I think there is a real danger in just arguing basically "things have always been a shit show, empires collapse, pandemics rage, etc. etc." for a couple reasons:
1. While true, lets not ignore the fact that things get really, really, really bad during those periods where empires do collapse, or environmental damage causes ecosystem collapse, etc. etc. I mean, yes, you could argue "Hey, the Black Death killed a 3rd of Europe" and be correct, but I'm not sure what comfort that's supposed to give. Even if you want to argue that the post-war era up until, say, the 80s was an extremely unique period of progress and broad-based social advancement, that still doesn't make me feel any better if we're now in a "reversion to the mean."
2. Advanced technology does make "things collapsing" potentially much more catastrophic than in generations past. I'm not just talking about things like nuclear war, but things like the speed with which modern social media (and regular media) can pit people against each other is very different than, say, the yellow journalism periods of decades past.
Contextualizing the present with the past is less dangerous than feverishly articulating the uniqueness of circumstances. It's more helpful to be aware of current events as a continuation of past events since it allows a better understanding of the present.
As an individual, it doesn't serve you well to exist in a fog of worry among perceived threats. Volatility should be understood as a common facet of life so you can shape your competence to deal with it, rather than assume a static environment that demands alarm with every variation.
Furthermore, collapse doesn't happen everywhere the same, nor all at once. It's more like things break down slowly, and never get fixed rather than explosions on the street, until one day you are a third world country.
And third world countries still have very nice neighborhoods, and very rich people. But everything around gets much worse.
> collapse doesn't happen everywhere the same, nor all at once.
Frankly, I have a “living experience” of a practically instantaneous collapse. January 1, 1992. Prices were “freed”, (hyper)inflation started, people life savings were burned to dust, monthly pensions - at once - begin to cover just about a week of food (and were not paid until 3 months later). Policemen’ salaries became meaningless and the police - in the whole country - started to look for additional ways to feed their families… It all happened pretty fast.
So “inflation” is a trigger word for me since. And you can imagine unease I am watching the US government printing shiploads of money with.
Why not talk about nuclear war? It’s one of several elephants in the room. The full collapse of a nuclear super power is unprecedented. Who gets the weapons?
Which is interesting to note since a majority of the other weapons the former Soviet Union had made their way into several revolutions happening in the Middle East and Africa via several well known international arms dealers.
Not sure if it was just operationally unfeasible to move something like a ballistic nuclear weapon, but from what I can gather, it was one of the few things that wasn't sold off en masse after the collapse.
The Soviet Union (and America) made hundreds if not thousands of tactical nuclear weapons. These were very small; you could put many of them into a single standard shipping container.
During the 90s there were persistent rumors that some of these had been "lost", but as far as I know these rumors were never substantiated. If in fact these weapons didn't get stolen/sold, we probably have numerous intelligence agencies to thank.
My sentence was "I'm not just talking about things like nuclear war". Point being that, yes, the unique dangers of nuclear war seem so blatantly obvious that they're not likely to be ignored. Contrast that with one of the other "elephants in the room" that has the potential to be nearly as dangerous, but as these other risks don't involve, on the surface, metro-area obliterating fireballs, they are easier to downplay.
1. While true, lets not ignore the fact that things get really, really, really bad during those periods where empires do collapse, or environmental damage causes ecosystem collapse, etc. etc. I mean, yes, you could argue "Hey, the Black Death killed a 3rd of Europe" and be correct, but I'm not sure what comfort that's supposed to give. Even if you want to argue that the post-war era up until, say, the 80s was an extremely unique period of progress and broad-based social advancement, that still doesn't make me feel any better if we're now in a "reversion to the mean."
2. Advanced technology does make "things collapsing" potentially much more catastrophic than in generations past. I'm not just talking about things like nuclear war, but things like the speed with which modern social media (and regular media) can pit people against each other is very different than, say, the yellow journalism periods of decades past.