Collapse could happen, literally, overnight

[clv101]

I can see how people get off on the idea of society break down and get a rush from thinking about gangs of nutters looting and killing. A bit like a real life horror film.
But do you really think it is going to happen on this scale so quickly?
Or are you so fed up of modern society that you really want it to happen quickly so we can get on with building something new?

How can you enjoy life now while constantly buzzing off what might happen in the future?

It's certainly possible - fast collapses have happened before, they'll happen again and anyone of us might well be unlucky enough to be caught up in one. There is however no certainty what-so-ever and anyone suggesting that there will be a fast crash (insert their unique definition of 'fast' and 'crash') is very likely to be very wrong.

I've been hanging out with 'doomers' for long enough to know that some certainly do want a fast crash to happen, they see it as the lesser of two evils, some a personally unhappy with their lot and see a crash as a kind of levelling, some are unhappy with the way civilisation in general is going reckon that we're due, and in the long term would benefit from, a 'reset' of some kind. And of couse there are others who are generally agnostic but are just interested in the data and dynamics of the system.

Ludwig, not enjoying life does not have to be the price of realism! Remember your realism IS subjective. Even when things are looking their bleakest (and they certainly aren't there yet!) there still room to find enjoyment.

[Nicko]

I can see how people get off on the idea of society break down and get a rush from thinking about gangs of nutters looting and killing. A bit like a real life horror film.
But do you really think it is going to happen on this scale so quickly?
Or are you so fed up of modern society that you really want it to happen quickly so we can get on with building something new?

Why always this assumption that believing the worst is the same as wanting the worst?

The world isn't plastic to our desires: we have to take it as we find it. Few people realise this. Wanting everything to be rosy won't make it so.

How can you enjoy life now while constantly buzzing off what might happen in the future?

Personally, I don't enjoy life. That's the price you pay for realism. The upside is that you're less liable to be taken unawares by events, which psychologically can be a very bad thing.

Thank you for answering my questions Ludwig.
To answer yours, I did not assume people want the worst, I just posed it as a possiblity.

Nicko

[Lord Beria3]

Having just read the 'Death of Grass' it is interesting to compare that with Last Light - both similar fast crashes in the UK within the context of a global crash of critical commodities vital to the continuation of civilisation.

What struck me about both books was the plausability of the collapse, which scares the hell out of me.

I still think that the chances of a global crash at the same time is pretty remote, more likely state and regional crashes, which gives us a better chance of recovery even if the UK did go into a hard crash (triggered by a pandemic or a war in the middle east or a collapse of sterling etc) that somebody else would within months 'bail us out' probably the Americans.

Now regarding the debate on Transition. I think that gold and Transition Town have a lot in common - both would be pretty useless during the immediate period of the anarchy of a hard crash.

The social collapse would destroy any attempts at localised TT organisation (by the sheer number and scale of starving people) and similarly when tens of millions of people are looking for food, gold is not much use.

However, long term, whether after the recovery from the hard crash or the alterative of a long slow decline in civlisation both TT and gold will be VERY useful.

As a few people have said here, preppers and TT are different sides of the same coin.

[snow hope]

There are many people currently warning that collapse could happen overnight. Just pick up any of the broadsheet newpapers over the last four or six weeks and you will find many articles about financial collapse from a number of authors. To think that this is "very likely to be very wrong" certainly requires some explaining....

The reason why some people think it is possible we could have a fast crash overnight (where overnight may mean literally overnight or over a week I would suggest) is because of the integration and inter-relatedness of complex systems. We have very complex, sophisticated systems in many areas of life and these are by there nature, vulnerable to failure caused by factors deviating from the norm.

I have spoken about business computer systems before, because this is the area I have worked in for almost 30 years. One major link in the chain failing will cause them to stop operating, with supply chains, stock systems, replenishment systems, retail EPOS systems, internet linked systems, online systems, EDI systems, etc, etc. potentially breaking down.

If just a small number of banks fail this will cause havoc to many countries and business systems / trading will break down. We came close in 2008. Imagine if the bank machines had stopped working - this not only means that you couldn't get cash out of the hole in the wall, but by implications that you couldn't use plastic cards to pay for anything. Think how many people use plastic most of the time to pay for stuff!! Many people are predicting worse to come and you only have to look at the Euro, Italy, Spain, the state of affairs in the US to see why that may be the case.

As Beria says, there are a lot of scary situations that could occur and so few people seem to take it into their realm of thinking...... and thats even before we talk about Peak Oil or Peak everything else!

Of course a fast crash could occur - just read you recent history of October 2008!

That doesn't mean it will - we may get real lucky, but I don't like to rely on luck, I suggest you don't either.

Wake up folks.

[clv101]

The reason why some people think it is possible we could have a fast crash overnight (where overnight may mean literally overnight or over a week I would suggest) is because of the integration and inter-relatedness of complex systems. We have very complex, sophisticated systems in many areas of life and these are by there nature, vulnerable to failure caused by factors deviating from the norm.

Sure - I'm one of those people who thinks it's possible. The difficulty with this discussions is that exactly what 'it' is, is different for everyone.

To think that this is "very likely to be very wrong" certainly requires some explaining....

I'm talking about someone making specific, detailed predictions about the timing and magnitude of dramatic events. Many, many people have been doing just that for centuries and the vast majority have been very wrong. It's the precise predictions that I think "very likely to be very wrong". I think 'collapse' (by my definition), is more likely than not within the coming decades.

[snow hope]

If we get a full decade from now (to 2021) without collapse I will be very pleased.

Certainly it is hard (if not impossible) to predict an exact point at which it will occur. But I think we can say when the risk is rising and more likely to be nearing a tipping point.

When it was anounced that London was going to host the Olympics in July 2005, http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/front_page/4655555.stm I made a little bet with myself that I felt it unlikely we would reach that point still in "normality". Okay we have had the first financial crash, but I would still describe us in normality, so unless there is collapse before July 2012 (which is possible!), then I judge I will have lost that bet. The inertia of BAU is much greater than I realised back in 2005..... thank goodness.

[Ludwig]

I'm talking about someone making specific, detailed predictions about the timing and magnitude of dramatic events. Many, many people have been doing just that for centuries and the vast majority have been very wrong. It's the precise predictions that I think "very likely to be very wrong". I think 'collapse' (by my definition), is more likely than not within the coming decades.

I'll make (again) a very specific prediction: collapse next year or, at the latest, the year after.

By "collapse" I mean the final collapse in confidence in the financial system, which will take everything else with it.

It may come in the guise of something different, like a massive "terrorist" attack that starts a global war and the imposition of martial law, so that people won't make any connection with Peak Oil and the economic crisis... but a connection there will be.

I bet you a tin of Shippam's beef stew that I'm right... May be worth something if I am

[Nicko]

Forgive me for my simple questions but I am relatively new to this concept of total collapse.

Is there not a national emergency plan triggered if something like the electronic banking system shuts down, or food supply chains are broken?

Surely these scenarios have been considered by some government department?

Nicko

[adam2]

Forgive me for my simple questions but I am relatively new to this concept of total collapse.

Is there not a national emergency plan triggered if something like the electronic banking system shuts down, or food supply chains are broken?

Surely these scenarios have been considered by some government department?

Nicko

I have no doubt that the government are aware of what could happen (even if they dont admit this publicly)
The government also have plans, some public and some not for dealing with a wide variety of disasters.

A failure of say the electronic banking banking system could be partialy worked round by using cash. Perhaps requireing that banks open for longer hours, and perhaps providing military escorts for large cash transfers.
If however a sudden panic resulted in loss of faith in paper money, then I dont think that they can do much.

A failure of food distribution could be partialy worked around by declaring martial law, useing soldiers and military vehicles to transport food etc.
They cant do much though about a general lack of food, at least in the short term.
No amount of military intervention will make grain ripen quicker, nor significantly increase the yield of crops already planted.
(it could increase the next years grain harvest, by planting a larger area, but that does not help in the short term)

There is not much the military or the government can do about large scale power cuts caused by lack of generating capacity or shortages of coal and gas to fuel power plants.
Power could be rationed, and military generators used for a few essiential buildings. They could requistion privatly owned generating plant and fuel stocks, but cant significantly increase the total availability.

I also doubt that troops could man essiential public services as used to be done.
Modern railways, power stations, water works, power stations and the like are very complex and very few military personel would be able to operate them. In years gone by such systems were simpler and well within the capabilities of the REME.
Military intervention can be useful as a last resort for strike breaking or putting down riots, but cant do much about large scale lack of food or fuel, or failure of confidence in the currency.

[biffvernon]

The two groups are simply doing different things.

What they have in common is recognition that there's a problem. The Other 99% don't recognise this.

[Nicko]

The two groups are simply doing different things.

What they have in common is recognition that there's a problem. The Other 99% don't recognise this.

I'm getting confused now. I thought it was the '99%' who believe there is a problem and want to do something about it. Or is that a different problem? Or a different 99%?

Nick

[DominicJ]

I can see how people get off on the idea of society break down and get a rush from thinking about gangs of nutters looting and killing. A bit like a real life horror film.

Tomorrow, the sun will rise.
I do not "get off on" that. But it will happen.

In a really hard fast crash, TT's will be violently looted

I do not "get off on" that either, but if the first happens, the second will. We arent even "crashing" yet and infrastructure is being looted.

I've been hanging out with 'doomers' for long enough to know that some certainly do want a fast crash to happen, they see it as the lesser of two evils, some a personally unhappy with their lot and see a crash as a kind of levelling,

Oh very true, there are social malcontents who believe they know best, the world doesnt recognise their wonderfulness and "after the crash" their garage full of dried food and firearms mean the world will have to bow and scrape at their boots.

There are many people like that I'm sure, I dont personaly know any, and I lurk on a fair few US "survivalist" sites, the sensible ones will repeat constantly, "Tin openers are more useful than shotguns, we know this, we have lived through disasters", but then they also suggest multi level security systems and a preponderance of weapons too, just in case.

Is there not a national emergency plan triggered if something like the electronic banking system shuts down, or food supply chains are broken?
Surely these scenarios have been considered by some government department?

I doubt it, and even if they have, what level of funding will have been spent 1990-00 and 2000-10 in "solving" it.
FEMA has a vast budget, but it takes three days to reach the edge of any crisis zone, and thats a localised crisis.

[clv101]

I'm talking about someone making specific, detailed predictions about the timing and magnitude of dramatic events. Many, many people have been doing just that for centuries and the vast majority have been very wrong. It's the precise predictions that I think "very likely to be very wrong". I think 'collapse' (by my definition), is more likely than not within the coming decades.

I'll make (again) a very specific prediction: collapse next year or, at the latest, the year after.

By "collapse" I mean the final collapse in confidence in the financial system, which will take everything else with it.

This is my point, what does "everything else with it" actually mean? Is this final collapse analogous (in quantifiable terms like GPD, health outcomes etc.) to the final collapse of the Soviet Union, or something more severe, or milder? What happens to the UK population, within two years, during a collapse that takes everything else with it? Up by a million, down by a million, down by 10 million or stays roughly the same? Does everything else with it actually mean a scenario like that described in Last Light? Or is it more like Argentina in 2002? These are hugely different scenarios, with an Argentina like event 100 times more likely (in my opinion) within the next two years than Last Light.

The difficulty is that from your "very specific prediction" I'm not sure which of those two, hugely different scenarios you are predicting.

[DominicJ]

Clv
I cant really imagine a "last light" scenario, but considerably worse than Argentina/USSR.
Both of those collapsed due to internal concerns, and the rest of the world was still functioning.
Much as Russia whinges it was "raped" by the west, it really wasnt.

The problem is we've never really had this sort of problem recently.
Even the US Great Depression, although possibly a guide in scale isnt really a guide in style.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines
Some of those wiped out 10-50% of the populace in a year.
So actualy, last light may not be so far fetched.
Although as a rule, hungry people riot, starving people curl up and die.

At the moment, Greece is on cash up front terms for oil.
Which pretty much rules out crop farming.
As more and more farmland "drops out", theres fewer surplus, if Greece cant import oil, it proably cant import grain, how long till its needs food aid?
How many other hungry nations will be crying out for aid.

[emordnilap]

I also doubt that troops could man essiential public services as used to be done.
Modern railways, power stations, water works, power stations and the like are very complex and very few military personel would be able to operate them. In years gone by such systems were simpler and well within the capabilities of the REME.

Sorry adam2, I don't think we're discussing the military actually taking over civilian jobs, where in the past army personnel have been 'volunteered' to take over strike-bound industries, but about some kind of financial collapse I think.

The existing personnel would still be there - the army would be brought in to ensure they work for reduced or no pay.

If it was a shortage of materials, then the military could be used for protection of those resources.