by theluckycountry » Wed 02 Jul 2025, 19:10:51
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')ndustrial civilization is characterized by a short, meteoric lifespan of unprecedented boom and drastic bust. It is unsustainable without fossil fuels, and its collapse is predicted due to environmental change, aggravation of existing modes of production, and elite failure to adopt new means of production.
Four Reasons Civilization Won’t Decline: It Will Collapse$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')As modern civilization’s shelf life expires, more scholars have turned their attention to the decline and fall of civilizations past. Their studies have generated rival explanations of why societies collapse and civilizations die. Meanwhile, a lucrative market has emerged for post-apocalyptic novels, movies, TV shows, and video games for those who enjoy the vicarious thrill of dark, futuristic disaster and mayhem from the comfort of their cozy couch. Of course, surviving the real thing will become a much different story.
The latent fear that civilization is living on borrowed time has also spawned a counter-market of “happily ever after” optimists who desperately cling to their belief in endless progress. Popular Pollyannas, like cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker, provide this anxious crowd with soothing assurances that the titanic ship of progress is unsinkable. Pinker’s publications have made him the high priest of progress. While civilization circles the drain, his ardent audiences find comfort in lectures and books brimming with cherry-picked evidence to prove that life is better than ever, and will surely keep improving. Yet, when questioned, Pinker himself admits, “It’s incorrect to extrapolate that the fact that we’ve made progress is a prediction that we’re guaranteed to make progress.”
Pinker’s rosy statistics cleverly disguise the fatal flaw in his argument. The progress of the past was built by sacrificing the future—and the future is upon us. All the happy facts he cites about living standards, life expectancy, and economic growth are the product of an industrial civilization that has pillaged and polluted the planet to produce temporary progress for a growing middle class—and enormous profits and power for a tiny elite.
Not everyone who understands that progress has been purchased at the expense of the future thinks that civilization’s collapse will be abrupt and bitter. Scholars of ancient societies, like Jared Diamond and John Michael Greer, accurately point out that abrupt collapse is a rare historical phenomenon. In The Long Descent, Greer assures his readers that, “The same pattern repeats over and over again in history. Gradual disintegration, not sudden catastrophic collapse, is the way civilizations end.” Greer estimates that it takes, on average, about 250 years for civilizations to decline and fall, and he finds no reason why modern civilization shouldn’t follow this “usual timeline.” But Greer’s assumption is built on shaky ground because industrial civilization differs from all past civilizations in four crucial ways. And every one of them may accelerate and intensify the coming collapse while increasing the difficulty of recovery.
Greer's pattern also leaves out some of the most obvious cases of collapse, like Rome for example. It's true that the Roman Empire was in gradual dis-"integration" for a long time, but in the end it collapsed overnight when the Goths entered Italy and Rome itself was conquered. and there are the Mayans, what happened to them? Or the builders of Angkor, the Khmer Empire. A huge city state discovered hidden in the jungles of modern day Cambodia. There are many other examples of course, overnight declines, fast de-growth you might say, or the rapid unwinding of centuries of progress once some tipping point was reached.
What is this tipping point? What causes it? Well a big part of it in my mind is the unwillingness of the people of the empire to rally, to fight, or simply to continue on with business as usual at their jobs. After decades and centuries of exploitation the people are worn down and see no value in carrying on the enterprise they helped support, I see that in many nations today. People are shallow basically. If all is going well and their own lot is improving they will rally around the flag. But if it's not, if they see the elites that rule over them have gotten fat and greedy at their expense then they do the opposite. They don't think ahead as to the consequences of their actions, hunger, flight from their homes to uncertain rural future for example. All they are thinking is that they couldn't be that worse off than they are now.
The collapse of the Russian nobility and it's system was spurred on by this thinking and that led to communism, which was worse. Communism in Russia collapsed into a form of capitalism, which for many was worse than communism. Worse for who? In most cases for the older generations who had done their life's work and were now being supported by the state. These are not the ones that rebel, it is the younger generations that pull their labor and allegiance, who refuse to work and choose to suck off the state like their elders are. This occurs when the grand civilization reaches a point where it has exploited all the natural resources (in terms of rate to support its growing population) and then it collapses. The social security system is a good example of this, as is our over consumption of oil, as is the road networks and water grid etc. Do not underestimate the necessity of potable water, it's one of the fundamentals of life and and when the aqueduct network of the Roman Empire began to collapse cities became untenable.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he collapse of Roman aqueducts was a gradual process, driven by a combination of factors including economic decline, societal shifts, and deliberate destruction during conflicts. Economic hardship and a decrease in centralized governance led to a decline in aqueduct maintenance. Additionally, invading forces sometimes targeted aqueducts as a means to weaken cities, and internal issues like theft and neglect also contributed to their deterioration