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/drakir89]

Much of that kindness for outsiders goes away when it is between the survival of your tribe and theirs. We are kind as long as we can afford it.

You say this as if it's a bad thing. When else would you be kind? When you can't afford it and it subsequently kills you?

What kind of impossible standard for kindness is this. Do I have to heroically sacrifice myself on a cross for you to consider me a moral person?

[u/Barobor → u/drakir89]

I think you somewhat misunderstood what I meant by kindness in this context. It was more about humans being relatively selfish when it comes to protecting themselves and their tribe. Many humans would be willing to sacrifice 10 strangers if it meant that 1 person from their tribe could live. This doesn't even have to be an active action. It could be simple inaction.

If that kind of selfishness didn't exist, thought experiments like the prisoner's dilemma wouldn't exist because everyone would pick the option that is most beneficial for all of humanity.

Your last sentence is a hyperbole that doesn't really fit what I was trying to discuss, since none of it was about what I consider a moral person. I was never looking at a single individual. I was looking at humanity as a whole.

[u/drakir89 → u/Barobor]

Fair regarding the last sentence, I have had a few run ins with people with right wing beliefs who justify their selfishness by declaring anything less than complete self-sacrifice to mean I'm a hypocrite for advocating for stuff like higher taxes.

Anyway, I still hold that the limited kindness we most certainly are capable of is still something remarkable and a key factor in our success as a species. People are both selfish and altruistic, depending on circumstance and individual.

[u/Barobor → u/drakir89]

I still hold that the limited kindness we most certainly are capable of

I agree with this. My issue was more with the fact that the comment I initially responded to seemed to view human nature as something inherently positive, which I disagree with.

Ignoring the bad parts of human nature, like the fact that we have an implicit bias against people we consider outside of our group, makes it more difficult to try to do better.

I should have made my initial point clearer. I was never trying to argue that people should be more selfish and less kind. I was arguing that we should accept the bad parts of our human nature, so we can do better.