Hacker News Reader

Comment by krick | Hacker News Reader

I thought this is pretty fun project and the idea is just cool right away, but then I went on reading and was surprised by the fact it seems the author is serious. I would be really curious to hear his opinion on why the supply chains should collapse before 2030. Obviously, there wouldn't be a shortage of people in the comments who can start speculating on why it might happen, and, of course, I myself also can provide a couple of feasible scenarios, but nobody of us were serious enough to actually start this project, so his opinion on the matter is somehow quite more interesting to me than it would normally be.

View on HN

If you had told me last year that we would have a pandemic, lockdown, massive economic recession and job loss and now riots and protests etc and all at the same time I probably wouldn't have believed it. I'm starting to think the world is a lot more fragile than we all thought.

Not “we all” thought — plenty of people have been saying this would happen for years. Specifically, epidemiologists and black people. Maybe we should listen more!

> I would be really curious to hear his opinion on why the supply chains should collapse before 2030

Think about seat belts. Do you ask the driver:

> "I'm really curious to hear why you think you'll crash the car?"

when s/he puts on the seat belt? S/he'd likely say "No I don't think that at all".

And not impossible that the Collapse OS author might have a similar reply. Still, the project can be well spent time, like, a seat belt in case of the unexpected.

Think about: 1) Likelihood-of-Global-Supply-Chain-Collapse x How-Bad. And 2) How-much-does-Collapse-OS-mitigate-the-bad-things. And compare that, with 3) time spent building C.OS.

He said in the Why? article linked above somewhere that he really does believe, even if he has no evidence, that we'll be experience a collapse sometime around 2030. That's not really comprehensible to me, even though your description of a possible rationale, which makes more sense.

I mean, I can rationally say I'll probably be in an accident by 2030 with no evidence either.

Oh, thanks for explaining. Here's the Why article: https://collapseos.org/why.html (didn't see it before).

In it, he writes: "... two important stages of collapse ... the second one is when, in a particular community, the last modern computer dies ... decades between the two ... Collapse OS won't be actually useful before you and I are both long dead"

making me wonder if one scenario he has in mind, is the different biggest countries in the world stopping trading with each other, so it won't be possible to get more rare earth metals (needed for today's computers, right). And then, maybe downhill from there, the thereafter following 50 or 100 years? — But not _necessarily_ a nuclear winter or something that dramatic & sudden.

And ... He also writes:

> What made me turn to the "yup, we're fucked" camp was "Comment tout peut s'effondrer" [a book]

I think you'd find the answers in that book then? Seems the book got translated: "How Everything Can Collapse" [in our lifetime] by Pablo Servigne.

he gives a book name "Comment tout peut s'effondrer" by Pablo Servigne, Éditions du Seuil, 2015

https://collapseos.org/why.html

There's apparently an English translation released very recently: "How everything can collapse: A manual for our times."

I haven't read either version, but piecing together the thesis from reviews, it seems to be a somewhat more evolved form of Malthusian catastrophe and Peak Oil(/Energy), with a dash of climate change alarmism [1] and Piketty-style concern over inequality. And technology won't save us because... well, I haven't found anyone who can elucidate that concern. It seems to me that the commenter who wrote "this book seems to be only for those who were convinced beforehand" has it right.

[1] I don't like using "alarmism" here because it suggests that I don't think it's a problem (I do), but I can't think of a better succinct description of "if we don't fix this literally tomorrow, we're totally screwed."

> technology won’t save us because...

I hope I’m not uncharitably interpreting your comment, but are you saying that technology will be some sort of panacea?

Technology isn't a complete panacea, but humans in general are highly adaptable. History seems to indicate that innovation is the most common outcome of Malthusian catastrophes, so it seems more than reasonable to me to ask that anyone arguing for a Malthusian catastrophe needs to also argue why innovation is not going to again be the outcome.

> Technology isn't a complete panacea, but humans in general are highly adaptable. History seems to indicate...

The most critical processes for human success - population growth - is an exponential process. Pretty much all of it happened in the age of fossil fuels. We have 200 years (out of 200,000 of human history according to Wikipedia) of experience with global populations >1 billion and we are currently cruising at about 8 billion souls on the planet. All of that 200 years is in the context of freely available and rapidly growing utilisation of fossil fuels to power the logistics networks enabling the growth.

History doesn't show us being adaptable, history shows if something happens to the solid/liquid carbon supply around 7/8 of us are expected to die. And we can statistically all-but guarantee something will sooner or later over a long period.

Our major reason to be hopeful is our history isn't a guide and that something other than oil really makes strides. Maybe nuclear, maybe renewables.

> History doesn't show us being adaptable, history shows if something happens to the solid/liquid carbon supply around 7/8 of us are expected to die.

I disagree. Look at the pandemic response here vs. the Spanish flu, or the Bubonic plague.

We also have plenty of alternate energy sources to diversify our power infrastructure, and many nations are taking these steps. The past few decades have been a series of lessons on the importance of resilience over efficiency, and we're slowly learning this lesson.

If you're not terrified at the Western response to the Coronavirus, you're not paying attention.

The low systemic risk events we are living through now, prove that the Emperor is naked. An event that produces moderate to serious systemic shocks would be our DOOM.

Regardless of how insufficient the response was, it was still far swifter and more effective than the response to the Spanish Flu. Also, the knock-on effects will influence significant changes for years come. We learn slowly, but we learn.

Who is we? The divided population that’s ready to ignite? The corporations that are ruining the planet? The politicians that are as effective as puppets? The billionaires that are stocking their bunker mansions? The onepercenters that are doing the same (minus extravagant luxury)?

The system is on a hairline trigger and the control room is empty.

But looking back at our history, one should also keep in mind that it did take hundreds of years for Europe to recover from the fall of the Roman Empire.

'Innovation will fix things eventually' is cold comfort for the generations of people living in the interim.

Yes. But why? Multiple episodes of 'the Plague' and climate swings (probably caused by volcanic eruptions somewhere else).

edit: I mean, look at what is happening now. All sorts of disruptions because of some sneezery (regardless of real or imagined danger, it's the policy that matters). Now imagine further disruptions by volcanic ash particles and gases in the atmosphere. So F-ed!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com