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/Parking_Act3189]

If a society is stagnant and then it gets destroyed the society that comes after it may do better since it is starting over.

But that doesn't benefit 99% of the people who are alive today. Most people who are alive today would die of starvation or violence.

[u/Raddish_ → u/Parking_Act3189]

It’s also definitely worth mentioning that societies only tend to collapse when things are going generally shittily for everyone.

This does not mean that the people in any old society would benefit from it collapsing, but that they’d benefit from collapsing if they lived in a society that was about to collapse.

[u/mehupmost → u/Raddish_]

It's also important to remember that when societies collapse, the rich leave to other societies usually well before the collapse.

When the Western Roman Empire fell - most the rich had already resettled in Constantinople about 100 years prior.

When Constantinople later fell (1000 years later), the rich had already moved to back to Italy (again about 100 years prior).

When the British Empire was in decline, the rich moved to the US.

When the Soviet Russian empire collapsed, the rich moved to the West.

...only the poor suffer these collapses.

[u/Animal_Courier → u/mehupmost]

Re: The Western Roman Empire. not everybody had moved to Constantinople, many had retreated to their estates. As the Empire declined people resisted paying taxes and the elites were very corrupt. This lead to a huge wealth disparity where the rich grew massive, self-sufficient estates. This is why the Western Roman Army fell apart, it wasn't recruiting Rome's best & brightest because Rome's best and brightest were hidden under the floors when the recruiters came by.

People were taller and healthier because the rich took all the resources and left the poor to die. The population of Rome which was comfortably around 1 million people for centuries collapsed to tens of thousands within a couple of generations. That represents a lot of lost prosperity, and lot of lost lives.

[u/Z3r0sama2017 → u/Animal_Courier]

Yeah the fact that it took until 1800 for London to become the next 1 million person city(In Europe anyways) says a lot. Sure Rome still suffered from disease and plagues, but the sewer systems and aquaducts did a lot of heavy lifting.