1. The 0.5% probability of collapse year-to-year is not uniform, and is probably stochastic (that is, if last year's probability was lower than 0.5%, it's likely that this year's probability is too, and if last year's probability was above 0.5%, it's likely that this year's is as well). So if you have a lower than 0.5% p…
1. The 0.5% probability of collapse year-to-year is not uniform, and is probably stochastic (that is, if last year's probability was lower than 0.5%, it's likely that this year's probability is too, and if last year's probability was above 0.5%, it's likely that this year's is as well). So if you have a lower than 0.5% probability because things are going pretty well, then it's likely that you'll have a long run of low probability. But if your probability of collapse starts to increase to say 2% or 3%, then sh*t starts to get real. We see it in a lot of ways: Dred Scott decision, Bloody Kansas, John Brown, people singing about John Brown, arguments over tariffs that help the North but are paid for by the South, caning in the Senate, election of Lincoln in a 4-way race.
2. The USA is not uniformly vulnerable. The most fragile parts of the country are the inner cities. If and when a collapse occurs, it occurs there first. Most of us would likely never be affected by it.
The problem is that not everything that Rural America needs is produced in Rural America, and there is national critical infrastructure that Rural America needs which has had major population centers grow up around it.
Rural America is less vulnerable than Urban America, but that doesn't mean that it's not vulnerable at all. Spare parts for tractors and power plants don't grow on trees.
If we experience systems collapse on that level I'd expect something like 99% of the population to be wiped out. The knowledge of how to run simple systems is mostly lost.
Two observations:
1. The 0.5% probability of collapse year-to-year is not uniform, and is probably stochastic (that is, if last year's probability was lower than 0.5%, it's likely that this year's probability is too, and if last year's probability was above 0.5%, it's likely that this year's is as well). So if you have a lower than 0.5% probability because things are going pretty well, then it's likely that you'll have a long run of low probability. But if your probability of collapse starts to increase to say 2% or 3%, then sh*t starts to get real. We see it in a lot of ways: Dred Scott decision, Bloody Kansas, John Brown, people singing about John Brown, arguments over tariffs that help the North but are paid for by the South, caning in the Senate, election of Lincoln in a 4-way race.
2. The USA is not uniformly vulnerable. The most fragile parts of the country are the inner cities. If and when a collapse occurs, it occurs there first. Most of us would likely never be affected by it.
In fact,this same case you make is made by global warming proponents in regard to floodplain analysis.
The problem is that not everything that Rural America needs is produced in Rural America, and there is national critical infrastructure that Rural America needs which has had major population centers grow up around it.
Rural America is less vulnerable than Urban America, but that doesn't mean that it's not vulnerable at all. Spare parts for tractors and power plants don't grow on trees.
You could say the same thing about the USA vs China.
All conflict is ugly.
Given that I'm expecting systems collapse along the same lines as the late Bronze Age, ugly may be an understatement.
If we experience systems collapse on that level I'd expect something like 99% of the population to be wiped out. The knowledge of how to run simple systems is mostly lost.
Like, good luck trying to figure out how to grind grain into flour without electricity at scale.