MIT Has Predicted that Society Will Collapse in 2040

MIT Has Predicted that Society Will Collapse in 2040

The first 1,000 fans to signup with this link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare
Watch “How Not To Suck At Speaking Aussie” ๐Ÿ‘‰


Enjoyed the video? Comment below! ๐Ÿ’ฌ
โญ‘ Subscribe to Economics Explained ๐Ÿ‘‰
โญ‘ Enjoyed? Hit the like button! ๐Ÿ‘

Q&A Streams on EEII (2nd channel) โ†’

โœ‰๏ธ Business Enquiries โ†’

๐ŸŽง Listen to EE on Spotify! ๐Ÿ‘‰

Follow EE on social media:
Twitter ๐Ÿฆ โ†’
Facebook โ†’
Instagram โ†’
Discord โ†’

#EconomicCollapse #Economics #EconomicsExplained


Support EE by becoming a Patron today! ๐Ÿ‘‰

The video youโ€™re watching right now would not exist without the monthly support provided by our generous Patrons:

Morgon Goranson, Andy Potanin, Wicked Pilates, Tadeรกลก Ursรญny, Logan, Angus Clydesdale, Michael G Harding, Hamad AL-Thani, Conrad Reuter, Tom Szuszai, Ryan Katz, Jack Doe, Igor Bazarny, Ronnie Henriksen, Irsal Mashhor, LT Marshall, Zara Armani, Bharath Chandra Sudheer, Dalton Flanagan, Andrew Harrison, Hispanidad, Michael Tan, Michael A. Dunn, Alex Gogan, Mariana Velasque, Bejomi, Sugga Daddy, Matthew Collinge, Kamar, Kekomod, Edward Flores, Brent Bohlken, Bobby Trusardi, Bryan Alvarez, EmptyMachine, Snuggle Boo Boo ThD, Christmas

You may also like...

35 Responses

  1. Economics Explained says:

    Be one of the first 1,000 & claim your 1 month free trial of Skillshare Premium!

    Watch our course “How Not To Suck At Speaking Aussie! (Part 1)” โฌ‡๏ธ

    • TheLightSilent says:

      The EU will collapse yes but society nah more like society will benifit from the soviet like EU failed system collapsing in which many people and countries will be free of the failed crippling system that is the EU.

    • Lars Haas says:

      Could you make a video about how economies would function if planned obsolescence was banned.

    • Arnav Salkade says:

      Quantum computers will not increase the number of transistors that can fit on a chip. It’s a completely different way of conceptualising computation as it uses concepts like electron spin, superposition etc. just so u know quantum computers will be as fast if not slower! than classical ones in standard activities like sending an email or browsing the Web or searching for a YouTube video like this masterpeice. Quantum computers will only be exponentially faster at solving real world complex multivariable problems like finding the optimal electronic configuration for drug discovery or developing molecular simulations to develop a fertilisers or finding the cheapest possible way to clean space junk for instance.

    • T Samuel says:

      @Anthony Walker We are IN world 2. The great flood circa 13K BCE wiped out world 1. There will of course be a world 3, the interesting question is what species will dominate it. I wouldn’t count another dinosaur era.

    • RuSomeKindaIdiot says:

      Proof this MIT Conspiracy is just that. AOC & the Green New Dealers state we only have about 10 years now.

  2. ShortHax says:

    Maybe electing people who wonโ€™t be alive for societyโ€™s collapse isnโ€™t such a bright idea

  3. HammerTh says:

    “Why get hostile when you can get rich?” is literally the founding principle of the EU.

    • TerraBiker says:

      @TheLightSilent you would be right , if the society had ever chance on experiencing failed EU and learning from it , but the vacuum will be immediately filled with dictators and populists that will say “we will take care of your well being, all we ask is your obedience” and many people will comply….unfortunately and we will have another USSR/EU/ , bcs people are so stupid

    • Robbie Torkelsonn says:

      @TerraBiker And somehow the tories will be able to spin it in such ways as to say that not the UK, but the EU is a fascist dictatorship, even as young men are goosestepping in the middle of London

    • ben MAT says:

      @Robbie Torkelsonn The EU isn’t born out of the benelux…. Wikipedia says : “The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was a European organisation created after World War II to regulate the coal and steel industries. It was formally established in 1951 by the Treaty of Paris, signed by Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and West Germany. The ECSC was an international organisation based on the principle of supranationalism,[2] and started a process of integration which ultimately led to the creation of the European Union. The ECSC was first proposed by French foreign minister Robert Schuman on 9 May 1950 as a way to prevent further war between France and Germany. “

    • Rat King says:

      Get federal get reich europa… the EU mantra.

    • mini smalls says:

      European nations got rich through hostility

  4. Cody says:

    Donโ€™t worry guys, I got this, Iโ€™ll stop the collapse. You will know I was successful with my mission when you wake up on January 1st, 2041 to a still functioning world.

  5. James G says:

    Jared Diamond wrote an excellent book called โ€˜Collapseโ€™, in that book all 10 causes for collapse are present today. But these are complex times as you well explain. Thanks for another great vid.

  6. LeCygneNoir says:

    This is very interesting, thank you for making that video. One thing I’ll point to is, in my opininion, a misconception in “jet engine vs. donkey” analogy. Specifically, the idea that our society being more complex makes it more fragile (akin to a jet engine) than ancient societies. Historical study tends to show that the exact opposite is true, ancient societies were incredibly fragile, the loss of a single food source, epidemics, or depleting the local environment, could lead to quick and incredibly deadly collapses, yet those collapses seem almost insignificant in the course of History simply because there just wasn’t that much to lose. By contrast, the more complex a society is the more adept it is at weathering blows, the Roman Empire withstood catastrophies that would have brought a less complex society to its knees, and part of what made its fall so memorable and studied is the sheer magnitude of the systemic forces that eventually took it down.

    To offer another analogy rather than “the jet engine”, I would go to biology. Simple organisms versus complex organisms. Ancient, primitive societies might be thought of as unicellular organisms, extremely vulnerable to any single event, but whose “collapse” is hardly even noticeable because there is so little to lose. By contrast, our society might be thought of as something like the most complex organism we know of, a human and its brain. We are gifted with an incredible adaptativeness, a strong immune system, we are able to effortlessly weather catastrophies that would have brought less developped societies to their knees…But the magnitude of the challenges we are facing because of our complexity is also unlike anything any other society had to face in History.

    Quick and dirty analogy: As a “brain” society, we’re having a stroke. Our very complexity is starting to wear down on us, and while we’re still finding ways to work around the problem, “rewiring” to keep functionning around rotten tissue, we’re now in a race to do this fast enough before the bleeding cripples us for good. It’s not a more optimistic analogy I’m afraid.

  7. Tyberfen says:

    Speaking about predictions, you might find the “Global Trends 2040”, published every 4 years by the US National Intelligence (mainly aimed for US Lawmakers), interesting. It gives an overview in GEO politics, economic, scientific and social developments and tries to picture, how the world may have changed in 20 years from now on. It’s a highly interesting read and I feel like especially the socioeconomic aspects would fit this channel. It’s freely available and I highly recommend to at least take a look at it

  8. Christian Libertarian says:

    I read โ€œLimits to Growthโ€ back in the 1970โ€™s. It had a couple of assumptions that didnโ€™t play out. The primary one was that it assumed that the world would come to the level of prosperity that the US enjoyed in 1970, and that the resources to achieve that level remained constant. The amount of resources required to achieve 1970โ€™s prosperity has dropped dramatically. We use less of everything to achieve higher living standards. On the third hand, that only pushes the dates into to future a few years.

  9. alnot01 says:

    The 1972 Limits to Growth (LOG) study was written by engineers and experts in “system dynamics.” LOG was a forecast of our planets economic future over the period 1972-2040, a forecast that omitted two huge elementary economic facts. When the price of a resource rises, we humans tend to find:
    * new sources for the resource (the supply of the resource increases);
    * ways to economise on the resource (demand for the resource declines), including finding cheaper substitutes for the resource.
    Economists reviewing LOG 50 years ago made this point 50 years ago, and those reviews explain why citations to LOG largely ended by, say, 1985. This video is probably the first time I have seen LOG mentioned this century.

  10. Investment Joy says:

    Would love to see a comparison of the various economic doomsday theories of the 50s-80s and see how they’ve fared. I remember hearing my parents and their friends talking about them in the early 90s, and yet here we are.

    • Gene Pope says:

      I can partially answer that one since I was around back then. Was in High School in the late ’60s, when the pollution (I mean all the poisonous ones, not just invisible CO2) was as bad as pictures of Shanghai, China today. You could only see a clear sky over NYC perhaps 2 or 3 days all year. The Hudson River was so poisonous you could die trying to swim in it. A lot of “Doomsday Scenarios” back then, all of which, except for the population explosion, got turned around faster than any model had predicted. There was no CO2 doom scenario at that time. This plays into what this video so well pointed out, that we as a species will always be surprised in the future, for better and for worse. Our scientific models today, even from the “finest minds” can turn out better and/or worse and we aren’t as good at predicting all the insane amount of variables as we think we are when we create them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *