JOURNAL: Five Stages of Collapse

Dmitry Orlov (author of the excellent book, Reinventing Collapse) has an excellent presentation he calls the Five Stages of Collapse -- a pattern of collapse seen in Russia and Eastern Europe during the 90's (on Google Docs, click to view in new window). These stages are:

• Financial Collapse. Already in motion.
  
• Commercial Collapse. Just started.
  
• Political Collapse (a loss of faith in ideology). First part is over (the recent election in the US). Second part is going to be nasty.
  
• Social Collapse. Potentially the end state or stable equilibrium point for most of the world. Everyone against everyone with points awarded by the global marketplace.
  
• Cultural Collapse. Full meltdown. Global market breaks.
  

The collapse in the USSR/Eastern Europe ended due to connectivity to a large external environment, collectively the West, which provided stability and a route back from chaos. We don't have an external environment to gain support from with our collapse. It's global.

Comments

[Michael]

Interesting - the global nature of civilization and these crises is what is different and concerning this time. Evrin Laszlo's book Macroshift looks and the evolution of civilizations and the interplay of technology and mindset. He called this phase we are in 2000-2010 the macroshift where a new mindset drawing from technology needs to take hold if we are to change the trajectory of our civilization. Current path = 'breakdown' and aspired path 'breakthrough'. Comm tech and social media are the interesting tech and I'm hoping the Obama moment is an indicator of a shift in mindset taking hold. Posted recently on that on my blog if you are interested in that thread.

[B.]

Well this is interesting dilemma because with the Social Collapse, you no longer have to worry about a one wold government if everyone is in it for themselves right? Anyway, the first 3 collapses can certainly be avoided/slowed down/reversed if everyone takes personal responsibility for their lives. That means taking personal responsibility for their health, finances, and government. Don't follow blindly, and only support policies that will keep this nation strong.

[Nathan]

I suppose that each of these stages are not equal in their damage and scope? As a society, we've lived through stages 1 and 2 before, and recovered without a complete collapse. In fact, the first half of stage 3 seems to happen every couple of decades. I guess what I'm asking is, is there a tipping point in this scale? A point where if we hit it, there will be no turning back from the inevitable collapse?

[Dale Asberry]

Michael -- "the macroshift where a new mindset drawing from technology needs to take hold if we are to change the trajectory of our civilization"
------
Belief in this is belief in The Myth of Technology. It is a strongly held cultural narrative that simply doesn't hold true: when in the history of humanity has technology resulted in more positives than negatives? I would even argue that the nasty position we find ourselves in was, if not caused by, at least enabled by technology.

Still, here we are and we want to survive. The most promising technologies with the least negatives seem to lie in the direction of permaculture. I'm also significantly impressed with the possibilities of biochar (terra preta) for carbon capture and soil remediation. If we became stewards and enforce closed natural resource systems (the communities much like John Robb and Jeff Vail describe), where external inputs and outputs are minimized, we might be able to continue our survival.

[John Robb]

Nathan, in those earlier situations we had extensive internal resilience (local agriculture and commerce). That doesn't exist anymore in the developed world. Our consumption stack is mostly composed of global goods.

[damian]

i'd be interested to hear more on your thoughts about political collapse: i'm assuming that by 'the first part is over' you're talking about the overt rejection of of the policies of Bush & co, and by 'the second part will be messy' you're talking about the coming realisation that actually Obama isn't going to be any different, and all the jubilation will be for nothing?

The every increasing governments (federal, state, local) remind me of General Motors and the American auto industry in general. They have become the equivalent of unneeded (and subsidized) Buggy Whip manufacturers. What we are experiencing is a predictable shakeout of dead wood. It's going to be long and painful for those who cling to these organizations. The rest of us have a great chance to experience a rebirth. What's my evidence? Look at Johns sight and you can see it all over. RCs, small power sources, etc. The technology exists for extreme forms of independence and different ways of thinking are becoming common.

[Duncan Kinder]

By "collapse", I presume we mean that the level of entropy in the system will increase.

Insofar as Peak Oil means that entropy will increase because fossil fuel inputs into the system will decrease and that this decrease is happening about now, this would be correct.

However, we do in fact have an external environment - the solar system - as a result of which we are receiving constant inputs from the sun. These inputs are occurring whether we have developed solar technology or not. They manifest themselves through biology, meteorological, and other ways.

So there is a level beyond which we should not fall.

[Sean Taylor]

I enjoy this site, but really is there anything easier than perpetual predictions of social, economic and political collapse? In the long historical view, disorder is the default condition, large scale, stable structures are the exception -- this is hardly a profound insight about the human condition. I agree that many of our industrial revolution-era systems, including perhaps modern nation states, are going to die a painful death, but this does not imply a descent into anarchy. If anything, we may be entering an era of internet-powered global order that is totally new in human experience.

Remember that most predictions of the future are comically wrong -- futurists in the late 19th century imagined a railroad-centric world, and we should already have suffered total collapse according to the overpopulation doomsayers of the 1960's. Current futurist narratives such as "Peak Oil", "Global Guerillas", "World is Flat" and "The Singularity" undoubtedly suffer from similar fallacies and will look very amusing a few decades from now.

[John Robb]

Sean,

Appreciate the feedback, but this site doesn't predict anything (which is typically the extension of a theoretical constructs absent fact). Rather, it is an attempt to build frameworks for understanding the changes already underway (and can read in the daily news feed). The framework above, for example, attempts to look beyond the current financial and commercial collapse to anticipate what comes next. Use it or discard it, it's your choice.

NOTE: Pretty sure that weak states + financial distress + low social cohesion + rise in gangs/criminality doesn't equal anarchy (imagery ala "road warrior").

NOTE 2: Trenchant analysis of world events can yield negative outcomes (sorry). Take Churchill's analysis of Germany prior to WW2.

[EN]

" is there anything easier than perpetual predictions of social, economic and political collapse?"

It seems extremely difficult to me if we're talking about the West. Few people have a good track record and even fewer seem to repeat early successes. Reality does exist and there are those who honestly read the tea leaves, often times using their own past failures as a gauge. It will never be perfect and as you pointed out, disorder seems to be the default state of mankind.

REALITY EXISTS! That provides a large piece of the future puzzle. The US government owes about five times the total "dollars" (including the fake stuff that exist only in spread sheets of banks) in circulation. The study of how that ends up is important and worth while. The outcome isn't likely to be predictable with any exactitude, but planning for the future is, so it will be tried. Getting it wrong can be the difference between watching chaos... or participating in it. I'm here because I'd rather watch.

[legal sodium]

jr, could you elaborate on "second part could be nasty?"

i have heard a few mentions lately of a brewing/already going "cold civil war." what are your thoughts? looking at the red/blue diagram of the counties of the US, it occurs that the red owns the food...

[Huh]

Sean Taylor is correct.

John, you are suffering from the same sort of bad thinking that individuals like Nassim Taleb would call you out on. You stated:

"but this site doesn't predict anything ... The framework above, for example, attempts to look beyond the current financial and commercial collapse to anticipate what comes next."

Reasoning about the future is prediction, which is what you are doing. Attempts to change the definition, so you are morally disjoined from your wrong predictions, is a form of rhetorical trickery. Suck it up and admit to it. You're a big boy.

BTW, it's not so much that I, nor others, care about the content of your reasoning.

It is that you are akin to a weatherman who predicts a hurricane every single day. An apocalpytic broken clock if you will.

One of these days you'll be right, but to cry wolf 24/7 means you'll never learn why you were wrong 99 times at the expense of that one time you were right.

[Dale Asberry]

Uh. John isn't predicting... that's what Dmitry Orlov did by creating the Five Stages of Collapse framework. John simply said, given these five stages, this is what I've observed is happening NOW.

Still, Dmitry and John are less interested in hand-wringing about apocalypse and very much interested in: how do we get out of this mess? Dmitry approaches it from a personal, historical perspective, while John approaches it from a systems perspective.

Another thinker, Chris Martenson (chrismartenson.com/crash-course), does make predictions from a monetary and exponential growth perspective.

[John Robb]

Huh. Obviously you don't get any benefit from this site. Why are you even reading it? Regardless, your logic is flawed. Here's why:

The key to making good decisions is to build a model or framework that explains what is currently going on. Without that model, you will be flying blind.

Nassim and Boyd would argue that you should revise that model constantly in order to reflect changes in the environment. Nassim, in particularly, would also argue that you should deeply distrust your models, particularly if they haven't been tested over very long time horizons.

Making these models/frameworks is a constantly evolving process. They should be discarded as things evolve and replaced/reprised. It isn't broad prediction (in contrast to the economists in the financial industry or believers in the power of unconstrained markets, in that case prediction is correctly used as a pejorative) that is treated as gospel.

Finally, in terms of a broken clock being right two times a day.... The pithy statement doesn't apply in this case. That assumes incorrect timing -- as in, you say the same thing every day for decades and it is always being proven wrong by events. This site's analysis strongly correlates with unfolding events. Why did you wrongly apply the statement? I suspect you are conflating, wrongly, the work of other people and groups with me.

Am I ever positive, or, do I change my models based on environmental clues? I have and do. I was able to model and therefore ride the last two booms up to great effect (almost to brilliant effect). Successful companies (when I was an entrepreneur), solid analytical performance (when I was an analyst), and a home well into the black (still worth much more than the original purchase price) attest to that.

[Former Republican]

John, I understand your point about not making predictions (although until I read these posts, you were doing a good job of fooling me). Let me ask you this: what evidence that could in principle develop in the next year or so would you regard as serious evidence that the nation-state is getting stronger rather than weaker? Or that the world in general and the US in particular is not headed for collapse? Please don't misread me. I am inclined to think the nation-state is getting weaker. And while I think the system is too robust and flexible to allow collapse, I recognize it really could happen. My question is Popperian: are you open to the possibility that the models that engage you are flawed? Can you give examples of evidence that could show the models to be simply wrong? BTW, I find your site mind-stretching; I should post more often.

[John Robb]

FR, Good question. The big indicator would be a recovery at the individual level. Not only significant debt reduction to sustainable levels but also an upward trajectory in incomes (median per capita) in line with productivity growth.

[Thierry]

Is there any idea or method to restore trust in a collapsing society? Any experience? I think that a resilient society must also restore as soon as possible production and trade.
Thanks a lot for sharing your ideas to face this crisis.

[bee]

This construct is not very useful. First there is not reason to assume the order offered is correct. As a matter of fact one could posit many orders. It would be the first time in human history that any theory followed the pattern outlined. Second the definitions of each stage are opportunistically defined. The definitions play to our current experience. This construct is nothing more than a rhetorical device for story tellers.

This blog typically offers far more compelling material than this piece.

[Mark]

Hey, If you haven't all ready heard this interview, I recommend giving it a listen.

http://www.ecoshock.org/downloads/economy/ES_Orlov_2.mp3

The worse things get, the more people will deny anything is wrong. Similar to that of a drug addict or alcoholic.