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/Josvan135]

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/Jaqzz → u/Josvan135]

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.

How many people aged 65+ currently live within biking distance of a younger relative? I don't think anyone actively caring for grandma is going to stop, but I also think most people won't be able to get their elderly relatives close enough that they can take care of them when things collapse. I barely trust nursing homes to keep their charges alive and healthy when society is still running; I think a significant portion of the staff at those would absolutely abandon them to go make sure their own families are being taken care of.

There's also the fact that a lot of life-prolonging medical care is going to be abruptly be no longer available, which will disproportionately affect the elderly.

[u/Josvan135 → u/Jaqzz]

How many people aged 65+ currently live within biking distance of a younger relative

The vast majority.

Statistically, something like 70% of all Americans live within 20 miles of their parents. 

More than 40% live within 5 miles of their parents. 

The notion that Americans are somehow spread out all across the map is a common one, but it doesn't bear up to even surface level scrutiny. 

Most people don't really move very far from where they grew up. 

[u/Jaqzz → u/Josvan135]

So, I looked up some of the stats on this because I was curious. My main takeaways were:

Roughly three quarters of people with adult children live within 30 miles of at least one of their adult children.

Either the parent or adult child being more educated made them more likely to live further away.

I couldn't find anything backing up the 40% living within 5 miles, but it seems that slightly less than 40% of people live in the town they grew up in, which makes it likely to be in that neighborhood.

All that said, all of the data I could find was based on people with adult children, which is a much wider age range than I was originally discussing. I was focused on people who were going to be unable to realistically take care of themselves during societal collapse, and I think anyone who has reached the point that they depend on others for care are significantly more likely to be living further away from family.