Using Human History As a Guide Could Our Present Civilization Fall into a New Dark Ages or Even a Collapse ?

[GAROVORKIN]

How are we in the present like and unlike past civilizations that have suffered  these  particular kinds of fates ? What do you think are our vulnerabilities in this regard? And what any, would be the telltale sings and indications that we entering either a Dark age or a potential total collapse ? Are they avoidable or are they inevitable in the cycle of history ?

How do think it will happen ?  Thoughts ?

[drawkcabi]

Not that I'm not interested in many of your threads, but maybe we could merge them all in a "Deep Thoughts and Musings By Garovorkin and Responses" thread?

 

To respond to the topic of this thread...

Short answer: Hell yes.

Expanding on that. A plague, a world war, a natural disaster, a man made disaster any and all could be a catalyst to society's collapse.

It's not unique to compare the U.S. to the Roman Empire. By our not seeing the forest for the trees attitude on so much (climate change, science denial, education, infrastructure, middle class decimation, bigotry, prejudice, etc.) we are ripening ourselves towards collapse. There's always a chance it won't happen, but I think turning things around are getting more difficult every day.

But if the U.S. goes, it doesn't mean the whole world goes into a dark ages. There's Europe, there's China, There's India, There's Japan. But a U.S. that's collapsed puts a lot of stress on everyone else that may or may not break them. A country like China could come out on top as the sole super power or the other countries in fear of just that happening band together to prevent another sole super power in the world and war breaks out that sends everyone into the dark ages.

The only bright side I see is that, whatever happens as long as there are humans left in the world (which is no guarantee) the dark age will end. As much as it is our nature to argue, be selfish, ignorant, and uncaring it is also in our nature to regroup, rebuild, unify, look after one another, survive. Eventually progress starts again.

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

I don't get why artificial lighting is suddenly under threat of disappearing.  I think the tech is pretty solid tbh.

[GAROVORKIN]

11 minutes ago, drawkcabi said:

Not that I'm not interested in many of your threads, but maybe we could merge them all in a "Deep Thoughts and Musings By Garovorkin and Responses" thread?

 

To respond to the topic of this thread...

Short answer: Hell yes.

Expanding on that. A plague, a world war, a natural disaster, a man made disaster any and all could be a catalyst to society's collapse.

It's not unique to compare the U.S. to the Roman Empire. By our not seeing the forest for the trees attitude on so much (climate change, science denial, education, infrastructure, middle class decimation, bigotry, prejudice, etc.) we are ripening ourselves towards collapse. There's always a chance it won't happen, but I think turning things around are getting more difficult every day.

But if the U.S. goes, it doesn't mean the whole world goes into a dark ages. There's Europe, there's China, There's India, There's Japan. But a U.S. that's collapsed puts a lot of stress on everyone else that may or may not break them. A country like China could come out on top as the sole super power or the other countries in fear of just that happening band together to prevent another sole super power in the world and war breaks out that sends everyone into the dark ages.

The only bright side I see is that, whatever happens as long as there are humans left in the world (which is no guarantee) the dark age will end. As much as it is our nature to argue, be selfish, ignorant, and uncaring it is also in our nature to regroup, rebuild, unify, look after one another, survive. Eventually progress starts again.

 

Well said.

[drawkcabi]

1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

I don't get why artificial lighting is suddenly under threat of disappearing.  I think the tech is pretty solid tbh.

You haven't heard?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-gops-relentless-crusade-to-save-america-from-commie-light-bulbs

There's a war between factions those loyal to LED and those to incandescents. LED and CFL have on their side economy, environment, and the look of a soft serve ice cream cone. Incandescents have nostalgia and the Republicans. 

It's going to lead to annihilighttion.

[GAROVORKIN]

5 minutes ago, drawkcabi said:

You haven't heard?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-gops-relentless-crusade-to-save-america-from-commie-light-bulbs

There's a war between factions those loyal to LED and those to incandescents. LED and CFL have on their side economy, environment, and the look of a soft serve ice cream cone. Incandescents have nostalgia and the Republicans. 

It's going to lead to annihilighttion.

A global Pandemic  as a result of  growing antibiotic resistance of previously curable diseases. In this case  the resulting pandemic may not be caused by one disease like like in The Black Death or the 1918 Flu  but may involve more then one disease. This could stress and even overwhelm  the medical institutions all over the world.  

[The Anti-Targ]

One thing that is completely different from all other situations of civilization collapse is that we are a literal global society now. There are probably arguments that this makes us more resilient, but there are probably arguments that this makes us more vulnerable.

When the Roman empire collapsed this had no effect on Chinese civilizations,The Indian civilisation or the Meso-American civilizations. And the various collapses that happened in those parts of the world also had limited effect on distant peoples.

I think we are in a race to see what happens first. Do we establish international arrangements to manage things that have a global impact (which include environmental, economic, social and political issues) before some serious shits hit some really big fans, or are we going to be sprayed with the brown stuff and leave those that remain to clean up the mess and figure out what to do in a new paradigm that has been forced on us through an inability to act even when we know we're headed towards bad things?

The only people who have recognized we are a global society are the big corporations of the world, and they are getting away with a lot (e.g. but not limited to massive tax avoidance, environmental damage, employment abuses) because our societies and political establishments are refusing to accept the new reality and remain determined to continue to operate in a nationalistic status quo, which is not a model that is capable of managing the challenges of a global society.

[Loge]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

One thing that is completely different from all other situations of civilization collapse is that we are a literal global society now.

Is that so? I'd say the public is as science-illiterate as it was 1500 years ago. And that's a problem because now there's democracy. A democratic government is only as educated as the people who elected it. That's the challenge Western countries face right now.

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, Loge said:

Is that so? I'd say the public is as science-illiterate as it was 1500 years ago. And that's a problem because now there's democracy. A democratic government is only as educated as the people who elected it. That's the challenge Western countries face right now.

The public is definitely not as science illiterate as it was 1500 years ago. But it's also a question as to how science literate the public needs to be? I would argue that science literacy is not as important as you make out in a democracy. Some is certainly good, but the level of competency necessary is not that high.

What is important is respect for science as a source of objective truth about things that are very important to our individual and collective welfare. I don't have to know anything about vaccines, but I should respect and listen to the medical profession when it says vaccinating for certain diseases is very important and highly beneficial. And I should want the appropriate checks and balances to be put in place to ensure that vaccines offer maximum protection for minimum negative side effects. Because even if you accept that vaccination is beneficial, you still have profit-motivated business interests looking to capitalise on a social good. We have people with fancy letters behind their names who claim scientific legitimacy going all tin hat on the public and claiming harmful effects of things like vaccines, and even worse deliberate collusion by companies and govts to knowingly cause harm to the community. But this arises partly or mostly because the system put in place to translate raw science into social benefit has failed to protect the public enough times that too many people are willing to believe the crackpot conspiracy nuts. It's not so much scientific illiteracy that's the problem here, it's the erosion of trust in the institutions that are meant to protect the public interest.

 

[Jo498]

science literacy has almost nothing to do with it. Even someone with a degree in, say, mechanical engineering, who is way above average in intelligence and "scientific literacy" will not be able to easily discern if what meterologists say about global warning is true or not, unless he wants to put more time and effort into it than he usually is able to. That's why meteorology papers are reviewed by other meteorologists, not by engineers.

Everybody usually has to rely on experts and experts can be bought and can also otherwise be biased. Or they can be rendered powerless by other means. They will not prevail against the power of media propaganda, well connected elites (who control the elected politicans by corruption and other means) and the lure of consumerism. Changes are easy if one does not have to really change one's lifestyle. When in the 1980s it was discovered that certain gases in spraycans and cooling fluids caused the antartic ozone hole, these substances were banned/replaced and it was not a big deal because nobody had to give up their fridge. Now, after 30 years the ozone has apparently recovered to some extent. But lifestyle changes like smaller homes, far less consumer goods and gadgets, far fewer cars and airplanes are unthinkable for most people and they would "ruin the economy". So it does not really matter what experts say because people (except for a few hippies) will not give up these things.

John Michael Greer has dozens of blog posts and a few ebooks on this topic, using both human history and current science to understand the predicament. He is idiosyncratic and pessimist but fairly original and readable (although not exactly concise).

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

8 hours ago, Loge said:

Is that so? I'd say the public is as science-illiterate as it was 1500 years ago. And that's a problem because now there's democracy. A democratic government is only as educated as the people who elected it. That's the challenge Western countries face right now.

Plus, you have the various “fake science” anti-vax, flat-Earth, lizard people, and other bulshyte spewers pushing back against genuine science with social media and people actually getting behind the bulshyte spewers.  

I can’t wait for the anti-vax crowd to re-embrace “humors” and therapeutic bleeding to balance them.

[Loge]

5 hours ago, Jo498 said:

science literacy has almost nothing to do with it. Even someone with a degree in, say, mechanical engineering, who is way above average in intelligence and "scientific literacy" will not be able to easily discern if what meterologists say about global warning is true or not, unless he wants to put more time and effort into it than he usually is able to. That's why meteorology papers are reviewed by other meteorologists, not by engineers.

An engineer knows the laws of physics, and some math. That makes them a lot harder to fool than a person to whom it's all just a matter of faith. Meteorology and climate science are very different fields, BTW. 

[IheartIheartTesla]

It is possible for our technology to regress (heck, all you need is the natural resources of the world to slowly be choked away), but our body of knowledge is so vast that we wont fall into a "Dark Ages"

For instance, even if we may not have access to antibiotics, no one is going to leech or remove "bad" blood from sick individuals. I think that in itself qualifies our civilization as being well set for not encountering a total collapse.

Our brains as we enter the world are also more advanced than those in the actual "Dark Ages", so in my opinion it will take only a few generations (in other words, rather quick) for us to be up and running.

[Kalbear]

14 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

It is possible for our technology to regress (heck, all you need is the natural resources of the world to slowly be choked away), but our body of knowledge is so vast that we wont fall into a "Dark Ages"

For instance, even if we may not have access to antibiotics, no one is going to leech or remove "bad" blood from sick individuals. I think that in itself qualifies our civilization as being well set for not encountering a total collapse.

Dude. Duuuuude. People are already doing that right now. Heck, we have people regularly selling homeopathic medicine at the supermarket and people buy it, in droves. Antivaccers are happily letting other kids die. Tribes of people are raping virgins to get rid of AIDS. 

 

 

[S John]

I think a set back of a couple generations is definitely possible.  We'd be naive to think otherwise as it has happened numerous times.  We've been on a pretty smooth trajectory for a while though.  And I think that the general connectedness of the globe would make a truly global collapse unlikely in a non-extinction event.  Some areas would probably keep chugging along.  Still... a major food crisis, a plague, a supervolcano, a meteor, a nuclear war, any of these things could really fuck us up.  I don't think it would take a whole lot of disruption in our current system for a situation to quickly become desperate, but for a full collapse of modern civilization would we'd have to be on the receiving end of a serious haymaker.  

[Darth Richard II]

The dark ages weren't as dark as popular conception makes it out to be, and no, that's not a lighting joke. The entire idea of the dark ages has been pretty thoroughly debunked.

that aside, yeah we're fucked

[Werthead]

The food supply chain needed to keep your local supermarket stocked with food is surprisingly tenuous. We're probably one good solar storm or event that knocks out electricity for 3-5 days from descending into anarchy and barbarism.

I don't think total human civilisation collapse is very likely, barring an asteroid impact or something that doesn't have a whole lot to do with us, but I think the way we are headed could lead to massive problems. The gap between rich and poor has reached farcical levels and can only get worse. Tribalism seems to be rearing its head again, along with a rejection of humanitarianism and compassion. Stupid people are angrily demanding that people listen to their uneducated drivel as if they're the smartest scientists. There's a tension building up which is highly reminiscent of that which existed before the Napoleonic Wars, WWI and WWII. But with a deeply integrated world civilisation and a population of over seven billion, any conflict even remotely on that scale would screw over the world economy, the circling system of food and fuel supplies and other things we not only take for granted, but are only barely aware actually exist.

It's all quite depressing. But we are also capable of pulling together in moments when it least seems likely, and people are better-educated than they ever have been, even if the challenges are significant.

[ThinkerX]

I've said it many times before, I'll say it again:

 

We are in the early stages of multiple large scale crises that will reshape our society at a fundamental level.

Energy: Current civilization is *almost* totally dependent on fossil fuels, which are finite. Most projections I have seen call for 'serious trouble circa 2020 - 2050 with these fuels.  (aside from coal, which may last another couple hundred years)  The oil/tar sands, fracking, and changeover to natural gas bought us a few decades.  Wind and solar are wonderful, but even combined and scaled up, they're not even close to full replacement.  Even with nuke plants, we won't be able to keep things 'as is.'

 

Water: the aquifers underneath the Midwest are strained - to put it politely.  That's prime farm country, Add in pesticides and other chemicals, what you end up with is less 'food' and more 'food like substances.'  A crash of some sort here, resulting in severe shortages or even famine, is somewhere between possible and probable.  I also note that potable water is becoming a major global issue.

 

Climate Change: Most of the articles I have read say that an increase in ocean level of well over a meter by centuries end. That works out to around 1/3rd of a meter (a foot or so) within the next couple decades, which is a disaster for low lying coastal areas.  Erosion.  Flooding. 

 

I see all this resulting in a sort of semi-perpetual 'state of emergency,' entire states and regions spending months or years under...authoritarian rule where many normal laws are set aside.  I see an emptying of rural suburbs and smaller towns (something going on NOW).  I see wave upon wave of opportunists, from individuals to small companies to large corporations cashing in on this mess, often making matters worse. 

 

I do see the situation improving a great deal towards the end of the century, but the society that emerges will be different from ours.  More restrictive.  Energy conscious to a extreme degree.  Socially stratified, maybe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

A major problem in my view is that most of the easily accessible raw materials and fossil resources have been depleted. Meaning that if something knocks us back to a pre-industrial state I don't know if we can return to our current tehcnological level again. I suspect we basically have one shot to make the colonization of space work, and it is now. If we need to start over again, there is a chance that we will not be able to re-industrialize, and be marooned on this planet at a less developed technological level forever.

[Werthead]

50 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

A major problem in my view is that most of the easily accessible raw materials and fossil resources have been depleted. Meaning that if something knocks us back to a pre-industrial state I don't know if we can return to our current tehcnological level again. I suspect we basically have one shot to make the colonization of space work, and it is now. If we need to start over again, there is a chance that we will not be able to re-industrialize, and be marooned on this planet at a less developed technological level forever.

Yup. Easily accessible fossil fuels are pretty much gone. If we lose our current technological edge and get knocked back to the stage where we need them to get back to being able to tap renewables, it's going to cause almost-irrecoverable problems.

Quote

Wind and solar are wonderful, but even combined and scaled up, they're not even close to full replacement.

On the other hand, this is far too cynical. We've seen countries like Germany - a north European country lacking lots of sunny days, mostly inland, heavily industrialised and urbanised with a huge population - running completely on renewables for days on end. Even Britain, which has lagged far behind other nations in renewable technology, has had a few days of running on renewables alone. We're not far off from getting it down, it just requires scaling up and if the need was urgent we could do it in a few years.

To power the entire planet from solar, you could build a ring of solar collectors around the moon and beam the energy back to Earth as microwaves. The cost would be ~$10 trillion. Enormously expensive, yes, but also about 1/7 of the world's total GDP. If we needed to do it as an emergency or lose electricity worldwide, we could do it. Or, rather less extravagantly, we could just build massive solar farms in the middle of deserts, or pass laws requiring 100% of all new houses and flats built worldwide to have solar panels on their roofs.

If we look at how quickly the western world shifted from almost no-one having mobile phones to almost everyone having them, it was like two years. It was built on technology that had been worked on at much smaller scales for years earlier, yes, but when the moment came that it made sense to do the switch, it was done with utterly stunning speed. If you put it in an SF novel ten years earlier, people would not have remotely believed it. The same can happen with renewables, with electric cars and so on.