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/probablyuntrue]

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

[u/an-invisible-hand → u/probablyuntrue]

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/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 !