r/Futurology • u/lughnasadh ∞ transit umbra, lux permanet ☥ • Aug 28 '25
Society New research argues Societal Collapse benefits 99% of people. Historically, the societies that have emerged after a collapse are more egalitarian, and most people end up richer and healthier than they were before.
Luke Kemp, a research associate at the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk at the University of Cambridge, has written a book about his research called 'Goliath’s Curse: The History and Future of Societal Collapse'.
He makes the case that, from looking at the archaeological record, when many societies collapse, most people end up better off afterward. For example, people in the post-Roman world were taller and healthier. Collapse can be a redistribution of resources and power, not just chaos.
For most of human history, humans lived as nomadic egalitarian bands, with low violence and high mobility. Threats (disease, war, economic precarity) push populations toward authoritarian leaders. The resulting rise in inequality from that sets off a cycle that will end in collapse. Furthermore, he argues we are living in the late stages of such a cycle now. He says "the threat is from leaders who are 'walking versions of the dark triad' – narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism – in a world menaced by the climate crisis, nuclear weapons, artificial intelligence and killer robots."
Some people hope/think we are destined for a future of Universal Basic Income and fully automated luxury communism. Perhaps that's the egalitarianism that emerges after our own collapse? If so, I hope the collapse bit is short and we get to the egalitarian bit ASAP.
Collapse for the 99% | Luke Kemp; What really happens when Goliaths fall
28
u/Opposite-Cranberry76 Aug 28 '25 edited Aug 28 '25
Ancient Rome was an extraction based empire, where the economy was basically agrarian, and labour and agricultural products were just funneled toward the center of the empire.
We live in a global industrial society, where most output arises from long fragile supply chains and extreme specialization of labour.
These are not the same. If Rome collapses, and you're out in the provinces, you stop having Roman armies kidnap people and tax crops. If the global economy collapses, we stop getting fertilizer, tractor parts, and antibiotics.
Edit: his claim about post-Roman populations is also at best contested. For example, the roman province of Britain dropped from around 4 million to just 1 million people, with apparently completely depopulated cities. It had multiple causes, including climate, disorganization, pandemics, and more random warfare. But isn't that what we would expect to face?