It is a very interesting question and discussion. But I suspect the answer is more granular, more complex.
Western civilisation is based on fossil fuels, as we all know, and the fast-increasing sophistication of it's technology makes it more and more vulnerable to collapse. As an example, imagine if computers suffered a mass breakdown (EMP, a virus, an attack.....), our society wouldn't just lose social media and GPS, but our society's entire history of the last 40 years; all it's money would not just be inaccessible but records of it could disappear, and medical records, along with ownership of companies, even of your house. Your right to a Passport or 'papers' giving you citizenship. Your 'ownership' of your own children. The prisons would empty for lack of criminal records. The borders would either be open to all, or closed.
Most importantly, the supply networks, such as food and fuel, would have to start up again from scratch before we starved or froze, and without money to pay - would that even happen? Could we barter our way back to some kind of order? I really doubt it.
In contrast, many more basic societies, still nominally Capitalist on a smaller scale, have systems that are more resilient, so they may easily survive, barely noticing the chaos in the Western economies. So when you say Capitalism may collapse, the example above may suggest that the grand edifice of Western technological Capitalism could be wiped out, but still the belief in the framework and structure remain and quickly regrow, like a seedling exposed to sunlight.
We can say the same about 'the collapse of the Earth'. Personally, I expect the human population of the Earth to collapse from an unsustainable over-8 billion now back down to around 3 billion, which would still be more than the 2.4 billion it was when I was born in the 1950's. In doing so it would massively reduce the human component of Co2 emissions, as well as signifying a human retreat from human invasion of the biosphere, so allowing many species to reinhabit their lands and ecosystems.
In fact I would support Dr. James Lovelock's work on Gaia, and suggest that a Gaian Earth will itself respond to the 'virus' of humanity giving the Earth a high temperature with it's own cures, like pandemics and climate catastrophes and famines, until the human virus is reduced and the high temperature cured.
But a collapse in humanity is not a collapse of the Earth. As a 'Gaian' I'd see that as a rather messy cure, 'messy' because it would be great if this Gaian Earth could be a bit more selective about those problem people (Westerners with their excessive dependence on fossil fuels) and leave the rest alone!
So to sum up, I suspect the 'end of the world as we know it' will be an end of the vulnerable Westernised world as we know it and, in the process, a return to sustainable levels of humans and the re-establishment of a thriving ecosystem for the rest of life on Earth.
I'm not sure if that makes me an optimist or a pessimist?
Btw, I would like to imagine that the future society will develop a belief system, a 'bogeyman' story of how greedy people once almost destroyed our beautiful planet for an imaginary idea of wealth that, it turned out, didn't actually exist. Something like 'Pandora's Box' meets 'The Emperor's new clothes'.
Because otherwise in 1,000, 5,000 or 10,000 years tine, humans may be doing this shit all over again! Oh well........
An insightful, interesting comment in response to an intellectually engaging thought piece regarding the prospect of the collapse of the Earth’s life support systems vs the collapse of the global malady that is capitalism.
I would view an aggregate human population of circa 500,000,000 to be the “ideal” limit to humanity’s presence on the planet considering that we tend to contribute principally pain and problems, while most other species appear to be essential elements of the web of life.
As I see matters, the Earth’s biosphere will undoubtedly collapse far before the sick system that is capitalism, because for every Greta Thunberg there appears to exist a million mindless morons like Rump eager to pillage the planet’s natural wonders for a fist full of dollars, which is to say, for no valid reason at all.
In his book, 'Small is Beautiful', back in 1973, the economist E.F.Schumacher outlined a world where no commercial or political entity was allowed to become large enough to do significant damage to the Earth's natural systems. It was, of course, a period of ecological and environmental enlightenment, still with hope for a better future and still an assumption that enough people occupying the one and only liveable planet would agree with such ideals.
Obviously this goes against the modern economic mantras for 'economies of scale' and 'efficiency of production', as well as the personal ego-ambitions for empires and multi-national corporations - so Schumacher's ideals were in exactly the opposite direction of modern Capitalism, and his views now seem lost from the public debate.
Perhaps a Gaian Earth, as Lovelock proposed, that demolishes the environmental conditions that support excess humanity, may also drive us back to a population level and distribution that will enforce a Schumacher level of sustainability, albeit against our will. I hope so.
But wouldn't it be better if we chose to take such actions voluntarily and, in the process, taught and trained our children and grandchildren what we learned form our catastrophic mistakes, in the hope they wouldn't repeat them?
Sadly, today I realise such dreams and ideals belong back in the 1970's, and my 20's, when I still had hope, and have no place in the 2020's, and my 70's, when all hope is gone. Well, almost......
An exceptionally well considered comment that resonates with my sense of logic and reason. Yes, ideally, homo sapients (thinking man?) would take the actions necessary to redirect our current disastrous course that finds us rushing at breakneck speed towards the precipice, but our collective unwillingness to consider matters with due care, let alone wisdom, strongly suggests human beings may soon reach the end of the rope with which our wanton species apparently wishes with all its heart to hang itself.
We could save ourselves from our “catastrophic mistakes” (astonishing arrogance and abject stupidity) but the fools, the malicious, the malevolent, the uncaring among us appear to have the upper hand. Thus, each time we roll the dice we keep coming up with snake eyes.
It is a very interesting question and discussion. But I suspect the answer is more granular, more complex.
Western civilisation is based on fossil fuels, as we all know, and the fast-increasing sophistication of it's technology makes it more and more vulnerable to collapse. As an example, imagine if computers suffered a mass breakdown (EMP, a virus, an attack.....), our society wouldn't just lose social media and GPS, but our society's entire history of the last 40 years; all it's money would not just be inaccessible but records of it could disappear, and medical records, along with ownership of companies, even of your house. Your right to a Passport or 'papers' giving you citizenship. Your 'ownership' of your own children. The prisons would empty for lack of criminal records. The borders would either be open to all, or closed.
Most importantly, the supply networks, such as food and fuel, would have to start up again from scratch before we starved or froze, and without money to pay - would that even happen? Could we barter our way back to some kind of order? I really doubt it.
In contrast, many more basic societies, still nominally Capitalist on a smaller scale, have systems that are more resilient, so they may easily survive, barely noticing the chaos in the Western economies. So when you say Capitalism may collapse, the example above may suggest that the grand edifice of Western technological Capitalism could be wiped out, but still the belief in the framework and structure remain and quickly regrow, like a seedling exposed to sunlight.
We can say the same about 'the collapse of the Earth'. Personally, I expect the human population of the Earth to collapse from an unsustainable over-8 billion now back down to around 3 billion, which would still be more than the 2.4 billion it was when I was born in the 1950's. In doing so it would massively reduce the human component of Co2 emissions, as well as signifying a human retreat from human invasion of the biosphere, so allowing many species to reinhabit their lands and ecosystems.
In fact I would support Dr. James Lovelock's work on Gaia, and suggest that a Gaian Earth will itself respond to the 'virus' of humanity giving the Earth a high temperature with it's own cures, like pandemics and climate catastrophes and famines, until the human virus is reduced and the high temperature cured.
But a collapse in humanity is not a collapse of the Earth. As a 'Gaian' I'd see that as a rather messy cure, 'messy' because it would be great if this Gaian Earth could be a bit more selective about those problem people (Westerners with their excessive dependence on fossil fuels) and leave the rest alone!
So to sum up, I suspect the 'end of the world as we know it' will be an end of the vulnerable Westernised world as we know it and, in the process, a return to sustainable levels of humans and the re-establishment of a thriving ecosystem for the rest of life on Earth.
I'm not sure if that makes me an optimist or a pessimist?
Btw, I would like to imagine that the future society will develop a belief system, a 'bogeyman' story of how greedy people once almost destroyed our beautiful planet for an imaginary idea of wealth that, it turned out, didn't actually exist. Something like 'Pandora's Box' meets 'The Emperor's new clothes'.
Because otherwise in 1,000, 5,000 or 10,000 years tine, humans may be doing this shit all over again! Oh well........
An insightful, interesting comment in response to an intellectually engaging thought piece regarding the prospect of the collapse of the Earth’s life support systems vs the collapse of the global malady that is capitalism.
I would view an aggregate human population of circa 500,000,000 to be the “ideal” limit to humanity’s presence on the planet considering that we tend to contribute principally pain and problems, while most other species appear to be essential elements of the web of life.
As I see matters, the Earth’s biosphere will undoubtedly collapse far before the sick system that is capitalism, because for every Greta Thunberg there appears to exist a million mindless morons like Rump eager to pillage the planet’s natural wonders for a fist full of dollars, which is to say, for no valid reason at all.
In his book, 'Small is Beautiful', back in 1973, the economist E.F.Schumacher outlined a world where no commercial or political entity was allowed to become large enough to do significant damage to the Earth's natural systems. It was, of course, a period of ecological and environmental enlightenment, still with hope for a better future and still an assumption that enough people occupying the one and only liveable planet would agree with such ideals.
Obviously this goes against the modern economic mantras for 'economies of scale' and 'efficiency of production', as well as the personal ego-ambitions for empires and multi-national corporations - so Schumacher's ideals were in exactly the opposite direction of modern Capitalism, and his views now seem lost from the public debate.
Perhaps a Gaian Earth, as Lovelock proposed, that demolishes the environmental conditions that support excess humanity, may also drive us back to a population level and distribution that will enforce a Schumacher level of sustainability, albeit against our will. I hope so.
But wouldn't it be better if we chose to take such actions voluntarily and, in the process, taught and trained our children and grandchildren what we learned form our catastrophic mistakes, in the hope they wouldn't repeat them?
Sadly, today I realise such dreams and ideals belong back in the 1970's, and my 20's, when I still had hope, and have no place in the 2020's, and my 70's, when all hope is gone. Well, almost......
An exceptionally well considered comment that resonates with my sense of logic and reason. Yes, ideally, homo sapients (thinking man?) would take the actions necessary to redirect our current disastrous course that finds us rushing at breakneck speed towards the precipice, but our collective unwillingness to consider matters with due care, let alone wisdom, strongly suggests human beings may soon reach the end of the rope with which our wanton species apparently wishes with all its heart to hang itself.
We could save ourselves from our “catastrophic mistakes” (astonishing arrogance and abject stupidity) but the fools, the malicious, the malevolent, the uncaring among us appear to have the upper hand. Thus, each time we roll the dice we keep coming up with snake eyes.
Thank you for the kind comment. Just one more 'what if.....' in an age of 'if only's'.