Sumber ilustrasi: Pixabay
1 Mei 2026 13.36 WIB – Akar
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Desanomia [01.05.2026] The writing about the disappearance of the Maya civilization (Penyebab Runtuhnya Peradaban Maya Tak Sesederhana yang Diduga?, desanomia.id., April 29, 2026) apparently raises further questions and from there gives rise to deeper reflection. What becomes the focus of reflection is the existence of living space (in a broad and complex meaning). What was initially imagined as the cause of the collapse of civilization turns out to be broader. Reflection is carried out to re-examine how space is understood and treated. This is roughly the reflection:
Space is often understood simply as place: the land that is stepped on, the city that is inhabited, the forest that is cleared, the river that flows, or the territory that is given a name on a map. However, in a broader sense, space is not merely a passive container for life. Space is the field where life is formed, sustained, tested, and sometimes destroyed.
In the history of Maya civilization, we see that space has a meaning far more complex than merely a geographical location. Itzan, for example, is not only an archaeological site in Guatemala. It is part of an ecological landscape that has certain rainfall, vegetation, soil, and resources. At the same time, Itzan is also part of a socio-political network that connects it with other Maya cities.
This is where the importance lies of understanding space as an ecological reality in a broad sense. Space includes nature, but it does not stop at nature. It also includes the way humans organize life within it: how land is cleared, how food is produced, how cities are built, how power is exercised, and how society establishes relations with other regions.
Therefore, human life never stands outside space. Every society always “embodies itself” in a certain space. It lives from the water, soil, forest, climate, and routes of movement that are available. However, society also changes that space through its actions. Forest becomes field, field becomes settlement, settlement becomes city, and city becomes a center of power and trade.
Human action upon space is what determines whether space becomes a source of sustainability or, instead, a source of vulnerability. Land clearing, agricultural intensification, city building, food distribution policies, and water management are not merely technical actions. All of these are civilizational decisions. Within them are choices about how humans understand their relationship with nature and with one another.
In the Maya case, changes in agricultural practices show that society did not merely adapt to space, but also actively shaped it. When the population increased, agricultural techniques changed. When forests diminished, ways of cultivating the soil also shifted. This shows that space and human action shape each other: space provides limits and possibilities, while human action expands, changes, or damages those possibilities.
However, the important lesson from Itzan is that a relatively stable local space does not always guarantee the sustainability of life. If a region is closely connected with other regions, then crises elsewhere can spread into it. Droughts that occurred in other centers, disruptions in trade, political conflicts, or large-scale migration could shake a region that was, ecologically speaking, actually still quite strong.
In other words, space not only local, but also relational. A city does not live only from its own land, but also from the relations that bind it to other cities. It depends on exchange routes, political alliances, flows of people, and the distribution of resources. This is why when that network is damaged, a space that appears safe can lose its resilience.
Here, migration becomes one very important form of human action. Migration is not merely the movement of people from one place to another, but a sign that the relationship between humans and space is changing. People move because the space of origin is no longer able to guarantee life, or because another space appears to offer new possibilities. However, this movement also changes the destination space, creates new pressures, and at the same time opens up new forms of life.
Other actions of the community in managing space also play an equally important role. Space is never managed neutrally. Who may control land, who obtains water, how agricultural products are distributed, how cities are designed, and how peripheral regions are treated are political questions. The sustainability of space depends greatly on wisdom in answering those questions.
The collapse of a civilization cannot be explained only as the result of nature changing. Nature is indeed important, but the way humans organize life within nature is equally important. A society can collapse not only because of a lack of rain, but because it fails to build social, economic, and political systems capable of responding to changes in space in a just and flexible way.
What if this optic is used to look at modern life? We live in an increasingly connected space: cities depend on villages and vice versa, countries depend on global supply chains, and everyday life depends on ecological systems that we often do not see. In this instance, sustainability is not merely a matter of protecting the environment as an external object, but of building a way of life that is aware that humans are always within space, act upon space, and in the end also bear the consequences of those actions.
What do you think? (njd)
Note: This article was made as part of a dedicated effort to bring everyday life around us to our minds.
