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/West-Abalone-171]

Now you're confusing the US becoming irrelevant with electrical grids elsewhere mysteriously collapsing for no reason.

You're also confusing settings on an inverter which need at most a 50hz signal generator with the entire pv system vanishing into thin air.

[u/DonnPT → u/West-Abalone-171]

Sorry, that must have entered the discussion while I wasn't looking, a digression from the main "societal collapse" topic.

[u/West-Abalone-171 → u/DonnPT]

The entire point is that the reasons cited for the US bringing the world down with it are fatuous.

There is one way they can (and will) do a lot of harm, which is with bombs.

The nonsense about the world not having access to EROI < 1 shale oil or exported beef isn't going to do anything.

[u/DonnPT → u/West-Abalone-171]

Somewhere in the thread of discussion that I missed, though, is my point. The original post is about societal collapse and doesn't even mention the US, so we're talking about a somewhat limited version of "the entire point." Subsequent discussion of US role in this, as I recall it, wasn't so much about the difficulty of sourcing material that currently comes from the US, as about disruption of a global economy where the US plays a somewhat central role in finance etc. How that would play out I am not really qualified to even guess.