|
|
|
|
|
by FooHentai
1708 days ago
|
|
It's interesting how a comment can be so differently interpreted depending on what you extrapolate from the term 'collapse'. It might conjur up preppers spouting about TEOTWAWKI, WROL, and SHTF as they lock down in their bunkers waiting for the bombs to drop. On that basis I understand your response. But there is also much discussion on peak oil and climate change that apply 'collapse' differently, as shorthand for a simplifying of the economy and civilisation as a result of no longer having the cheap abundant energy needed to sustain the level of complexity which it has grown into during the age of fossil fuel extraction. If (and it's a big if) you anticipate the fossil fuel boom ending without the advent of an equal or greater replacement energy source, collapse by the latter definition is a useful term to discuss what that might look like. It's certainly true that we have extensive supply chains, dense living, abstraction from the fundamentals of survival, and many aspects of our current way of living exclusively dependent on fossil fuel and petrochemicals. So it follow that without equivalent or better energy source to sustain those things there must come about, either by choice or circumstance, a simplification (or collapse) of many aspects of present-day civilisation. |
|