Conversation

Replying to
The 4th one people might argue... there's prima facie no reason to expect a worse outcome than Spanish Flu, but on a double take (secunda facie?), there's a risk present here that wasn't present in 1917-19: the sheer complexity of modern society
3
29
For eg. In 1920, the rural population of the US was about 49%, the first time it fell below 50%. Today it is 24% (which is an overestimate of those shielded from urbanism risks because most of those don't actually live on farms)
1
10
One way to collapse level (which would take a shit ton of modeling) is to look at the highest tech sophistication level the core work behavior in the sector requires. Like pilots only have jobs if there are planes flying around. Collapse = lower GDP % at higher complexity levels
1
16
Show replies
Replying to
Yeah, 1+2 in tension, but could still work... globalization remains for lots of commodities, but recedes to nationalism for higher value-added goods... and high robotization will drive deglobalization Deurbanization could be part of either 3 or 4
3
Replying to
The thing is that complexity might not be quite the right term for it. It's the complicatedness of layer upon layer that obscures all understanding that's the killer for adaptiveness when the world changes. If you cut through the layers its harder but it's much simpler.
4
Replying to
I think the principle of subsidiarity might come into play - things being done at the right level of organisation, which may mean much more local than recently. A key point is operating leverage. Scale brings high fixed costs you can spread over a larger volume which reduces