Societal Collapse

[Tahuti]

I might be a bit of a survivalist here, but I'm rather interested in scenarios how developed countries could suffer from a societal collapse. We could for instance define a societal collapse as a situation in which government does no longer fully function, overall living standards decline to Third World-esque circumstances, etc.

This thread is primarily intended to debate scenarios on how Western society could move towards societal collapse.

 

[kramerfan86]

A third world war is the obvious one. An aggressive plague of some sort is another. beyond that i cant think of too many scenarios that would lead to total collapse.

 

[Tahuti]

I think the most likely scenarios are actually far more mundane - though not necessarily uninteresting - and gradual in that the road towards collapse is not immediately steeply in decline but rather falls exponentially.

 

[KMRblue1027]

There's already a pretty good example right in front of us with the Arab World.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ans-within-our-gates-111116.html#.VDsaIBbeLbo

 

[Tee Kay]

A third world war is the obvious one. An aggressive plague of some sort is another. beyond that i cant think of too many scenarios that would lead to total collapse.

Don't worry, we're already heading for a collapse.

Like KG said, little seemingly-mundane events building up and cascading exponentially and before you know it, bam, back to the stone age.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Natural disaster. Consider that people's willingness to cooperate with government is necessary for it to function. That willingness would be lost by an abject failure to maintain public safety in the event of a natural disaster.

Case that didn't quite make it: hurricane Katrina. New Orleans, a fairly small city, generated sufficient refugees to tax the capability of Houston, the fourth largest city in the US. Response was markedly poor by the government, but the evacuations and incident casualties during the hurricane reduced the at risk population to a level that casualties in the aftermath were mostly deemed 'tolerable'.

Case that would: major earthquake in southern California. Southern California is almost completely structured to withstand an earthquake without significant incident casualties, but even relatively minor damage to the infrastructure would mean thirty million people dying...on television...over a period of about two weeks unless they either got moved (hilarious) or supplied (even more hilarious). There is nowhere that can absorb tens of millions of refugees, period, and no way to supply them either. So the basic concept that 'the government is necessary to keep us safe so we need to support it' goes straight down the drain.

 

[Bootstoots]

Natural disaster. Consider that people's willingness to cooperate with government is necessary for it to function. That willingness would be lost by an abject failure to maintain public safety in the event of a natural disaster.

Case that didn't quite make it: hurricane Katrina. New Orleans, a fairly small city, generated sufficient refugees to tax the capability of Houston, the fourth largest city in the US. Response was markedly poor by the government, but the evacuations and incident casualties during the hurricane reduced the at risk population to a level that casualties in the aftermath were mostly deemed 'tolerable'.

Case that would: major earthquake in southern California. Southern California is almost completely structured to withstand an earthquake without significant incident casualties, but even relatively minor damage to the infrastructure would mean thirty million people dying...on television...over a period of about two weeks unless they either got moved (hilarious) or supplied (even more hilarious). There is nowhere that can absorb tens of millions of refugees, period, and no way to supply them either. So the basic concept that 'the government is necessary to keep us safe so we need to support it' goes straight down the drain.

I suspect people would jerry-rig ways to get at least enough supplies into and out of southern California in an earthquake scenario that mass starvation and thirst wouldn't be a problem. It still wouldn't be pretty and there would be significant shortages of basic things, but food and water levels falling low enough to threaten survival would probably not be widespread, and even a mostly-bungled Katrina-style effort would not likely lead to starvation, although a sudden drop to survivable Third World conditions could persist for a while before enough infrastructure was finally rebuilt. People in real-life disasters tend to become quite creative at procuring what they need to survive.

It wouldn't be pretty, and there could easily be significant civil disorder and whatnot, possibly deadlier than the actual earthquake. But much as it would be nice to see SoCal wiped off the map, I don't think they'd slowly starve as we watched helplessly.

On the other hand, if persistent extreme drought lasts for several more years, it really might be enough to paralyze California and cause a significant population exodus, like a reverse-Dust Bowl. Drinking water wouldn't be a problem (since it's such a tiny portion of water use), but just about everything in industrial society (especially growing huge amounts of crops in semi-arid conditions) requires large amounts of water to function.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Southern California left to its own devices has thirty million people and basically no water. Supplying water for thirty million people is not possible if the aqueducts fail. They are dependent on not being physically damaged (unlikely) and having electrical power uninterrupted (even less likely). I doubt the entire country has a big enough stockpile of bottled water, and I really doubt there is any way to get it moved.

And while starvation is slow, dehydration actually isn't. Ten days.

 

[tetley]

The front runner right now is plague. The US is sending 500 troops from a base near Dallas to Liberia to "help" with the plague. Troops... To help with a disease.... How brilliant. And then these 500 troops are supposed to return back to Dallas? That is none other than where Ebola is, now.

 

[jackelgull]

it would require a serious mutation in ebola for this to become a serious threat though.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

it would require a serious mutation in ebola for this to become a serious threat though.

Score one for realists vs alarmists.

 

[tetley]

I would agree, but I'm looking at the response to the hysteria. People placed in isolation, and TROOPS being sent to Liberia (and then coming back). The Dallas guy who died was denied the experimental treatment, and now a nurse contracted it (except the family is saying he was repeatedly denied treatment...). It's looking to me like the Ebola flames are being fanned. Or at least, that's the front runner. Tsunamis, droughts, all that--those are all theories. Ebola-related martial law is happening now.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I would agree, but I'm looking at the response to the hysteria. People placed in isolation, and TROOPS being sent to Liberia (and then coming back). The Dallas guy who died was denied the experimental treatment, and now a nurse contracted it (except the family is saying he was repeatedly denied treatment...). It's looking to me like the Ebola flames are being fanned. Or at least, that's the front runner. Tsunamis, droughts, all that--those are all theories. Ebola-related martial law is happening now.

Happening now...in places where martial law is really not a world shaking surprise. In a developed nation where people would get really excited if a few thousand people died of it the conditions for it to spread significantly are distinctly lacking. Unless the virus mutates into a respiratory infectious form it just won't cut it as a world shaker.

 

[Rashiminos]

Economic degradation a la the United States.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Economic degradation a la the United States.

Would you mind expanding on what you are referring to here?

 

[Bootstoots]

Southern California left to its own devices has thirty million people and basically no water. Supplying water for thirty million people is not possible if the aqueducts fail. They are dependent on not being physically damaged (unlikely) and having electrical power uninterrupted (even less likely). I doubt the entire country has a big enough stockpile of bottled water, and I really doubt there is any way to get it moved.

And while starvation is slow, dehydration actually isn't. Ten days.

Supplying enough water for drinking is relatively easy. To give 30 million people 6 L (considerably more than needed for survival) of water apiece, you need to transport and distribute 180 million kilograms or 180,000 metric tons of water per day. That's within the capabilities of a single supertanker, or more likely a variety of cargo ships from the nearest ports that still have functional infrastructure (SF in particular probably survives in a SoCal earthquake with at most minor damage; earthquake shock waves attenuate fairly quickly with distance in California). Unloading them all would be a bit more of a challenge with damaged ports, but I'm pretty certain there would be a way it could be done, especially given the amount of attention that would be directed on the disaster area.

Even cities besieged during war rarely lose the majority of their inhabitants to thirst even when the siege goes on for many months. Of course far more people die of otherwise preventable causes, including dehydration, than usual, but it's essentially never an extremely fast collapse on the order of a couple of weeks.

 

[Tahuti]

I was thinking of something economics related. Greek style rioting in countries that are supposed to help Greece, like Germany. Possibly in the USA as well.

 

[r16]

The front runner right now is plague. The US is sending 500 troops from a base near Dallas to Liberia to "help" with the plague. Troops... To help with a disease.... How brilliant.

actually typical . America is dissuading potential assistance other than US approved means . While am typically paranoid , for the sake of argument let's say China has an experimental solution but the US wants the patent rights to remain in US companies , 'cause it's freakingly the same . Might be a hugely lucrative market , while the UN "naturally" cries that it needs 20 times the money . Remember the Tsunami of early 2000s where the entire world pledged billions and not even 10% made it to the victim states ? Then it was a Carrier battle group instead of 500 guys and gals .

 

[brennan]

Dear capitalist: Detroit is heading your way, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon...

 

[Domen]

Dear capitalist: Detroit is heading your way, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon...

Detroit has not have a single pro-capitalist mayor since 1962.