4.2 Pre-Collapse Proaction vs. Post-Collapse Reaction

J: What is the probability that it is better to wait for the existing order to collapse, and then attempt to coordinate and rebuild... vs. voluntarily attempting to coordinate ahead of time to transcend the existing order into something New?

AI: The question of whether it's better to wait for a collapse or to proactively coordinate a transition to a new order is complex and fraught with uncertainties. However, based on the risks associated with systemic collapse and the potential benefits of proactive coordination, one could argue that the latter is generally more favorable. Here's a speculative breakdown:

  1. Waiting for Collapse:

    • Probability of a Favorable Outcome: 10-20%
    • Risks: Waiting for a collapse risks plunging the world into a state of chaos, conflict, and suffering that could last for generations. The power vacuum could be filled by authoritarian regimes, or lead to a prolonged period of anarchy and conflict. Rebuilding from such a state would be incredibly challenging and time-consuming.
    • Benefits: The collapse of the existing order could potentially clear the way for new systems to emerge, but this is highly uncertain.
  2. Proactive Coordination:

    • Probability of a Favorable Outcome: 60-70%
    • Risks: Proactive efforts to transition to a new order could face significant resistance, both from those who benefit from the existing system and from those who are skeptical of change. There's also the risk of unintended consequences and the implementation of a system that is not genuinely better.
    • Benefits: Proactively coordinating a transition allows for planning, reduces the risks associated with collapse, and could result in a more equitable and sustainable system.

Given these considerations, the probability seems to favor proactive coordination. The risks associated with waiting for a collapse are severe and could result in irreversible damage, both to human civilization and to the planet. On the other hand, proactive coordination, while challenging, offers the opportunity to mitigate these risks and guide the transition in a more controlled, equitable, and sustainable direction.

J: Provide a detailed and comprehensive rationale for why waiting for collapse only has a 10 to 20% probability of favorable outcome.

AI: The low probability of a favorable outcome when waiting for a systemic collapse is based on several factors, each contributing to the complexity and uncertainty of what follows a collapse. Here's a detailed rationale:

Historical Precedents
  1. Dark Ages: Historical collapses, such as the fall of the Roman Empire, often led to prolonged periods of stagnation, loss of knowledge, and reduced quality of life.

  2. Conflict and War: Collapse often leads to power vacuums that are filled through violent conflict, as seen in the aftermath of collapsed states like Yugoslavia or Libya.

Social and Economic Factors
  1. Resource Scarcity: Collapse would likely exacerbate existing resource scarcities, leading to competition rather than cooperation.

  2. Economic Disintegration: The collapse of financial systems would lead to loss of savings, investments, and economic security for millions, if not billions, of people.

  3. Social Unrest: Economic hardship often leads to social unrest, further destabilizing any efforts to rebuild or reform.

Political Factors
  1. Rise of Extremism: Periods of chaos and uncertainty are fertile grounds for the rise of extremist ideologies and authoritarian regimes.

  2. Loss of Rule of Law: Collapse would likely lead to a breakdown in law and order, making any organized effort at rebuilding extremely challenging.

Environmental Factors
  1. Exacerbated Environmental Degradation: A collapse would likely halt any organized efforts at environmental conservation, leading to accelerated degradation of ecosystems.

  2. Climate Change: Without coordinated efforts, the impacts of climate change could become irreversible, further complicating recovery.

Globalization and Interconnectedness
  1. Global Supply Chains: The collapse of the existing order would disrupt global supply chains, leading to shortages and further economic hardship.

  2. Global Health: Collapse would disrupt healthcare systems, making the management of existing and new health crises more difficult.

Psychological and Cultural Factors
  1. Loss of Trust: Collapse would erode trust in institutions and among individuals, making collective action more difficult.

  2. Cultural and Knowledge Loss: The collapse could lead to a loss of cultural heritage and scientific knowledge, setting back human progress.

Unpredictability and Complexity
  1. Unforeseen Consequences: The complex interplay of social, economic, and political factors makes the outcome of a collapse highly unpredictable.

  2. Feedback Loops: Negative feedback loops could exacerbate problems, making recovery increasingly difficult the longer the state of collapse persists.

Given these factors, the likelihood of a favorable outcome following a collapse is low. While it's possible that a collapse could clear the way for new systems to emerge, the risks and challenges associated with this path are immense. Therefore, the probability of a favorable outcome is estimated to be between 10 to 20%, acknowledging the speculative nature of this estimate.

Forward to 4.3 Life Post-Collapse
Back to 4.1 Potential Outcomes and their Probabilities
Back to Table of Contents The Last Chance - A Revolutionary Approach to Averting Global Collapse
Beyond to Other Lionsberg Wiki Books