>>12219726Yup, we are fucked. Now let's consider this strategically, making a few assumptions along the way. Just for fun tin hat thought experiment.
Collapse is inevitable, its just a matter of when and how long it takes. The video argues sudden collapse is a better survival option than a prolonged collapse.
An ordinary individual, despite being aware of all of this, can make no difference. At best is hoping for a sudden collapse and being able to survive.
Among the 1% wealthiest will be at least some who are aware of the situation and are looking for survival strategies. They have the means to implement, or at least contribute, to the implementation of sudden collapse. It would therefore seem logical that they are currently engaged in such activity. Such activity most probably being entirely legal, likely obscure, and discretely embedded within strategies unrelated to collapse
One of the worse things that can happen, according to this video, is a prolonged collapse. Therefore any human activity that produces mitigation, either through technological improvements, social and political activity, or economic reform, is actually counter productive in the greater strategic sense. Therefore any action which undermines or misdirects mitigation actually helps sudden collapse and therefore gives humanity its best hope for the future.
Summary: The peasants are fucked, everyone for himself. Some peasants will survive if they are resilient and useful. As for the incredibly rich, some of the intelligent ones will not only just prepare survival strategies, but will also actively engage in discreetly promoting sudden collapse while simultaneously attacking any attempt to fend off collapse.
This all makes perfect sense if you buy into the original premise of inevitable collapse.
What evidence presents itself for this scenario?
And how significant is it?
