A Compass for the Politics of Collapse(write.as)
write.as
A Compass for the Politics of Collapse
https://write.as/conjure-utopia/a-compass-for-the-politics-of-collapse-a-short-straightforward-introduction
175 comments
Completely agree. It is actually very hard to collapse a modern Western society. It is too large, too complex, and have millions of people working to stabilise/fix problems.
Probably, it'll be more like the fall of the Roman empire; a slow gradual process of increasing instability, culminating not in utter chaos, anarchy and apocalypse, but in finding a new (temporary) period of some stability.
It's probably going to be a decrease in quality of life for many people, but certainly not a cavemen fighting with sticks situation, and the bunker survivors gloriously emerging to rule the wasteland as kings, as some preppers seem to believe.
It's probably going to be a decrease in quality of life for many people, but certainly not a cavemen fighting with sticks situation, and the bunker survivors gloriously emerging to rule the wasteland as kings, as some preppers seem to believe.
Yep agree. The bunkers also forget that there are more firearms in the US than people. So plenty of people will be targeting the bunkers.
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
For the collapse community, that complexity is viewed as a major vulnerability. A classic text in their lexicon is anthropologist Joseph Tainter’s “The Collapse of Complex Societies,” which discusses complexity’s role in collapse (the TL;DR is that diminishing marginal returns to social complexity are to be avoided if you’d like your society to prevail).
Yep they are pretty much wrong. Complexity is not the same as Fragility.
[deleted]
Not sure if you read the article, but both you and the redditor you are describing fit archetypes explicitly called out by the author.
Which one? "Partial Deniers" I guess? I think that's the overwhelming majority of people, those that recognize that emerging problems exist but do not predict they will cause a global collapse of society. Although it's often difficult to judge, exactly, since collapse evangelists tend to be rather evasive and ambiguous about what exactly will trigger the collapse.
You fit partial denier, yes. The redditor you're describing would certainly fit into "post-collapsists" given that they are preparing for the collapse in order to minimize post-collapse consequences.
I would say that most upper-middle-class+ educated westerners fit into the "partial denier" archetype, yes. It's in human nature to deny something bad is happening until its too late, and sometimes even then (see, eg. global warming, COVID-19, etc).
I would say that most upper-middle-class+ educated westerners fit into the "partial denier" archetype, yes. It's in human nature to deny something bad is happening until its too late, and sometimes even then (see, eg. global warming, COVID-19, etc).
[deleted]
I'm inclined to agree with you, but I'm curious how serious these plans were. Did anyone really try hiding in bunkers and organizing an independent community, or was that just armchair Redditing?
I met a guy who sold his lawncare? business and bought one of the RV's that is basically a bus, and his family of five lived in it, to be prepared for the collapse. (I'm not sure how he was planning on getting gasoline if the collapse was that serious...) After a while of interacting with some more normal people he decided he had been deceived, but I heard some time later that he had bought a house in the woods to prepare. I have no idea if he was on Reddit, though.
> While there are pressing challenges like climate change, aging populations, inequality, and more, I find that the substantial majority of people who devote large amounts of energy towards pondering and preparing for the collapse of civilization are using it as an escapist fantasy.
To be fair, something fairly similar could be said of most any internet conversation on such topics.
To be fair, something fairly similar could be said of most any internet conversation on such topics.
This is a Very Online taxonomy; I don't think it incorporates the vast majority of normal, not particularly Online people who are aware of these problems but aren't spending most of their energy on them. The vast majority of people are fundamentally outside of this taxonomy because even if they are thinking about ideas related to "collapse", it's as a problem someone else is going to solve for them. The biggest challenge in climate change (for example) is that it's simply happening on too long a timescale for the average person to pay much attention to it. That will change in the coming decades, but by the time it does, it'll probably be too late to avoid the biggest harms.
Do you have sources supporting your statements? They may sound common sense to you, but there is considerable ongoing scientific inquiry into people’s attitudes today, their sense of responsibility, and their sense of agency. Maybe you’re right, but I would go to the effort of reviewing the research and giving links before making assertions.
Honestly, if the position of the original author is that this is representative of everybody, not just Internet People, I think it'd be on them to justify that view. They don't quite make that claim, though, and so I am not trying to formally refute it - I am just making what seems to be a logical note given the content as it stands.
This is a casual discussion website, comments often relate personal opinions.
True, but is the distinction between fact and opinion plausibly important, even if the conversation is casual?
Yeaahhh, as interesting (and mildly funny) as it is, this a very online taxonomy.
Don't really care much for it.
Don't really care much for it.
> The biggest challenge in climate change (for example) is that it's simply happening on too long a timescale for the average person to pay much attention to it.
I disagree. This may be a problem, but I think the bigger problem is one that was described in a post on HN a few weeks back. Namely, that most of the folks advocating for action and sacrifice on climate change are themselves unwilling to lead by example, e.g. stop using air travel, give up or very sharply reduce automobile usage, etc.
This leads a lot of people to either 1) Write the whole thing off as some BS cooked up by elites or; 2) conclude that no one, including those who claim to care most about the issue is actually going to do anything about the problem.
You can't have Congressmen and Senators calling climate change an "existential threat" while they're hopping on a commercial airliner every week to fly back home from DC. While these folks may be correct in their assessment of climate change, their own behavior completely destroys any credibility they may have had on the issue.
I disagree. This may be a problem, but I think the bigger problem is one that was described in a post on HN a few weeks back. Namely, that most of the folks advocating for action and sacrifice on climate change are themselves unwilling to lead by example, e.g. stop using air travel, give up or very sharply reduce automobile usage, etc.
This leads a lot of people to either 1) Write the whole thing off as some BS cooked up by elites or; 2) conclude that no one, including those who claim to care most about the issue is actually going to do anything about the problem.
You can't have Congressmen and Senators calling climate change an "existential threat" while they're hopping on a commercial airliner every week to fly back home from DC. While these folks may be correct in their assessment of climate change, their own behavior completely destroys any credibility they may have had on the issue.
Anyone even vaguely familiar with the science understands that we need to cut emissions on a wide scale, and that air travel by a few hundred politicians is a meaninglessly small fraction of the actual problem. This is essentially a bad faith attack on the few people in congress trying to do something about climate change. Where is your ire for the dozens of Republican congressmen who don't believe climate change is real or believe the Christian end times will happen first? Please, be serious and don't engage in contrarian purity tests that only serve to set back our attempts at mitigation.
> Anyone even vaguely familiar with the science understands that we need to cut emissions on a wide scale, and that air travel by a few hundred politicians is a meaninglessly small fraction of the actual problem. This is essentially a bad faith attack on the few people in congress trying to do something about climate change.
The post you replied to isn't talking about the science, but rather the politics. Humans tend to respond badly to authority figures saying but not doing, and this is a real problem that we need to fix (by electing/creating better leaders) in order to meet the requirements of the moment.
So yeah, the total Congress emissions are tiny scientifically, but they're rather large politically.
Also, someone I once read highlighted that political polarisation increased when Reps could fly back home every weekend. Maybe one should require that Senators maintain their primary residence in D.C.?
The post you replied to isn't talking about the science, but rather the politics. Humans tend to respond badly to authority figures saying but not doing, and this is a real problem that we need to fix (by electing/creating better leaders) in order to meet the requirements of the moment.
So yeah, the total Congress emissions are tiny scientifically, but they're rather large politically.
Also, someone I once read highlighted that political polarisation increased when Reps could fly back home every weekend. Maybe one should require that Senators maintain their primary residence in D.C.?
> Where is your ire for the dozens of Republican congressmen who don't believe climate change is real or believe the Christian end times will happen first?
Oh, it's there, believe me. Just wasn't part of that particular post.
Oh, it's there, believe me. Just wasn't part of that particular post.
How about your and mine air travel? Meaninglessly small fraction of the actual problem?
Indeed, commercial aviation is only something like 3% of overall carbon dioxide emissions globally. If you want to make a personal difference you would be an order of magnitude more effective if you stop commuting in a non-electric car or gave up consuming meat when dining in restaurants. Expecting individual action to fix this (or worse, blaming individual actions for it) isn't going to work though. Individual consumption is not the majority source of emissions, and it's a bit of a classic prisoners dilemma problem anyway, and we know how much Americans trust each other these days.
Are you taking the human/mass psychology apect (which underlies human actions) of the problem into consideration?
Many would say our political economy is built on insatiable consumption, and is therefore incapable of cutting emissions to such a scale to materially impact climate change. It makes no sense to blame 'Republicans' and/or 'Christians' for not trusting every proposed solution to these massively complex problems.
It's not that they "don't trust every proposed solution". It's that they do not believe the problem is real, and therefore do not trust any solution.
It could be that when someone doesn't trust your solution, you call them out for not believing in the problem. Logical fallacy.
Or it could be that they say "climate change isn't real" in exactly those words.
Another problem is when so many people take a politician's words at face value. It simply doesn't work like that.
First, this isn't limited to politicians. Second, calling it a logical fallacy to believe what others say about themselves is utterly ridiculous and doesn't move goal posts so much as it pretends there are invisible goal posts swooping around the field at will and only you can know if the ball goes in.
Actually it is a logical fallacy to interpret one's rejection of a proposed solution to be a rejection of the problem. I'm not arguing any specific case for it, but it does seem to be quite common and problematic in civil discourse.
And the "another problem" is to misunderstand the way that money influences PR statements from powerful entities (politicians or otherwise). This part isn't illogical but just ignorant/mis-educated about wealth and power.
And the "another problem" is to misunderstand the way that money influences PR statements from powerful entities (politicians or otherwise). This part isn't illogical but just ignorant/mis-educated about wealth and power.
"Do as I say, not as I do" is terrible politics. Politics is about leading other humans, in this case leading them to make less comfortable choices.
[deleted]
I don't buy into the argument that if those people limited their travel and consumption then all of the sudden the non-believers will start believing. There's just no evidence that's an effective way to have societal impact. Not an exact parallel but just because people talk about wanting higher overall taxes and at the same time don't want to pay more than what is required doesn't mean they are hypocritical and it doesn't mean that if they did pay more others would follow.
> I don't buy into the argument that if those people limited their travel and consumption then all of the sudden the non-believers will start believing.
Maybe it would convince folks, maybe it wouldn't, but you'd have a chance. By contrast, any effort that involves "Do as I say, not as I do", is pretty much guaranteed to fail, and rightfully so. Trying to force others to do something that you yourself are unwilling to do voluntarily is the exact opposite of leadership.
Maybe it would convince folks, maybe it wouldn't, but you'd have a chance. By contrast, any effort that involves "Do as I say, not as I do", is pretty much guaranteed to fail, and rightfully so. Trying to force others to do something that you yourself are unwilling to do voluntarily is the exact opposite of leadership.
> I don't buy into the argument that if those people limited their travel and consumption then all of the sudden the non-believers will start believing.
"All of a sudden" was not claimed.
> There's just no evidence that's an effective way to have societal impact.
No evidence, or none that you are aware of? Also, evidence is not required for something to be true.
> and it doesn't mean that if they did pay more others would follow.
It could be achieved via legislation, which is to some degree influenced by public sentiment, which is to some degree influenced by the manner in which we discuss and conceptualize reality.
"All of a sudden" was not claimed.
> There's just no evidence that's an effective way to have societal impact.
No evidence, or none that you are aware of? Also, evidence is not required for something to be true.
> and it doesn't mean that if they did pay more others would follow.
It could be achieved via legislation, which is to some degree influenced by public sentiment, which is to some degree influenced by the manner in which we discuss and conceptualize reality.
I don't know about you, but most of the things in the article shape my real world: XR blocks my street, Exxon pollutes my air, cyberpunk shapes the aesthetic of art around me, corporate advertisements determine what is consumed by people I meet with. How is it online? And even if it were online, why do you treat as less real? Now most of the societal interactions happen online
I've always found Collapse believers to be composed of mostly people from highly developed Western nations. From what I've read online, many of these folks cannot visualize a world where their society/nation may backslide in a couple aspects (e.g. government corruption or infrastructure standards), but still continue to function mostly normally. Most of these folks have never seen rampant political corruption, low hygiene standards, political instability, broken/lacking infrastructure, or general unsafety that often comes up in developing nations. The West _is_ going through a lot of change/political soul searching right now, so it's understandable, but I highly suggest visiting developing nations to see how everyday people live, succeed, and thrive despite many problems around them.
Even the historic concept of "collapse" is ill-defined. It's widely accepted today that the Western Roman Empire (probably the most written-about "collapse" event) didn't really collapse at once as much as it slowly changed from within and without. Is this "linear collapse"? I mean maybe, but it may just be the process of change itself.
Even the historic concept of "collapse" is ill-defined. It's widely accepted today that the Western Roman Empire (probably the most written-about "collapse" event) didn't really collapse at once as much as it slowly changed from within and without. Is this "linear collapse"? I mean maybe, but it may just be the process of change itself.
I think the only real instance of a widespread collapse of civilization was the Late Bronze Age collapse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse
This entailed most urban centers in the Eastern mediterranean (besides Egypt and Mesopotamia) being violently destroyed, and writing completely disappearing in large regions. And all this happening over the course of maybe 50-100 years.
Arguments can be made for the declining Western Roman Empire, and collapse of some of the Chinese dynastic states. But as you point out, one can rather easily counter argue that this wasn't collapse of civilization but rather the collapse of a specific hegemonic state and its replacement by several smaller competing powers. Civilization still remained: urban center and writing didn't disappear. These were collapses of states not of civilization.
This entailed most urban centers in the Eastern mediterranean (besides Egypt and Mesopotamia) being violently destroyed, and writing completely disappearing in large regions. And all this happening over the course of maybe 50-100 years.
Arguments can be made for the declining Western Roman Empire, and collapse of some of the Chinese dynastic states. But as you point out, one can rather easily counter argue that this wasn't collapse of civilization but rather the collapse of a specific hegemonic state and its replacement by several smaller competing powers. Civilization still remained: urban center and writing didn't disappear. These were collapses of states not of civilization.
Decline of the Western Roman Empire was, in fact, at least regional collapse of civilization. Cities almost disappeared or at least shrunk considerably, including Rome, which peaked at 1 million people under Augustus, but had only 20-30 thousand people in the Early Middle Ages; other cities of the WRE fared even worse.
Literate secular class, including Roman state bureaucracy, disappeared as well, and with it large scale planning, monetary economy, large construction projects or most of long distance trade. Only the Church still maintained reading and writing, but that was a very small group of people.
All of this may not fulfill your definition of collapse of civilization, but I believe that a Roman citizen of 2nd century AD, suddenly transported to the 8th century, would be aghast seeing what became of his former home. Even cattle shrunk to half its former size and crop yields diminished, as agricultural best practices were forgotten.
Literate secular class, including Roman state bureaucracy, disappeared as well, and with it large scale planning, monetary economy, large construction projects or most of long distance trade. Only the Church still maintained reading and writing, but that was a very small group of people.
All of this may not fulfill your definition of collapse of civilization, but I believe that a Roman citizen of 2nd century AD, suddenly transported to the 8th century, would be aghast seeing what became of his former home. Even cattle shrunk to half its former size and crop yields diminished, as agricultural best practices were forgotten.
What about the sudden abandonment of cities in Mesoamerica at different periods?
That states fell is not disputed. States and civilizations fell all the time in the Ancient world. This is distinct from the narrative that humanity as a whole would collapse simultaneously. As the parent comment says, the Late Bronze Age collapse is the closest we have to a simultaneous civilization ending event as we know in modern history, and it is very much under active research.
Detroit? It’s still here; just a bit dusty.
Agreed. I didn't talk about the Late Bronze Age collapse because it's still very much an ongoing topic of research, but I definitely agree. You can also draw similar parallels to the transition between the Heian court period in Japan to the Sengoku Warring States eras as well, as far as the collapse/change dichotomy is concerned.
> Even the historic concept of "collapse" is ill-defined. It's widely accepted today that the Western Roman Empire (probably the most written-about "collapse" event) didn't really collapse at once as much as it slowly changed from within and without. Is this "linear collapse"? I mean maybe, but it may just be the process of change itself.
I love to point out how the symbolism of many modern governments is the result of a sort of cargo cult of Roman Republican culture. Government buildings to this day copy the dull gray ruins of Roman buildings, just as many 18th/19th century governments declared popular authority from a Latin-imitating "Senate", filled to the brim with Roman symbolism.
With that in mind, it's not surprising that many today believe the 18th/19th century's "fall of Rome" and "barbarian invasion" myths as a sort of predictive weak-spot of modernity. If you view civilization as a linear path, a story of how the intrinsically superior empires of the Greek/Macedonians and Romans successively lifted the world out of its natural, primitive barbarian state, and the shifting power centers of the 3rd-8th century as a "turning back of time to the Dark Ages" or linear regression along the same path, then the "collapse" narrative is as plain as day. This view on history is pure fantasy, of course, which is why the collapse narratives set in modern days seem so fantastic as well.
I love to point out how the symbolism of many modern governments is the result of a sort of cargo cult of Roman Republican culture. Government buildings to this day copy the dull gray ruins of Roman buildings, just as many 18th/19th century governments declared popular authority from a Latin-imitating "Senate", filled to the brim with Roman symbolism.
With that in mind, it's not surprising that many today believe the 18th/19th century's "fall of Rome" and "barbarian invasion" myths as a sort of predictive weak-spot of modernity. If you view civilization as a linear path, a story of how the intrinsically superior empires of the Greek/Macedonians and Romans successively lifted the world out of its natural, primitive barbarian state, and the shifting power centers of the 3rd-8th century as a "turning back of time to the Dark Ages" or linear regression along the same path, then the "collapse" narrative is as plain as day. This view on history is pure fantasy, of course, which is why the collapse narratives set in modern days seem so fantastic as well.
This may be true if you restrict yourself to English-speaking communities, but there's no shortage of survivalist talk in other countries. E.g. Russia has plenty.
I think that you're lumping together two kinds of collapse "believers" together - one for which "collapse" means the collapse of civilization, and the other for which that word means the collapse of their country/state. The latter is much more likely, and I think that fretters of that kind are more prevalent than you think - I probably have six friends who are of the latter kind, and only one of the former.
> The West _is_ going through a lot of change/political soul searching right now
I believe that you're understating the situation a bit - at least, here in the United States, we're beginning to see markers of the kind of "cultural revolution" that happened in Russia in the 1910's and China in the 1960's - and while neither of those states have collapsed, exactly, tens of millions of innocent people were killed and rather unpleasant governments installed as a result.
While categorically different from total civilization collapse, I don't blame my fellow Americans for starting to get nervous and start prepping like a high-school senior.
> The West _is_ going through a lot of change/political soul searching right now
I believe that you're understating the situation a bit - at least, here in the United States, we're beginning to see markers of the kind of "cultural revolution" that happened in Russia in the 1910's and China in the 1960's - and while neither of those states have collapsed, exactly, tens of millions of innocent people were killed and rather unpleasant governments installed as a result.
While categorically different from total civilization collapse, I don't blame my fellow Americans for starting to get nervous and start prepping like a high-school senior.
well, they are already living it, westeners have the privilege to believe it's not something that is happening but something that will happen in the future and take distance from it framing it as a collapse after peak prosperity. Third world never had peak prosperity or at least it didn't look particularly different from their past. But they are gonna starve and migrate too even if they don't call it collapse.
> Third world never had peak prosperity or at least it didn't look particularly different from their past
If that's what you legitimately think of the developing world, then no wonder you believe in collapse so strongly (almost like the inverse of the "noble savage"; a fear of letting go of the "Western enlightenment" even if it comes from critics of modern Western regimes). Please, go outside and experience the world. Life has fundamentally changed for most of humanity, except for the occasional isolated remote community, over the last 50 years. I urge you to define what "peak prosperity" is and how developing nations lack it before we discuss what "collapse" is and the loss of "peak prosperity".
I have lots of family in developing nations and their lives have absolutely, fundamentally changed. It's borderline insulting to imply that developing nations still live like they did in the past.
If that's what you legitimately think of the developing world, then no wonder you believe in collapse so strongly (almost like the inverse of the "noble savage"; a fear of letting go of the "Western enlightenment" even if it comes from critics of modern Western regimes). Please, go outside and experience the world. Life has fundamentally changed for most of humanity, except for the occasional isolated remote community, over the last 50 years. I urge you to define what "peak prosperity" is and how developing nations lack it before we discuss what "collapse" is and the loss of "peak prosperity".
I have lots of family in developing nations and their lives have absolutely, fundamentally changed. It's borderline insulting to imply that developing nations still live like they did in the past.
My mother grew up in southern Europe in conditions that were bordering middle-age conditions and now life there is completely different.
Prosperity is always relative to the system you're immersed in and in a globalist world, your prosperity is defined by the prosperity of how people on the other side of the world live. Americans can believe they have the best living conditions in the world and same can do northern Europeans and maybe Japanese too. Let's throw in urbanized chinese middle class too. But in developing countries they don't have the privilege to believe they are in that competition. They are always a province of the empire and living in scarcity.
This says nothing about the enormous changes that went on pretty much everywhere in the rural parts of every country with very few, isolated exceptions.
Prosperity is always relative to the system you're immersed in and in a globalist world, your prosperity is defined by the prosperity of how people on the other side of the world live. Americans can believe they have the best living conditions in the world and same can do northern Europeans and maybe Japanese too. Let's throw in urbanized chinese middle class too. But in developing countries they don't have the privilege to believe they are in that competition. They are always a province of the empire and living in scarcity.
This says nothing about the enormous changes that went on pretty much everywhere in the rural parts of every country with very few, isolated exceptions.
I think you’re discussing a very different thing to the parent and grandparent comments. Yes, by the standard that counts the end of the Roman Empire as a collapse, any given nation or union of nations may still collapse and those within may starve or migrate; this still won’t look like any of the post-apocalyptic narratives that represent the loudest and most obvious examples of this topic.
I expect that, much like every other community, the loudest “collapsers” are merely an embarrassing minority, and certainly I hear that the people who stockpile food and maintain a strong relationship with their neighbours roll their eyes at those who stockpile ammunition and do nothing else.
I expect that, much like every other community, the loudest “collapsers” are merely an embarrassing minority, and certainly I hear that the people who stockpile food and maintain a strong relationship with their neighbours roll their eyes at those who stockpile ammunition and do nothing else.
The city of Rome went from 1 million people to 20-30 thousand. Literally 97-98 % shrinkage.
If the same happened to New York, with the subway abandoned, whole neighbourhoods overgrown by poison ivy and the skyscrapers collapsing from lack of maintenance, "post-apocalyptic" would probably be a fitting word.
I am not sure how you can call such a massive loss of complexity and population something else than a collapse.
If the same happened to New York, with the subway abandoned, whole neighbourhoods overgrown by poison ivy and the skyscrapers collapsing from lack of maintenance, "post-apocalyptic" would probably be a fitting word.
I am not sure how you can call such a massive loss of complexity and population something else than a collapse.
My understanding is the population estimate for 300 AD was ~1 million, declining to ~800k in 400 AD, ~500k in 450 AD and down to ~100k in 500 AD.
It’s the timescale that makes it. I’m thinking Methyr Tydfel in the UK as a point of reference for similar fractional change in the first roughly century of decline, but peaking in the Industrial Age.
If this happened in NYC, I’d expect (say) Queens to turn to rubble while (say) Manhattan is getting freshly built skyscrapers. Plucky adventurers with assault rifles and bows looting tinned food from a suddenly abandoned Whole Foods is more of what I expect during hurricanes than as a standard result everywhere all at one.
It’s the timescale that makes it. I’m thinking Methyr Tydfel in the UK as a point of reference for similar fractional change in the first roughly century of decline, but peaking in the Industrial Age.
If this happened in NYC, I’d expect (say) Queens to turn to rubble while (say) Manhattan is getting freshly built skyscrapers. Plucky adventurers with assault rifles and bows looting tinned food from a suddenly abandoned Whole Foods is more of what I expect during hurricanes than as a standard result everywhere all at one.
I think the bottom was reached around 800 AD with 20-50k people in entire Rome. Admittedly, it is not easy to estimate population development in a city like Rome that has been built several times over and people still live above the ruins. It must nevertheless been quite obvious to the early medieval inhabitants of Rome that the city used to be far bigger, far more populous and far richer.
It's a taxonomy of political discourse regarding collapse. It's not surprising that it has little to say about people who have no political investment in ideas related to collapse.
Yes. This is a "Very Online taxonomy".
While I think it's useful to think about mechanisms of collapse, the author seems to have a clear bias towards the belief that collapse will happen which feels very non-objective.
In my experience, the vast majority of people I interact with (maybe 90%+) fall into the author's categorization of "radical denier" or "partial denier".
I don't think there's anything "radical" about the belief that while things will change, society will go on. But calling the belief radical and suggesting that this is a belief only shared by Very Evil People (e.g. Koch Brothers) is a disingenuous straw man.
For the record, if I had to put myself into this unscientific taxonomy, I might be somewhere between a technological and economic optimist.
While I think it's useful to think about mechanisms of collapse, the author seems to have a clear bias towards the belief that collapse will happen which feels very non-objective.
In my experience, the vast majority of people I interact with (maybe 90%+) fall into the author's categorization of "radical denier" or "partial denier".
I don't think there's anything "radical" about the belief that while things will change, society will go on. But calling the belief radical and suggesting that this is a belief only shared by Very Evil People (e.g. Koch Brothers) is a disingenuous straw man.
For the record, if I had to put myself into this unscientific taxonomy, I might be somewhere between a technological and economic optimist.
I suppose it's largely a problem of naming. "Denier" has negative connotations, but it's also the most obvious name to use. What would be a better, non-pejorative name? Life-will-go-on-ists?
The article later refers to an ideology of "eco-fascism" which is even more problematic. That seems like a name that detractors would apply to a group, not a label that someone would self-apply. I don't know what a neutral name would be, though.
The article later refers to an ideology of "eco-fascism" which is even more problematic. That seems like a name that detractors would apply to a group, not a label that someone would self-apply. I don't know what a neutral name would be, though.
For those that would like to know how to rebuild civilization, the book The Knowledge by Lewis Dartnell is a handy reference on things to know and do. General bibliography:
* http://the-knowledge.org/en-gb/bibliography/
Deep dives on particular topics of agriculture, food and clothing, substances (charcoal, lime), materials (wood, cement, furnaces, glass), medicine, etc:
* http://the-knowledge.org/en-gb/further-reading-by-chapter/
See also the more light-hearted How to Invent Everything: A Survival Guide for the Stranded Time Traveler by Ryan North:
* https://www.howtoinventeverything.com
Which starts with inventing language (spoken and written), before moving to "non-sucky" numbers, the scientific method, and calorie surplus.
* http://the-knowledge.org/en-gb/bibliography/
Deep dives on particular topics of agriculture, food and clothing, substances (charcoal, lime), materials (wood, cement, furnaces, glass), medicine, etc:
* http://the-knowledge.org/en-gb/further-reading-by-chapter/
See also the more light-hearted How to Invent Everything: A Survival Guide for the Stranded Time Traveler by Ryan North:
* https://www.howtoinventeverything.com
Which starts with inventing language (spoken and written), before moving to "non-sucky" numbers, the scientific method, and calorie surplus.
Also
The Global Village Construction Set (GVCS) is a modular, DIY, low-cost, high-performance platform that allows for the easy fabrication of the 50 different Industrial Machines that it takes to build a small, sustainable civilization with modern comfort
https://www.opensourceecology.org/gvcs/
The Global Village Construction Set (GVCS) is a modular, DIY, low-cost, high-performance platform that allows for the easy fabrication of the 50 different Industrial Machines that it takes to build a small, sustainable civilization with modern comfort
https://www.opensourceecology.org/gvcs/
Only four of fifty or something machines are finished designed and build able today.
Also relevant is Long Now's "Manual for Civilization"
https://blog.longnow.org/02014/02/06/manual-for-civilization...
https://blog.longnow.org/02014/02/06/manual-for-civilization...
If you find the collapse of human civilisation interesting, you might enjoy:
It Could Happen Here - podcast by Robert Evans exploring a US decaying in to warring states and dissolving https://www.iheart.com/podcast/1119-it-could-happen-here-307...
Dark Mountain, a twice-yearly collection of short stories and poetry on themes of collapse and ecocide. https://dark-mountain.net/
It Could Happen Here - podcast by Robert Evans exploring a US decaying in to warring states and dissolving https://www.iheart.com/podcast/1119-it-could-happen-here-307...
Dark Mountain, a twice-yearly collection of short stories and poetry on themes of collapse and ecocide. https://dark-mountain.net/
It Could Happen Here was pretty haunting. Some of it was hand wavy but a lot felt borderline prophetic.
I should caution people here though. Going down this rabbit hole is not at all good for your mental health and in parallel, much like a particular Big Short scene, glorifying any of the potential scenarios here is glorifying death and suffering on a level never seen before.
We have a lot of problems to solve over the coming years but resisting this train of thought becoming mainstream in the algorithmic feeds that define our future is one of them. This can only have strictly negative consequences of the "self fulfilling prophecy" variety.
I should caution people here though. Going down this rabbit hole is not at all good for your mental health and in parallel, much like a particular Big Short scene, glorifying any of the potential scenarios here is glorifying death and suffering on a level never seen before.
We have a lot of problems to solve over the coming years but resisting this train of thought becoming mainstream in the algorithmic feeds that define our future is one of them. This can only have strictly negative consequences of the "self fulfilling prophecy" variety.
It's horrifying, but then, the more time goes on the more IPCC forecasts trend towards what was previously labeled as histrionics and doomerism. Anyway, action is the antidote to despair and it's what has worked for me. We're far past the point where losing a few coastal cities is our biggest worry.
This is a good point. My focus above was more the artificial disasters (ie. political unrest for the sake of political unrest) which to me feel like the most imminent given all the people sitting on their ai feeds and seething in message boards. It does bear mentioning that the real issues, most importantly climate change followed by economic inequality, are very real and absolutely will destroy just about everyone's way of life.
[deleted]
It Could Happen Here recently restarted as a daily podcast, after its limited run a few years ago. it's been fascinating listening.
Evans has been careful to avoid Doomerism and focus on some of the potential for hope and resiliency, such as in local mutual aid networks.
he's also been using "the crumbles" rather than "collapse", which is a terminology shift I like a lot. "collapse" seems to suggest a singular event, whereas what we are more likely to see (and are currently already experiencing, I think) is a more gradual crumbling of societal institutions.
to paraphrase William Gibson - the collapse is already here, it's just unevenly distributed
Evans has been careful to avoid Doomerism and focus on some of the potential for hope and resiliency, such as in local mutual aid networks.
he's also been using "the crumbles" rather than "collapse", which is a terminology shift I like a lot. "collapse" seems to suggest a singular event, whereas what we are more likely to see (and are currently already experiencing, I think) is a more gradual crumbling of societal institutions.
to paraphrase William Gibson - the collapse is already here, it's just unevenly distributed
"crumbles" works well, and seems a lot closer to what we're feeling. Personally, I prefer the phrase "collapse is a process, not an event".
I've listened to a few of them and don't recommend the new daily episodes. They're unscripted and not as polished as the old series.
And don't forget Evan's State Department/intelligence ties: Bellingcat plus being embedded in US military units in Iraq. We don't know to what extent COINTELPRO-like programs ever ended. Evans fearmongers and overinflates groups like the Proud Boys which are really just marginal organizations without any popular support.
Note: I've been involved in the activist scene in the PNW for years and have known people who know him. Most activists here are highly skeptical of Evans for the reasons above, viewing his work as a mix of LARPing and political voyeurism.
And don't forget Evan's State Department/intelligence ties: Bellingcat plus being embedded in US military units in Iraq. We don't know to what extent COINTELPRO-like programs ever ended. Evans fearmongers and overinflates groups like the Proud Boys which are really just marginal organizations without any popular support.
Note: I've been involved in the activist scene in the PNW for years and have known people who know him. Most activists here are highly skeptical of Evans for the reasons above, viewing his work as a mix of LARPing and political voyeurism.
As a PNW native antifascist, this reads like FUD. Evans isn't perfect, but you'd have to be completely out to lunch to miss what the Proud Boys are doing in the Portland/Vancouver area.
I think, no matter how hard you try, you can't produce something like this without it being biased toward your own opinions on the topic. And those of us with different opinions would phrase things differently. I suppose I would fit in his Pessimist/Defeatist category, though I wouldn't call it that. (And I guess deniers wouldn't call themselves deniers either.) I would probably refer to my own take on collapse as depressive realism rooted in observations of climate change. As one observation, take the latest IPCC report.
U.N. Secretary-General, António Guterres described the latest IPCC report as "a code red for humanity." "The alarm bells are deafening, and the evidence is irrefutable: greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning and deforestation are choking our planet and putting billions of people at immediate risk," Guterres said. [1]
The more you look the worse it gets. We aren't going to be able to reduce atmospheric CO2 without some sort of drastic uncomfortable change. The lockdowns during the pandemic reduced emissions by about 17% at one point. But despite that, CO2 in the atmosphere continued to increase. Whatever we do has to be more drastic than the pandemic lockdowns, and permanent, or it will keep getting worse. I just don't see people being willing to go along with that, especially those of us in comfortable Western societies. I don't know, is that pessimism, defeatism, or realism?
All good points. Another clear lesson from the pandemic: Achieving optimum outcomes is severely bounded by practical political realities - Consider if every single country had hard locked down, everywhere, for 6+ weeks. Perhaps complete elimination could have been achieved. But politically, impossible.
That equally applies to climate change as a similar tragedy of the commons played out on a longer timescale. So there are some learnings to be applied if you're looking, as I think many people now are, to identify how things might play out and then make your own life choices accordingly.
Something I'm increasingly certain of is that the future will be boring. By which I mean trends are likely correct but will play out over longer timescales than expected. Visions of sudden collapse and apocalypse are mostly anxiety-fuelled inventions of the mind aimed at spurring action in the present day. Reality is more like economic stagnation, decreasing freedoms, and continual smaller crises that gradually bring us to the predicted future state. Nothing that can be ridden out in a bunker with a few years supply of oats.
That equally applies to climate change as a similar tragedy of the commons played out on a longer timescale. So there are some learnings to be applied if you're looking, as I think many people now are, to identify how things might play out and then make your own life choices accordingly.
Something I'm increasingly certain of is that the future will be boring. By which I mean trends are likely correct but will play out over longer timescales than expected. Visions of sudden collapse and apocalypse are mostly anxiety-fuelled inventions of the mind aimed at spurring action in the present day. Reality is more like economic stagnation, decreasing freedoms, and continual smaller crises that gradually bring us to the predicted future state. Nothing that can be ridden out in a bunker with a few years supply of oats.
Honestly, I'm surprised we had as much mask/social distancing compliance in the early parts of the pandemic as we did. It's encouraging how much people will put up as long as they understand why. But that seems to only work for a limited time, and we haven't been doing so well on vaccinations.
As for the future being boring... I suppose if 2020 is a representative sample of what the future has to offer, it won't be. But I agree that a lot of things may just gradually get worse, if we don't figure out how to deal with them. And in terms of climate, the best possible outcome isn't great.
As for the future being boring... I suppose if 2020 is a representative sample of what the future has to offer, it won't be. But I agree that a lot of things may just gradually get worse, if we don't figure out how to deal with them. And in terms of climate, the best possible outcome isn't great.
One should really read "Collapse of Complex Societies" by Joe A. Tainter. He's an archeologist who has a very timeless view of collapse based on diminishing marginal returns on societal complexity. A lot of the collapse theories that get a lot of ink are written from the conclusion backwards. As in here's my plan for the total restructuring of society and a long justification with cherrypicked examples for why everyone needs to get on board or we're going to be in Road Warrior territory next year.
Collapse is a very subtle process that needs to be understood as a set of dynamic interacting forces not a dialectical materialism like process that proceeds inevitably from an invented mythology of historical forces.
Collapse is a very subtle process that needs to be understood as a set of dynamic interacting forces not a dialectical materialism like process that proceeds inevitably from an invented mythology of historical forces.
Relevant as well:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/12/can-his...
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/12/can-his...
Personally I feel like the Collapse movement is full of histrionics and hysteria, and for a while I was ignoring it. But the movement seems to have a psychological pull. Most of the people I talk to in the US who are tuned into the news cycle or culture war on both the right and the left have started to accept parts of the Collapse narrative (rampant crime leading to breakdown of social order, climate change induced disasters leading to mass displacement of populations, etc.).
It worries me to see so many people accept Collapse as inevitable. I think such pessimistic attitudes will lead more people towards radicalization as they see revolutionary change as the only means to preventing collapse.
There must be some part of the human psyche which is attracted to the idea of world ending disasters. Ideas of apocalypse are found in many religions throughout the world.
Perhaps the Collapse movement is the new eschatology for a post-religion world.
It worries me to see so many people accept Collapse as inevitable. I think such pessimistic attitudes will lead more people towards radicalization as they see revolutionary change as the only means to preventing collapse.
There must be some part of the human psyche which is attracted to the idea of world ending disasters. Ideas of apocalypse are found in many religions throughout the world.
Perhaps the Collapse movement is the new eschatology for a post-religion world.
I think the allure is escapism: life is boring and unfulfilling for many people, so they are attracted to the notion that some spectacular event is going to suddenly upend their lives and make life more interesting.
One of the other patterns I see is justification of apathy. People rationalize lack of desire to work or apply themselves with the justification that the world is going to end relatively soon, so why bother.
One of the other patterns I see is justification of apathy. People rationalize lack of desire to work or apply themselves with the justification that the world is going to end relatively soon, so why bother.
There's also the "benefit" that if the future doesn't resemble the present, you don't have to make mundane preparations for it, like contributing to a 401k (since dollars will be useless), to say nothing of promoting beneficial government efforts (like social security or health care).
> life is boring and unfulfilling for many people, so they are attracted to the notion that some spectacular event is going to suddenly upend their lives and make life more interesting
Mainly agree. As I was watching the Taliban take over region by region I wondered how many people were watching it in their comfortable home with nice things and climate control and couldn't help but feel envy in that these people (Taliban fighters) are doing something impactful and meaningful in their lives; creating the change they wanted. That while living in poverty relative to the person watching at home, they have real purpose.
Would the unfulfilled and bored person ever be able to put it all on the line for something they are certain is theirs and do their part in a collective of idealists with the same courage of their convictions? That the work to get there doesn't happen in a day or a month or a year but over decades, much like building a meaningful career and family that gives you fulfillment.
Mainly agree. As I was watching the Taliban take over region by region I wondered how many people were watching it in their comfortable home with nice things and climate control and couldn't help but feel envy in that these people (Taliban fighters) are doing something impactful and meaningful in their lives; creating the change they wanted. That while living in poverty relative to the person watching at home, they have real purpose.
Would the unfulfilled and bored person ever be able to put it all on the line for something they are certain is theirs and do their part in a collective of idealists with the same courage of their convictions? That the work to get there doesn't happen in a day or a month or a year but over decades, much like building a meaningful career and family that gives you fulfillment.
If you feel this way, I encourage you to go volunteer in one of the many poverty and conflict-stricken regions of this world. The US Peace Corps does a lot of this kind of work. It's needed and fulfilling work.
Would love to in another life, but have too many responsibilities and obligations (e.g. things I love and cherish) here to do anything like that in good faith at this point. I have a friend who did when he was young (probably best time to do these types of things) and it's a thing that has a lot of meaning to him to this day and rightfully so I imagine.
If you're at the point where you envy Taliban soldiers for having a purpose in life, it might be good for the people you cherish to have you go figure some stuff out.
When did I say I envy them? Or that those that may envy their purposeful lives would agree with their politics and beliefs they fight for. Only that I could imagine a person with feelings of no purpose could look at them and envy that particular attribute.
Where you responded to someone who said "if you feel this way do it" not with "I wasn't talking about myself!!" but with "I can't"
I mean, I guess you missed the point of my original comment. I juxtaposed Taliban fighters in an impoverished and apparently hopeless place with wealthy and prosperous western civilization and how the man sitting in his home with creature comforts but yet feeling without purpose actually has it right in front of him if only he’s willing to work at it for decades and dedicate himself to something meaningful. That it must fill them with envy that these fighters managed to find a way to make their life meaningful within the context of their situation but yet the man who is in a far more prosperous and peaceful place somehow can’t and spends his days in a fantasy about the collapse of civilization much like the situation in Afghanistan actually has been for 40 years.
I agree it's probably escapism, maybe due to life being unfulfilling, but I'm not sure boredom is driving it. I suspect a lot of people of different political inclinations are deeply dissatisfied, and feel helpless. So they turn to collapse theories of different sorts.
I really wish there was a good way of tracking actual sentiment about collapse, and indicators of societal upheaval, to better understand how things really are, or what people really feel in general. There's many such things but they're all imperfect and point in different directions for different groups. Maybe this says something about the complexity of society -- if we could predict collapse, we'd probably be able to avoid it -- but it seems like it deserves more attention. I feel like it's a topic of increasing salience, but I'm not sure I have much to base that on other than people say it is. It is a pandemic, so there's that, but there's been similar things in my lifetime that didn't lead to quite so much collapse narrative.
Maybe things were so good or stable-seeming before that returning to some kind of historical norm with regard to instability factors is bringing things back to a baseline with collapse narrative? End-of-world beliefs are a classic thing; maybe they just disappeared (relatively speaking) for awhile.
I really wish there was a good way of tracking actual sentiment about collapse, and indicators of societal upheaval, to better understand how things really are, or what people really feel in general. There's many such things but they're all imperfect and point in different directions for different groups. Maybe this says something about the complexity of society -- if we could predict collapse, we'd probably be able to avoid it -- but it seems like it deserves more attention. I feel like it's a topic of increasing salience, but I'm not sure I have much to base that on other than people say it is. It is a pandemic, so there's that, but there's been similar things in my lifetime that didn't lead to quite so much collapse narrative.
Maybe things were so good or stable-seeming before that returning to some kind of historical norm with regard to instability factors is bringing things back to a baseline with collapse narrative? End-of-world beliefs are a classic thing; maybe they just disappeared (relatively speaking) for awhile.
> It is a pandemic, so there's that, but there's been similar things in my lifetime that didn't lead to quite so much collapse narrative.
Yet despite all of the rhetoric around the pandemic throughout the entire world, very little has functionally changed politically. While the pandemic most certainly exposed many problems throughout world governments, the fact that no major change (e.g. revolution, energy collapse, etc) has actually happened is a testament to the world's current status quo.
> Maybe things were so good or stable-seeming before that returning to some kind of historical norm with regard to instability factors is bringing things back to a baseline with collapse narrative?
The world was a lot less connected before. Now we see the pain around us instantly through shared photos, Twitter, and the 24 hour news cycle. In the past you could go months without realizing that a major conflict was occurring, especially in less connected parts of the world.
Yet despite all of the rhetoric around the pandemic throughout the entire world, very little has functionally changed politically. While the pandemic most certainly exposed many problems throughout world governments, the fact that no major change (e.g. revolution, energy collapse, etc) has actually happened is a testament to the world's current status quo.
> Maybe things were so good or stable-seeming before that returning to some kind of historical norm with regard to instability factors is bringing things back to a baseline with collapse narrative?
The world was a lot less connected before. Now we see the pain around us instantly through shared photos, Twitter, and the 24 hour news cycle. In the past you could go months without realizing that a major conflict was occurring, especially in less connected parts of the world.
The era of Mutually Assured Destruction inspired tons of post-nuclear-fallout fiction. I'm pretty sure Collapse is just the modern version of the same thing.
That era didn't end, we just became inured.
For sure there are eschatological traits, it's discussed quite commonly in the literature on the topic. We are exiting the linear, flat time of our parents and entering again in a cyclical time and we need ruptures: Collapse is one, Singularity is another but there are more on the horizon (like escape to space and so on).
While I listen when, e.g. Stross compared the Singularity to an Atheist take on Christian theology, I don’t think our parents lived in anything like a linear time:
My dad was born in ‘39; the first fission bomb was ‘45; first transistor was demonstrated in ‘47; first fusion bomb ‘51; NTSC TV color standard was ‘53; first artificial satellite was ‘58; the laser and the pill in ‘60; measles vaccine in ‘63; the 60s was civil rights, anti-war, free love, gay rights and second-wave feminism in the west, decolonisation in Africa, the green revolution, and the majority of the space race; 8-track, compact cassette, PDP-8, BASIC were all ‘64; first ATM and first human-to-human heart transplant was ‘67; the Mother of All Demos was ‘68.
Then the 70s happened and made the 60s seem languid — the mainframes became home computers, the women became national leaders, space became more relevant, DNA sequencing first invented and then used to fully sequence a virus, first test tube baby and first genetically modified human insulin from E. coli, X-ray tomography and MRIs invented, smallpox eliminated first from the Americas and then worldwide, public key encryption, cochlear implants successfully implanted, first demo of an audio CD, polio eliminated in the USA, …
And the 80s surpassed the 70s like the 70s surpassed the 60s.
So much has changed so fast; these days you can only even keep track of how much has changed because of the crowdsourced efforts of other people.
My dad was born in ‘39; the first fission bomb was ‘45; first transistor was demonstrated in ‘47; first fusion bomb ‘51; NTSC TV color standard was ‘53; first artificial satellite was ‘58; the laser and the pill in ‘60; measles vaccine in ‘63; the 60s was civil rights, anti-war, free love, gay rights and second-wave feminism in the west, decolonisation in Africa, the green revolution, and the majority of the space race; 8-track, compact cassette, PDP-8, BASIC were all ‘64; first ATM and first human-to-human heart transplant was ‘67; the Mother of All Demos was ‘68.
Then the 70s happened and made the 60s seem languid — the mainframes became home computers, the women became national leaders, space became more relevant, DNA sequencing first invented and then used to fully sequence a virus, first test tube baby and first genetically modified human insulin from E. coli, X-ray tomography and MRIs invented, smallpox eliminated first from the Americas and then worldwide, public key encryption, cochlear implants successfully implanted, first demo of an audio CD, polio eliminated in the USA, …
And the 80s surpassed the 70s like the 70s surpassed the 60s.
So much has changed so fast; these days you can only even keep track of how much has changed because of the crowdsourced efforts of other people.
My grandfather near the end of his life had a rant about WhatsApp. "I grew up sending telegrams to my friends and family, learned to listen to the radio, started watching television, called neighbors on my home telephone, got my first mobile phone, and now you want me to do this WhatsApp thing? What's the point?" The sheer amount of change his generation saw was staggering.
I think the problem is that collapse _is actually inevitable_ if we don't solve climate change, and if you don't think humanity is capable of the coordination and sacrifice necessary to solve it, you are left with one conclusion.
Energy descent is another interesting angle - We know for a fact that the rate of replacement of fossil fuels is orders of magnitude below the rate at which we've been consuming it, and that there is no equal which will allow our energy-rich lifestyles to continue.
This implies at a certain point we descend to a less energy-rich lifestyle because we have no alternatives. What that descent looks like, graceful or painful, is an open question. As is exactly when it would happen - Folks were convinced peak oil was just around the corner but reality is a bit less simple.
This implies at a certain point we descend to a less energy-rich lifestyle because we have no alternatives. What that descent looks like, graceful or painful, is an open question. As is exactly when it would happen - Folks were convinced peak oil was just around the corner but reality is a bit less simple.
Where in the IPCC report does it say that collapse is inevitable? Why would that be the only conclusion? One can imagine global civilization adapting and doing what it can to mitigate the effects of climate change. Soldiering on might be one way to put it. If modern civilization and the biosphere overall are more resilient than some assume, then adaptation is a possibility.
One can also imagine cleaner technologies and carbon capture rapidly replacing fossil fuels in the next two decades, reducing the riskier scenarios. At any rate, there's no certainty since none of us has a time machine, and climate models are models of the climate, not human civilization or future technologies.
One can also imagine cleaner technologies and carbon capture rapidly replacing fossil fuels in the next two decades, reducing the riskier scenarios. At any rate, there's no certainty since none of us has a time machine, and climate models are models of the climate, not human civilization or future technologies.
Clean tech and carbon capture is solving climate change. I think the post above meant collapse is inevitable if we continue to do nothing. The IPCC doesn't exist to model human responses to climate change, so would have nothing to say on the subject of collapse. Perhaps inevitable is not entirely accurate... But "very likely" seems prudent.
How about Soft Landing expectation?
Neither optimistic nor pessimistic, there will be a lot of issues in many countries, a lot of people will have to live with worse life quality (as they already do since 1970s in many places), but the life will generally go on as usual. Expect a rebound in 2nd half of XXI century.
Collapse will not likely happen, but even if it did, there's the experience of collapse of USSR which offers a lot of insights. The chief of which, humans can take a lot of beating before they actually start to die.
Neither optimistic nor pessimistic, there will be a lot of issues in many countries, a lot of people will have to live with worse life quality (as they already do since 1970s in many places), but the life will generally go on as usual. Expect a rebound in 2nd half of XXI century.
Collapse will not likely happen, but even if it did, there's the experience of collapse of USSR which offers a lot of insights. The chief of which, humans can take a lot of beating before they actually start to die.
I’ve found Ray Dalio to have some of the most interesting takes on this subject. [1] [2] [3] He’s the (retired) founder of the world’s largest hedge fund and he tries to examine these topics through economic and historical lenses, which seems like as good an approach as any.
He also explains a lot of macroeconomic material in a way that isn’t very jargon heavy (which can sometimes be hard to find, at least for the schools of thought popular among people who do it professionally).
[1] https://www.principles.com/the-changing-world-order/
[2] https://economicprinciples.org/downloads/bw-populism-the-phe...
[3] generally anything at his site economicprinciples.org, or his book on historical debt crises at https://www.principles.com/big-debt-crises/
He also explains a lot of macroeconomic material in a way that isn’t very jargon heavy (which can sometimes be hard to find, at least for the schools of thought popular among people who do it professionally).
[1] https://www.principles.com/the-changing-world-order/
[2] https://economicprinciples.org/downloads/bw-populism-the-phe...
[3] generally anything at his site economicprinciples.org, or his book on historical debt crises at https://www.principles.com/big-debt-crises/
It seems surprising that so many collapse ideologies are focused on local production and self reliance. I would naively read environmental trends as tending to require more interdependence: we’re going to have significant population centers with no arable land and no fresh water. Maybe they’ll find ways to cooperate and trade for what they need. Maybe they’ll migrate en masse to better resourced areas. Maybe they’ll resort to war and plunder. But at any rate there is going to be an interaction.
Notably missing Doomer Optimists who accept the reality and inevitability of collapse, while viewing it as an opportunity for localist, agrarian communities to rise in the wake.
Is this not addressed by the "Right-wing Accelerationists/Dark Enlightenment" section?
No, because that group tends to want a "libertarian" pseudofascist capitalist society, not an agrarian one.
"Cottage-core: the fetishization of bucolic and isolated life is once again proposed by cottage-core as an escape from declining modernity. "
From the article perspective they are in the pessimist section. As they are pessimist avoid improving the current state.
From the article perspective they are in the pessimist section. As they are pessimist avoid improving the current state.
But Cottage-core is in the aesthetic section, not the pessimist section. I also know quite a few people with this general perspective and I don't think any of them would use that label. (To reference another comment; this seems like a Very Online label)
Ultimately this perspective doesn't neatly fit into any of the pidgeonholes the author has created. This is a problem with trying to categorize large numbers of humans into sequential, unrelated categories.
Ultimately this perspective doesn't neatly fit into any of the pidgeonholes the author has created. This is a problem with trying to categorize large numbers of humans into sequential, unrelated categories.
Reminds me of the term "cosy catastrophe" (coined by British SF author Brian Aldiss):
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CosyCatastrophe
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CosyCatastrophe
Anarcho-communism long predates the Doomers and has always had similar framing. It was real popular in the late 60s / early 70s; the world collapsing is something we’ve known about for a very long time but people have to get fantastically wealthy somehow so we keep doing the old thing.
It's popular whenever society seems to be changing too fast and people think "going back to the simple life" is the solution. Not only was it popular now and in the 1960s, but also in the 19th century when people were weirded out by the Industrial Revolution. People like Henry David Thoreau in the US and William Morris in the UK.
Also popular among the Qumran community in ancient Palestine. They viewed civilization as fundamentally corrupt, and were eagerly anticipating an apocalyptic end to it and the coming kingdom of God to restore things to their rightful place. Which included a more agrarian lifestyle, and less of the modern trappings (for the time).
I guess I fall into Accelerated/non-linear collapse pessimism, with a hint of eco-fascism as the only option out of the Road Warrior post-apocalptic aesthetic. Even as people cheerily mention that they expect the population to peak at ten billion, I think that's at least an order of magnitude beyond the carrying capacity. Plus, those ten billion people? Yeah, the U.S.A. has been exporting its lifestyle via movies for a long time -- those ten billion people are all going to want American lifestyles. They'll want steak, they'll want SUVs and fast fashion. They want their own McMansions, not just running water.
Just to put in context, Collapse is one of the three possible post-crisis trajectories, beside Recovery and Continuing Instability; and it must be triggered first by a Revolutionary Situation.
Before worrying about a collapse, we should check if we are in a revolutionary situation. And perhaps we are not yet there.
https://peterturchin.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/MPF2019....
Before worrying about a collapse, we should check if we are in a revolutionary situation. And perhaps we are not yet there.
https://peterturchin.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/MPF2019....
An interesting article, it made me think.
I doubt there is one global model or form of a collapse scenario which would happen everywhere. It's likely that some places, already hanging on the edge of chaos, would enter this state in a very short time whereas some would persist over a longer time, and some would perhaps even adapt to the changing circumstances.
I doubt there is one global model or form of a collapse scenario which would happen everywhere. It's likely that some places, already hanging on the edge of chaos, would enter this state in a very short time whereas some would persist over a longer time, and some would perhaps even adapt to the changing circumstances.
I grew up on a farm, my dad was a remote developer when that meant tapes in the mail and a mainframe in the shed.
When my naivety and I emerged from this insulated cocoon into the the mess of the world, I couldn’t believe that something as reckless and corrupted and chaotic as our civilization could possibly continue beyond a year or two.
Because our genius exists at the individual level, we are horribly unsophisticated in our collective behaviour, and terrible at even comprehending our collective behaviour. I think /r/collapse may not be factually rigorous, but accurately represents sublime horror of individuals being shattered by staring into the incomprehensible abyss of of mass human activity
Ha! That was a good writeup. While I am an optimistic person here is one scenario from the article that I think is possible:
“”” Cyberpunk/Sci-fi: The social and ecological collapse is not accompanied by a reduction in material well-being or technological competence, but by a disproportionate growth of the gap between social classes. Often a collapse of the established order is not followed by a chaotic and violent conflict, but by corporations that replace the state and implement dystopian societies. Examples: Autonomous, The Peripheral, Elysium. “””
Humans are very adaptable and scenarios that sound awful to present day people, might be tolerable once they manifest.
“”” Cyberpunk/Sci-fi: The social and ecological collapse is not accompanied by a reduction in material well-being or technological competence, but by a disproportionate growth of the gap between social classes. Often a collapse of the established order is not followed by a chaotic and violent conflict, but by corporations that replace the state and implement dystopian societies. Examples: Autonomous, The Peripheral, Elysium. “””
Humans are very adaptable and scenarios that sound awful to present day people, might be tolerable once they manifest.
It's interesting but not insightful. Anyway, I would find more conducive to stop talking nonsense about collapses and focus on the many technologies that are being developed.
We got a million times better at creating vaccines. AIDS vaccine is on the way. Clean technologies are growing exponentially and a future of clean-air cities is approaching fast. Working from home thru video conferences, I saw that in sci-fi when I was a kid, is a day to day reality.
We should be building a better future instead of focusing on extremist views of the world. It was fun to read, it would make no sense to give it too much weight.
We got a million times better at creating vaccines. AIDS vaccine is on the way. Clean technologies are growing exponentially and a future of clean-air cities is approaching fast. Working from home thru video conferences, I saw that in sci-fi when I was a kid, is a day to day reality.
We should be building a better future instead of focusing on extremist views of the world. It was fun to read, it would make no sense to give it too much weight.
Yes, I'm with you. The focus and obsession with doom and collapse needs to end. It's like porn. We're biologically programmed to direct our attention to it. While the various media fuel this neverending stream of negativity, we have to realize that our primal selves yearn for it. Regardless of how likely any of these scenarios are, obsessing over them does not help our situation. How can we break this cycle of addiction? I guess the first step is recognition.
I agree that the idea of collapse is something we're inclined to fixate on whether it's about to happen or not. But on the other hand, democracies can fail, ecosystems can collapse, economies can fall apart, and so on. These are real risks that I think should be taken seriously. (Especially climate change.)
The important thing though is not how much we're focused on the problems, but what we're doing about it. Individually we don't have much influence, but we can participate in elections, we can donate to worthy organizations, we can (to some small degree) minimize our climate impact, we can constructively influence discussions about these problems.
Regarding the tendency of people in general to want to believe in the end of the world, I once had an idea for a new randomly-moving holiday called "arbitrary apocalypse day", where you roll 3 D-10s to pick a number of days until the next arbitrary apocalypse day, and roll another die to decide what's going to destroy civilization this time (nuclear war, nanobots, a big meteor, etc..). You treat that day like the end of the world. If everything goes on as normal, then you roll the dice again the next day and select the next arbitrary apocalypse day.
The important thing though is not how much we're focused on the problems, but what we're doing about it. Individually we don't have much influence, but we can participate in elections, we can donate to worthy organizations, we can (to some small degree) minimize our climate impact, we can constructively influence discussions about these problems.
Regarding the tendency of people in general to want to believe in the end of the world, I once had an idea for a new randomly-moving holiday called "arbitrary apocalypse day", where you roll 3 D-10s to pick a number of days until the next arbitrary apocalypse day, and roll another die to decide what's going to destroy civilization this time (nuclear war, nanobots, a big meteor, etc..). You treat that day like the end of the world. If everything goes on as normal, then you roll the dice again the next day and select the next arbitrary apocalypse day.
The irony is that the people who see collapse the most clearly are not actually the ones who spend all day inside looking at computer screens. Spend some time down at your local waterway, pick up some garbage, and behold just a small sliver of the millions of tons, perhaps billions of tons, of shit that this economy has produced and just dumped or discarded right into the ecosystem.
The little squares that you gaze into are just one massive distortion field. If you see whizbang video conferencing and techno hopium, then that's your lens.
If you want to build a better future, please take a stark look at what's actually going down on this planet, and it's not just better Zoom calls.
The little squares that you gaze into are just one massive distortion field. If you see whizbang video conferencing and techno hopium, then that's your lens.
If you want to build a better future, please take a stark look at what's actually going down on this planet, and it's not just better Zoom calls.
I wish the article provided links or references for each major philosophy. I've avoided diving down this rabbit hole for a while because I'm already afraid I'm slipping at its edge. But it'd be nice to read books or essays explaining the positions.
The best we can hope for is something like Kim Stanley Robinson's new book "The Ministry For the Future". A hodgepodge of technocratic reforms against a background of anthropogenic natural disasters eventually produces a solarpunk degrowth world that's post-capitalist without an an abrupt anti-capitalist revolution. Capitalist powers-that-be go along with it because it's being led by the central banks, and at every step the most profitable option is to go along with it.
I don't think we'll get that, though; I expect something more like William Gibson's "Jackpot" (from "The Peripheral" and "Agency"). There's no single collapse, just ongoing failures to solve coordination problems from hundreds of climate-change-spawned disasters, shortages, wars, pandemics, crises, and a century-long excess death toll around 6 billion. When the global kleptocrats pick up the pieces, it ultimately shakes out to cyberpunk ecofascism.
The political question of the early 21st century is what can we salvage? And are we able to work together to do so? The tea leaves aren't looking good.
I don't think we'll get that, though; I expect something more like William Gibson's "Jackpot" (from "The Peripheral" and "Agency"). There's no single collapse, just ongoing failures to solve coordination problems from hundreds of climate-change-spawned disasters, shortages, wars, pandemics, crises, and a century-long excess death toll around 6 billion. When the global kleptocrats pick up the pieces, it ultimately shakes out to cyberpunk ecofascism.
The political question of the early 21st century is what can we salvage? And are we able to work together to do so? The tea leaves aren't looking good.
Not sure which buckets I fit into. Maybe a pessimist bucket that isn't listed. Maybe a matrix of longterm near linear decline with localized event driven rapid declines. Probably a degrowth variant since I do believe there's a minimum level of consumption tied to each person and that incremental cost has a ceiling when talking about sustainable population levels. Probably a combination of apocalyptic and cottage for aesthetics, but the possibilities are probably extremely variable based on many demographic and resource qualities of a given locality as well as what type of collapse.
So, what was the purpose of these categories?
Edit: why downvote?
So, what was the purpose of these categories?
Edit: why downvote?
It's a compass, it's a tool. You give it a purpose
And what purpose have you given it? Do you have any theoretical uses?
well I wrote it lol. But it helps me navigate the politics of it and try to build better communication and praxis in my own politics.
Are you familiar with / have you seen David Pollard's "New Political Map"?
https://howtosavetheworld.ca/2013/02/04/preparing-for-collap...
https://howtosavetheworld.ca/2013/02/04/preparing-for-collap...
This misses whole primary subsets of ideologies and doomers, glosses most Libertarian groups which are probably the most paranoid about such events. Seeming to focus too hard at the near non-existant extremes like EcoFash & EcoCommies and really never adjusts back towards a realistic middle which comes in any crisis.
cratermoon(2)
The language of this article is biased and portrays viewpoints using various leftist tropes such as use of "deniers", "right wing", "alt-right". The article is little more than summary of fictional portrayals of future society. Absolute drivel.
slumpt_(1)
I noticed this as well, and as I said in another comment, I've voted Democratic my entire life.
The "Reformist" category, if following the same logic as the "Right Wing Accelerationist" category, should have identified this group as being "Left Wing Reformist", because literally every single group listed as an example is a radical leftist/collectivist political movement.
I'm a center-left liberal, so my own biases (and dislike of radical leftists who have hijacked my political party) are likely influencing my judgement of this.
The "Reformist" category, if following the same logic as the "Right Wing Accelerationist" category, should have identified this group as being "Left Wing Reformist", because literally every single group listed as an example is a radical leftist/collectivist political movement.
I'm a center-left liberal, so my own biases (and dislike of radical leftists who have hijacked my political party) are likely influencing my judgement of this.
grive(1)
It is somewhat vacuous but not for that reason.
Very not-nuanced. This article doesn't seem to be based in any kind of factual reality. It relegates the idea that rapid climate collapse is inevitable to lobbyist groups, when anyone who's read any of IPCC's reports would agree with their own conclusions that the collapse is gradual and somewhat arbitrary in its checkpoints. It restricts the "future" to a Malthusian dichotomy where we either have perfection or some kind of post-apocaplyptic agrarian society.
Oh, this is nice. While the mortals are talking about surviving a self-inflicted societal collapse, the trillionaires are busy building penis rockets, fighting taxes tooth and nail, and building doomsday bunkers. Ironically - in New Zealand, a place where society will most like be one of the last ones to fold.
Good bye, and thanks for all the fish!
Good bye, and thanks for all the fish!
How is it ironic to be building doomsday bunkers in the society most likely to be one of the last to fold? It seems like exactly the place to build one, if one were looking to.
It's ironic because these people have no problem shitting where they eat, moving on to a place that has not been defiled yet but their riches and absolute lack of moral compass.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/feb/15/why-silicon-val...
Supplemental reading:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/donald-trump...
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/feb/15/why-silicon-val...
Supplemental reading:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/donald-trump...
Sure. It's disgusting. But it's not ironic.
[deleted]
I feel pretty sure that if the rest of the world collapses, New Zealand will send their army and appropriate whatever resources these chuckleheads have hoarded. Anyways if the rest of the world goes sideways what value do stocks and bonds and American dollars have? The value of those kind of contractually enforced intangibles is socially constructed and would be the first thing to go. Land would be the thing with the most value, and again if New Zealanders are starving the government will probably just take the land by eminent domain in order to plant crops. The power of money only matters to the extent that the state backs it up.
While there are pressing challenges like climate change, aging populations, inequality, and more, I find that the substantial majority of people who devote large amounts of energy towards pondering and preparing for the collapse of civilization are using it as an escapist fantasy. I see lots of parallels with people preparing for Judgement Day: some unprecedented event is going to kill off the majority of the population leaving a chosen few to inherit the new world. These collapse predictions are often rooted in serious issues, but I find that this kind of escapism makes the average person more skeptical of serious activism.