, we can look at some of the relevant factors; the fate of the two major canals (Suez and Panama), the clipper route, sea level rise and climate change, the maintenance of docks, and piracy. From this a framework of how the tyranny of distance could play. From there, its affects on life can be guessed, whether it’s how a journey man system could pop up, skill exchanges, pilgrimages to the travel some farmers do after harvest, and so on.

The Canals: The two major canals, the Panama and the Suez, as you can infer from the map above, drastically changed shipping routes. While they are a product of the early industrial age, Napoleon was involved in the initial surveying of the Suez canal and the Panama was finished in the same year that WW1 started, they will not necessarily disappear with the Industrial age. Most of the work has already been done and smaller canals have been built and maintained well before the Industrial age came along, and both sites offer some ability to pursue large projects. The type of labour force that built the pyramids, farmers when the Nile was flooding (provided it starts again), could easily be used to maintain the canal, especially if the level of ingenuity and mechanical aptitude used in the pyramids remains. And the Panama has access to biofuels; Brazilian ethanol has the highest EROEI (10) I have heard of for ethanol, with which to help the labour. What could destroy; or more likely shut them down for periods of time, is a mixture of suppressed maritime trade, increased piracy and rising passage fees; The Caribbean and the Mediterranean have both been homes of pirates throughout history. A sharp and sudden economic/political dislocation could also shut them down, until the freeing up of resources that is part of catabolic collapse allows them to be reopened. Either way, the clipper route is likely to start up again and while it is unlikely to gain its former place, it will once again be an important part of the global economy and maritime travel.

The Clipper Route: The natural sailing route that lies along the far southern hemisphere, courtesy of the roaring forties and furious fifties, the image above is of the route. It was the fastest, most rewarding and dangerous route of its time, chances are it will be again. It goes along the south coast of Australia, which is a blessing because since that’s near where most of Australia’s population lives and it is also the most dangerous route (by nature), which makes any hostile movements using it unwise, or easily defended against, look up the Mongol invasions of Japan (key word: Kamikaze), at least from outside Australia. This route actually makes Perth close enough, qualitatively, that WA could conceivably remain part of some form of federation (I’d say a about even) .The main problem is that climate change could disrupt, change or make it even more dangerous, which would most likely be to Australia’s detriment.

Pirate Zones: Directly north of Australia is likely to be a pirate zone, these pirates would most likely use small boats that range from canoes to small fishing boats. The pirates will be especially thick in the closed (if that’s the right term) waters of the various straits and where the local governments have broken down or are resorting to piracy. This could often cut of continental Asia and some of the northern islands, however its more likely to restrict and suppress travel rather than stop it. The Mediterranean and Persian Gulf will also suffer from a similar pirate infestation, think Somalia or the Barbary pirates (the USA went to war with them), especially when the Suez canal is operational. While the pirates here could (and probably will) use bigger ships, canoes and small sail (possibly some motor as well) boats will work fine here. The Barbary pirates used rowboats to capture merchants and one US warship (idiot captain). This will only affect Australia while the Suez is operational, and the clipper route will alleviate it somewhat. The Caribbean is likely to regain its pirates, and these will be closer to the ones in popular culture, hopefully they’ll also be democratic (with constitutions) like their predecessors (yes pirates back then were democratic, to a degree). These pirates will be a problem for anyone travelling to the East coast of N.America, whether or not the Panama is closed, and unfortunately the East coast is the Wealthier and more hospitable of the N.American coasts. Now, if you think this sounds easy to deal with, remember, I haven’t even mentioned the privateers (state backed pirates) that could easily arise.

Sea level rise and Climate Weirding: Heres a flood map, it’s useful to examine the changes to Australia based on sea level rise. Since we’re a mostly coastal country, even if you don’t live near the coast, these changes will impact you severely in everyday (and not everyday) life. Now as a reference, the last figure I’ve heard on sea level rise is that it’s expected to be between 6 and 13 metres, however that basis was on a continued rise in fossil fuel use. Extrapolate, as you will and research on your own. Now, from my personal experience, most of Australia’s coastline is quite rugged and won’t be largely impacts by sea level rise, however some parts of it will be, especially the port cities were people live. As shown on the map, the impact isn’t going to be the apocalyptic with the current coastline utterly abandoned scenario that most (or at least the ones I hear) climate change activist say it will be. However, we have the second change brought about by global warming, climate Weirding. Since this means that current natural disasters, specifically (in this case) hurricanes, typhoons, tornadoes and coastal floods, will become more common and appear in new areas, they will amplify and feed off the impacts of sea level rise, based on the current locations of such disasters (Queensland and NT), this is likely to spread south to NSW and will make Queensland and NT a bit more inhospitable.

Coastal and Supporting Infrastructure: Since container ships are likely to disappear and sails will gradually replace diesel, both the supporting (mostly manufacturing) and direct (docks and such) shipping infrastructure will need to be rebuilt. This section is going to degrade no matter what as one of the consequences of overshoot. Since all the supporting infrastructure, rails, roads, manufacturing, forest (if wooden ships), sheep farms (sails) and so on, is also going to need to be created, replaced or upgraded, and is also going to decline, then the uptake of sailing ships will follow the catabolic collapse pattern. That is, after periods of decline and collapse, things will cycle up before they decline further.

Tyranny of distance: There are two factors to keep in mind when thinking of the impacts distances has on the social, political and economic worlds, the quantitative factor of how far apart and how long the routes are and the qualitative factors;  safety, ease of travel, cultural and economic factors, relative wealth, infrastructure and so on. For the inhabited parts of Australia, Asia will be far away because of both the pirates and the competition from the clipper route allowing quick travel to the Atlantic. Africa and S.America are close because of the clipper route, while N.America and Europe are simply far away. This means we’re removed from the trouble spots of the world, but, we’re also going to be removed from any cultural flowerings, newly prosperous economies and technological innovations. However, since those things are more likely to happen after overshoot and they have major troubles associated with them, its not a bad deal. Once you get past the economic dislocation, political crisis and cultural shocks, this isn’t such a bad trait. 

Australia: A Coastal Nation

Here are two key facts about habitation in Australia. The large central desert precludes settled life for the majority of Australia; note that most of the north coast is only slightly more habitable. And secondly, the ability for dense settled life to exist in a thin strip around the southern half of the coast (focused on the south-east) that extends, judging by the location of Brisbane and Perth, up a 1/2 of the east coast while only up a ¼ of the west coast. From this, we can easily see that Australia is predominately a coastal nation, which would imply a strong maritime tradition, while also being isolated by distance from any neighbouring nations.

Before we analysis the potential course of Australia’s future based on these two facts, we need to answer an important question about the past and present. Why doesn’t Australia have a strong maritime tradition?

Just to be clear, I’m talking about a nation wide maritime culture, rather than a local or regional maritime culture.

Potential reasons;

1) The British. When Australia was settled, the British dominated the seas, both economically and militarily. Coupled with the lack of a large-scale indigenous maritime culture to start from, the large disincentives from competing with the British would have easily stopped the development of a maritime culture.

2) The inward push of settlement. Since Australia was almost completely open to European settlement, most of the expansion and focus was inward and land based, rather than sea based. This limited the available resources, cultural and material, that could be used in maritime pursuits.

3) The cost of infrastructure. While small boats can be built without a lot of infrastructure, a major maritime culture requires larger ships and the supporting infrastructure. since the necessary infrastructure has increased as ship technology has advanced, it has become impossible to emulate Rome’s feat of going from having no navy to dominating the Mediterranean in 30 years and revolutionising naval warfare almost overnight (Rome is admired for a reason). This lack of infrastructure limited any development of a large scale maritime industry and culture.

4) Low labour inputs. This affects the later stages of Australian history, late 20-early 21st century, rather than the early stages. Since culture is a large part of a population’s shared knowledge, actions and meanings, a large maritime culture requires lots of people to be directly or indirectly involved. However, since modern ships have small crews relative to their size and industry is highly machined based, the mass of people needed to form a maritime culture is lacking.

Any of the reasons given here could be enough and some of them may have had no effect, but what I’m trying to show is that there are clear historical reasons for Australia to have not developed a national maritime culture. And now the world is entering the downward phase of overshoot, with several changes that make developing a national maritime culture more likely.

The factors that make this more likely are;

1) Rising costs of land based transport. With oil supplies declining, road based transport systems are going to disappear, rail will be severely weakened, and while alternatives exist, sail is incredibly cheap and energy efficient (you actually gain energy rather than use it). This makes it a highly desirable form of transport for a coastal nation, at least between our capitals.

2) Revolutionary change is upon us. The entire maritime system as it stands now will be replaced as fossil fuels disappear, setting everyone back to zero. This resetting of the playing field will allow Australia to compete successfully and develop in the maritime scene.

3) Localization. If a ship is needed it will more and more likely be built locally (depending on the size this means in the region or nation) and manned by locals, rather than being built in faraway ports. This affects all countries. This will favour countries which already make at least some of their own ships and Australia already makes its own warships.

 4) Rising use of labour. Since fossil fuel use is going to decrease, more people are going to be involved, both directly and indirectly, in ships and related industries. This includes the crew, sail makers, builders, longshoremen, merchants and so on. More people being involved means a larger extelligence, and thus a bigger maritime culture.

As I have just shown, there are ample reasons for a strong maritime culture to develop, so what are the effects of developing a maritime culture?

1) Ease of internal transport and Social Cohesion. Travel by sea has generally been the fastest and cheapest method available, especially over long distances. While there is a potential rival in the form of airships, I have my doubts on that (during overshoot, afters another thing). And since most of the population (80%) is within 50km of the coast, coupled with trains for improved land transport and Australia’s population won’t become isolated from itself.

2) Wider availability of goods. While most goods will be coming from the local and regional areas, many important goods will come from farther away. Things like spices, silk, coffee, tea and other high value low bulk or otherwise easily transported goods will arrive form far away. Coupled with Australia being a mega diverse continent and able to produce these goods in disparate areas, and quite a few of these could remain available. Best case scenario would be similar to the Roman Empire,  where even isolated peasant families had access to some luxury goods (maybe one or two high quality pots, a brick house, tiled roofs etc)

3) Increased Sea marauders. One of the mainstays of societal collapse is the rise of bandits and marauders as law enforcement disappears, the most damaging form of this phenomena is sea based raiders since they can quickly move around and strike undefended targets. Athens was sacked this way as the Roman empire declined, and so were many other cities along the coast. Chances are many sea raiders will be from other parts of Australia, rather than from Indonesia (except in the north) since the distances from Perth or Sydney to Indonesia are a bit long for raids.

4) Fast military transport. Depending on the situation, this is either a good trait or a bad trait. It allows armies to quickly traverse parts of Australia. Marauding armies controlled by warlords will be able to quickly move and conquer, while defending armies will be able to quickly reinforce areas. This improves the chances of Australia remaining intact, since victories can be easily exploited.

An Organism is determined by three things….

The analogy between organisms and civilisations is a useful tool, not because it’s perfect but because they share important traits. Both are adaptable in that they both respond to their environment and have variation upon which natural selection works, civilisations however work on the cultural level rather than the genetic and, like bacteria, traits can be transferred between civilisations. DNA and cultural heritage also work in similar roles, a store of instructions and responses that change slightly with each generation. The main differences are in the time-scales and exact roles, but overall they are similar enough for this analogy.

Important rule of thumb: Since this post is only worried about the broad differences of human civilisation types, it is assumed that that each civilisation type (tribal, hunter-gatherer, nation-state, city-state etc) is homogenous, even though they aren’t in real life.

So what are the three things that determine an Organism?

The environment: What biomes does a civilisation live in? what are the local resources? Who are their neighbours and what are they like? Are there any natural barriers and if so, what kind? Is there a coast or is it landlocked? Is there an important river system? And if so, how is it structured and act? These are all-important questions to answer what environment a civilisation occupies. Hard limits and possibilities come from this element and much of what a civilisation is is how it responds and adapts to the environment. In our case we inhabit a mostly desert environment, with settlement focused around a thin stretch of coast primarily in the southeast while also counting as a mega diverse country and with no land neighbours.

The DNA of an Organism: What options and adaptations an organism possesses. Civilisations have a much broader range of traits they can posses than a single organism, their more like an ecosystem in this way, and the equivalent is the technologies (weighted towards ones in living practice), lifestyles and cultural heritage available. What level and type of metalworking? What types of agriculture are remembered and used? What are their buildings made of? How is the society organised and how fractal is it? And other questions need to be answered if a civilisations ‘DNA’ is to be examined. Since this element naturally contains variation and changes over time, it will be the most affected by natural selection while also being able to absorb traits from surrounding civilisation. Our civilisations ‘DNA’ is mostly technic and city based European culture, primarily Anglo but with a strong continental influence (South Australia’s second language used to be German) and an advanced industrial and technology base.

How the environment affects DNA: If you climb a mountain and live there for some time, your body begins to adapt in several ways, this is on the somatic level as opposed to the genetic. If however, you happen to be an Andean (or of other mountain population) living in the mountains, then you will already have the adaptations. This is how the same trait (e.g. intensive gardening or skin colour) can look and function differently depending on where you are, the general form has changed into a specialised form suitable for the local environment. E.g. if an African has children in Scandinavia, there not going to be dark black because their skin has adapted to the different UV levels. This is why the outback has large cattle stations as opposed to desert nomads or mobile ranchers, it is the agricultural style that the white settlers had that worked best there, and not that it’s the best style for the area. The more internal variation there is, the more the cultural heritage can adapt to the environment and be changed by it. How this element will play out, well that’s what future posts are for.

This means that if only one factor is changed the organism, or for our purposes a civilisation, will act and look differently. For analysing the potentials of Australia’s future, this presents a problem that isn’t found in either Asia or Europe and to an extent in the Americas. The Australian Aborigines had a completely different civilisation type, and if you go by complexity levels it’s about 3-4 levels lower depending on how you count (population, population density etc). They roughly lived as Stone Age Hunter-gatherers without crops or animals and only the barest elements of agriculture existed. Modern Australians live in cities or towns, have access to metal tools, have access to a wide range of crops and animals (sheep, horses, alpacas etc) from all other the world and have world-crossing boats. In Europe, Middle East and Asia, the same civilisation types have been present in the same areas for thousands of years, Hellenic Greece was city based, just like modern Greece. The Native Americans had crops, cities and in some places animals, so while they used vastly different crops and practices their civilisation is closer to modern Americans than the Australian Aborigines is to ours.