[AFAIK]

I've been reading books and listening to interviews by Jared Diamond, Ian Morris and Joseph Tainter about the development and collapse of complex societies and a strong argument can be made that humans are approaching a point of overreach; whereby supply of resources are no longer able to keep up with the demands made by a global civilisation growing in size and complexity.

Resource depletion is well documented- fish stocks, forests, top soil, fresh water and 'conventional' oil reserves are being stressed by our growing consumption of meat, soy (for livestock), furniture, paper, palm oil, electricity and transportation.

Renewable energy lacks the energy-return-on-energy-investment (EROEI) levels of fossil fuels and would require massive amounts of minerals for manufacture and land for deployment. Nuclear power is technologically promising but faces significant resistance from the public and the challenge of disposing of radioactive waste that remains deadly for millennia.

Aquaculture still devours wild fish stocks since the market for carnivorous fish dominates seafood consumption and the high population density of fish pens causes pollution and disease to intensify.

Genetic engineering and cloning of livestock can increase productivity and resilience but doesn't address animal waste, which is greater in mass and volume than industrial waste in many countries. Lab grown meat is still in it's infancy so it's unclear how viable it may become.

Desalination is highly energy intensive and lacks economic viability for poorer nations.

Global warming threatens major disruptions to food production and human settlements by various mechanisms.

Article about Ian Morris
Article by J Tainter
Book review of Collapse by Jared Diamond

Why do societies collapse? lecture
Why the West Rules- Ian Morris lecture
War! Ian Morris lecture
Joseph Tainter interview

[One Degree]

Other: The current 'return to nationalism' is partly a survival mechanism. A few countries will suffer minor loss of development, while much of the world will fall into total chaos. Those who survive are those who place their own citizens first and encourage self sufficiency rather than profit.

Edit: I think a massive human 'die off' will definitely happen within 100 years and perhaps as soon as within 25 years. I don't know if it will be nuclear war, massive starvation, or disease. Probably starvation.

[SolarCross]

No collapse but there surely will be upsets. I voted "break through development ceiling".

Key game changers will be AI and a cheap reliable way out of earth's gravity well.

[noemon]

No, we are not approaching a development ceiling

[AFAIK]

Noemon,

You don't think we will hit peak oil this century? The EROEI of oil has been falling for decades and global production is currently around 10:1, which means we produce 10 barrels for every barrel we burn whilst looking for, drilling, pumping and processing oil. New sources of oil are growing more difficult and dangerous to access since they're 1 mile below the ocean's surface (deep water drilling) or mixed into the earth (tar sands) or in the middle of nowhere (arctic drilling).

[Clangeddin]

Realistically there's only so many things that can make the human civilization collapse that fast.

1) A new lethal non-curable disease that spreads rapidly, via air and water. Either as natural or chemical warfare.
2) Natural disaster of planetary scale like abnormal solar activity that roasts everything on the surface (is this even possible?) or a meteor like the one that wiped off the dinosaurs.
3) Nuclear holocaust gone exceptionally wrong. (Because technically, humanity and civilization could survive it)
4) Hostile Alien Invasion. (If they're so technologically advanced that we're like ants compared to them).
5) All of the above at the same time. (LOL)

So, what's the likelyhood of any of these to happen within 100 years? I don't know, but I don't see anything else capable of wiping mankind off the planet at this rate, and let's face, as long as even a few million humans (we're 7 billions now) survive, most technology and knowledge is likely to be preserved/restored in little time, I don't see us going back to the stone age with a Yellowstone Eruption combined with a (unrelated) decline of fertility, for example.

[Potemkin]

So, what's the likelyhood of any of these to happen within 100 years? I don't know, but I don't see anything else capable of wiping mankind off the planet at this rate, and let's face, as long as even a few million humans (we're 7 billions now) survive, most technology and knowledge is likely to be preserved/restored in little time, I don't see us going back to the stone age with a Yellowstone Eruption combined with a (unrelated) decline of fertility, for example.

I agree with that. One of the reasons for the resilience of the human species is the fact that we are tremendously adaptable and flexible in the way we interact with our material environment. The basis for this resilience is the fact that our behaviour is governed largely by our collective culture, which is transmitted and stored through the medium of language. Every other animal has had to adapt to their material environment through the slow, uncertain process of natural selection, and their behaviour is governed for the most part by instincts hard-wired into them by evolution. If their material environment changes too rapidly, they become maladapted to the new environment and cannot evolve fast enough to escape extinction. Humans have freed themselves from the limitations of the process of adaptation through natural selection by creating language and culture, which itself changes and adapts to the changing material and social environment, but much more rapidly than natural selection. All of this suggests that the human species will not go extinct any time soon. Our technological civilisation, however, is a different matter. It is clearly unsustainable in the long term, even absent any natural or man-made disasters.

[mikema63]

I agree in part with potential. My main disagreement is about technological development and it being simply to unpredictable to make any hard statements about whether or not it will adapt.

Skunk works could announcement that they've made their fusion reactor work next week, Or it could be a hundred years from now, or never. We simply can't predict technological development, or it's effects.

I am relatively certain that peak oil would be disruptive but not catastrophic. Electricity will become more expensive, maybe a lot more, but we do essentially have the technology right now that can provide us with energy.

Climate change is the more difficult problem, not the supply of fossil fuels in and of themselves. Even there though I think we can persevere. Albeit not comfortably.

[AFAIK]

I don't see anything else capable of wiping mankind off the planet at this rate, and let's face, as long as even a few million humans (we're 7 billions now) survive, most technology and knowledge is likely to be preserved/restored in little time, I don't see us going back to the stone age with a Yellowstone Eruption combined with a (unrelated) decline of fertility, for example.

When the Roman empire collapsed the knowledge base collapsed with it and it took people over 400 years to figure out how Romans made concrete and to start using it in construction again. How likely are we to maintain the knowledge and technology needed to allow us to rebuild the international space station instead of having to rediscover the whole process for our future selves? Will we ever recover to the point that we are capable and willing to return to space?

[Rich]

Why do societies collapse? lecture

I was interested by what he said about the Greenland Norse, but I couldn't help thinking, why, why, why didn't they try mass immigration? We now know there is no societal problem that can't be solved by mass immigration, preferably Muslim immigration, but failing that any immigration will do. I'm surprised that a Liberal like Jared didn't mention this.

[starman2003]

When the Roman empire collapsed the knowledge base collapsed with it

Exaggeration. Capella and others, mainly monks, did their best to preserve it.

and it took people over 400 years to figure out how Romans made concrete and to start using it in construction again.

Even medieval Europe was technically ahead of the ancients.

How likely are we to maintain the knowledge and technology needed to allow us to rebuild the international space station instead of having to rediscover the whole process for our future selves? Will we ever recover to the point that we are capable and willing to return to space?

Depends on the extent of damage during collapse--not that I think a collapse of civilization is likely.

[AFAIK]

Exaggeration. Capella and others, mainly monks, did their best to preserve it.

How do we know what was lost after it was lost?
It's easy to list stuff that was saved or protected but unknown unknowns are going to remain elusive.

[Frollein]

Western civilisation will certainly collapse in the next 100 years if we allow the West to be overrun with Middle Eastern and African immigrants.

Asian civilisation may survive.

[One Degree]

Los Angeles is a perfect example of how to destroy a civilization. They are jubilantly fighting Trump on immigration, while on the local level they are struggling to figure how to adjust to a ever growing Latino population that has half the college graduation rates of blacks. It is difficult to maintain civilization with this type of bipolar leadership.

[Stormsmith]

No. We may lose shore line, we may have to open farmlands in northern areas, we may lose animals but we will survive. Population will decline of their own accord, we will develop new ways of supporting ourselves and our societies, but we'll soldier on.

[fuser]

Black Plague killed half of the European population, in the aftermath Europe was more stronger than ever compared to rest of the world, just saying.

[QatzelOk]

...we are tremendously adaptable and flexible in the way we interact with our material environment. The basis for this resilience is the fact that our behaviour is governed largely by our collective culture, which is transmitted and stored through the medium of language. ...

We have become so addicted to technologies that poison the earth in slow motion... that civilization (as we know it) will be gone within 75 years. I'm actually surprised it hasn't self-destructed already, but our current "soldiering on" (without any major structural changes) is probably a good example of our "tremendous flexibility and adaptability."

We can bend over and spread 'em for any technology that asks us, and we can rationalize any atrocity with new words, but we can't invent food and water from thin air.

[Stormsmith]

Where did you get the idea that "soldiering on" necessarily means a lack of change?

[starman2003]

How do we know what was lost after it was lost?
It's easy to list stuff that was saved or protected but unknown unknowns are going to remain elusive.

Scholars know of plenty of lost books etc because many things mentioned by ancient writers just don't exist, except a few excerpts (or fragments) in some cases.

[QuantumCynics]

Humans will adapt; this is what we do. Consider that garbage mining is a thing. There is no shortage of resources.

The imminent collapse of civilization has been predicted since the beginning, and yet here we are.