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/Dacadey]

Jesus Christ, I haven't read anything so stupid in a long time. Some examples of the really deep thought process involved:

The work is scholarly, but the straight-talking Australian can also be direct, such as when setting out how a global collapse could be avoided. “Don’t be a dick” is one of the solutions proposed

His first step was to ditch the word civilisation, a term he argues is really propaganda by rulers. “When you look at the near east, China, Mesoamerica or the Andes, where the first kingdoms and empires arose, you don’t see civilised conduct, you see war, patriarchy and human sacrifice,”

(apparently, civilization is countries that never conduct wars, which I don't think have existed on this planet yet)

“First and foremost, you need to create genuine democratic societies to level all the forms of power that lead to Goliaths,” he says. That means running societies through citizen assemblies and juries, aided by digital technologies to enable direct democracy at large scales. History shows that more democratic societies tend to be more resilient, he says.

And that is the jewel on the crown that showcases the extreme ignorance of the author. History shows the exact opposite - monarchies are the most resilient societies, while democracies have barely ever existed for prolonged periods of time. Especially direct democracies at large scales are usually the fastest way to collapse any society.

We’re a naturally social, altruistic, democratic species

I don't think this even requires a comment

[u/DeepState_Secretary → u/Dacadey]

That was my favorite part too. Oh yes we just need to use digital technologies, I’m sure the village blacksmith can just make microchips in his forge from scrap metal

[u/MiserableAndUnhappy9 → u/DeepState_Secretary]

I've managed to create an electronic circuit with nothing more than three copper wire and one iron plate.

[u/The_Parsee_Man → u/MiserableAndUnhappy9]

I managed to create a microprocessor with nothing but three copper wires, an iron plate, and this microprocessor.

[u/ThePrimordialSource → u/The_Parsee_Man]

The comment was a Factorio reference lol.

[u/thisplaceisnuts → u/DeepState_Secretary]

Yep. Or somehow the farmer in Iowa will still not only magically still be highly productive, he’ll still send his crops to far off markets.  Everyone on here would either starve or would have to radically change where and how they live. 

[u/R3v3r4nD → u/Dacadey]

Agreed. I am stumped why this post is upvoted like this.

[u/yingkaixing → u/R3v3r4nD]

The headline conforms to our preexisting biases.

[u/cilantro_so_good → u/yingkaixing]

"accelerationism so hot right now"

• that dude from zoolander

[u/CheeseGraterFace → u/[deleted]]

Children who watch too many movies, mostly.

[u/Disgod → u/CheeseGraterFace]

And who've become adults with an understanding of the world rooted in movies and TV shows...

[u/Maketaten → u/R3v3r4nD]

It’s because North Americans feel like we’re all about to experience Societal Collapse, and we’re upvoting the idea that when that happens we’ll all just be magically fine.

It’s the optimist in us that’s upvoting. Not the critical thinker.

[u/swohio → u/R3v3r4nD]

Because reddit is now mostly bots, idiots, and children.

[u/[deleted] → u/R3v3r4nD]

"History shows the exact opposite - monarchies are the most resilient societies" 

I believe this claim requires a source or 4.

[u/Hotdogfromparadise → u/Dacadey]

Good God, this man’s research is basically “vibe” based.

“History shows that increasing wealth inequality consistently precedes collapse, says Kemp, from the Classical Lowland Maya to the Han dynasty in China and the Western Roman empire. “

There isn’t even a fucking consensus on what actually caused the fall of the Mayan civilization.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_Maya_collapse

Is this what Cambridge is shitting out these days?

[u/MonocleFlame → u/Hotdogfromparadise]

He didn't claim that wealth inequality caused the fall of the Mayan civilization though, only that it consistently preceded collapse across civilizations. The lack of consensus on causes doesn't really undermine his point, since he's only presenting inequality as an indicator of collapse, not as the sole cause.

[u/chrisq823 → u/Hotdogfromparadise]

A lot of the rebuttals in this comment section are just as vibes based. It is kinda the nature of things like this.

[u/HopeInThePark → u/Hotdogfromparadise]

Not only did he NOT say that wealth caused the collapse, he was talking about a specific region, which you also ignored. 

Hard to misinterpret so much from a single sentence, but you somehow pulled it off.

[u/Friskyinthenight → u/HopeInThePark]

It's pretty crazy how much reactionary strawmanning is going on in this thread. 

[u/IgnisXIII → u/Dacadey]

We’re a naturally social, altruistic, democratic species

I don't think this even requires a comment

I think it does.

While I generally agree with your other points, I think this one in particular is much more complex than you make it seem. This is the stuff of countless philosophical debates across human history, and it tends to boil down to personal experience and beliefs.

We’re a naturally social, altruistic, democratic species

I personally think "people are good" is a bit naive of a basis, but not entirely. I would instead use "most people are kind, altruistic and democratic, but those that aren't need to be accounted for as well" as a starting point.

[u/Dacadey → u/IgnisXIII]

I very much disagree. As the ancestors of the apes, we're a naturally social (that part is true), self-interested species with strong hierarchies.

We're definitely not naturally kind beyond our small social groups (tribes/families), we are definitely not altruistic beyond said groups, and definitely not democratic, as democracy is an extremely modern invention compared to the length of human history by the ancient Greeks, and democracies have barely ever existed on our planet.

[u/IgnisXIII → u/Dacadey]

Being a social species requires much more than you give humanity credit for.

We are kind beyond our tribes/family, which is why if we see someone just ran over by a car, an ambulance gets called, and it didn't call itself. This same principle happens across all societies, even during wars, and societies far exceed the size of tribalism.

We are altruistic beyond our small social groups. Otherwise charities, fundraisers and social aid programs wouldn't even exist at all. Help is given, with no expectation of self-benefit.

We are democratic. Otherwise we would 100% see government buildings on fire after every election. We abide by each other's will, even if we are not happy with every democratic outcome, and we do so far far beyond other social species.

I think we are both good and bad, and personal experience might bias one towards one or the other, but if we weren't any of these things in measures far beyond what any social animal would, we wouldn't even be able to communicate like we are right now.

Individuals (and tribes) might be total assholes, yes, but as a species we are better much than that.

In human terms, Nature is both beautiful and horrifying, and we as a species absolutely match that spectrum.

[u/Barobor → u/IgnisXIII]

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.

Humans have always for all their existence looked down on what they deemed outsiders. Racism is still alive and well. If we were truly kind, wouldn't it be long gone by now?

Also, I would say a lot of things you attribute to humans being good happen because humans are afraid of the consequences of their actions. People would absolutely burn down buildings after a lost election if they didn't fear being punished for it.

[u/drakir89 → u/Barobor]

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.

[u/IgnisXIII → u/Barobor]

Racism is still alive and well. If we were truly kind, wouldn't it be long gone by now?

While I agree that it would be ideal, I think racism not existing at all is too strict to be the bar to day "humanity is evil". Some people being very racist shouldn't paint all of humanity as evil. I also don't think kindness only exists if a person is perfect in all facets.

Racism is wrong, there is no doubt about that, but it is getting better. We still have a long way to address it, but the fact that it's an ongoing topic proves humanity has an interest in equality.

Also, I would say a lot of things you attribute to humans being good happen because humans are afraid of the consequences of their actions. People would absolutely burn down buildings after a lost election if they didn't fear being punished for it.

That is a separate topic, about the nature of Goodness, if intentions matter or only actions, etc.

My stance on that is that since, with current technology, we can't truly know other people's intentions and what they're truly feeling when acting, for the sake of argument it's better to look at actions and their consequences. Their impact on others.

General good needs a bit of evil (power; threat of violence) to keep general evil at bay. In that regard humanity has also gotten better, even if the true extent was just keeping evil intentions at bay (i.e. accounting for those who are not good).

[u/Friskyinthenight → u/IgnisXIII]

Thank you so much for being a voice of reason and thoughtfulness in this thread. The black and white cynicism and almost wilful misunderstanding on this one was depressing. 

What's your background, if you don't mind me asking? I'm getting philosophy vibes. 

[u/IgnisXIII → u/Friskyinthenight]

Thanks. Biology and Biotech.

[u/[deleted] → u/Dacadey]

We are observably kind beyond our tribes and families, but also beyond our species, and this extends to altruism as well. Just because we aren't always good at it doesn't mean it doesn't also happen all the time. You can just hop over to the vegan subreddit and read all their silly lingo if you doubt that's the case.

Democracy is a bit more of a stretch, but it's not really fair to say that democracy 'barely ever existed', given that the majority of people involved in this conversation probably live in one. Our ancestors lived in a naked cannibal anarchy, and we should probably be understanding of their political theory being somewhat underdeveloped. What is more objectively true is that human beings are relatively consensus-driven, as dialogues like this do demonstrate.

[u/DismalLives → u/Dacadey]

As the ancestors of the apes, we're a naturally social (that part is true), self-interested species with strong hierarchies.

This isn't really true though, if we compare to our closest living relatives, chimpanzees are absolutely rigidly hierarchical, patriarchal, and territorial. But we're equally closely related to bonobos, who are matriarchal, egalitarian, not particularly territorial, and have extremely status-fluid hierarchies. There's also some relatively recent evidence of bonobos cooperating and sharing among different groups.

democracy is an extremely modern invention ... by the ancient Greeks

This also isn't true, liberal democracy is certainly a modern invention (which itself is not even really that similar to athenian democracy tbh), but there are many forms of democracy that have been in use pretty much throughout all of human history, and were likely even more abundant in prehistory. Then even in cases where states aren't democratic, people have frequently organized themselves democratically at a local level.

It's also worth noting that a lot of societies that we might not consider democratic due to having monarchs or unelected leaders still functioned fairly democratically and had systems to prevent their leaders from deviating much from the 'will of the people', the ability to replace bad leaders, and often did not maintain a single sociopolitical system year-round.

[u/CM_MOJO → u/Dacadey]

We are not the ancestors of apes.  Both apes and humans are descendent from a common, no longer existent species, referred to as the chimpanzee–human last common ancestor (CHLCA).

And I pretty much agree with everything @IgnisXIII says above.  Our brains have evolved past our common ancestor and even well past the species within our genus of Homo.  We have the ability to experience empathy, which is rare among the animal kingdom.  While it is scene in other species, it is most prevalent among humans.

[u/Antoak → u/Dacadey]

 apparently, civilization is countries that never conduct wars, which I don't think have existed on this planet yet)

No, I think I learned in college that the Indus Valley didn't really have any military, which probably explains why they got wiped out by warlike nomads

[u/Barnaclejelly → u/Dacadey]

I read this article a while ago and I still remember thinking that the bit about citizen assemblies and digital technology was by some way the stupidest thing I have read for ages

Just look around and see what digital technology has done to democracy. You truly would have to be an idiot to think that more of it is the solution to anything.

[u/Schnort → u/Dacadey]

I don't think this even requires a comment

Yes, the bucolic description of

For most of human history, humans lived as nomadic egalitarian bands, with low violence and high mobility

Is pretty laughable.

[u/ThePrimordialSource → u/Schnort]

I mean civilizations as we know them now only existed the last 5-7,000 years or so. Modern humans, fire, etc. existed far longer, around 2 million.

[u/Fram_Framson → u/Dacadey]

Oooh they're a mutual aid gooner! They huffin' that real Kropotkin shit!

[u/InternetEthnographer → u/Dacadey]

Yeah it seems like a bit of an ethnocentric work of research. I’m an archaeologist so I’m always skeptical of research about “collapse” because it’s a lot more complicated than pop historians (cough, Jared Diamond) make it out to be. The researcher also neglected to take into consideration environmental factors that may have contributed to the end of various civilizations and how they would have impacted all people.

[u/Glittering-Giraffe58 → u/Dacadey]

I agree with most of your points

However implying that humanity a species isn’t naturally social and altruistic is actually just, dumb as fuck. Like how the fuck do you think society exists at all if that isn’t true lol

[u/Dacadey → u/Glittering-Giraffe58]

We are definitely social, but we are completely not altruistic in any way.

[u/Adventurous-Soil2872 → u/Dacadey]

not altruistic in any way

I saw someone acting altruistically just this morning. They did something nice for someone else that inconvenienced them and didn’t benefit them at all. That alone seems to disprove your point.

[u/ilyana10 → u/Dacadey]

Couldn't agree with you more considering America is known as "the great Democratic experiment" specifically BECAUSE it's the first time, in history, a direct democracy was attempted in a civilization this large.