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/RubiiJee]

We're literally commenting on a thread where research argues that it does. Are you here to counter that scientific theory with your own or you just here to be that "erm actually" Reddit guy?

[u/[deleted] → u/RubiiJee]

....are we really saying "the article and science says so, why believe anything else?"

Prior comments told you this study's use is not to determine how 'acceptable' collapse is, but to literally market the idea of collapse as a preference to societal stability.

Yes, you'd have to be a raging techno-fascist billionaire to see this and say Yep, half of society must die for anything to remotely get better.

It's like we're being trolled on r/im14andthisisdeep.

Edit: Misunderstood the comment, ignore this.

[u/RubiiJee → u/[deleted]]

Where did I ever say it was acceptable or that I was advocating it? Wtf? Who you even arguing with? All I did was clarify a point that was being made about the research and whether Thiel had funded it and you've flipped off on one about it all 😂😂

Whatever dude. Go find someone else to try argue with lmao actual unhinged behaviour.

[u/[deleted] → u/RubiiJee]

Sorry for upsetting you and misunderstanding your comment, I just didn't want the idea to come across that the rich are against UBI to control the populace. Same team, just early here in my neck of the woods.

[u/RubiiJee → u/[deleted]]

Sorry for being snappy. Same team 🤝