Facets of humanity have been predicting the collapse of civilisation for almost as long as it has existed. Mostly, these have been fringe predictions based on interpretations of religious texts, and more recently, inaccurate interpretations of scientific discovery. Yet in recent years, concerns have been voiced by figures with more scientific authority, leading to a growing fear of the possibility of societal collapse.

Various potential causes have been suggested for such a collapse, including everything from climate change to peak oil and from overpopulation to economic disaster.

Concern that this collapse may become a reality has also spread from a marginal view held by the disenfranchised and the disengaged to a genuine fear felt by regular people.

Hedge fund managers are reportedly buying airstrips and farms as a safety net in case they suddenly require a quick getaway, while many with less cash to spare are researching survival techniques.

But is this an overreaction to an imagined threat, or a rational response to the reality in front of us?

Change is in the air

Climate change is, undoubtedly, the single most high-profile threat of modern times. Since the mid-1980s the body of evidence has grown dramatically, with 97% of scientists now in agreement that climate change is the result of human behaviour.

Projections suggest that we’re set to see a rise in sea levels, an increase in extreme weather events and a breakdown of local ecosystems. The scientific consensus is that these changes are already occurring, and are going to get worse.

Writing for TomDispatch, Noam Chomsky, author and emeritus professor of linguistics at MIT, outlined the concerns about climate change’s potential endgame for humanity: “For the first time in the history of the human species, we have clearly developed the capacity to destroy ourselves. That’s been true since 1945.

For the first time in the history of the human species, we have clearly developed the capacity to destroy ourselves

“It’s now being finally recognized that there are more long-term processes like environmental destruction leading in the same direction, maybe not to total destruction, but at least to the destruction of the capacity for a decent existence.”

For years there have been attempts to limit human greenhouse gas emissions and stop climate change in its tracks before it reaches a runaway state where nothing can be done to stop it.

“It’s fairly safe to say that we haven’t seen conditions in the past similar to ones we see today and there is strong evidence that there [are] tipping points we don’t want to cross,” explained professor Will Steffen of the Australian National University and the Stockholm Resilience Center in an interview with Grist.

“If the Earth is going to move to a warmer state, 5-6°C warmer, with no ice caps, it will do so and that won’t be good for large mammals like us. People say the world is robust and that’s true, there will be life on Earth, but the Earth won’t be robust for us. There is no convincing evidence that a large mammal, with a core body temperature of 37°C, will be able to evolve that quickly. Insects can, but humans can’t and that’s a problem.”

Life on Earth would become considerably worse as we progressed towards this state. Climate refugees would overcrowd already full cities, and infrastructure would be compromised by a growing frequency of disasters, leading to civil unrest and potential collapse of governments.

Some have suggested we’re already past the point of no return. Others assert that we’re not there yet, and that there is still time to do something about it.

The problem lies with the fact that even if there is still time, the cuts in emissions required to make a difference are significant. And those emissions are largely a result of the lifestyles we’ve grown accustomed to since the 1950s.

On an individual scale, the level of contribution that has been asked of people has mostly taken the form of recycling and using fewer plastic bags. Unfortunately these changes are a mere drop in the carbon ocean, and many of us are still incapable or unwilling to even do that much.

To reduce carbon emissions to acceptable levels would require either radical new energy technologies or a wholesale change in our way of life. No government would seriously propose the latter, as forcing such an enormous reduction in consumption and quality of life upon its citizens would surely be tantamount to political suicide.

Hope, then, lies in technology. It is possible that innovations will happen quickly enough for us to avoid, or at least safely adapt to, significant climate change. However, these technologies have so far remained elusive: the question remains whether they will arrive before it’s already too late.

Boom to bust?

Whereas climate change is the poster boy of societal collapse concerns, it is another concern altogether that poses perhaps an even greater risk. Spiralling populations, and the resulting strain on the Earth’s resources, is just as fear-inducing.

Broadcaster and naturalist Sir David Attenborough, speaking in an interview with the Radio Times, explained: “We are a plague on the Earth. It’s coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so. It’s not just climate change; it’s sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde. Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now.”

Humanity hit its first billion people back in 1804. By 1927 this number had doubled, and by 1960 we’d hit three billion. Today the global population stands at just under 7.3 billion, and it is projected to reach 9 billion by 2040 and 11 billion by 2050.

With no likely increase in available resources in this time, it’s a trend that simply cannot continue, and as Attenborough suggests, if we don’t take steps ourselves, inadequate resources will do the job for us.

But it gets worse. Short-term reactions to increased demands for food and energy are compromising our long-term resources, meaning we’re faced with a growing population fighting over a dwindling supply.

“We are clearing land, we are degrading land, we introduce feral animals and take the top predators out, we change the marine ecosystem by overfishing — it’s a death by a thousand cuts,” Steffen suggests. “That direct impact upon the land is the most important factor right now, even more than climate change.”

Inadequate resources per person will undoubtedly lead to deaths, as is already happening in areas stricken by famine, but they will also lead to conflicts and unrest as citizens see a drastic change in their quality of life.

This development, rather than the deaths, will provide the greatest risk of societal collapse, as states will be unable to control their populations if food, power and healthcare are in short supply.

States will be unable to control their populations if food, power and healthcare are in short supply

For a long time, overpopulation was a concern that received little coverage, and consequently little response. China’s one child policy is, of course, the exception, but elsewhere attempts to tackle growing populations have been slow to get going.

However, there are now many initiatives underway to respond to the problem. The education of women has been found to be one of the most effective ways to reduce population growth, as educated women are more likely to leave having children until later in life, thus having fewer offspring.

Increased efforts to make contraceptives available in poor areas, such as those by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, are also likely to help.

However, there is far more to be done.

Humanity has three options on how to progress from here. We either need to drastically slow our growth, find new ways to feed, power and heal our population or seek out new homes through colonisation of other planets. It is testament to how much of a challenge each of these will be that colonisation may be just as realistic a prospect as any other.

Unsustainable economics

While societal unrest and the collapse of civilisation as we know it could come about as a result of climate change or population growth, our own economic system also poses its own risks.

It is no secret that inequality is widening as the promises of capitalism are increasingly enjoyed by the few at the expense of the many.

There is little to suggest this is likely to change any time soon. Unemployment rates might be down in most places from their peak at the height of the economic downturn, but many people counted as employed are earning less than they need to live an even vaguely comfortable life.

Many companies have also ditched yearly pay increases in line with inflation, leading many workers to cope with de-facto yearly pay cuts as their salaries remain static but their day-to-day costs rise.

Average pay has also failed to return to the level it was at prior to the recession; yet the wealthy minority, primarily working in fields such as finance, is enjoying rises in yearly earnings.

If this trend continues, societies will reach a breaking point where the poor majority simply isn’t prepared to take it anymore. There will be civil unrest targeted at the wealthy elite – many of whom are in government – and breakdown of society is a realistic and possible outcome if such unrests are not managed effectively.

Concerningly, while some attempts are being made to combat other threats, very little is being done to deal with this growing inequality, and although it may produce effects less severe than complete collapse, unrest on the scale possible could be disastrous.

Technological terror

While technology is being seen as the solution to many problems, it in itself could pose its own risks.

Speaking in a 2005 TED talk, noted astronomer and author of Our Final Hour Martin Rees warned of the potential risk our digital world presents:

“In our interconnected world novel technology could empower just one fanatic or some weirdo with the mindset of those who now design computer viruses to carry out some kind of disaster,” he said. “Indeed catastrophe could arise simply from technical mis-invention – error rather than terror. Even a tiny probability of catastrophe is unacceptable when the downside could be of global consequence.”

Catastrophe could arise simply from technical mis-invention – error rather than terror

The recent cyber attacks on the Sony Corporation of America by North Korea hint at a new era of warfare, in which technology is both the means and target of attack. As more and more of our world becomes interconnected, the potential damage that cyber attacks could cause increases exponentially.

The growing automation of industry poses its own problems, with many low-skilled jobs set to vanish with little emerging to replace them. In the US, for example, truck driving is one of the most common careers, but driverless vehicles are likely to render these workers unemployed within a few decades.

We are clearly not going to abandon technology unless we have to, but unless we proceed with caution, we could end up inadvertently causing problems which have negative repercussions for the whole of humanity.

Dreaming of collapse

Despite the inevitable horror that societal collapse would bring, many of us still hold a twisted hope that it will occur in some form.

In a world of nine-to-fives, binge TV watching sessions and commutes, the prospect of a world without rules where your survival is in your own hands is, to many, an exciting notion.

Those of us who have taken this a step further and invested in survival courses and extensive research often feel that they would have no trouble surviving in a post-collapse scenario, and that they would somehow be happier in this environment.

Many of us hold that ancient belief that we above others will be the ones to survive, against the odds, even if those around us perish.

But apocalyptic scenarios are not movies. People die in large numbers and those left alive are forced to behave in ruthless and inhumane ways in order to survive.

People can die no matter how prepared, and those who have turned survival preparation into a sort of fetish may find they are at a higher risk of attack due to their impressive collection of resources.

Above all, we must not forget how much we stand to lose if such a collapse were to occur. Our way of life will never be the same, and will never be as comfortable or secure.

There is a lot wrong with the society we live in, so much so that it may be causing its downfall, but we must work to preserve it as long as we can. To will collapse is to call for the end of humanity as we know it.