Collapse

575 readers

32 users here now

This is the place for discussing the potential collapse of modern civilization and the environment.

Collapse, in this context, refers to the significant loss of an established level or complexity towards a much simpler state. It can occur differently within many areas, orderly or chaotically, and be willing or unwilling. It does not necessarily imply human extinction or a singular, global event. Although, the longer the duration, the more it resembles a ‘decline’ instead of collapse.

RULES

1 - Remember the human

2 - Link posts should come from a reputable source

3 - All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith.

4 - No low effort, high volume and low relevance posts.

Related lemmys:

founded 9 months ago

MODERATORS

eleitl@lemm.ee

maketotaldestr0i@lemm.ee

eris@lemm.ee

Are we living through a ‘polycrisis’ or is it ‘just history happening’? (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) by hanrahan@slrpnk.net to c/collapse@lemm.ee

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In much the same way, it’s often unclear even to experts how global systems interact because they are siloed in their disciplines. That limits our ability to confront intersecting problems: the climate crisis forces migration; xenophobia fuels the rise of the far right in receiving countries; far-right governments undermine environmental protections; natural disasters are more destructive. Yet migration experts may not be experts on the climate crisis, and climate experts may have limited knowledge of geopolitics.

That’s why Homer-Dixon thinks better communication is essential – not just to create consensus around what we call our current predicament but also how to address it.

I don't agree better communication will help at all. It doesn't overcome willful ignorance and stupidity.

These are Cipolla's five fundamental laws of stupidity:

1. Always and inevitably, everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.

The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.

3. A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.

Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular, non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places, and under any circumstances, to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.
A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] eris@lemm.ee 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I don’t agree better communication will help at all. It doesn’t overcome willful ignorance and stupidity.

I believe language is powerful, and lack of appropriate language can be a real impediment.

However I have to agree with you that better communication won't help in this case, but not because of "stupidity." Modern society is constructed to subject us, including training us to become the perfect subjects. And if you don't buy into your life becomes much more difficult.

A superego control system built on Id-like manipulation (starvation, imprisonment, poverty, shunning) presides over us and often dictates that we go against our better interests, in service of capital and successional powers.

There are many smart people around us imo, wearing masks wrought in fear. Popular society is like a cult, and the rat race is real. Fall behind - or stick out - too much and you'll find yourself in a meatgrinder.

In some cases I think maturation of wisdom and intelligence is literally inhibited because of the pressures against it. "Curiosity killed the cat," "the good die young," the warnings are abound. Writ in literal blood no doubt. Which all seems absurdly dystopian to me but I digress.

These are Cipolla’s five fundamental laws of stupidity:

I get the attitude but I don't think "stupidity" is a good way to frame anything. It's being edgy for the sake of attention and that's not going to help anything.

A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.

The definition of stupidity is not productive. There are many reasons why a person would act in a way leading to these outcomes such as a lack of education, and they are remediable. However claiming that...

A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.

...promotes essentialism of this concept of stupidity, creating a framework wherein the stupid cannot be separated from the person. This won't lead anyone toward fixing the situation by addressing issues like lack of access to good education, food access, and healthcare - it only leads toward these "stupid" people becoming victims of oppression and crime.

As for the article posted...

There has been some backlash to the idea of the polycrisis. The historian Niall Ferguson has described it as “just history happening”. The political scientist Daniel Drezner says its proponents “assume the existence of powerful negative feedback effects that may not actually exist” – in other words, when crises overlap, the outcome might not always be bad (for instance, the pandemic lockdowns might have had some short-lived environmental benefits). Some point to past crises as evidence that what we are experiencing is not new.

These are secular ways to say "We can't know everything so I'm just going to let Jesus take the wheel." Or perhaps, "I can't bring myself to confront the consequences of my lifestyle, so I'm just going to let Jesus take the wheel."