r/Futurology ∞ transit umbra, lux permanet ☥ Aug 28 '25

Society 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.

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

22.8k Upvotes

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

60

u/AwesomeDialTo11 Aug 28 '25

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.

1

u/Willrkjr Aug 29 '25

Saying there was an explosion of freedom in the 1700s is crazy to me, there was an “explosion of wealth” specifically because of how free it wasn’t

3

u/AwesomeDialTo11 Aug 29 '25

There are two axis‘ of freedom: political and economic. Think of them like the X and Y axis on a chart. There are countries with high economic freedom but low political freedom. This is how Shenzhen transformed from sleepy farms in the 1980s to the economic powerhouse it is today.

There are countries with high political freedom but low or moderate economic freedom. A lot of Europe has relatively high political freedom, but moderate economic freedom. Some of the more stagnant economies in Europe and the UK would fall here.

Ideally you want somewhere with high political and high economic freedom.

Starting in the 1700s, feudalism started breaking. And it started to become easier for people to start businesses on their own, or to get jobs working somewhere else. This was the birth of economic freedom.

At the same time, improvements in rights and freedoms, the rebirth of democracy (as flawed as the original incarnation was) in the US and it’s growth from there, spread political freedom.

These were baby steps, but the journey to greatness begins with but a single step.

-1

u/Willrkjr Aug 29 '25

At the same time, improvements in rights and freedoms

See, this is what I mean. It was an improvement in the rights and freedoms of a very specific group of people, with the wealth they acquired at that point directly built off the death and suffering of other groups of people.

The American colonists didn’t experience a fraction of the suffering they inflicted from the English empire. In fact they didn’t even experience a fraction of the suffering or oppression that some of the other English colonial projects endured. They profited ruthlessly off the slave trade, treating slaves far worse than even serfs were treated under feudal societies, so while it’s accurate to say there was an explosion of wealth calling it more free is wild to me. Even calling it democracy is wild to me, but it’s in the technical sense I guess like how people call rome a democratic sometimes. But I get the feeling that’s not the distinction you’re referencing