How Western civilisation could collapse

I think a common mistake is to think civilization are wiped-off in a cinematic event like the Fall of Constantinople.

Actually, what happens often is that a civilization degrades slowly over decades and centuries. It was once a leading power, but it is now a medium power with far less relevance. One good example is Spain going through a long decline after being probably the leading world power.

In an era of nuclear weapons, you do not take cities anymore, but you could see countries that do not share the West ideology become more powerful, and progressively, develop all the new technology and have the most influence.

Low net energy is why most of the schemes for replacing fossil fuels with one or another form of ambient solar energy on a scale that would satisfy current demand, much less future growth, will come to naught; the Energy Return On Investment will be marginal, and the capital costs exorbitant.

I believe western civilization doesn't face immediate collapse and that sometimes feels like a minority position in circles that are interested in politics.

I think a civilization collapses when people do not see any benefit in participation anymore. That certainly is a problem today in some parts, but I don't think violent protests can cause a collapse. In that state people still care to change something and are invested in a better future under their current civilization. If there is no investment, laws won't be followed, tennets ignored and a state will slowly become irrelevant without at least some people defending it. Others might give themselves new values and laws.

I also don't think a crisis is necessarily destabalizing. On the contrary, an external threat might fortify the kit that holds everything together.

I don't think neoliberal policies destroy a nation. On the contrary, the fear of collapse can be self-reinforcing when civil liberties decrease and provides the population with a worse outlook for the future, which people won't accept for too long. I currently see an old generation that provides presents for future ones with idiotic security laws, surveillance and other presents that are clearly motivated by fear. Probably more of their own death than by sensible threats.

There is no consensus as to why Rome did fall in the end but the most convincing answer was that soldiers plainly weren't paid anymore and the dominion couldn't be defended. There was no benefit to remain in the empire and to risk your life for a nation that doesn't appreciate your participation anyway.

The complexity mentioned in the article plays an addtional role. Basic laws need to be understood and interpreted by "basic" people. It cannot be the domain of lawyers and judges. These reflect common values. If someone has no input here, you don't have common values. We have constitutions that disallow surveillance for example. Completely ignored by an incompetent generation of policy makers. Same thing with laws that forbid discrimination. Both are examples where basic tennets get ignored by people that proclaim to know better about irrational necessities. Poison for a society and ignorant of those that lay out the rules. Both values have become completely worthless for the civilization. It doesn't intrinsically follow them even if they are still written down on paper. There are other values that have been attacked that are even more relevant.

Of course lacking ressources can play a role, but that isn't a problem we face today in the slightest.

> using reason and science to guide decisions, paired with extraordinary leadership and exceptional goodwill

That can sound like a threat to some people.

> how can we manage to preserve some kind of humane world

Not reducing liberties since 2-3 decades could help. No, really, it does.