by Outcast_Searcher » Sat 30 Nov 2019, 15:06:44
Sparky you make a good point. Re internal cohesion, looking at human history since there have been good records (let's say since about the Renaissance, but that would apply further back), implies that unexpected events and stresses on the system mean that, big picture, such cohesion doesn't last. Society changes and adapts when it is forced to, and such changes are a result of stress on the system.
And by definition, IMO, when those stresses cause big changes in how populations align and live and work, there can't BE a lot of cohesion -- at least while the stresses are being resolved.
So I think that stresses, some lack of cohesion, and lots of change over time are inevitable. The question is, does the complexity make things brittle enough to preclude the necessary transitions from taking place without "doom"?
So then you get into the definition of doom. NO DOUBT, billions will die now and again during the rough spots from wars, disease, man made crises, etc. But OTOH, EVERYBODY dies in about, say 80 years or so on average (or gets to a state where they can't do a lot of useful work).
The whole thing is a big unstable cauldron. And has been since at least the Renaissance (from where I got a decent amount of overall world history education vs. dribs and drabs).
I think in some ways, the technology will make us MORE resiliant. Look how much of the fast crash doomer scenario is on the electric grid coming down for months or years. Once solar is a cheap, effective alternative or even replacement of having to be on "the grid", and/or you have a huge number of residential solar installations feeding any excess power INTO the grid, and capable backup batteries are common or even the norm -- the idea of the grid shutting down for while being "DOOM" simply goes away. (NOT saying it wouldn't be very inconvenient, just not doom).
Of course, OTOH, unless electronics get hardened or commonly protected with Faraday cages, etc., maybe an EMP pulse replaces the grid as THE obvious huge weak point, for example.
I just think that realistically, things are FAR too complex and change FAR too much to try to make any meaningful forecasts of short to intermediate term doom probability. Which of course, might be a real bad sign, as TPTB trying to apply for effective handling of a large disaster results in plans which are pretty much a joke (same as it's been throughout the nuclear era, considering city evacuation plans, for example). OTOH, more millions will die which sounds really bad, but there's more billions around to take over once the mess is resolved. And yes, I think that by far, most of the crises are relatively local vs. global in scale.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.