This argument frustrates me greatly. Humans are far more adaptable than most other species, and the damage we are already doing to less adaptable species and ecosystems is incalculable and irreversible. We will kill off much of Earth’s life long before we manage to destroy ourselves.

Species are going extinct at a rate of 1,000 to 10,000 times faster than the normal “background rate” of extinction, driven by habitat loss, climate change, and pollution. Every species that we drive to extinction represents a multi-billion year legacy that will never return. Arguing that life will continue after the collapse of humanity is only partly true. There are a hell of a lot of species that will never continue, because our actions destroyed them.

We’re also roughly at the halfway point of Earth’s ability to support complex life, which emerged about a half billion years ago and has roughly another half billion years before the increased heat of the aging sun disrupts carbonate weathering to the extent that one of the main pathways of photosynthesis is no longer possible. Yes, during that 500 million years, in the absence of ongoing anthropogenic extinction, species will again diversify to fill the gaps. But there will be no tigers or elephants or rhinoceros after humanity, just as there were no non-avian dinosaurs after the asteroid.

“civilization” doesn’t even include humanity or technology.

Yeah, obviously. But that doesn’t do my child a damn bit of good now does it?

Is that what you think people are worried about? Planetary death has never really been on the table, that’s just the ignorant parroting things that were misunderstood.

This is something historians struggle with, because “Collapse” has happened before, the most famous of which might be the Bronze Age Collapse, or the fall of the western Roman Empire in 473. Needless to say, those didn’t result in human extinction, or even the extinction of human habitation in those locations (so Greece was inhabited before the Bronze age collapse, but that predates Classical Greece, which we think of as it’s golden age, and one for humanity).

Specifically, it was (natural) climate change or political turmoil (those usually go hand in hand) making long established trade routes and subsistence patterns untenable, and with it, destroying the power of the people who controlled that trade. There was a reduction in trade, as the elites had the money to import, and the disposition to distinguish themselves from the lower classes. There was certainly some population reduction, because food was not moving as much, and populations were reduced to what the locality could support. I want to note that at this point, we see migrations (although we do see violence). I want to thank Patrick Wyman’s podcast for teaching me this answer.

So I think, in this case, I think its likely we see this. The current power structure will probably not survive, although pockets of it may hold on in places, and maybe even survive into the next iteration (so think about the Catholic Church, an ancient roman institution survives to this day). Instead, I expect to see local polities spring up, holding on to or rejecting various aspects of the old world. A process of balkanization implies the rest of the world looks on in horror, but I expect to see some process of it happening everywhere. Immediately, these fragments will resemble the world we recognize, but in the centuries that follow, the world will become unrecognizable to us.

I think its also important to note that like, the destruction of the social order, which would suck for a lot of reasons (like the development of technology like vaccines), doesn’t necessarily mean a “dark age.” Some knowledge was lost (like Roman concrete in the fall of Rome) but I dont think the fall of the modern world precludes the loss of electricity, or motor vehicles, or even something like the telephone.

They’ve been making these kinds of predictions for a long time. This doesn’t mean that there aren’t very real existential threats to humanity around every corner, we may well experience a complete disaster, lord knows our logistics chain is delicate and largely ignored and props up everything we care about.

But what a lot of people miss in all of these predictions, is how adaptable and malleable human life is.

Will there be flooded cities and shanty-towns across coasts? Probably. Will there be gleaming cities of solar-powered utopia? Also probably. Will there be unrest, crime and war and famine? Absolutely. Will there be new comforts and escapes and new ways to stay safe and protected by your state in return for your attention, your money and your time? Also absolutely. Will it all be fragile? Yes, and it is now as well.

The future doesn’t hold just one thing, it holds many things. The future has always been the same: more of everything and then some. Look at us now, people predicted by this time we would have flying cars and robots… which we do! In some places. But we also still have uncontacted amazonian tribes, so we have everything we had in the previous century plus more.

The collapse of society “as we know it” where we as a species cannot survive by following the same.lifestyle we have depended on in the past.

Our company helps manage a significant percentage of a critical piece of nationwide infrastructure. With what I see everyday, my wife and I have decided to buy fertile land that can be farmed and has its own source of subterranean water so that we can grow enough food to survive (we already switched to plant based diets). We also are investing heavily so that our home can be “off-grid”. Summer is covered, but we are still working on winter power generation.

We are not at “prepper” level, but if you’re building a new home, why not try to build in some resiliency?

no more strawberry frosted doughnuts at Dunks.

The general breakdown of civilization,.nad mutiple points of fialuer that.can no longer be papered over.

and no one.comes bevase theres been too many disasters. A bridge collaoaes and no one foxes it, a wildfire and no firefighters, a hurricane and no one comes to help, the ibtent goes nldown and.doeat come back up again. The lights go off and don’t come back on, your toilet doesn’t flush and the grocery store has empty shelves.amd no gasoline available etc

To be fair though, he’s been writing on this topic for nearly 20 years. His book collapse is still one of the best history books I’ve read.

I was thinking the same thing so I looked him up and he has a BSc in biochemical science (Harvard) and a PhD from Cambridge in biophysics of the gallbladder. Colour me shocked. Still, kind of stepping outside his zone of expertise on this grand statement.

I’d rather the magic 8 ball make our decisions than most politicians. We’d have a higher chance of survival

Well at least this means there’s a 50% chance I won’t need the retirement savings that Im not going to have

I think you’re being, not only pedantic, but also just wrong. “The world will end” is a perfectly apt description to just about anyone about what is going on. The world will be uninhabitable for A MAJORITY of life that currently exists.

Permian extinction: last time shit like this happened, temps rose 10°C over 10,000’s of years. Still killed 90% of ALL LIFE. To be so arrogant as to presume that the USA collapsing would not have any knock on effects on the rest of the world. To presume that what kills of humans would do nothing to any other life. To presume that that scientist is a moron who just LOVES AMERICA so very much, because why else would he say things that make me feel bad?

no scientist worth anything would ever make such a moronic claim.

He didn’t. It would have taken you five seconds to read the excerpt OP posted and notice that the actual quote is “I would estimate the chances are about 49% that the world as we know it will collapse by about 2050.”

He didn’t say the world will end. He didn’t even say that civilisation will end. He said that the social order we enjoy today could collapse. But rather than take five seconds to notice that, you decided to yell about nothing because it was more important to voice your opinion than it was to check your facts.

And for the record, yes, he is American, but he’s also spent a significant amount of his life living and working outside of the US. He wrote Guns, Germs and Steel, one of the most seminal texts on the subject of how civilisations rise and fall. He is literally a globally recognized expert in this field. He’s also hugely responsible for dismantling much of the Euro-centric “I guess maybe white people are just smarter” nonsense that underlies much of the traditional study of history, and proving that the advantages enjoyed today by places like the US were not a product of any inherent superiority but rather of geographic fortune. So no, he really can’t be accused of having any kind of world view that treats America as special, given that he’s devoted most of his life to demolishing that notion.