Collapse Revisited: How do we Stand in Terms of Existential Risks?
Ten kinds of possible collapses examined.
The Goddess Gaia plays with her creation. One more piece removed, and the whole thing crumbles down.
I am normally labeled as a “Catastrophist,” although I much prefer the term “Physical Eschatologist.” The latter at least leads people to ask me questions rather than running away, plugging their ears with their hands. But, in my rather long career in this field, I found that many people are so deeply impressed by the concept of civilization collapse (or, if you prefer, Armageddon), that they refuse to admit that it is a more complicated and nuanced concept than it can be expressed in terms of “I die, you die, everybody dies.” They resent being told that there are chances they won’t die so soon, so much that at times they become aggressive.
But, once in a while, every good catastrophist (or eschatologist) should abandon these simplistic views and ask him/herself, where do we stand? Well, things change, and even the science of catastrophes must adapt to new trends and new discoveries. The main novelty that changes many of the older ideas is the slowdown of the human population growth and the imminent “peak population.” It is not necessarily a good thing, but it eases many problems that seemed insurmountable not too long ago. I discuss this issue in my upcoming book “The End of Population Growth.”
Let me try to list where I think we stand in terms of “existential risks,” that is, civilization-destroying events. I classified them into three categories of risk: Low, Medium, and High, at least in my opinion. Of course, if you are good eschatologists, you know that we are dealing with a complex system, and everything in a complex system is linked to everything else. The result is a sort of Jenga tower game, where you take out a critical piece, and the whole thing comes down. But we can try at least to understand what we are facing.
Here is my take on ten elements potentially able to cause a global societal collapse. I start from less likely civilization-smashers, to truly humongous monsters waiting to devour us to the bone (and then gnash the bones to dust). Some risks that were popular up to not long ago, e.g., peak oil, turn out to be not so monstrous after all, while some new ones, e.g., killer drones, are stealing the scene.
__________________________________________________
Energy Supply Collapse. Overall risk: Low. This is where most of us, the collapsniks, started our careers. It was the idea of “Peak Oil” that was supposed to be the pivotal point that would lead to the collapse of the whole system. The concept of “peaking” was correct, but oversimplified. Society reacted in two ways: one was to make a huge effort to squeeze more oil from the ground, the other was to find new energy sources in the form of renewable technologies. Peak conventional oil came a few years ago, but we are still alive while renewables are growing at a fantastic speed. Nuclear and fossils (and catastrophists) are left in the dust. Taking into account the slowdown in population growth, we may have a chance to avoid the fossil fuel-driven collapse that the early models indicated. Caution: I am saying that we may avoid collapse, not that we’ll be able to keep consuming more and more energy forever. Unfortunately, some people seem to be able to understand issues only in terms of opposite extremes,
Resource Depletion. Overall risk: Low. “Peak Resources” is an offspring of the “peak oil” idea. It is true that we can’t keep mining forever, hence we might find ourselves in a bottleneck generated by the lack of some critical element needed to keep the industrial civilization going. But we are developing technologies to cope with it: for instance, photovoltaic energy needs only aluminum and silicon, both abundant on Earth's surface. Other technologies can be modified to work with common elements rather than with rare ones. Again, the population slowdown will help a lot and, if we think about maintaining at least a minimum vital level of energy supply, we should be able to do that.
Food production collapse. Overall risk: low. This is the classic Malthusian collapse, which would be the result of a rapidly growing population crashing against the planetary limits of food production. But population is NOT growing exponentially anymore and the food production system has revealed itself to be remarkably resilient. So, it should be possible to maintain a reasonable food supply for a declining population. You may have to dine on algae and insects, but it is better than no dinner at all.
Governance collapse. Overall risk: medium. We are in a situation in which the destiny of the world is in the hands of people chosen on the basis of the iffy system called “democracy” who, once in power, have the right to do anything they think is a good idea. Nobody can stop them, especially when they decide that war is what they want. This kind of haphazard governance is simply impossible to maintain in the medium/long run, and it may lead to governmental collapse. You know what “failed states” are. In the future, they may not be an exception but the rule.
Keystone Species Collapse Overall risk: medium. “Keystone species” are those critical for the survival of entire ecosystems. A good example is that of bees. Without bees, the exchange of pollen becomes impossible for flowering plants. It has been said that if bees disappear, everything dies. It is a little exaggerated, but it gives some idea of what could happen. Fortunately, the ecosystem is highly resilient and if one specie disappears, another will take its place. But that’s not guaranteed.
Economic collapse. Overall risk: medium. Some people think that globalization is evil and that we would all be better off if it disappeared. Maybe. But take into account that the world’s economy has adapted to a globalized market. If the economic system crashes, you won’t just lose your savings, the whole trading machinery crumbles to a halt, and with it the supply of the things you need to survive: food, fuel, textiles, metals, spare parts, everything. Fortunately, globalization has been remarkably resilient. So far.
Pollution-generated collapse. Overall risk: medium-high. This is a serious threat that many people tend to discount, or have no idea that it exists. However, with pollution attacking many functions of the human body, including the reproductive system, the idea that humans soon won’t be able to reproduce is a real threat. Or that they will become so fat that they won’t be able to move. Or that their immune system will become so compromised that they won’t be able to survive even ordinary viruses. Or that they may become so dumb that they simply won’t be able to carry on as human beings. A declining population wouldn’t help so much because pollution has accumulated in the ecosystem and it will take centuries, millennia, and even more to re-absorb it and making it harmless.
War-generated collapse. Overall risk: high. It seems that the world’s economic system is orienting itself toward a war-based economy, that is, producing goods which are destined to be used, destroyed, and discarded on the battlefield. That’s an alternative to the current system that used to imply the production of goods to be used, destroyed, and discarded by customers. Hence, the new economic system doesn’t need consumers anymore, and that’s obviously worrisome for the consumers. Let’s just say that up to now, nuclear warheads were the cheapest way to kill people, but they were unwieldy, cumbersome, and caused lots of collateral damage. Using drones to exterminate people is less expensive per kill, and surely generates less collateral damage. Drones can take over, and that wouldn’t be good for humans.
Global Ecosystem Collapse. Overall Risk: very high. The whole system could start a rush to higher and higher temperatures that would make most of Earth’s surface uninhabitable for human beings. But not just that; it would cause a catastrophic contraction of the planetary ecosystem, not unlike the case of the great extinction events of the remote past. Most of these ancient events were related to the sudden release of large amounts of CO2, just like what’s happening now. It is a risk that is not just high, it is beyond imagination. Eventually, Earth is expected to recover and rebuild a working ecosystem, but it may take a few million years, and we won’t be there.
Artificial Intelligence generated collapse. Overall risk: ??? Nobody knows where we are going with AIs infiltrating all facets of the human management and decision-making system. It might even be a good thing, or maybe it could lead to a perfectly legal government decision to exterminate most (or all) human beings. As usual, we walk into the future blinded and with our hands tied behind our backs.
About this list, please note that every item is related to all the others. In some cases, it is in enhancing feedback relationship, in others, in dampening one. So, if pollution damages the reproductive system of human beings, it will make the ecosystem collapse less likely. On the other hand, governance collapse may make wars and the related exterminations more likely. It is the way things work with complex systems; they always surprise you. And that’s the way the universe goes: never smoothly, but always in bumps.
Interesting that the "Limits to growth" put pollutants at the top of the list of probabilitys a half century ago in the BAU scenario. As you appear to do now.
Maybe the old, very crude and generalized computer models were a better guide that the new AIs that try to account for a multitude of details and probabilitys.
Yes positive feedback and complex non-linear responses; just a thought, pollution applies to plants and the animal kingdom, and even to the more adaptable microflora.
Meanwhile, the timing and speed of the end of the so-called American empire? Rome went through stages. It feels to me that industrial civilisation with something a little over half of the world urbanised / suburbanised is one globalized 'Rome', with 'the barbarians' essentially in charge (Cavafy).