Scientific model says chance of societal collapse in the next few decades is "sky high"

[acri1]

Chances Of Societal Collapse In Next Few Decades Is Sky High, Modelling Suggests​

​

TOM HALE
Senior Journalist


Earth's civilization has a “very low probability” of surviving the next few decades without facing a catastrophic collapse, according to a study published in the Nature journal Scientific Reports.

Two researchers from Chile and the UK used modeling to see how rates of resource consumption, namely in terms of deforestation, affects the ability of global human society to sustain itself. By their workings, there’s just a 10 percent chance that human civilization will be able to make it through the next 20 to 40 years without a catastrophic collapse.

“We conclude from a statistical point of view that the probability that our civilization survives itself is less than 10 percent in the most optimistic scenario,” the study authors write.

“Calculations show that, maintaining the actual rate of population growth and resource consumption, in particular forest consumption, we have a few decades left before an irreversible collapse of our civilization.”

“It is hard to imagine, in absence of very strong collective efforts, big changes of these parameters to occur in such time scale,” they added.

This is all theoretical, of course. The study authors are both mathematical physicists who use modeling to understand complex systems, ranging from complicated biological processes to fiddly social systems. This intensely theoretical approach does have some limitations. As the researchers point out, their work assumes some parameters (such as population growth and deforestation rate) will remain constant, which is certainly not guaranteed. Forest is also taken as a proxy for all resources, which could be seen as oversimplistic.

Nevertheless, the study paints a compelling image of how rampant deforestation and population collapse threaten human society as a whole.

The study primarily looks at deforestation and our consumption of trees. Trees are an invaluable asset for humans and the wider ecosystem. Not only do they support natural and human food systems but they also are a lynchpin in a number of important systems, such as the carbon cycle, oxygen production, soil conservation, and the water cycle. As such, the researchers say deforestation will soon mean there are not enough resources to maintain the global population, at which point there will be a "disastrous collapse" of the population.

At the current rate of deforestation, all of Earth’s forests would disappear in 100 to 200 years. However, the study predicts that the scarcity of forests will start to cause problems long before all of the planet’s trees are gone.

“Clearly it is unrealistic to imagine that the human society would start to be affected by the deforestation only when the last tree would be cut down,” they write. “The progressive degradation of the environment due to deforestation would heavily affect human society and consequently the human collapse would start much earlier.”

One of the most remarkable skills of humans is their ability to adapt and innovate. As such, you might expect that technology and science will develop solutions to this problem. However, the report argues that the “consumption of the natural resources, in particular the forests, is in competition with our technological level.” In other words, the more technology progresses, the more we are likely to destroy forests unless a profound paradigm shift occurs.

The researchers also toy with the idea of the so-called “Fermi paradox” and the question of why we have not yet come across another advanced alien civilization given the high probability of existence. On this point, the researchers point out that some believe only very few civilizations would be able to reach a sufficient technological level to journey out of their solar system before depleting their resources. Essentially, aliens wipe themselves out before becoming advanced enough to launch an interstellar exploration.

Perhaps, the researchers pose, this could be the predicament facing Earthlings in the coming few decades unless civilization undergoes a remarkably rapid transformation.

Chances Of Societal Collapse In Next Few Decades Is Sky High, Modelling Suggests

Chances Of Societal Collapse In Next Few Decades Is Sky High, Modelling Suggests

www.iflscience.com

“We conclude from a statistical point of view that the probability that our civilization survives itself is less than 10 percent in the most optimistic scenario,” the study authors write.

Just wanted to share some good news on this lovely Monday morning

 

[Hood Critic]

A global pandemic is much more likely to cause a collapse long before deforestation. That was the case prior to Covid and is evident now more than ever after we witnessed how dependent we are on a global supply chain.

 

[acri1]

A global pandemic is much more likely to cause a collapse long before deforestation. That was the case prior to Covid and is evident now more than ever after we witnessed how dependent we are on a global supply chain.

Not really unless whatever was going around was much more lethal than COVID.

COVID didn't cause a societal collapse. It caused a societal interruption and messed up the economy for a while, but it wasn't a societal collapse. Most pandemics even if they kill a lot of people aren't going to cause a collapse of society as a whole.



Environmental collapse is a bigger concern in the long term, and way harder to recover from than a virus.

 

[Hood Critic]

Not really unless whatever was going around was much more lethal than COVID.

COVID didn't cause a societal collapse. It caused a societal interruption and messed up the economy for a while, but it wasn't a societal collapse. Most pandemics even if they kill a lot of people aren't going to cause a collapse of society as a whole.



Environmental collapse is a bigger concern in the long term, and way harder to recover from than a virus.

It's not the virus itself that will cause the collapse, its the human behavior associated with the virus. Fear and uncertainty breads chaos. We barely made it through 1.5-2 years of covid protocols before people started to fatigue of it.

"Societal interruption" is the precursor to a collapse if left unchecked. There is no way for anyone to know how deadly a virus can or can't be but monkeypox is showing us that we didn't learn enough during covid on how to react and contain a pandemic.

 

[Raphaello]

Doom and gloom

 

[acri1]

It's not the virus itself that will cause the collapse, its the human behavior associated with the virus. Fear and uncertainty breads chaos. We barely made it through 1.5-2 years of covid protocols before people started to fatigue of it.

"Societal interruption" is the precursor to a collapse if left unchecked. There is no way for anyone to know how deadly a virus can or can't be but monkeypox is showing us that we didn't learn enough during covid on how to react and contain a pandemic.

All of that is true, but I think you're really downplaying how bad things will get when we start running out of forests.

You can recover from a pandemic. Not having enough resources to support the population is far worse int the long term. If you think a virus causes a lot of fear and chaos wait until you start seeing famines en masse.

 

[timeless]

It was always inevitable in my opinion. And to be honest... It's already happening in certain ways.

 

[Hood Critic]

All of that is true, but I think you're really downplaying how bad things will get when we start running out of forests.

You can recover from a pandemic. Not having enough resources to support the population is far worse int the long term. If you think a virus causes a lot of fear and chaos wait until you start seeing famines en masse.

Not at all, I just feel like the collapse of civilization will happen or be in progress well before we get to the point where the results of deforestation will start to occur.

 

[Consigliere]

Humans aren’t ready for a world where basic materials like wood are a luxury item.

I’m assuming we’ll use more manufactured products like PVC, concrete and engineered wood in the developed world. It’ll drive up costs and energy uses some but it’s feasible.

Not sure what happens in markets where they already pay a premium for everything.

 

[Bboystyle]

Scientists from the 19th century: we are in a collision course for climate change that may reshape our future generation for the worse.

The Government: *does nothing*

Scientists from the 20th century: ice caps have melted at a catastrophic rate, the earth atmosphere is being destroy through human emissions, forests are being chopped down at an alarming rate. We may have less than 200 to 300 years for this to be sustainable.

The Government: *does nothing*



Electric vehicle makers: Hey, a lot of money is ready to be made and we can also advertise how this will help polution but in reality it probably wont be enough for the planet to heal its self.


The Government: take my money!!

 

[Micky Mikey]

Scientists from the 19th century: we are in a collision course for climate change that may reshape our future generation for the worse.

The Government: *does nothing*

Scientists from the 20th century: ice caps have melted at a catastrophic rate, the earth atmosphere is being destroy through human emissions, forests are being chopped down at an alarming rate. We may have less than 200 to 300 years for this to be sustainable.

The Government: *does nothing*



Electric vehicle makers: Hey, a lot of money is ready to be made and we can also advertise how this will help polution but in reality it probably wont be enough for the planet to heal its self.


The Government: take my money!!

This is far too simplistic. The US government seems to be in no rush to transition off fossil fuels. Also the fact that it took clean energy to become profitable for us to start taking clean energy somewhat seriously implies the inherent problem with this profit driven system. We should have transitioned ages ago but oil companies, for decades have muddied the water with climate change disinfo and bribed too many politicians to make change possible.

On another note I don't think we'll get to 2035 without some massive reduction in our standard of living. We're following the models of MIT's "Limits to Growth" report almost perfectly, which says that civilization will collapse sometime in the 2030s.




Unless there is some technological breakthrough and/or some paradigm shift in human consciousness we're headed for ruin.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

This isn't news and it isn't surprising. It isn't "doom and gloom" either. If you have a basic understanding of how ecosystems and resource extraction work then you can already see it.

* We're already taking more than the natural world can sustain, such that resources are constantly diminishing
* Our taking is ACCELERATING, not decreasing
* This depletion isn't in just one area, but in numerous areas - we're draining too much water, losing too much topsoil, cutting too much forest, putting out too much CO2, using too much pesticide/herbicide/fertilizer, etc. etc.
* most negative impacts make other impacts even worse - the collapses feed off of each other

People who think this is an overreaction need to explain how the basic logic fails. We're already provably taking too much and impacting the natural world too hard. Even if we did nothing to change our current behavior, we'll destroy the natural world. And rather than "doing nothing", we're actually getting worse and worse every year. We have no serious plans to decrease our global impact to the degree necessary.



How is this not going to result in collapse? Some of y'all need to understand how depletion works. It's not like you get to take 100% of what you want every year, then suddenly you're left with only 99%. When you run out, you fukking run out. We're gonna keep taking 100% of what we want and then suddenly one year we're only going to have 80% of what we need, the next year 60%, the next year 40%. That sorta fukkup doesn't result in mere recession or "austerity", that's a recipe for full on collapse and Mad Max style fighting over the remains.

 

[KeysT]

I’ve been thinking this for awhile. This lifestyle isn’t sustainable. The profit growth economy always wants and needs more. There is a limit to what we can take.

 

[Wild self]

This isn't news and it isn't surprising. It isn't "doom and gloom" either. If you have a basic understanding of how ecosystems and resource extraction work then you can already see it.

* We're already taking more than the natural world can sustain, such that resources are constantly diminishing
* Our taking is ACCELERATING, not decreasing
* This depletion isn't in just one area, but in numerous areas - we're draining too much water, losing too much topsoil, cutting too much forest, putting out too much CO2, using too much pesticide/herbicide/fertilizer, etc. etc.
* most negative impacts make other impacts even worse - the collapses feed off of each other

People who think this is an overreaction need to explain how the basic logic fails. We're already provably taking too much and impacting the natural world too hard. Even if we did nothing to change our current behavior, we'll destroy the natural world. And rather than "doing nothing", we're actually getting worse and worse every year. We have no serious plans to decrease our global impact to the degree necessary.



How is this not going to result in collapse? Some of y'all need to understand how depletion works. It's not like you get to take 100% of what you want every year, then suddenly you're left with only 99%. When you run out, you fukking run out. We're gonna keep taking 100% of what we want and then suddenly one year we're only going to have 80% of what we need, the next year 60%, the next year 40%. That sorta fukkup doesn't result in mere recession or "austerity", that's a recipe for full on collapse and Mad Max style fighting over the remains.

Yeah, basically the point of no return.

 

[TheDarceKnight]

This isn't news and it isn't surprising. It isn't "doom and gloom" either. If you have a basic understanding of how ecosystems and resource extraction work then you can already see it.

* We're already taking more than the natural world can sustain, such that resources are constantly diminishing
* Our taking is ACCELERATING, not decreasing
* This depletion isn't in just one area, but in numerous areas - we're draining too much water, losing too much topsoil, cutting too much forest, putting out too much CO2, using too much pesticide/herbicide/fertilizer, etc. etc.
* most negative impacts make other impacts even worse - the collapses feed off of each other

People who think this is an overreaction need to explain how the basic logic fails. We're already provably taking too much and impacting the natural world too hard. Even if we did nothing to change our current behavior, we'll destroy the natural world. And rather than "doing nothing", we're actually getting worse and worse every year. We have no serious plans to decrease our global impact to the degree necessary.



How is this not going to result in collapse? Some of y'all need to understand how depletion works. It's not like you get to take 100% of what you want every year, then suddenly you're left with only 99%. When you run out, you fukking run out. We're gonna keep taking 100% of what we want and then suddenly one year we're only going to have 80% of what we need, the next year 60%, the next year 40%. That sorta fukkup doesn't result in mere recession or "austerity", that's a recipe for full on collapse and Mad Max style fighting over the remains.

Yep.

I made this same argument with some friends that didn't think Covid would become an issue for us in the U.S. once it had already spread outside of Asia. My argument was that it's a math problem that you could do on the back of your hand.

Once a problem like this gets to a certain point and starts accelerating, it's just a matter of time.