Thoughts on civilization collapse

14 points

expand_less expand_more

Stuart_Armstrong

May 4, 2017

Epistemic status: an idea I believe moderately strongly, based on extensive reading but not rigorous analysis.

We may have a dramatically wrong idea of civilization collapse, mainly inspired by movies that obsess over dramatic tales of individual heroism.

Traditional view:

In a collapse, anarchy will break out, and it will be a war of all against all or small groups against small groups. Individual weaponry (including heavy weapons) and basic food production will become paramount; traditional political skills, not so much. Government collapse is long term. Towns and cities will suffer more than the countryside. The best course of action is to have a cache of weapons and food, and to run for the hills.

Alternative view:

In a collapse, people will cling to their identified tribe for protection. Large groups will have no difficulty suppressing or taking over individuals and small groups within their areas of influence. Individual weaponry may be important (given less of a police force), but heavy weaponry will be almost irrelevant as no small group will survive alone. Food production will be controlled by the large groups. Though the formal "government" may fall, and countries may splinter into more local groups, government will continue under the control of warlords, tribal elders, or local variants. Cities, with their large and varied-skill workforce, will suffer less than the countryside. The best course of action is to have a stash of minor luxury goods (solar-powered calculators, comic books, pornography, batteries, antiseptics) and to make contacts with those likely to become powerful after a collapse (army officers, police chiefs, religious leaders, influential families).

Possible sources to back up this alternative view:

The book Sapiens argues that governments and markets are the ultimate enablers of individualism, with extended-family-based tribalism as the "natural" state of humanity.
The history of Somalia demonstrates that laws and enforcement continue even after a government collapse, by going back to more traditional structures.
During China's period of anarchy, large groups remained powerful: the nationalists, the communists, the Japanese invaders. The other sections of the country were generally under the control of local warlords.
Rational Wiki argues that examples of collapse go against the individualism narrative.

14 points

expand_less expand_more

Stuart_Armstrong

Comments

sorted by

Highlighting new comments since Today at 10:54 AM

All comments loaded

7 points

expand_less expand_more

Most of the pessimistic people I talk to don't think the government will collapse. It will just get increasingly stagnant, oppressive and incompetent, and that incompetence will make it impossible for individual or corporate innovators to do anything worthwhile. Think European-style tax rates, with American-style low quality of public services.

There will also be a blurring of the line between the government and big corporations. Corporations will essentially become extensions of the bureaucracy. Because of this they will never go out of business and they will also never innovate. Think of a world where all corporations are about as competent as AmTrak.

7 points

expand_less expand_more

7 points

expand_less expand_more

hmm, blurred lines between corporations and political power... are you suggesting EU is already a failed state? (contrary to the widespread belief that we are just heading towards the cliff damn fast)

well, unlike Somalia, where no goverment means there is no border control and you can be robbed, raped or killed on the street anytime....

in civilized Europe our eurosocialist etatists achieved that... there are nor borders for invading millions of crimmigrants that may rob/rape/kill you anytime day or night... and as a bonus we have merkelterrorists that kill by hundreds sometimes (yeah, these uncivilized Somalis did not even manage this... what a shame, they certainly need more cultural marxist education)

7 points

expand_less expand_more

Stuart_Armstrong

8 points

expand_less expand_more

It's comments like this that make me pine for the downvote button. Please keep your points specific and precise, free of vague and vast politicking.

8 points

expand_less expand_more

7 points

expand_less expand_more

You have started with "politicking". Now you don't like that anymore?

Too bad!

7 points

expand_less expand_more

4 points

expand_less expand_more

Political discussion is mostly fine as long as it is reasonable. tukabel's comment looks like kekistani babble to me and it doesn't do well on the reasonableness metric.

4 points

expand_less expand_more

7 points

expand_less expand_more

Political discussion is prone to be look like "kekistani bable" if you disagree. But once you've started a political discussion there will be some disagreement which will be interpreted as "kekistani bable" - or worse.

By every side in this discussion.

7 points

expand_less expand_more

2 points

expand_less expand_more

Political discussion is prone to be look like "kekistani bable" if you disagree

That's not true at all. Within pretty much any political ideology you can find grunt-and-scream babble (kekistani babble in alt-right, sjw babble in progressive, exploitation babble in marxist, etc.) and you can find reasonable people making reasonable points.

It's not an issue of agreeing or disagreeing, it's an issue of the level of the discussion.

2 points

expand_less expand_more

5 points

expand_less expand_more

Well, I haven't seen that yet. I mean a reasonable discussion between different political affiliations. Inside one camp, yes. Across some wider divisions, not yet.

Emotions are just too strong, reasons are just too flimsy.

5 points

expand_less expand_more

2 points

expand_less expand_more

So, how do you characterize 'Merkelterrorists' and 'crimmigrants'? Terms of reasonable discourse?

2 points

expand_less expand_more

3 points

expand_less expand_more

And you think your concern trolling is contributing to reasonable discourse?

3 points

expand_less expand_more

1 points

expand_less expand_more

This thread is over. Tapping out on behalf of all participants.

1 points

expand_less expand_more

1 points

expand_less expand_more

Seems to me like Daniel started it.

1 points

expand_less expand_more

6 points

expand_less expand_more

Perhaps. But doesn't matter who started.

Stuart Armstrong has a lot of excellent posts about AI. But every now and then he thinks, that he should do some politics. Which is also a good decision. But then he argues from a (liberal) default, which is not as clever as his AI related views. By far.

This is from my POV, of course.

6 points

expand_less expand_more

2 points

expand_less expand_more

This is utterly LUDICROUS.

Look at what happened. tukabel wrote a post of rambling, grammar-impaired, hysteria-mongering hyperbole: 'invading millions of crimmigrants that may rob/rape/kill you anytime day or night'.This is utterly unquestionably NOT a rationally presented point on politics, and it does not belong on this forum, and it deserves to be downvoted into oblivion.

Stuart said he wished to be able to downvote it.

Then out of nowhere you come in and blame him personally or starting something he manifestly didn't start. It's a 100% false comment.

Upon being called out on this, you backtrack and say your earlier point didn't actually matter (meaning it was bullshit to begin with), complaining that he's gasp liberal.

But here it didn't take being liberal to want to downvote. If I agreed 100% with tukabel, I would be freaking EMBARRASSED to have that argument presented on my side. It was a really bad comment!

2 points

expand_less expand_more

5 points

expand_less expand_more

That much anger, for what? What does it mean?

5 points

expand_less expand_more

2 points

expand_less expand_more

Spreading this shitty argumentation in a place that had otherwise been quite clean, that's what's gotten under my skin.

2 points

expand_less expand_more

6 points

expand_less expand_more

This is not a good argumentation, at all. "It use to be fine, until I was offended by that".

It was never really fine. At first, the politics were pretty much prohibited as a "mindkiller", this was the rule of the game here. Then the standard PC views became accepted, as a kind of a default. Then some reactionaries put their views on a display and shortly after went away.

Now, the unspoken norm is to not go too far away from the PC platform, again?

6 points

expand_less expand_more

2 points

expand_less expand_more

It's possible to talk about politics without explicitly invoking Boo lights like 'crimmigrants' and appeals to exaggerated risks like 'may rob/rape/kill you anytime of day or night'. You can have a reasonable discussion of the problems of immigration, but this is not how you do it. Anyone who says this is A-OK argumentation and that calling it out is wrong is basically diametrically opposed to Lesswrong's core concepts.

Basically, you're accusing me of outright lying that I think that argument is quite badly written, and instead being blindly partisan. It was badly written, and I am not. I don't even know WHAT to do about the problems arising from the rapid immigration from the Middle-East into Europe. I certainly don't deny they exist. What I DO know is that talking about it like that does (ETA: not) help us approach the truth of the matter.

2 points

expand_less expand_more

4 points

expand_less expand_more

appeals to exaggerated risks like 'may rob/rape/kill you anytime of day or night'.

Except that risk is not in fact exaggerated.

Basically, you're accusing me of outright lying that I think that argument is quite badly written, and instead being blindly partisan.

Here's an idea. If you don't want to be accused of outright lying and being blindly partisan, try not outright lying and not being blindly partisan. Crazy idea, huh?

4 points

expand_less expand_more

1 points

expand_less expand_more

Your certainty that I am lying and blindly partisan appears to be much stronger than justifiable given the evidence publicly available, and from my point of view where I at least know that I am not lying… well, it makes your oh-so-clever insinuation fall a touch flat. As for being blindly partisan, what gives you the impression that I would tolerate this from the other side?

At the very least, I think this chain has shown that LessWrong is not a left-side echo chamber as Thomas has claimed above.

Except that risk is not in fact exaggerated

If so, the original expression of that risk was presented in such a fashion as to make that claim as non-credible as possible through explicit emotionally enflaming wording.

1 points

expand_less expand_more

2 points

expand_less expand_more

Now, the unspoken norm is to not go too far away from the PC platform, again?

No.

I'm quite far from the PC platform and I don't have any issues (that penetrate through my very thick skin, anyway :-D).

2 points

expand_less expand_more

4 points

expand_less expand_more

'invading millions of crimmigrants that may rob/rape/kill you anytime day or night'

Well, they are in fact robbing, killing, and raping people, and the authorities are remarkably uninterested in doing anything about it besides accusing the victims of "racism". In fact in most western European countries some who says something mean about the migrants gets a harsher sentence then a migrant who engages in robbing, killing, or raping.

This is utterly unquestionably NOT a rationally presented point on politics

Why not? Because he said something false? A better question is why you refer to the truth as "hysteria-mongering hyperbole"?

4 points

expand_less expand_more

2 points

expand_less expand_more

they are in fact robbing, killing, and raping people

Just like the the natives :-/

in most western European countries some who says something mean about the migrants gets a harsher sentence

Bullshit. Yes, I know, there are cherries you can pick. Still bullshit.

Why not? Because he said something false?

That too, but mostly because the content of this rant was "I don't like immigrants" and that was basically it. Adding a lot of emotionally coloured words just makes it look like a temper tantrum.

It is possible to rationally discuss the issue of immigration in Western Europe -- basically, the Europeans are not breeding (TFR is way under 2.0 in most countries) and more warm bodies do help with the economy. But the IQ and cultural issues are a big deal. The problem is complicated and crimmigrant rants do not help.

Japan is leading the way on the "we don't reproduce and no immigrants are allowed" path. Wait a bit and things will become clearer.

2 points

expand_less expand_more

4 points

expand_less expand_more

they are in fact robbing, killing, and raping people

Just like the the natives :-/

There is a significant qualitative difference in amount here.

in most western European countries some who says something mean about the migrants gets a harsher sentence

Bullshit. Yes, I know, there are cherries you can pick. Still bullshit.

So basically you're conceding I'm right, but still want to call bullshit on it. Sounds like a classic sign of cognitive dissonance.

Japan is leading the way on the "we don't reproduce and no immigrants are allowed" path. Wait a bit and things will become clearer.

Well, so far they aren't experiencing a huge increase rape and general crime.

4 points

expand_less expand_more

Good_Burning_Plastic

1 points

expand_less expand_more

So basically you're conceding I'm right, but still want to call bullshit on it.

If by "some" you literally meant nothing but "more than zero", fine. (But "some" people get harsh sentences for pretty much anything, so "some people get harsh sentences for X" is not very informative about how little X is tolerated.)

But usually "somebody who does X undergoes Y" is used to imply something like "if you do X you'll most likely undergo Y", which in this case is very far from being the case. (I just have to spend some time on Facebook to see dozens of western Europeans saying mean things about migrants and AFAIK hardly any of them have ever gotten any sentence.) So I'm getting the impression that you were using the literal meaning as the motte and the colloquial meaning as the bailey.

1 points

expand_less expand_more

4 points

expand_less expand_more

If by "some" you literally meant nothing but "more than zero", fine. (But "some" people get harsh sentences for pretty much anything, so "some people get harsh sentences for X" is not very informative about how little X is tolerated.)

So you consider harsh sentences for pointing out true facts about migrant behavior to be reasonable as long as it only happens to "some" people? You may want to learn about how chilling effects on free speech work.

4 points

expand_less expand_more

Good_Burning_Plastic

1 points

expand_less expand_more

No, I don't. I was just pointing out that you picked a very disingenuous way of stating that. (You could have said instead, for example, "some people who said something mean about the migrants have gotten harsher sentences")

true facts

Huh. I've been living for a year in a city where most of the population is foreign-born (myself included) and it doesn't look like it's going to hell. In particular I feel safer here than in certain other places with many fewer immigrants.

You may want to learn about how chilling effects on free speech work.

Judging by the number of people I hear saying ridiculous things about migrants every day, I wonder what would happen if such "chilling effects" were not in place -- would my Facebook feed ever contain anything else at all?

1 points

expand_less expand_more

1 points

expand_less expand_more

basically you're conceding I'm right

LOL. You wish. Work on your reading comprehension, maybe?

so far they aren't experiencing a huge increase rape and general crime

Being extinct is a very peaceful state.

1 points

expand_less expand_more

4 points

expand_less expand_more

in most western European countries some who says something mean about the migrants gets a harsher sentence

Bullshit. Yes, I know, there are cherries you can pick. Still bullshit.

basically you're conceding I'm right

LOL. You wish. Work on your reading comprehension, maybe?

If what I said about people getting harsher sentences for saying mean things about migrants than migrants engaging in rape was really "bullshit", you wouldn't have to engage in accusations of "cherry-picking" to pre-dissmiss any evidence. As if there is any reason for any sentence for saying mean things about migrants to be worse than the sentence for rape.

4 points

expand_less expand_more

1 points

expand_less expand_more

I am not pre-dismissing anything. I'm actually quite familiar with both the sorry state of the freedom of speech in Europe and the propensity of immigrants to be not quite law-abiding. But if you want to make any specific claims, show data (and note that singular of 'data" is not 'anecdote').

1 points

expand_less expand_more

1 points

expand_less expand_more

Actually, it's not really needed. When Eugine uses a new account we can also ban/delete the post.

1 points

expand_less expand_more

6 points

expand_less expand_more

Cities, with their large and varied-skill workforce, will suffer less than the countryside.

I agree with your post except for this. Based on reading post-WWII accounts of Germany and Japan, when the economic/trade system breaks down, it becomes hard to get food if you don't live where it's being grown.

6 points

expand_less expand_more

6 points

expand_less expand_more

Traditional view

You mean "convenient for story-telling", right?

In a collapse, people will cling to their identified tribe for protection. Large groups will have no difficulty suppressing or taking over individuals and small groups within their areas of influence. Individual weaponry may be important (given less of a police force), but heavy weaponry will be almost irrelevant as no small group will survive alone. Food production will be controlled by the large groups.

As far as I can see you are just describing typical human political arrangements. In particular, this fits the contemporary situation quite well.

Where is the "collapse" part?

6 points

expand_less expand_more

Stuart_Armstrong

2 points

expand_less expand_more

As far as I can see you are just describing typical human political arrangements. In particular, this fits the contemporary situation quite well.

Indeed. After the collapse, things will be... typical, in many ways.

2 points

expand_less expand_more

3 points

expand_less expand_more

Cities, with their large and varied-skill workforce, will suffer less than the countryside.

Cities have a large and varied workforce, but many of their skills lie in things that rely on civilisation remaining intact. Tax lawyers, bartenders, yoga instructors, investment bankers etc. all seem like they would be more of a liability than an asset in such a scenario. Whereas the countryside has skills more focused around food production, and a lower population density reduces the risks of food riots.

3 points

expand_less expand_more

2 points

expand_less expand_more

+1

I don't think many people would support the "traditional view" in a direct comparison, but it's probably the case that it persists as some kind of a media illusion. There's always the danger of acting on unendorsed cached thoughts. Good catch.

2 points

expand_less expand_more

1 points

expand_less expand_more

Assertion: Statement about heavy weapons in OP is incorrect.

In collapse scenarios any entity capable of bringing modern military technology with the attached organizational requirements to bear can and will dominate organizations which cannot.

In many collapse scenarios, political wrangling over who controls the institutions capable of managing that force becomes the dominant struggle. In Venezuela of today, for example, the government is incapable of guaranteeing security or access to reaources for the population at large, but is capable of staying in power. The standard scenario assumes that individuals can win against large, well resourced militaries, this has been true at various times in the past, but is not true today.

The 'bronze age collapse' is instructive, when everyone learned to make iron, barbarians destroyed every hierarchy and the cities fell. Today, any technology that can have a similar effect requires specialist knowledge and access to the fruits of infrastructure (Home-made explosives can be made from common industrial chemicals, but not really from things you can grow in your yard).

Destruction of social infrastructure will not create individual liberty, but it will scatter a bunch of toxic waste that will require even greater levels of development to clean up.

In Flint, MI, institutional collapse was followed by a loss of control of infrastructure, which lead(pun intended) to a collapse of control systems, and the resultant toxic pollution will destroy the population resident there without external intervention.

Bad news all around when entropy wins.

1 points

expand_less expand_more

1 points

expand_less expand_more

Nitpick: cash for cache,.

1 points

expand_less expand_more

1 points

expand_less expand_more

Another data point: the existence of prison gangs (typically organized along racial lines).

1 points

expand_less expand_more

Stuart_Armstrong

2 points

expand_less expand_more

I'm not sure that's a very relevant data point. Prison is very structured, and all the physical needs of the prisoners are guaranteed, and anarchy and fighting is punished, at least to some extent.

2 points

expand_less expand_more

1 points

expand_less expand_more

Hm. I think there is a quote in this podcast about how prisoners form prison gangs as a bulwark against anarchy: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2015/03/david_skarbek_o.html

1 points

expand_less expand_more

1 points

expand_less expand_more

Agree with the initial statement - the most accessible picture of collapse is unlikely. I'm less sure about the probability of your alternate - the space of possibilities is large. Also, timeframe matters. Anarchic collapse may be followed by small-group/warlord dominance.

1 points

expand_less expand_more