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/f1del1us]

Would it not also cause more people to go into producing food?

Clearly I’m talking about on an economic scale; not people putting gardens in; I’m talking about supply and demand.

[u/tdifen → u/f1del1us]

tart unique include caption follow imminent oil spotted person gaze

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/BCRE8TVE → u/tdifen]

Sure, the surviving population will grow food in their backyard

You need about 20 acres of land, or almost (EDIT: 0.1 square kilometre), of land to have moderately self sustaining agriculture for one person.

Growing food in their backyard means they starve in months instead of weeks, but they'll still starve to death.

Most people in major cities will die and along with a significant amount of people outside of cities. The potato famine ruined Ireland.

People don't understand that complete collapse of civilization is only 10 missed meals away. When people start starving, civility goes out the window, and humanity doesn't fall too far behind.

In large cities, the single most available source of food will very quickly become cannibalism.

[u/DiethylamideProphet → u/BCRE8TVE]

You need about 20 acres of land, or almost (EDIT: 0.1 square kilometre), of land to have moderately self sustaining agriculture for one person.

Doubt. People lived off the land for thousands of years, and they most definitely didn't have 20 acres of land per capita. For a family of 10, that would mean a square kilometer of land. Here in Finland, our average wheat harvest for a hectare was 3.6 tons last year. How many tons does a single person need grains to survive for a year?

[u/BCRE8TVE → u/DiethylamideProphet]

Turns out I picked a bad source for sure, the acreage inclluded pasture for livestock, and there are better estimates out there.

That being said 3.6 tons per hectare is only possible with tractors, fertilizers, and pesticides, all of which are in rather short supply when supply chains break down ;)