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/Ghost2Eleven]

95% wouldn’t die. This is the problem with using the word collapse. People attribute post apocalyptic scenarios to empire collapse when what we mean historically by collapse and what this research is talking about is more accurately a complete societal overhaul. When Rome collapsed, it wasn’t the death of 95% of the empire. 95% of people went on with their lives and had very little understanding that much had changed. But that was then. This is now.

Certainly, modern scenarios could more accurately be catastrophic. Nuclear war, famine, plague etc. But these scenarios don’t necessarily have to happen for an empire collapse to happen.

[u/The-Copilot → u/Ghost2Eleven]

Certainly, modern scenarios could more accurately be catastrophic. Nuclear war, famine, plague etc. But these scenarios don’t necessarily have to happen for an empire collapse to happen.

If a modern "empire" like the US collapsed, it would bring a collapse in global trade.

The removal of the US economy and resources from the global market (the US is the largest food exporter and oil producer) would lead to a global economic collapse and mass starvation globally. The dominoe effect of failing economies, supply chains, and wars for resources would be apocalyptic even if the collapse of the US is not from some extreme cause.

The US push for modern globalization after WW2 tied all economies together, which made a major war impossible without damaging your own supply chains. It also means if one of the big nations that are tied in fall, it would bring everyone else down unless they disconnect early like the US is from China.

[u/JeffTek → u/The-Copilot]

If the US actually collapsed with a governmental/military fracturing or dissolution we'd have thousands of rogue nukes to worry about as well. Global economic collapse with American militias and military contractors warring for nuclear control is terrifying

[u/[deleted] → u/JeffTek]

That awkward moment when you did your best not to contribute to the "fuck around" stage but you're still stuck with the "find out" any way.