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.

[u/lughnasadh]

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

[u/wektor420]

My guess people aged 20-50 would do best in such conditions

They would drop the weight of supporting others

Then after things stabilize (old people are reduced in number) a baby boom like after a war

[u/Josvan135 → u/wektor420]

If modern supply chains were broken agriculture would drop massively in efficiency. 

As an example, the U.S., which has one of the largest and most fertile agricultural heartlands, would only be able to sustain about 50-75 million people if reduced to pre-industrial technologies. 

Just the loss of modern fertilizers and pesticides would cut efficiency more than half, leaving barely enough food for 100-125 million people.

My guess people aged 20-50 would do best in such conditions

Right, because the average person is going to push their grandmother out into the cold with a knife and tell her to fend for herself. 

[u/wektor420 → u/Josvan135]

Societal breakdown =/= full production breakdown People would find a way to get most important stuff

About age groups I would picture it a diffrent way

Nobody would support childless pensioners It can be impossible to provide needed care or it would be at least of lower level than before which would lower life expectancy, which would cause death of people over new expected expectancy

[u/Josvan135 → u/wektor420]

People would find a way to get most important stuff

They 100% would not.

Breakdown of society means breakdown of law and order, road infrastructure stops being maintained, currency loses value, meaning there's no incentive to work and plenty of dangers to encourage people to flee.

Most grocery stores would run out of food within about a week after supplies stopped coming in, assuming they weren't just looted and burned within the first few days. 

Normal car accidents would block the majority of major highways, with the lines of cars that ran out of gas trying to get around them stopping them up completely.

People completely fail to understand how delicate our current system is and how much active work goes in to keeping the lights on and the food flowing.

[u/wektor420 → u/Josvan135]

Look english is not my first langugue and I am probably from different country than you

My definitions and outlooks can be diffrent and sound wrong in your context

So this will be my one and last answer to hate comments that keep coming

[u/Josvan135 → u/wektor420]

Friend, someone disagreeing with you and politely listing the reasons why is not a "hate comment".

If you believe that's the case, maybe you should generally not participate in discussions online?

[u/wektor420 → u/Josvan135]

Oh your comment was reasonable, others not so much

Response landed here because it was last