The Mayan society of Central America(2000 B.C-A.D 1500), like other ancient states, was characterized by populations unprecedented both in their size and density. It was not just the number of people that lived in the Mayan city-states but also the relatively small area into which they were concentrated. To support such populations, societies developed various intensive agricultural including large-scale irrigation and hill-slope (the cutting of horizontal ridges into hillsides so they can be farmed). These were designed both to increase yields from a given area and to increase the absolute amount of land under cultivation. These strategies were in essence very successful: they made it possible to feed larger populations than ever before and supported the growth of cities. But they also placed considerable strains on the environment and rendered it increasingly fragile and vulnerable to unexpected climatic events, and even to short-term fluctuations. Thus, the argument is that because of their size and ever more intensive agriculture, the Mayan and other ancient state societies were fundamentally unsustainable.

Claims about environment degradation and disaster have figured prominently in discussion of the collapse of the Mayan city-states of the Central American lowlands. When two explorers came upon the Mayan cities in the 1830s,they were struck by the sight of tall pyramids and elaborately carved stones among luxuriant forest growth. Here was the archetypal picture of a great lost civilization: abandoned cities submerged in vegetation. Theories of catastrophic collapse or apocalyptic overthrow came naturally to mind to explain these dramatic scenes.

Recent studies of the Mayan collapse (beginning around A.D 900) have emphasized the gradual and progressive nature of the process, beginning in the earliest in the South and advancing northward. It was not a single, sudden event, as had once been thought. Warfare and social unrest are thought to have played a part, but these may well have arisen through pressure from other causes. The Mayan cities had, after all, flourished for over 500 years and had frequently been at war with each other.

But what about the possibility of food shortage? These could have come about through either natural or humanly induced changes in the environment. Increasingly fierce competition between Mayan cities led to an upsurge of monument construction during the eighth and ninth centuries A.D, which would have placed added strain on agricultural production and expansion. Interstate rivalry may hence have pushed the Maya toward overexploitation of their fragile ecosystem. Deforestation and soil erosion might ultimately have destroyed the capacity of the land to support the high population levels of the Mayan cities, leading to famine, social unrest, and the collapse of the major Mayan centers.

Yet it may be incorrect to lay the blame entirely on human action. Several of the lowland cities, such as Tikal, appear to have depended heavily on the cultivation of raised fields set in the marshy depressions known as bajos, which today flood intermittently in the rainy season but may originally have been permanent lakes. The raise-field system of intensive cultivation (created by digging surrounding canals and using the soil removed to elevate the fields for planting) allows year-round food production through the constant supply of soil nutrients that erode into the drainage ditches dug around the raised fields, nutrients that are then collected and replaced. Stable water levels were essential to this subsistence system, but evidence from Lake Chichancanab in Yucatan shows that between A.D 800 and A.D 1000 this region suffered its driest period of climate in several thousand years. We may expect that as a result water level fell, and the raised fields in many areas became unusable. But the human response must be viewed through the lens of the social, political, and cultural circumstances. These exerted a powerful mediating effect on the way the Maya endeavored to cope with their difficulties. Had population levels been lower, the impact of the drought may not have been catastrophic, as it was, the Maya were already reaching the limits of the available subsistence capacity, and Mayan elites had espoused certain social and political agendas (including expensive warfare and competition with each other).It was against this specific background that a period of drought led quickly to crisis and collapse.

中美洲的玛雅社会（公元前2000年-公元1500年）和其他古老的国家一样，其特点是人口规模和密度都达到了前所未有的高度。不仅仅居住住在玛雅城市的人数很多，而且这些人口还集中在一个相对较小的地区。为了可以养活如此多的人口，社会发展了各种各样的集约化农业，包括大型灌溉和山地斜坡（水平地将山脊切割成山坡，以便耕作）。这些设计既是为了增加一定地区的产量，又是为了增加耕种土地的绝对数量。本质上来说，这些策略是非常成功的：这些措施可以比以往养活更多的人口，并支持城市的发展。但这些策略也对环境造成了相当大的压力，并使其变得日益脆弱，容易受到意想不到的气候现象的影响，甚至受到短期波动的影响。因此，论据是源于它们的规模和更为集约的农业，因而从根本上来说，玛雅和其他古代国家的社会是不可持续发展的。 在讨论中美洲低地玛雅城邦崩塌的问题时，人们对环境退化和灾难的说法起了重要的作用。19世纪30年代，在两位探险家来到玛雅城市时，他们看到了高大的金字塔和茂密的森林中精心雕刻的石头，他们对此感到十分震惊。这里是一个原型图片，关于一个伟大而落寞的文明：被遗弃的城市为植被所淹没。自然地，毁灭性破坏或世界末日推翻的理论用于解释这些戏剧性的场景。 最近对玛雅崩塌的研究（从大约公元900年开始）强调了这一过程的渐进性和进步性，从最早的南方开始，向北推进。正如人们曾经认为的那样，这并不是一次突如其来的事件。人们认为战争和社会动荡起到了一部分的作用，但这些可能是由于其他原因所产生的压力而造成的。毕竟，玛雅城市已经兴盛了500多年，而且它们城市内部经常会相互争斗。 但是是否会是因为食物短缺造成的呢？这可能是由自然或人为因素引起的环境变化而造成的。玛雅城市之间日益激烈的竞争导致在第八世纪和第九世纪掀起了一场建造纪念碑的热潮。这将给农业生产和扩张带来额外的压力。因此，国家间的竞争可能会促使玛雅人过度开发其脆弱的生态系统。森林砍伐和水土流失可能最终破坏了土地的生产力，无法养活玛雅城市中大量的人口，导致了饥荒，社会动荡和玛雅主要中心地带的崩塌。 然而，将玛雅崩塌的责任完全归咎于人类行为可能是不正确的。一些类似于蒂卡尔的低地城市，似乎严重依赖于被称为“低洼地”的沼泽洼地的养殖场，这些沼泽地现在会在雨季间歇性地泛滥，但最初这可能是永久性的湖泊。集约式耕作系统（通过挖掘周围的沟渠和利用土壤来提高种植面积而建立的），通过不断地向侵蚀的农田周围的排水沟中侵蚀土壤养分，然后收集和替换养分，来保障全年的粮食生产。稳定的水位对这一自给自足系统至关重要，但尤卡坦州的Chichancanab湖中的证据表明，在公元800年至公元1000年之间，该地区遭受了几千年以来的最干旱期。我们可以预料到，水位会因此下降，许多地区的养殖场都不能用了。但是，必须通过社会，政治和文化环境的角度来看待人类的反应。这些对玛雅人努力应对困难的方式产生了强大的中介效果。如果人口总量较低，干旱所带来的影响可能不会是灾难性的，但是事实上是玛雅人已经达到了其可用生存能力的极限，而玛雅精英则支持某些社会和政治议程（包括相互之间进行昂贵的战争和竞争）。正是在这种特定的背景下，一段时间的干旱迅速造成了危机和崩塌。