Collapse or Extinction: The Unholy Double Bind of the 21st Century
There's Only One Real Plan to Save the Planet and Millions of Species
Imagine you are a doctor treating a terminally ill patient. The patient, or their family must choose between:
Option 1: Prolonging the patient’s life through aggressive treatments, which causes severe pain and suffering.
Option 2: Withholding treatments to allow the patient to die sooner, potentially alleviating suffering but hastening death.
This is what is sometimes called a double bind: a situation where all possible actions seem to lead to morally or practically unacceptable outcomes.
Collapse or Extinction
Today, humans face a double bind of existential proportions for the entire species, and millions of other species. Put simply, we must choose between:
Option 1: Prolonging human civilization through aggressive extraction, production and resource use, which causes severe environmental degradation that breaches a point of no return making the planet mostly or entirely uninhabitable, leading to the extinction of the human and millions of other species.
Option 2: Ushering the collapse of human civilization prior to breaching point of no return thresholds, potentially increasing short-term human suffering but staving off the vast suffering and deaths and further mass extinction.
Alternatives To Collapse or Extinction
But wait, Justin… there are other options. We could radically transform society. If the goal is to reduce existential risk, is it possible to focus on transformative solutions rather than ushering in collapse? Advocating for systemic changes—such as transitioning to sustainable technologies, reducing global inequalities, or fostering resilient local communities—could offer a less destructive path. Shouldn’t we focus on mitigating the worst aspects of modern civilization without advocating for total collapse to avoid unnecessary suffering while addressing long-term concerns?
Technically this is true. We, meaning either by a mass popular movement, or the ruling class deciding to give up the foundation of their wealth and power, could radically transform the goals of society and our lifestyle, creating a new Utopian society that avoids the most severe outcomes of the current industrial system’s business-as-usual.
The problem is we have zero evidence that this is happening, or will happen. Everything from historical evidence, to the contemporary empirical data goes against such a scenario, and there’s very little time left for that to change. Really, there’s no reason to believe it could either.
Collapse Is Inevitable, Extinction May Not Be
The volume of evidence that human society is headed towards catastrophic collapse in the next 20-40 years is astronomical.
A recent study published here by Nature suggests the chances of collapse in this timeframe are 90%.
The study, titled "Deforestation and world population sustainability: a quantitative analysis" by Mauro Bologna and Gerardo Aquino, provides a statistical model analyzing the interaction between deforestation and technological development. Below are some key findings:
Earth’s Forests Gone in 100-200 Years
At the current deforestation pace, forests could vanish in 100–200 years. However, societal collapse due to environmental degradation would likely occur far earlier.
Couldn’t Technology Save Us?
Come on Justin, people have been saying this crap since the dawn of civilization. Malthus was wrong. Ehrlich was wrong. We always find a way to use technology to overcome resource limitations and environmental degradation.
The study discusses avoiding collapse by reaching advanced technological states, such as a Type II Civilization on the Kardashev Scale. Theoretically, here’s how that would work:
A Type II civilization utilizes the energy of its entire star. This technology is called a Dyson Sphere. To achieve Type II status (building a Dyson Sphere), humanity would need to harness approximately 4×10^26 watts of energy, far exceeding our current consumption of approximately 10^13 watts.
4x10^26 watts of energy would provide humanity with near-limitless energy. This abundance could support advanced technologies to mitigate ecological damage, such as:
Large-scale carbon capture.
Global reforestation and habitat restoration.
Advanced recycling and resource extraction from space.
Achieving Type II energy would enable humanity to move beyond Earth's constraints by:
Colonizing other planets and moons.
Mining resources from asteroids and comets, reducing pressure on Earth's ecosystems.
With energy no longer a limiting factor, resource extraction and production could occur in more sustainable ways, reducing deforestation, pollution, and habitat destruction.
Dyson Spheres and Unicorns
Now here’s why technology isn’t the answer. First, the study estimates that even if technological growth follows Moore’s Law (a doubling of capacity approximately every two years), the probability of avoiding collapse is less than 10%. Further, under Moore’s Law, the mean time required to reach Dyson Sphere-level capabilities is approximately 180 years. Even this estimation is dubious on several fronts… but either way this is far longer than the estimated 20–40 years before the no-return point is reached, making it unlikely that technological advancements alone can prevent collapse.
Collapse Now or Extinction Later
Now that we’ve covered the alternative scenarios, and the rationale for framing this discussion as a binary, let’s get back to choosing collapse now, or extinction later.
If we choose not to act, or pretend our permaculture advocacy, or spiritual awakening messages are going to transform global society, the longer this global civilization keeps destroying the natural world—not at a decreasing rate, but at an increasing rate. This increases the probability that Earth becomes uninhabitable within this century.
If some people acted, and the global industrial system collapsed sooner, the probability of survival of human and non-human species alike increases. The number of people required to dismantle global industrial civilization does not need to be vast.
The infrastructure of industrial civilization is fragile, reliant on centralized systems such as fossil fuel supply chains, the electrical grid, and globalized networks. A relatively small group of well-coordinated individuals, if persistent and strategic, could target key vulnerabilities effectively. For example, disruption of energy infrastructure or transportation networks could initiate significant systemic impacts.
Decisive actions would be necessary to bring down industrial civilization. But it would not rely on mass participation, and rather on strategic, high-leverage efforts by a focused resistance movement.
Are Ethics Holding Us Back?
Once again, if you have a soul this isn’t an easy thing to approach. Most of us would rather not confront our brains with this crazy choice.
Inaction Feels Immoral
Doing nothing feels like passively allowing the systems that generate harm (e.g., exploitation, ecological destruction) to persist, risking even greater suffering or extinction down the line.
Action Feels Immoral
Taking steps to accelerate collapse means actively participating in or endorsing harm, breaching fundamental ethical commitments to reduce suffering in the here and now.
Bottom Line on the Ethical Dilemma
Every moment we delay action, this system—the same system that chains rivers with dams, fills the air with toxins, and drives two hundred species extinct every day—tightens its grip on the Earth’s throat. Pretending this is sustainable or even fixable is not just naive; it’s a betrayal of every living thing on this planet, human and nonhuman alike.
We live in a culture that has convinced itself that harm is only bad if it disrupts the comfortable status quo of consumption, convenience, and control. But let’s be clear: harm is already here. The harm of tar sands extraction, of factory farming, of climate collapse—it’s here, and it’s devouring the future. Every tree felled, every river poisoned, every species obliterated screams the question: how much longer will we let this happen?
Dismantling the systems causing this destruction isn’t just a matter of ethics—it’s an obligation. What kind of moral framework accepts the slow asphyxiation of the planet in exchange for a few decades of business as usual? We owe it to the salmon struggling upstream, to the forests gasping under the weight of chainsaws, and to the children who will inherit this mess, to act. If that means stepping outside the sanitized comfort of "non-disruptive" activism and causing harm to infrastructure that is literally killing the world, so be it.
The morality of dismantling industrial civilization lies in the clarity of its outcome. What’s moral: allowing billions of lives to be destroyed by the unchecked violence of extraction and exploitation, or acting decisively to stop it—even if it means breaking the rules of a culture that worships property over life? The moral thing to do is to prioritize life, to say enough is enough, and to fight like the Earth depends on it—because it does. Silence and passivity are not virtues; they are complicity.
Weigh In
I think some people will say there is zero chance for humanity as it is. In other words, its possible we’ve already breached the thresholds, the “no return points” and Earth won’t be habitable for the most part in the relative near term. I am not so confident. I don’t think there’s any way for someone to know that at this point. Feel free to weigh in on that.
The other is the probability of success of this strategy to dismantle civilization. Perhaps some people believe there’s too much negative consequence and not enough chance of success to make such an attempt. I get that. Again, feel free to weigh in—but my response has always been to share a sentiment from one
:“I do not fight fascists because I will win. I fight fascists because they are fascists.”
― Chris Hedges, Wages of Rebellion: The Moral Imperative of Revolt
Put another way, we do not fight industrial civilization because we will win. We fight it because its destroying the planet. Food for thought.
Feel free to add your take in the comments. I read and respond typically.
Support Collapse Curriculum
Part of the Collapse Curriculum skillset is not only to prepare for austere conditions, but it is in part teaching skills that translate to resistance as well. I hope you’ll consider subscribing and supporting our work. Cheers until next time.
How does “go local” affect collapse? Probably not much, but those doing this will lead a more satisfying life integrating with their local community and protecting nature to a degree. That is there will be pockets of sanity - that may or may not survive the apocalypse
I like your honesty. We need more of it. I do not think the moral imperatives are as clear cut as you argue. Actions that precipitate any hastening of societal collapse directly cause the death and suffering of hundreds of millions, if not billions of real, currently living, human beings. Most of that number will be made up by the most vulnerable. Any given person that survives will know one or many of those who do not. It is Thanos-level hubris to believe so absolutely in your own moral framework and situational analysis that you would see it as and moral obligation to directly hasten a horrible outcome that you deem inevitable and inevitably worse if you don't.
I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong as I don't presume to have a better understanding of ethics, or a superior personal moral framework, than you. I also agree with your analysis of the double bind, the almost certainty of collapse within the 40 year timeframe, and the major contributing factors that you point to alongside the almost zero reason to believe anything will change.
But, and it's a big but, killing hundreds of millions of real people in order to hypothetically save the biosphere and humanity from extinction (hypothetical future lives) seems like a difficult step for anyone to take, and a difficult moral position to defend. I think it may be easier to defend if the complete destruction of the biosphere and human extinction were guaranteed on the current path, but it is vastly different to guarantee some kind of significant 'collapse' (which really does seem unavoidable) as it is to guarantee complete devastation and extinction.
The much greater likelihood is that the human species, for whatever reason, is just fundamentally wired to eventually end up in this position as certain social, cultural and genetic dynamics slowly but surely funnel the worst of humans to positions of outweighed power and influence that then build societies that magnify the incentive structure and lock up the dynamic. If this is the case, and i believe that it is, there is really nothing any one person can do about it except to try their best to live their own life with as much grace, love, integrity and joy as they possibly can. In this scenario, like any species that dives too far into overshoot, we obviously collapse/correct at some point. But unlike most species, that entirely lose the ability to survive at all with severely reduced genetic pools and in inhospitable habitats (and thus go extinct), humans will find a way to survive in smaller numbers and slowly regrow, and it all starts again, but this time, material constraints may force a very different path for future human societies as there will simply not be enough available energy to do again what we have done (Was it you that wrote about that? Or the honest sorcerer, someone did but I forget). The biosphere is resilient enough to outlast our collapse and the damage that we do to it up until that collapse. It will just keep slowly adapting, recovering and changing as it always has. Humans will only go fully extinct if conditions around the entire earth become entirely uninhabitable. That is unlikely to happen any time soon unless there is a major asteroid collision or a major nuclear war... which are obviously possibilities, but almost entirely outside of our control. Although, hastening collapse with direct sabotage and sending industrial civilisation into an uncontrolled death spiral would surely significantly raise the risk of nuclear war...
I probably haven't argued this all that articulately, but my point is that collapse will happen because it has to, hastening it for the sake of hypothetical outcomes within an incredibly complex model/system seems rash and wildly unethical, at least to me. Modern industrial society will be forced to start coming to terms with the inevitable sooner rather than later, and when it does, many hands will be forced, and we will see how they play out. My suspicion is that at least, at that point, when all are truly forced to face the truth, and the lies are all burst by brutal reality, there will be a chance for global cooperation, a change to devise some kind of strategy for a more controlled collapse and after-collapse plan. The mantras of progress and human exceptionalism will be shown for what they as all that survive see what they have wrought and those that survive will once again embrace interconnected biocentric worldviews, as much from necessity as from experience and gained wisdom.
This is in no way to argue against activism, calls for systemic revolution and rebuilding, it is simply to say that I do not believe that direct action to hasten collapse is defendable as an ethical obligation. Much love.