Yeah well the same author said here: https://aeon.co/ideas/civilisational-collapse-has-a-bright-past-but-a-dark-future "Collapse, then, is a double-edged sword. Sometimes it’s a boon for subjects and a chance to restart decaying institutions. Yet it can also lead to the loss of population, culture and hardwon political structures. What comes from collapse depends, in part, on how people navigate the ensuing tumult, and how easily and safely citizens can return to alternative forms of society. Unfortunately, these features suggest that while collapse has a mixed track record, in the modern world it might have only a dark future."
Now, I will say, I am all for a "soft apocalypse", where people help each other, but there's nothing good about people losing access to civilization, whether civilization continues or not. Just look at the homeless now to see what lack of civilization's protection does for you.
Well, as long as the 1% that takes it in the shorts is the same 1% that have all the wealth now, I for one look forward to the collapse. Eat a bag of dicks, Musk!
Having read about collapse of societies in the past, they usually have bad results. Famine. Environmental destruction. Violence.
I can’t imagine it’ll be good if interstate commerce is destroyed by atomizing civilization. Oregon is very lucky with how much food we can grow but if the eastern Oregon cattlemen are going to join Idaho and we have to fight their militias to get beef into Willamette Valley you can see where it might affect 99% of us adversely.
We haven’t had an empire as large as the US fall as hard as the US might… specifically in the era of refrigeration and long-shelf-life foods. When empires fell before they were either made up of territories that mostly supported themselves and were paying taxes to the capitol, or they were smaller with easier to re-establish lines of commerce. The combination of a population entirely dependent on global trade and a continent-spanning empire means when we fall it’ll hurt a lot.
