systemic collapse
daniel schmachtenberger and the folks researching the metacrisis also often refer to it as a likely though not desirable outcome from the plethora of existential and catastrophic risks we're living through.
the gist of the argument is:
every major society in the history of our civilization has collapsed. and now we have a globalized one acceleratingly crossing planetary boundaries. with win-lose dynamics/molochian forces at work, it seems like we're in a very challenging trajectory that needs drastic change.
nate hagens on the great simplification puts it brilliantly on an energy consumption framing.
the book first principles and first values also discusses it to a great degree, in the context of the metacrisis.
great explorations on the subject from an infrastructure/hardware perspective: XXIIVV — collapse, Collapse OS — Why?, Collapse OS — what makes collapse inevitable and imminent.
the more i read into it, the more likely this seems. but even with my caveats/holding back from doomerism it seems to me that:
ultimately, collapsing or not really doesn't matter much.
even if our analysis is wrong once again and we don't collapse (which doesn't seem likely), it's about how our current lifestyles have become insanely wasteful, alienating, disconnected from nature and ourselves. depressing, really.
it's not about being right about what's going to happen, or some speculative mental masturbation exercise. to put it simply, the right relationship to be in with life/nature isn't one of extraction and mindless consumption, but of respect and constant learning about the delicate web of impacts from our actions.
this conscious relationship with reality is what i want to work towards.
we need to act/coordinate towards a systemic transition.