Admittedly I only skimmed the linked article, but setting aside my skepticism of the hypothetical collapse portrayed I find myself wondering what would keep things at "sustainable" even if such a situation occurred.
I don't see anything short of a new serfdom that would make people content with slogging away for 10 or more hours a day in the field (probably "more", but I'm being generous here
) and not leave them wanting more, or at least give their children the opportunity to have more when they grow up. Medieval Stasis
is fine as a fictional concept, but not so much when you have to actually live
under it... especially when the "unsustainable" advanced society is only a few generations in the past, easily within the memories of the older people in the village.
One part in particular makes me wonder what reality the author is living in, under the "Scenario part four" section:
wars diminish as people in each remaining nation and area struggle to deal with (04) the huge number of displaced and homeless people all around them.
In a word: lolwut
The scope of wars may diminish without a national infrastructure to support current armies, but the notion that there won't be people out there who are willing to take "might makes right" to its natural conclusion (or that if they exist, they'll all
be General Failures
who couldn't war their way out of a wet paper bag) is dubious at best, given even a casual reading of just the last ten thousand or so years of history.
In regards to the thread topic question, I doubt I would. I like
not having to kill and skin my own meat just for a burger, or not having to tend a field for much of the day just to make sure I have wheat for that burger's bun. I'm also too fond (as some would see it) of the idea that if I bust ass sufficiently I can do better than just plugging along as things are, without change.
edited 25th Dec '11 5:54:10 PM by Nohbody