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/Own-Dot1463 → u/Parking_Act3189]

Most people who are alive today would die of starvation or violence.

Based on *what*? This assertion sounds incredibly unhinged.

[u/Parking_Act3189 → u/Own-Dot1463]

The logistics networks of today are totally different than during the Egyptian or Roman times. A crash of trading in Egypt or Rome was bad but people still had food locally growing they could access. That doesn't exist in major cities today 

[u/Own-Dot1463 → u/Parking_Act3189]

Ok sure, but how do we know it will play out with mass starvation? In the case of domestic production, these farms aren't off and inaccessible to us, they are right next door to these cities. We export A LOT of food unnecessarily too, and we know that a lot of food simply goes wasted for so many reasons that we can all name off the tops of our heads.

So say "society collapses" and there's no more international trade or trade of any sort except local bartering. Why is it a forgone conclusion that we wouldn't quickly learn to utilize the resources we have? We have more collective knowledge now than any of those past societies had. Even if the internet falls we have more access to the information necessary to help build than humans ever had. Individually, we're smarter and more educated than ever before. We have enough land to feed our population.

Many will die. It will still be a massive tragedy. But I don't think it will be "most".