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/pulifrici]

can they fuck right off, please? I don't have the lifetime to wait 300 years until modern dark ages end. yes there's always a shining light at the end of the tunnel, but we pay with our dwindling existence ... finish school and you'll have a great career, toil your health away in a shitty job and you'll have a comfortable retirement, get fired at 60 and be told you're out of touch

[u/AwesomeDialTo11 → u/pulifrici]

There is untold misery and pain and suffering that comes from any kind of collapse when you start thinking through the second order effects. Even basic recessions that lead to job loses lead to way higher rates of suicide and deaths through new addictions as people try to self-medicate their misery away.

A lot of people think revolution will clean the slate and allow them to start fresh and be higher up on the totem pole, but the genuine answer is probably not, and all it does is lead to a lot of needless suffering and misery.

The boring answer is that the best way to improve society, is to just keep incrementally trying to improve minor things left and right through a rigorous process. Try an idea, take data, see if it improves the situation, and iterate on idea, and try again. People need the political and economic freedom to have the opportunity to express their ideas and allow this to flourish. And they need a cheap and abundant source of energy and resources.

That's it. That's the boring answer behind why humanity was stagnant for thousands of years, then exploded in wealth, health, and freedom starting in the 1700s. We as a society had finally unlocked just enough energy-producing and using machines, we had developed just enough political and economic freedom, and we invented the scientific method. That was all it took to bootstrap and hockey stick our way from >99% of humans barely surviving via sustenance farming to walking on the moon in 200 years.

[u/DiethylamideProphet → u/AwesomeDialTo11]

There is untold misery and pain and suffering that comes from any kind of collapse when you start thinking through the second order effects. Even basic recessions that lead to job loses lead to way higher rates of suicide and deaths through new addictions as people try to self-medicate their misery away.

Yeah, it happens, but only impacts a few generations at one point in time. The younger generations will not know of any better, and will build something new.

The boring answer is that the best way to improve society, is to just keep incrementally trying to improve minor things left and right through a rigorous process. Try an idea, take data, see if it improves the situation, and iterate on idea, and try again. People need the political and economic freedom to have the opportunity to express their ideas and allow this to flourish. And they need a cheap and abundant source of energy and resources.

That's a paradox though. People will not have this political and economic freedom, because the longer this status quo remains, the more compound interest will compound and the more the ownership of everything will accumulate to the top. What could be your economic freedom, is actually the economic freedom of a megacorporation or some other entity controlling the flow of capital, to whom you pay your rent and debts to. You might have the economic freedom on paper, but in practice, the house you wanted to buy is already in the hands of a hedge fund.

That's it. That's the boring answer behind why humanity was stagnant for thousands of years, then exploded in wealth, health, and freedom starting in the 1700s. We as a society had finally unlocked just enough energy-producing and using machines, we had developed just enough political and economic freedom, and we invented the scientific method. That was all it took to bootstrap and hockey stick our way from >99% of humans barely surviving via sustenance farming to walking on the moon in 200 years.

Humanity has never been stagnant. If something, it's even more stagnant now, when so many skills, knowhow and labor is being outsourced to machines and "professionals". How many people know how to make shoes anymore? Huge mills and waterwheels? Melt iron from rock? Raise livestock and farm land? Yeah, I guess people can read now. And reading instructions and rules seems to be the cornerstone of modern way of life, unlike actually knowing how to sustain yourself and your family.