Is Collapse ultimately a good thing?
Posted by unbreakablekango@reddit | collapse | View on Reddit | 109 comments
Recently, in my town, one of our communities' family recently lost a child. It is a heartbreaking situation and the family is devastated. The community is rallying around them but ultimately, they will have to face their grief alone. They will be together as a family but the burden is theirs to bear individually. I have also been watching The Penguin on HBO (which is a great study on one philosophy of collapse BTW) and the tragedy of Francis Cobb (The Penguin's mom) is really heartwrenching, she started out as a happy wife and mom, but tragedy stripped nearly everything from her and turned her into a monster. She faced her personal apocalypse, and to survive, she had to put her faith in her one remaining 10 year old son, that he would deliver her from her nightmare.
We are all doomed the minute that we are born, none of us will get off of this ride alive. I believe that growing and maturing is a process to reconcile our own mortality and make the most of the time that we have left. One of the worst situations I can imagine is losing a child or a cherished loved one unexpectedly. And one of the worst things about that, is that you mostly have to suffer that tragedy alone.
One good thing about dreaming about our doom coming at the hands of a collapse type scenario is that we will suffer that tragedy together with friends, family, and neighbors. We will all suffer the same fate at the same time. Be it a flood, a war, or a storm. Maybe our collective suffering and grief will be a good thing that will allow the survivors to come together and rebuild something better in the future.
Designer_Valuable_18@reddit
No.
unbreakablekango@reddit (OP)
Do you think I am a bot? I assure you that I am not. Do bots respond in verse or are their communique more terse? From the responses that I got to my post, I have learned a great deal about the lack of clarity in my writing. I didn't quite make the point that I thought I was making and instead people have been interpreting my post as pro-collapse or like I am actively rooting for collapse.
My point was a little more nuanced. What I was trying to say is that collapse tends to bring events (storms, power outages, deaths, floods, etc.) that affect lots of people at the same time. Affected people tend to be in close physical proximity to one another, so it is convenient to band together with your neighbors and share the suffering amongst a larger group at the same time. Any one of those disasters could happen to us as individuals in the course of life and it is worse to suffer alone than it is together. It has been pointed out to me that my opinion is immature, not well-like, and is generally unpopular. This entire exchange has made me more depressed but I have learned a bit more about quality writing.
BlackMassSmoker@reddit
I see your point. But I'd argue it would be difficult to explain to someone in Gaza or Sudan or Haiti that their loved one crushed under rubble, or starving, or dying of thirst will ultimately make them appreciate their life more.
While the science isn't my strong suit, it can be argued that the amount of fossil fuels we've burned will mean the earth cannot adapt fast enough to the rising temperatures making it uninhabitable for nearly all species, including us, on the planet. Throw in something like a nuclear war and you can imagine a world where any survivor of the coming collapse will envy the dead while trying to survive in the bleak world they are left in.
Collapse will be great for the planet that can shake us off like a bad cold. Sadly, it won't be for humanity. Philosophical musings tend to go out the window when life is short, brutal and simply about getting through the next few hours.
I also haven't watched The Penguin but I've heard it's really good so I'll give it go.
FreekDeDeek@reddit
It will be morally neutral for the planet. Like with all great extinction events before us 90% of al complex life will die out, and something new will take its place. It's sad for us thinking hominid mammals to know we and everything we know to live around us is disappearing, but in the grand scheme of things it's neither good nor bad; it just is.
Collapsosaur@reddit
I am beginning to show more respect to the cockroaches I see now and then. It makes me meek in the face of human folly, with all its technology, educational and religious institutions. We cannot manage our overshoot since we're delerious with the idea of progress.
throwaway13486@reddit
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/1ggmszx/everything_that_can_be_invented_has_already_been/
Here's hoping (heh) you'll appreciate it more than the copers over there
unbreakablekango@reddit (OP)
The Penguin is really good. I am tired of super-hero content so I avoided it myself. It wasn't until my father-in-law told me it was great until I watched it. It isn't super-heroey at all so far. Just imagine if Tony Soprano had 10x the ambition and absolutely 0 moral compass or empathy, thrust into a series of escalating and impossible challenges. A truly despicable yet charismatic portrayal by Colin Farrell, it is brilliant acting. The supporting characters are also master classes in acting.
True about Gaza, Ukraine, Asheville, Sudan, Yemen, Iran, Israel, Spain, anywhere where tragedy is currently befalling innocent people. It is heartwrenching and beyond belief the amount of suffering that is occuring in the world. My only argument is that if we must go through tragedy, isn't it better to do it together?
bizobimba@reddit
And we will all go together when we go. What a comforting fact that is to know. Universal bereavement, An inspiring achievement, Yes, we all will go together when we go.🎶
bizobimba@reddit
Tom Lehrer 1954
unbreakablekango@reddit (OP)
Beautiful bit of doggerel!! Good on you.
ThatDamnRocketRacoon@reddit
I feel like it's weird to discuss a TV show on this sub, but you're right about the themes of The Penguin. All of these themes are also being played out through Sofia and, especially, Victor. Victor is very much the audience surrogate as we have watched his entire story play out of him going from promising future, to losing everything, to turning more and more to crime and eventually giving up on his dreams, even as he has a chance to escape. In his new world view, better to shake off the old world and build something from the ashes than try to live in the world that held him down.
unbreakablekango@reddit (OP)
I feel like TV, Books, and Movies, are the best way for me to cope with the mental anguish that comes with the realization of our impending doom. You make a great point about the other characters. The show really is a study on how loss and grief can shape your future. It so happens that everyone in the show channels their grief and rage into the worst human impulses. I wonder if they will introduce a character who channels their anguish towards the forces of good....could it be.....THE BATMAN!!??
BlackMassSmoker@reddit
I was going to quote the film Oldboy (2003) but discovered the line is actually from an old poem by Ella Wheeler Wilcox.
Solitude
Laugh, and the world laughs with you;
Weep, and you weep alone;
For the sad old earth must borrow its mirth,
But has trouble enough of its own.
Sing, and the hills will answer;
Sigh, it is lost on the air;
The echoes bound to a joyful sound,
But shrink from voicing care.
Rejoice, and men will seek you;
Grieve, and they turn and go;
They want full measure of all your pleasure,
But they do not need your woe.
Be glad, and your friends are many;
Be sad, and you lose them all,—
There are none to decline your nectared wine,
But alone you must drink life’s gall.
Feast, and your halls are crowded;
Fast, and the world goes by.
Succeed and give, and it helps you live,
But no man can help you die.
There is room in the halls of pleasure
For a large and lordly train,
But one by one we must all file on
Through the narrow aisles of pain.
I like it and I think it sums up my thoughts nicely.
unbreakablekango@reddit (OP)
Great poem. Thank you for sharing. It won't exactly launch me out of bed in the morning with mirth and song, but the sentiment rings true.
Phosho9@reddit
No. The rich want collapse they can retire to their bunkers and make slaves and communities that they would be kings and queens of.
The rest of us will die and suffer
PatchworkRaccoon314@reddit
Demonstrably false.
We will not suffer collectively. The poor, the weak, the disenfranchised, the demonized, will all suffer massively while a privileged few do not suffer at all or actively profit from it. The amount of people suffering will increase while the amount enjoying will decrease, until it consumes you and me, too. But you will still know people and see people in your daily lives who are not suffering, unless you're already a member of the 0.01%.
At the end of it all, there will be a handful of billionaires and politician who will live comfortably in their bunkers, until their time runs out and they take their own lives, of their own accord, like Hitler in his bunker. They will never suffer. Why? Because life isn't fair, there is no God, there is no karma, their is not fairness.
ladyluclin@reddit
In my view, not at all. I think its overly optimistic to assume that it will be possible to build something better after the fact.
Collapse is tied to global warming and environmental destruction. In addition to the droughts, wildfires, floods, hurricanes, and so on, reactionary fascism will emerge all around the world as people near the equator head north (or south, but mostly north) as climate refugees. So fractured and violent governments (if not outiright warlord anarchy), extreme natural disasters, widespread malnutrition/starvation, will be the starting point.
To build something new will require resources. The options will likely be to continue dependence on fossil fuels or to attempt 19th century style farming in the face of a ruined climate. Modern farming practices depdend on fossil fuels for fertilizers, pesticides, operating machinery, irrigation (i.e. pumps), etc.
I expect the lives of people living in 2100 and beyond will be exceedlingly harsh compared to the abundance that we enjoy now as a speciies. Maybe the shared hardships will bring people together for the betterment of humanity, but the opposite could also occur; it might bring out the worst aspects of humanity. Considering that human history is full of war, slavery, and genocide, I expect those hardships will bring out the worst.
unbreakablekango@reddit (OP)
Don't limit your imagination to only the negatives and to only what you have previously seen. Humans have been organizing themselves for thousands of years often poorly, sometimes nobly. It is too defeatist to assume that we won't be able to reorganize after this particular churn. It is no fun to only imagine the death and destruction if you can't also imagine the rebirth that comes after. Life is, and always has been, a constant series of deaths and renewals. You should try to build in a silver lining just to give your imagination something else to think about.
throwaway13486@reddit
ok coper
unbreakablekango@reddit (OP)
What can we do but cope and hope? I'm serious, I really want to know what your general outlook is on things and what steps you take to get through your day. I'm genuinely curious.
throwaway13486@reddit
Grub up whatever you can for you and yours and fuck everyone else.
Right now is just the prep stage when you get your shit while you can.
kirbygay@reddit
Human extinction event. Hard to find anything positive about that. You're not quite there for collapse-awareness yet.
TheArcticFox444@reddit
Collapse doesn't necessarily mean an "extinction event" for humanity. All that needs to happen is the collapse of our high-tech activities.
TheArcticFox444@reddit
Your viewpoint is so very human-centric. Collapse--if it comes soon enough--will be bad for humanity but will be good for the ecosystems of the planet.
People often speak of "the balance of nature." Collapse will simply be nature's recovery process...bad for our species, certainly...but, overall, good for biodiversity and the planet's ecosystems.
With life forms, don't nature and evolution interact to maintain a functioning and ongoing whole?
4BigData@reddit
> To build something new will require resources
Imagination and free time are two of the necessary resources that capitalism makes as scarce as possible by design
Thedogsnameisdog@reddit
I think it's wrong to ascribe good or bad to a natural phenomena. Entropy is not good or bad, it just is. Gravity is not good or bad, it just is. Collapse is not meaningfully different. While it is based on human activity, overshoot, collapse itself is nature/the universe reasserting itself. The unsustainable simply won't be sustained. It is neither good or bad. It is an immutable truth like picking up a stone and letting go will cause it to return to the ground. You can look up and throw it up in the air with all your might, it is still coming down.
We can ascribe moral positions on the human activities of unchecked growth, mindless industrialization, relentless profit seeking etc. I.e. generally mostly bad. You can also moralize our activities during the collapse. I.e. do we work for a collectively less damaging and miserable future, or do we continue the path of short term optimization at the expense of the systems that support everything. Still mostly bad.
Some may argue that the retrenchment of the rich and powerful during a period of collapse to ensure the brunt of it is felt by the lower socioeconomic classes is neither good nor bad, its just natural law of competition in times of scarcity. If you subscribe to that school of thought, you must also accept that when the hungry masses, or your own retinue, claw out and eat your eyeballs for the nutritious occular jelly, that too is neither good nor bad. It's simply the system playing out as it must.
Without writing an essay on the matter, I would personally argue that the further you deviate from Degrowth, as in the managed optimization of collapse in ways that minimize suffering of people, animals, and ecosystems as well as the entire planets system of systems, the further you bend toward immoral.
unbreakablekango@reddit (OP)
It is human nature to ascribe goodness and badness to things. To assert that that tendency is a fallacy is logically correct but it doesn't change the fact that humans will continue to ascribe goodness and badness to things for the foreseeable future. Just as humans discovered that if you throw a rock hard enough, you can reach escape velocity and make sure that it never comes back down. Few facts are immutable and we can't avoid thinking about things as good or bad because that thinking is tied in to desire. We desire certain things so they are good, we don't desire other certain things so they are bad.
I choose to believe in a Cory Doctorowesque utopian future filled with new discovery and exploration in collective societies in the face of disaster. It makes it easier for me to continue on in my day-to-day life. I am trying to fight the mental demons that come with being collapse aware and I am trying to push more people on this forum to do the same.
TheArcticFox444@reddit
"Save your confederate money, boys...the South will rise again!" Nice optimism but not, however, very realistic.
When our high-tech civilization collapses, for obvious reasons, it cannot rise again. Face it...we had our chance at the brass ring...and we're blowing it. And, when it's gone, it's gone forever.
Your "new discovery and exploration" will be finding out how to live in the future stone age: protection from the elements, food without grocery stores, transportation by footmobile, communication by mouth, finding water that doesn’t kill you, what to use--or avoid--to wipe your bum, etc.
That's your idea of fun?
Thedogsnameisdog@reddit
And that is the heart of it. The masters of this world, the political and economically powerful, can't see themselves walking away from all that power and privilege to pursue degrowth. They are fighting for escape velocity where some technological hail mary will let them keep their privilege and redefine the fundamentals to avoid overshoot.
My personal belief is that "escape velocity" is a very remote possibility. Like 0.001% probability of achieving it. I believe it is akin to an opioid addict saying we can get to a grand sustainable future with just consuming a lot more opioids.
The problem is that a simple risk analysis shows you what a bad idea this is. Yes, you can have your cake and eat it too if you achieve the unimaginable like cold fusion, get the politics and economics just right, invent synthetic life engineered for this new world we've invented that can thrive in our pollution and climate. If you deviate from the very narrow path of success, or just fail to invent the necessary technologies in time, you have gambled everything and lost. Similar to Jevon's paradox, this ultra high risk, high return system will not quickly address the problems of exponential growth. In fact it depends on the opposite, meaning that environmental carrying capacity of the planet will go further intl overshoot, degrade faster and further amd we'll have nothing left to save if we get it wrong which is, I remind you, the most likely outcome.
Degrowth is a relatively low risk, medium return path. It has a very high probability of success. Its not conti gent on inventing anything that doesn't already exist, but we are going to have to give up a lot of consumption and waste. No such thing as billionaires. You an still have rich and poor, just way less extreme. The systems can't afford that much waste.
unbreakablekango@reddit (OP)
I am totally with you up until you get to degrowth. My imagination is too limited to envision a scenario where degrowth happens in a peaceful and orderly manner. I think human nature is too selfish for us all to collectively agree to degrowth. I believe growth must be wrenched from us violently by the carrying capacities you invoke. Humans have demonstrated only two tools to deal with challenges, invent and grow. Concession and voluntary suffering aren't really in our wheelhouse.
I am open minded and would love to be pointed to some resources that outline a successful plan for degrowth.
Thedogsnameisdog@reddit
A purely peaceful path to Degrowth is not premotely probable. With apologies to the authors of the gospels, ""it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to ~~enter the kingdom of God~~ participate in degrowth".
The have and will continue to use their tremendous wealth to protect their power and privilege right up until the ends of the earth. Private militaries and techbro billionaires protected by AI drones is just the start.
For degrowth to happen, there would need to be a critical mass of non-psychopathic elites and technocrats to seize the assets of billionaires and most strategic resources to guide them down the path of degrowth. This alone almost certainly entails bloodshed, but only because they refuse to go down a sustainable path. Its part of humans flawed psychology - almost no human capable of building that level of wealth and power is capable of letting it go willing and just being kinda rich.
I'm not convinced the world's elites have sufficient critical mass to make this happen. While low risk and optimal, I expect efforts to degrow will stall before they are even tried. I expect the double or nothing approach will be tried and will fail spectacularly.
We will have firsthand experience why the near infinite universe is so quiet of sign of intelligent life.
unbreakablekango@reddit (OP)
Alright, sounds like we're on the same page.
Thedogsnameisdog@reddit
Agreed. There is a difference between the team I cheer for, and where I place my bets.
mem2100@reddit
And the irony is that the path to degrowth is remarkably simple. It is simply a sharpy tiered consumption tax. Even as cynical as I am - I shook my head in disgust over the recent discovery of how the Isle of Mann is facilitating VAT tax avoidance on private jets.
Also - a sharp drop in population means that us old people (me included) are not going to have the option of extended end of life - labor intensive care. Or at least not until we ratchet back to sustainability.
Managed degrowth is clearly the worst option, except for all the others, which are far far worse.
FenHarels_Heart@reddit
No it won't be good to the millions that starve. It won't be good to the millions that die in resource wars. It won't be good to the millions who'll die without medication such as antibiotics and insulin. It won't be good to the billions who'll suffer violence and abuse as the capacity to maintain order breaks down. The delusion that suffering will make life sweeter is a nonsense coping mechanism to try and make sense of why we suffer and try to convince ourselves that our suffering is ultimately for the best. It's not. We suffer, often unnecessarily and often with no benefit.
We'll suffer for no more reason than people fucked up and chose their own benefit over everyone else.
FarthingWoodAdder@reddit
I think once enough of us die from climate change and war, then the earth can truest start to healÂ
BokUntool@reddit
Better future? Oh, you mean you are ready to make difficult decisions about resources? We can't do it in times of plenty what makes you think we will do it times of scarcity?
Zestyclose-Ad-9420@reddit
scarcity is usually a good motivation for better management.
BokUntool@reddit
I am aware of the strategy, and it is very short sighted. This is because invented scarcity REQUIRES cognitive control, which is impossible the larger system your control inhabits, but good luck Humpy Dumpty.
Zestyclose-Ad-9420@reddit
sure but its going to be the only strategy and sooner rather than later.
BokUntool@reddit
Why do you think it will be the only strategy?
Zestyclose-Ad-9420@reddit
because ive come to believe chronic multi resource shortages are within the decade.Â
and because i believe populist/neofascist interests wont be stopped from taking over governments leading to a race to the bottom when it comes to resource use.Â
that leavse us having to manage around real scarcity. you cant negotiate with scarcity; adapt or die.Â
unbreakablekango@reddit (OP)
Who said anything about resources?
BokUntool@reddit
Umm.. I did, since a better world requires some management of resources. (unlike today) So, unless you think that resources have nothing to do with your version of "better", those difficult decisions will come around again.
unbreakablekango@reddit (OP)
I don't anticipate surviving anything long enough to worry about resources. My plan is to die at the first opportunity. My misery just wants some company as I suffer whatever my personal collapse might be.
BokUntool@reddit
Well thanks for your description of "better", which sounds like a self-centered and egoistical definition.
unbreakablekango@reddit (OP)
Jesus bro, who pissed in your Cheerios?
BokUntool@reddit
Narrow minded gamblers.
unbreakablekango@reddit (OP)
Haha, could you give me an example of a broad minded gambler?
BokUntool@reddit
What do you think a gambler is?
unbreakablekango@reddit (OP)
ugh, this is too tedious to keep going.
BokUntool@reddit
Lol you responded to plenty of people, but a question about a term is too much? *eyeroll
unbreakablekango@reddit (OP)
Thats untrue and a review of this thread will show that it is untrue. You were deflecting, and on a chat based forum like Reddit, that is a tiresome way to communicate and I no longer felt like indulging you.
BokUntool@reddit
You can't even describe was is being talked about let alone what is untrue.
Let's not pretend you ever indulged anyone, low effort engagement driven posts with no effort on topic.
Weirdinary@reddit
We're not in this together. The Billionaires have bunkers; the far right have their immigration policies; and the hungry will have... cannibalism. There will be more crime, more wars, more xenophobia, more racism, and more callousness towards human suffering. When anyone goes through enough tragedy, the psyche creates defenses (becomes mentally ill). Avoidant attachments, sociopathy, BPD, psychosis, depression and delusions. You might be mentally healthy right now, but after a decade of trauma after trauma... you won't be the same person. All your energy will be devoted towards personal survival (or else you will unalive yourself). You will have nothing extra to give to others. "Hurt people hurt people". Humans can come together after an immediate disaster, but not after a collective trauma. That's why there's hurricane relief, but there's not much sympathy for Long Covid survivors (the pandemic is a collective trauma, the hurricane wasn't).
So yes, the hurricane can be "good" in the sense of rebuilding and community. But collapse is going to be more traumatic as humans go extinct the way of the Neanderthal. Although there will be heartwarming stories about people coming together after a flood or fire, as collapse really heats up (pun intended), I think the motto will become "every man for himself"-- because psychology has shown us that trauma doesn't make you stronger-- it's actually very detrimental to one's mental health.
unbreakablekango@reddit (OP)
I think that you will find that building literal tribes will be one way we will deal with the trauma.
Icy_Bowl_170@reddit
Yes, and those tribes are oftentimes violent, punish their members harshly and rely on religion or the cult of personality to keep the community together.
Ok_Impression5805@reddit
No
But as with any bad thing, something good can come out of it depending on how we react. When life gives you lemons make lemonade.
McQuoll@reddit
How do you make lemonade? Does it involve sugar?
BowelMan@reddit
Yes. Human extinction is also fine.
ConsistentAd7859@reddit
Yeah. And if we don't get it right on time, I am sure there will be aliens somewhere in the galaxy that might...or some new species will evolve, that could...
No. Collapse hurts. Collapse is unnecessary to build a better world. The point that people are only willing do so when there is absolutely no other chance is a malus, not a bonus.
Just because we are unable to be better, we shouldn't really make our flaws into something great.
sujirokimimame1@reddit
A controlled demolition would be a good thing, but not a collapse.
SousVideDiaper@reddit
For us? Not likely. For the planet? It's like curing cancer.
BlizzardLizard555@reddit
Yes. I believe the collapse of this extractive, exploitative, and all-controlling system could potentially lead to a better world. A more local world where we govern ourselves and don't take more than we need. I think right now, it's important for all beings on this planet to be doing the inner work to reclaim their sovereignty and rediscover their authentic self, so that we have the capacity to co-create a better world.
uselessbuttoothless@reddit
Hey, you’re observing some rough stuff. The problem with this question is that it’s really too simple to be useful. Collapse? What does that mean and for whom? Ultimately? Whew. Are we asking about 100 years from now, or 100 billion years from now? And again, good? For whom? Answering these questions for yourself is the start of building a forward thinking value system.
FitBenefit4836@reddit
For the planet? Probably, in the long run.
For Humans? Not so much.
SaxManSteve@reddit
I wouldn't say that collapse is a good thing; rather, I would say that it's good to reject the expectations of modern life as much as you can now so that you can be more adjusted and resilient for what is to come.
There is a popular saying in Brazil that illustrates this insight...
It states that, in a flood situation, it is only when the water reaches people’s hips that it becomes possible for them to swim. Before that, with the water at our ankles or knees, it is only possible to walk, or to wade. In other words, we might only be able to learn to swim – that is, to exist differently – once we have no other choice.
But in the meantime, we can prepare by learning to open ourselves up to the teachings of the water, knowing that the risk of flooding is only gonna increase.
katcheyy@reddit
Your comment is the best here.
RabiesScabiesBABIES@reddit
Well OP, this might be poorly articulated, but I think I can grasp the sentiment. You're talking about a collective response to disaster that's very well explored in Rebecca Solnit's "A Paradise Built in Hell." I highly recommend the text, and specifically recommend it to you so you can have better language for communicating this idea. Good luck and let me know if you decide to pick it up!
unbreakablekango@reddit (OP)
This is a good example of constructive criticism, which I am discovering is an art that is largely missing from this sub. Thanks for sharing, I am always trying to improve my writing. I will check out the book, I am looking for my next read.
Rossdxvx@reddit
For years historians talked of the collapse of the Roman Empire. Yes, it did collapse. However, collapse is also a process of transformation. If there is any guarantee in life, it is that of change and flux. The processes of collapse are cyclical. Like the famous painting by Thomas Cole "The Course of Empire" depicts, civilizations rise, peak, and are always destined to fall. It has happened frequently throughout human history. It is the norm, not the exception.
The problem with the collapse of our modern world is that it is going to be brutal due to the sheer amount of environmental destruction that we have already wrought. The danger of this collapse is that humanity won't be able to salvage anything and, not only will we not be able to rebuild, we may go extinct as a result.
stardustr3v3ri3@reddit
You see someone in your community lose a child and your first thought was "maybe collapse is good, because we all suffer anyways"?
unbreakablekango@reddit (OP)
Close, but not exactly my sentiment. My thought was that maybe it is better to suffer together than apart.
stardustr3v3ri3@reddit
If that's your take away from watching someone else experience the death of their child, then you need to step away from the internet and experience the real world cause the lack of empathy is honestly gross, dude. Someone is suffering and you want to turn it into a "we all suffer so who cares" point? And to also compare it to a DC show??
unbreakablekango@reddit (OP)
I don't agree with you.
stardustr3v3ri3@reddit
You don't have too. I'm just saying you need to look at the present world, present problems like in Palenstine, Sudan, Haiti, etc and ask "is Collapse making their lives better? Are their lives better cause they're all facing mass death, genocide and famine together?"
unbreakablekango@reddit (OP)
I am trying to process my own emotions and I am doing it openly and honestly on a public forum. To accuse me of a lack of empathy and call me gross doesn't add anything productive to the conversation and hurts my feelings. Just because I am not processing my emotions in a way that you agree with doesn't give you the right to insult me. I am not endorsing or supporting collapse. Terrible things are happening and I have no control or power over them. This sub is devolving into a cauldron where everybody just shits on everything and beats everybody down. I am trying to create a conversation that builds toward something constructive and you tearing people down doesn't help.
BokUntool@reddit
You aren't creating anything.
unbreakablekango@reddit (OP)
You need to go eat your Cheerios.
stardustr3v3ri3@reddit
I'm gonna stop responding because we're clearly at an impasse, but let me clarify. I didn't call you gross, I said the lack of empathy was gross because I couldn't find the right word. I'm sorry for hurting your feelings, but I stand by the advice that you need to step away from this subreddit and take in the real world and real life people. Suffering will become worse under collapse, not better, and to use some tv show or someone's real life trauma of child loss to support that idea of "collapse good" isn't healthy at all. Anywhere is healthier than Reddit tbh.Â
permafrosty__@reddit
no too many innocents will die :(
SunnySummerFarm@reddit
What a take.
Nope. Since you seem to have never truly suffered in your life, almost all suffering is lonely, even when surrounded by support. Even when everyone you know is there, suffering and miserable beside you.
It’s just more miserable because you also can’t help them.
unbreakablekango@reddit (OP)
What is with everyone on here checking other people's experiences with suffering. You have no idea who I am or what I've suffered and I have no intention of telling you, but you credit checking my suffering experience is saddening.
Queen_Aleryn@reddit
I certainly don’t think we’ll build something better, but I do think that tragedy may be less isolating when it’s shared.
As someone who has been through an unexpected family tragedy, it’s strange how sad and isolating it can be. People literally avoid you because they either don’t want to face imagining your pain or they simply don’t want to make you feel somehow worse. Pain shared at least removes that element.
Covid is maybe an example. We were all feeling down and frustrated about being stuck inside, but I never felt envious of anyone else (ok maybe New Zealanders) because we were all in the same miserable boat. There was nothing to miss out on because nothing was open. And that’s likely how climate change will look, things will get more shit for all but the most privileged.
unbreakablekango@reddit (OP)
Thank you for this take.
excommunicate__@reddit
for humanity, no
for every other non domesticated species on the planet, yes
RandomBoomer@reddit
It won't be a good thing during your lifetime. If it's a good thing for someone, eventually, you won't know it.
dumnezero@reddit
Some layers or parts collapsing could mitigate worse collapses, but it's not a guarantee.
My example is that financial collapse or, really, the collapse of the capitalist markets and institutions, would decrease the odds of global ecological and climatic collapse (collapse everywhere on the planet plus mass extinction).
RegalBeagleX@reddit
Well a forest fire does sew growth for a new forest.
TinyDogsRule@reddit
There are two ways things can go: BAU for a while with a gradual collapse or we wake up one day and our personal world has collapsed. In this scenario, BAU is preferable to collapse. However, if the collapse was global, this makes collapse much more appealing, personally.
I am nearly 50. If BAU somehow continues for 20 years, I will have to work until the day I die, likely no social security, and will have to always struggle for survival as prices will keep rising, indefinitely. I am forced to play in a system that is unfavorable to me. I'm not looking forward to that future.
But, if we collapse and have a global reset we can at least have hope of a different future. Maybe not better, but different. I'm a gambler. Give me the uncertain future, not the future guaranteed to be awful. I may be a fool and die the first day of collapse. Suddenly it's not my problem anymore. Bring on the global reset.
Zestyclose-Ad-9420@reddit
we all have to work until we die. its just bitter when that work is for others.
TinyDogsRule@reddit
I would prefer to work for my own daily survival over slaving for the corporate overlords for my own daily survival. It will work everyday until it doesn't.
unbreakablekango@reddit (OP)
That is excellent, I am 41 so not much behind you. I am lucky enough to be set up to climb up a little higher than most on the pile of wealth accumulation so BAU looks pretty good to me from a personal standpoint.
However, I am with you in believing that BAU has about 20-50 years left to play out. I am trying to embrace the reset but my belief is I will only live long enough to witness the beginning of the great crumbling.
IamInfuser@reddit
Before civilization and if you look across the animal kingdom, infant mortality was 50%. I cannot imagine having to suffer loss that commonly and I wonder about the resilience of people and animals that have to endure those statistics.
There are a lot of professional opinions out there that suggest civilization is inherently unsustainable and why would someone think otherwise?
Every single civilization goes through this boom bust cycle and then collapses.
People now a days know we are in for a world of hurt, but they fantasize about the "if onlys". If only we were all vegan, if only we didn't have capitalism and billionaires, if only we switched to green energy sooner...but I'm not so sure that would make civilization sustainable. If we take more than what the planet can regenerate, then collapse is inevitable.
When I look at indigenous tribes, they have been living fairly simple lives just hunting and gathering for a millenia and it's sad THIS civilization is encroaching on their way life because we are unsustainable.
What I'm getting at is I hope the indigenous wisdom picks up the pieces and rebuilds something better. Living a simple life without a complex economic system that goes against the literal laws of nature, the constant need to be entertained, the lack of respect for animal life, specialized work, vertical power heirarchies, and an addiction to energy does not need to be incorporated into the rebuild. I really hope who ever survives doesn't try to do this global civilization thing ever again and I feel good knowing with some confidence that won't even be possible.
sharpestcookie@reddit
This is false. Unless it's a huge meteor, collapse happens disproportionately, and the poor and minorities will die first.
And if you're reading this going "I don't know any poor or minorities" as though that makes it okay, you're part of the problem.
No. Collapse isn't a good thing. Humanity expanded its technology too quickly for its prehistoric brain to handle. We are a bunch of monkeys with the smarter among us figuring out how to build nuclear weapons.
If we were not so collectively stupid and greedy, we would not be seeing collapse.
unbreakablekango@reddit (OP)
Not exactly tragedy but a good comparison that proves my point is power outages. I have lost power to my house several time. Scenario 1 I once lost power to my house for 8 days, but it was only my house. Everyone else was fine. We were struggling with coolers and generators and what not but we were doing it alone. No neighbors to complain with. Scenario 2 - We lived in New Jersey during Hurricane Sandy, we lost power for 7 days but everyone on our street lost power. We all got together in the street, had bonfires, made smores, shared food, shared ice, shared intel on where to get gas and other resources. It was actually a lot of fun. It was probably harder and more work to keep the family going in Scenario 2 because no grocery stores or gas stations were open but I had 100 times more fun doing it with neighbors and friends than scenario 2 where we suffered alone.
TARDIStum@reddit
ITT: Human egos who don't realise it's better for the planet if we all go.
Ego is what got us in this mess in the first place, stop looking at collapse from a subjective human perspective and realise that collapse is objectivly good for the planet as a whole.
We're all gonna die at some point, fact of life, if collapse speeds it up, cool, if we find a way to stop collapse, then cool win win. But if we don't then that's good for the world, we are the pesky rats.
Lot of human ego in this thread
imreloadin@reddit
It will be for the planet and other non-human life.
Nat1d20@reddit
I mean I think that answer depends on who you ask. If I had my personal utopia:
AI would expand exponentially, it would tell us how to resolve climate change and implement recycling in ways we can’t do because of laziness and capitalism. An age of reason would happen and in my utopia religions cease because science is the only reality we can truly put faith in. We learn to control population globally and we eliminate countries and borders and we are just one world of humans trying to enjoy life and share the planet fairly with other creatures. While we’re at it we reverse aging and there’s no more famines or disease etc.
Yeah :/ if only :)
unbreakablekango@reddit (OP)
Perfectly said. I have been reading a lot of Cory Doctorow lately and I love some of his visions of how that organization might look. It sounds like you and I have similar dreams.
Sharktopotopus_Prime@reddit
No. It is not ultimately a good thing. It will likely result in the death of most of the human race and 95% of all species on the planet.
We are a mass extinction event for this world. Humanity serves as a catalyst for a great reset of life on Earth, but that means nearly all existing life will suffer and die out, and it will take millions of years for this planet to be teeming with new life once again.
For all intents and purposes, from our perspective, collapse will lead to widespread death, chaos, hardship and failure. So, certainly not a good thing.
unbreakablekango@reddit (OP)
But wasn't that always true, with or without us? Sure, we sped up the timeline, but it was going to happen eventually anyway. The main difference is that we are all here actively observing the collapse together on the internet. That is what makes this collapse different.
Lord_Vesuvius2020@reddit
If by “good” we mean a continuation of the status quo, then collapse is definitely not a good thing for people over the next 20 years and it’s uncertain if it gets better by after that. But sorry to say it’s a necessary thing. It’s apparent that planned deconstruction of our current economy and way of life will not happen voluntarily. So the hard reset is the way it will be as the correction to overshoot.
CloudTransit@reddit
It could be good for bromeliads, if they survive human collapse.
unbreakablekango@reddit (OP)
bromeliads before hoemeliads
Straight-Razor666@reddit
not if you're one of the people it's collapsing on. Go do some real, devastating and painful suffering and then possibly you can find your answer.
unbreakablekango@reddit (OP)
Have you ever heard the phrase 'Misery Loves Comany?" my post is an interpretation of that phrase.
VendettaKarma@reddit
Collapse is the only way the world will get the reset it desperately needs.
oifsda@reddit
Yes. Collapse of an unsustainable system.