The Roman Populists

What could the Roman civilization have done to save itself from destruction? Was it the government's fault that deforestation occurred and the environment was ruined, eventually resulting in the end of this world power? The Romans coexisted with their environment perfectly well until they started cutting down trees to make free food (not something that needed to be done).  Was this poor decision made for the wrong reasons?

According to our reading, the Roman civilization's downfall started when the government came up with the idea to grow crops to feed Rome’s common people for free.  It was a politically intelligent decision, because if the government could convince the citizens of Rome that their leaders had their best intentions at heart (feeding them for free), chances were high that the common people wouldn’t revolt against the governing body.  The free food bought the people’s loyalty.  In addition, in the case of a revolt, the people could be deprived of the food they needed.

Yet, this idea turned into a catastrophe for Rome.  To produce free food for such a large quantity of people, Rome needed to develop large new farms.  They needed to clear out the land by cutting down tons of trees.  This idea eventually backfired. The removal of trees led to soil erosion, which made the land unfertile. Then they couldn’t grow enough food to sustain life in Rome.

Further, the removal of trees created conditions for disease. Soil erosion allowed the Tiber River to flood more easily. As the Tiber River floods receded, the land was hit by an overwhelming growth in the mosquito population.  This brought a disease that Rome had not encountered before: malaria.  Malaria wiped out at least 10% of the Roman population.   But it got worse. Because of the drop in population, fewer taxes were paid. This led to the end of public work projects (like operational sewage systems), which led to further unsanitary living conditions, and less financing for the military.  The infrastructure of Rome crumbled and so did their ability to keep their civilization safe.  

I would argue that the environmental catastrophes that ended the Roman Empire were caused because the government cared more about staying in power than in doing the right thing for the Empire.  It was trying to be too populist.  The ideals behind populism are great.  The lower classes get to have influence on the government and have a say in how their country is run.  A government should look out for the welfare of common citizens for the purpose of creating a fair society. Yet in ancient Rome, the government chose to feed the common people for free because it was probably a way to promote their political careers. If the common people weren't happy with the way they were being treated, they may have revolted.  

I believe every government should pay attention to the interest of all of its people, but not become too populist be partially populous. Instead of taking it upon themselves to provide for the common people, a government's job should be to create conditions in which people can obtain what they need.  Governments should support businesses and agricultural projects, not take full charge of them.  As seen in Ancient Rome, if a government is in charge of all food production, then decisions can be made that will negatively effect the environment because of political interests. The only situation in which a government should be in charge of food production or distribution is when the companies that are in charge of it aren't providing enough food for everyone, including the common people.

A major reason for the fall of the Roman Empire was due to an environmental collapse of the civilization.  I believe that the reason for this catastrophe was the fault of an overly populist Roman government.