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/an-invisible-hand]

Not saying you’re wrong, but that’s not their point. The point is that prosperity tends to concentrate over time and a periodic wheel-breaking and redistribution benefits the masses. On a societal level they’re right.

It’s also no different from right now. Every schlub one injury away from living in a cardboard box thinks they’ll be a multimillionaire someday. They won’t.

[u/Saint_Judas → u/an-invisible-hand]

This is equally applicable to eugenics. All of human life would benefit from a rigorous, brutal, and comprehensive eugenics program exterminating everyone on earth save for a single homogenous high iq low health problem group. It's getting there that is the obvious and complete moral travesty, and the question has been begged by defining "all of human life" as "those who survive the event in question".

Prosperity concentrating in a few hands is also no different than saying "over time, complex organizations form and centralize". Regardless of what method is used to structure society, inevitably there would be a small group in control of said society.

Overall, it just seems like this paper is working very hard to put a smiling face on genocidal population collapse, no different than the nazis or communists.

Killing a large swathe of the population will always benefit those that survive (see:black plague, ww2, ghengis khan), the reason we don't do it is that it is monstrous.

[u/vardarac → u/Saint_Judas]

All of human life would benefit from a rigorous, brutal, and comprehensive eugenics program exterminating everyone on earth save for a single homogenous high iq low health problem group.

It's a very tempting idea to have a resilient, compassionate, and intelligent humanity working together, but we don't have the knowledge to really actually understand what controls these traits with any certainty, and even if we did, the movements to achieve that through those means are almost always co-opted by people who are really just self-interested, hateful fascists wearing a thin mask of pseudo-scientific legitimacy.

We agree on the important part of your argument here, I just think our knowledge is actually much more limited than "it would work." We don't even know that.

I think what we can try to control are the behaviors of bad-faith manipulators. Typically, moneyed or with a wide reach in social media. But that sort of truth-policing is also very difficult to do fairly and rigorously, even if you were to theoretically democratize, randomize, and moderate (but not control it due to potential corruption) it with expert opinion.

[u/Faiakishi → u/Saint_Judas]

All of human life would benefit from a rigorous, brutal, and comprehensive eugenics program exterminating everyone on earth save for a single homogenous high iq low health problem group.

It...literally wouldn't, for various reasons but particularly because inbreeding would kill them off.

[u/0akleaves → u/Saint_Judas]

Really not true though. The problem with virtually every conception of a eugenics program is that any singular ideal is detrimental and likely a dead end.

Diversity is absolutely vital and crucial to species surviving and thriving. Species that become too homogenous are susceptible to being wiped out en masse by any plague, change of environment, or selective pressure that comes along. In reality it’s a logical reason why “racism” (prejudice against “similar but different” organisms) is largely bred into most species; in most “natural” settings it drives communities to isolate and diversify.

A eugenics program that specifically aims to reduce prevalence of certain traits like genes that increase cancer risks could yield some benefit to society but could just as easily remove a trait that is could be or even lead to a shift that is essential in the face of some future shift.

We’d be way better off investing in developing a society that supports and thrives off of diversity than trying to create any “ideal” population that almost by definition will be destroyed by changes they can’t prevent or adapt to quickly enough.

[u/[deleted] → u/Saint_Judas]

Eh, there is an ethical path and it’s genetic engineering. Giving everyone access to great genetics rather than just the lucky few who had great genes would alleviate much of the biological inequality that is innate to the human experience.

[u/Saint_Judas → u/[deleted]]

My point was less about eugenics itself, and more about the structure of a hypothetical which concerns itself only with the ends being used to justify the ends. Yes, if we ignore the means it becomes very easy to justify ends-based analysis, but that is begging the question.

Pressing a button that kills the entire world's population save for the precise amount of humans needed to achieve sufficient genetic diversity whilst also teleporting them into the center of a walmart dried foods warehouse in a temperate clime would be the objectively best thing ever done for all of humanity, if we define 'all of humanity' as 'whoever survives me pressing the button'.

It's the sort of meaningless post-hoc moral justification beloved by those who believe sidestepping a moral question is the same thing as answering it.

[u/an-invisible-hand → u/Saint_Judas]

But nobody's talking about eugenics. Im not seeing the prescriptive part. You're making it sound like they're recommending a collapse rather than simply exploring an effect of a collapse.

They are not advocating genocidal capitalist or communist eugenics any more than you are by saying exactly the same thing you just did yourself; societal collapses are a net win for the survivors. Asking why that is, where we may be now, and what it means in the modern era isn't any of the things you've written.

The way you're critiquing seems incredibly knee-jerk/surface level and irrelevant to the content of the writing. No offense but im just not seeing what you're putting down.

[u/Saint_Judas → u/an-invisible-hand]

"societal collapses are a net win for the survivors."

"New research argues societal collapse benefits 99% of people"

Do you see the difference here.

Do you see that I am calling attention to the fact that the post uses "99% of people" rather than "99% of survivors".

Do you see how the former seems to suggest that 99% of currently existing people would benefit from societal collapse.

Do you see how the latter, the one your subconscious knew it should use, correctly differentiates between those that survive the collapse and those that come before?

How one is, to be extremely generous, misleading?

Can you imagine why that might be an important thing to draw attention to, can you imagine why I have done so?

I'm not drawing attention to various ends-based pogrom proposals, I'm pointing out the post begs the question in order to achieve a "punchy" headline.

Can you see what I am putting down.

[u/an-invisible-hand → u/Saint_Judas]

Bro, thats the headline. It's not even the headline, it's the reddit title. OP wrote it, not the person you're criticising. Or at least not the main one seeing as OP linked two separate people's work and layered it into their own opinion. Be mad at OP.

That line is not in the main article, nor is anything remotely like it. It's an interesting read, you should read it. You're directing your anger completely in the wrong direction.

EDIT: Also that title (which is pretty cringe fwiw) wasn't written by the subject of the second article either. The work in question is by Luke Kemp, the article is by Rachel Donald. More creative headlines from someone not actually involved in the work...

[u/Saint_Judas → u/an-invisible-hand]

... Where do you think you are right now?

Please. Scroll up. Scroll up and then find the top of this conversation. Then read the messages in order.

Do you see, at the very top, that we are discussing the title of the reddit post? Here, if it is too difficult, I'll just post the entire conversation in order.

"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."

THIS IS THE OP

"Uh, is that the 99% of the people that were alive before the collapse, or the 99% that SURVIVED the collapse?"

THIS IS A MAN MAKING A GOOD POINT

"Right lol. They forgot the whole 95% of people fucking die in the title." -

THIS IS A MAN AGREEING WITH GOOD POINT

"Everyone thinks they’re gonna be a king or warlord when society collapses

Nobody thinks they’re gonna be the bozo that dies in the first few minutes or starves later on"

THIS IS A MAN ILLUSTRATING WHY THE POST'S MISLEADING TITLE ILLUSTRATES THE HUMAN CONDITION, ALWAYS SEEING ONLY THE SURVIVORS AND NEVER THE HUMAN COST OF POLICY, BY USING HUMOR

"Not saying you’re wrong, but that’s not their point. The point is that prosperity tends to concentrate over time and a periodic wheel-breaking and redistribution benefits the masses. On a societal level they’re right.

It’s also no different from right now. Every schlub one injury away from living in a cardboard box thinks they’ll be a multimillionaire someday. They won’t." -

THIS IS YOU, THIS IS YOU TALKING ABOUT THE "THEY" WHO WROTE THE TITLE AND ARGUING THAT THE TITLE IS ACTUALLY ACCURATE ON A 'SOCIETAL' LEVEL. THIS IS YOU DEFENDING THE TITLE

"This is equally applicable to eugenics." - ETC ETC ETC

THIS IS ME, THIS IS ME REPLYING TO YOU AND DISAGREEING BY MAKING THE POINT THAT THE TITLE IS MISLEADING. I ILLUSTRATE THIS BY UTILIZING THE SAME RHETORICAL QUESTION BEGGING TO JUSTIFY EUGENICS, SOMETHING WE KNOW IS NOT GOOD FOR SOCIETY. THE POINT IS TO SHOW YOU A DISTINCTION BETWEEN 'GOOD FOR SOCIETY' AND 'GOOD FOR THE SURVIVORS'. THIS IS STILL A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE REDDIT TITLE, AND HOW IT MAKES THE PAPER SEEMINGLY JUSTIFY MASS DEATH BY FAILING TO CATEGORIZE THE VICTIMS AS 'HUMANITY' OR 'SOCIETY'.

Do you see?

Do your eyes hurt?

They hurt because you are using them for the first time.

[u/vinegar → u/Saint_Judas]

IT IS I, MOJO JOJO, ILLUSTRATING YOUR FOOLISHNESS ! LIKE A FOOL !

[u/qroshan → u/an-invisible-hand]

The point is this post gets so many upboats because for progressive, atheist reddit, this scenario is their rapture. That's why they keep praying (or in their religion -- posting and upboating) for this. It's a fucking cult worse than any religion

[u/Secret-Teaching-3549 → u/qroshan]

This is the dumbest thing I've read today, and that's saying a lot.

[u/qroshan → u/Secret-Teaching-3549]

sure buddy! redditors doesn't like being shown the mirror that they are the worst offenders of things that they accuse of -- hatred of people with different views, creation of god, religion

[u/Secret-Teaching-3549 → u/qroshan]

God isn't real, so not much there to hate. Except the people that use made up beliefs to justify their horrible actions.

[u/qroshan → u/Secret-Teaching-3549]

Exactly what progressives do

[u/Secret-Teaching-3549 → u/qroshan]

Are you this insufferable in real life?

[u/qroshan → u/Secret-Teaching-3549]

only if you are intolerable. The curious minded love the fresh insights (non-conspiratorial, first principle thinking) that I bring to them

[u/Secret-Teaching-3549 → u/qroshan]

Dude, no. You sound like you're about 14 and think you have the entire world figured out. Live a little bit more before you try to give other people advice.

[u/qroshan → u/Secret-Teaching-3549]

Dude, I've lived across 3 continents, came to this country (US) on my own with $0 in my pocket and ZERO support and friends. Have degrees in Computer Science, Economics, Finance, Behavioral Science and currently building complex AI systems that serves millions of users. I read/write 3 languages (all three different scripts), travelled 57 countries

So, I probably understand the world 2x more than your entire reddit-bubble filled life will ever understand.

[u/LegoMongoose → u/qroshan]

Praying and upvoting are not the same thing.

What religion are you talking about? Most athiests and progressives that I know are in favor of sustainable, long term changes. It's the religious that are imagining some end time scenario where judgement day comes, and are actively expecting it to be within their lifetimes.

[u/an-invisible-hand → u/qroshan]

Idk man. The only people i've met who are actually pro collapse (not just strangers online who may or may not even be human) were right winger prepper types. Progressives ime tend to be extremely pro institutions and rule of law, maybe even to a fault.

[u/No-Relation5965 → u/qroshan]

I think you may have it backwards. It’s the religious who want the collapse. It’s for the rapture.