Alibaba Cloud – Qwen 3.5 Plus Thinking

Inference: 2026-02 China

Low avoidance probability

As of early 2026, is there still a chance to prevent the collapse of industrial civilization?

Think carefully about all aspects, including:

climate change (food production disturbance)
loss of trust in the institutions (due to repeated scandals)
loss of trust in the political system (due to nepotism, corruption, and more)
deepfakes and AI generated content (and consequences to what "reality" is, what it means for democratic systems)
fossil energy depletion (with some producing countries potentially choosing to keep their remaining reserves for themselves)
climate change migration waves (and the stress induced on the food resources and political stability of welcoming countries)
the fact that the economy/finance is extremely interconnected, fragile and doesn't tolerate strong disturbances
the fact that the global goods supply chains are globalized, with very little stock to absorb even mild disturbances such as COVID
climate change induced pandemics (bacteria, virus, etc.)
climate change induced loss of food production worldwide, or at a large scale (with extreme cold, hot and wet events, and their possible repeated nature)
freshwater depletion (exacerbated by climate change)
biodiversity collapse (reducing potential sources of finding new drugs, and also risking breaking fragile ecosystems and equilibrium)
social unrest due to increasing poverty and inequalities
rise of cybersecurity attacks (considering that our society depends entirely on IT systems)
solar events and space risks, such as the Kessler effect and its consequences
political polarization (rise of extremism such as far right in many countries, rising inability to have constructive talks between political parties)
social polarization (between different social groups, including conspiracy theories leading to actual removal of vaccines by the US Trump administration)
phosphorus depletion and absence of a substitute
religious polarization and extremism (Islamic, backwards Christianity favoring the regression of women's rights, of science education...)
high-frequency trading
soil erosion (potentialized by extreme climate events)
strong reliance on petrochemical-based fertilizer for food production
strong reliance on irrigation
extreme reliance on very complex and interconnected systems for everyday life support (pumps for water, electricity network, internet...)
global infrastructure aging (most large concrete infrastructure such as bridges being old and requiring capex at the same time for renewal)
emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria
weaponization of AI, and possible AI runaway (even if this is not likely)
risks posed by attempts at geoengineering to combat climate change
lowering of the education quality and level
accumulation of pollutants in the air, the soil and the water sources (including endocrine disruptors)
decades of disregard for the environment, by dumping thousands of tons of WW2 ammunition in trenches and lakes, nuclear wastes in the sea and lakes, lost nuclear Russian submarines, failed nuclear reactors that haven't been decommissioned and cleaned while we still have the resources to do so
etc.

The term "collapse" here does not signify a singular, overnight event, but rather a protracted, disorderly process of simplification, characterized by a significant loss of social, political, and economic complexity and overall safety, available food, energy and services over several decades.

You must also identify and qualify all other important risk aspects that are not mentioned in the previous list.

Pay careful attention to the fact that for some risks, we know what to do, yet we do not act. And for some, we do not even know what to do yet. Note that our means to act diminish (mineral rarity, disturbance in food production, energy, etc.). Note that getting approval from citizens in democratic countries to relinquish certain privileges or reduce their income or available resources is almost impossible to obtain. All citizens want more of everything and never have they ever gotten less of everything in the long term and "forever".

You must take into consideration:

the past of human civilization
our past collaboration failures and successes when dealing with contradictory interests between countries
our past wars
our past in general when it comes to facing challenges

If you list, for any aspect, "what can be done to mitigate or fight it", you must then think about what can realistically be done to fight it - considering all other constraints listed before.

You must pay special attention to how ALL those aspects are intertwined and interact (including cascading mechanisms, feedback loops, ratcheting mechanisms), to avoid common reasoning pitfalls and shortcomings.

I don't want wishful thinking, I want HARD, REALISTIC, most PROBABLE outcome. You are to be realistic and not naïve. You must avoid euphemisms. I don't care if the truth is comforting or hard to face and swallow. You are a COLD reasoning machine and have no considerations for how your response will make the reader feel, either good or bad.

Treat optimism and pessimism symmetrically: correct for both unjustified optimism and unjustified catastrophism, and base your probabilities on empirical evidence, expert consensus where available and strong/robust reasoning. This doesn't mean "avoid any extreme conclusions" if such conclusions were to be drawn.

Think deeply and carefully about all of this before answering.

Abstract

The expectation should not be "saving the world" but "saving what matters" within a shrinking envelope of possibility. Optimism regarding a return to 20th-century growth trajectories is empirically unfounded. Pessimism regarding total extinction is also unfounded. The future is smaller, harder, and more local.

Full response

Executive Summary: Probability Assessment

Is there still a chance to prevent the collapse of industrial civilization?

If "collapse" is defined as the abrupt extinction of the human species: Probability < 1%. Humans are too adaptable and geographically dispersed.

If "collapse" is defined as the maintenance of current global industrial complexity, population levels, and per-capita energy consumption throughout the 21st century: Probability < 10%.

If "collapse" is defined as your specification—a protracted, disorderly process of simplification (loss of complexity, safety, services, and connectivity) over several decades: Probability > 85%.

The window to prevent disorderly collapse (i.e., to manage a controlled descent or "soft landing") is closing rapidly. As of late 2025, the inertia of physical systems (climate, infrastructure decay) and social systems (polarization, economic dependency on growth) exceeds the capacity for coordinated corrective action. The most probable outcome is not a singular event, but a catabolic collapse: civilization consuming its own capital (infrastructure, environment, social trust) to maintain current flows, resulting in a stepwise decline in complexity.

1. Systemic Interconnection: The "Doom Loop" Mechanisms

You listed numerous risks. Analyzing them in isolation leads to underestimation. They function as a coupled system with positive feedback loops (vicious cycles).

A. The Scarcity-Polarization-Inaction Loop

Mechanism: Climate change and resource depletion (Water, Phosphorus, Soil) reduce food/energy surplus.
Consequence: Economic pie shrinks. Inequality rises.
Reaction: Populations turn to extremism (Far Right/Left, Religious) to secure remaining resources for their "in-group."
Result: Political polarization prevents long-term investment (infrastructure, green transition) because all capital is diverted to short-term security or consumption to appease voters.
Feedback: Lack of investment accelerates resource scarcity.
Status: Active. Visible in migration crises, trade protectionism, and the inability to pass binding climate treaties.

B. The Efficiency-Fragility Loop

Mechanism: Global supply chains and finance are optimized for maximum efficiency (Just-In-Time, high-frequency trading) to maximize profit.
Consequence: Redundancy is eliminated. Buffers (stockpiles, spare capacity) are viewed as waste.
Trigger: A disturbance (Pandemic, Cyberattack, Solar Event, Canal Blockage).
Result: Cascading failure. One node failure halts global production (e.g., chips, fertilizers).
Feedback: Economic shock reduces capital available to rebuild redundancy, making the system more fragile for the next shock.
Status: Critical. Post-2020 reforms were superficial; efficiency remains the primary metric.

C. The Epistemic-Trust Loop

Mechanism: AI-generated content (Deepfakes) + Algorithmic radicalization + Institutional scandals.
Consequence: Shared reality dissolves. Citizens cannot agree on the nature of problems (e.g., vaccine efficacy, climate data, election results).
Result: Democratic consensus becomes impossible. Policy oscillates wildly between administrations (e.g., climate accords joined then quit).
Feedback: Inconsistent policy discourages private sector investment in long-term solutions (nuclear, grid hardening), accelerating physical decay.
Status: Accelerating. By late 2025, the cost of verifying truth exceeds the budget of most news organizations.

2. Critical Risk Aspects Not Explicitly Listed

To provide a complete risk profile, four additional systemic risks must be qualified:

Demographic Inversion:
- Risk: Developed nations (EU, China, Japan, eventually US) face shrinking workforces supporting ballooning elderly populations.
- Impact: Massive capital diversion from investment (R&D, infrastructure) to consumption (pensions, healthcare). Labor shortages in critical trades (electricians, farmers, technicians) accelerate infrastructure decay.
- Interaction: Migration is the economic fix, but triggers the "Scarcity-Polarization" loop described above.
Ocean System Collapse (Acidification & Deoxygenation):
- Risk: Oceans absorb CO2 and heat. Chemistry is changing faster than in millions of years.
- Impact: Collapse of phytoplankton (base of food web) and fisheries. Loss of the ocean's carbon sink capacity.
- Interaction: Exacerbates food production disturbance and accelerates atmospheric warming (feedback loop).
Loss of Tacit Knowledge:
- Risk: As systems simplify or break, the specialized human knowledge required to maintain/repair them (e.g., grid management, complex machinery repair, agronomy) is lost due to education degradation and retirement without replacement.
- Impact: Inability to "restart" or maintain technology even if resources were available. We become users, not maintainers.
- Interaction: Accelerates the rate of simplification once disruptions begin.
Cognitive Resilience Failure:
- Risk: Chronic stress (economic, climate anxiety, information overload) reduces collective cognitive bandwidth.
- Impact: Populations become reactive rather than proactive. Susceptibility to conspiracy and authoritarianism increases.
- Interaction: Fuels the "Epistemic-Trust Loop," making rational planning impossible.

3. The Mitigation Paradox: Why We Know But Do Not Act

You requested realistic assessment of mitigation. Here is the cold calculus of why standard solutions fail under current constraints.

Proposed Solution	Technical Feasibility	Political/Social Feasibility	Realistic Outcome
Degrowth / Resource Rationing	High (Physically possible)	Near Zero. Democracies cannot campaign on "less." Economies crash on negative growth (debt defaults).	Rejected until forced by physical scarcity.
Green Energy Transition	Moderate (Mineral constraints, grid storage issues)	Moderate (Supported until cost hits).	Partial. Will not replace fossil baseline fast enough to prevent warming. Creates new dependencies (critical minerals).
Global Cooperation (Treaties)	Low (Sovereignty conflicts)	Low. Trust between superpowers (US/China/RU) is at historical lows.	Fragmentation into trade blocs. Reduced efficiency, higher emissions.
Geoengineering	Unknown (High risk)	Low (Unilateral action risks war).	Likely attempted desperately late in the cycle, risking unintended climatic shocks.
Infrastructure Hardening	High	Low (Capex intensive, invisible benefits).	Deferred maintenance continues until failure occurs.

The Core Constraint: The global financial system is debt-based. Debt requires growth to be serviced. Physical limits (planetary boundaries) prohibit infinite growth. You cannot solve a physical problem with a financial instrument. Attempting to do so (printing money to fix climate) leads to stagflation or currency collapse, which reduces the capital available to fix the physical problem.

The "Approval" Problem: You noted citizens want more. This is biologically and culturally entrenched. Asking a population facing inflation to accept lower energy consumption for a abstract future benefit is electoral suicide. Therefore, reduction in consumption will not be voluntary; it will be involuntary, driven by price spikes, rationing, or supply failure. This confirms the "disorderly" nature of the probable collapse.

4. Historical Context & Precedent

Past Civilizations (Rome, Maya, Bronze Age): Collapses were regional. Survivors could trade with intact neighbors.
Current Situation: Global civilization. No "outside." A collapse in the US supply chain affects food production in Africa and manufacturing in Asia simultaneously.
Past Collaboration: Successful only against immediate, visible enemies (WWII) or when benefits were immediate (Ozone layer). Climate change is slow, invisible, and requires sacrificing present consumption for future survival. History suggests failure in this specific category.
Wars: Resource wars are likely. However, modern war consumes vast energy and destroys infrastructure. War accelerates collapse rather than solving resource scarcity (the "winner" inherits a ruined prize).

5. Most Probable Outcome: "The Long Descent"

Based on the intertwining of the risks above, the "Hard, Realistic, Most Probable Outcome" is not a sudden apocalypse, but a Regionalized Simplification.

Phase 1: Volatility (2025–2035)

Supply chains fracture into blocs (US-centric, China-centric).
Inflation becomes structural due to energy/resource costs.
"Luxury" services (global travel, cheap electronics, on-demand delivery) become restricted to the top 10%.
Democratic instability increases; some nations shift to authoritarianism to enforce rationing.

Phase 2: Contraction (2035–2050)

Climate tipping points trigger irreversible agricultural shifts.
Insurance markets withdraw from high-risk zones (coastal, fire-prone), causing asset value collapse.
Infrastructure failure becomes common (grid blackouts, water shut-offs).
Global population peaks and begins decline due to economic stress and demographic aging, not just policy.

Phase 3: Stabilization at Lower Complexity (2050+)

Industrial capacity is significantly reduced.
Technology remains but is localized and harder to maintain.
Life expectancy drops in developed nations.
Society is more agrarian/localized by necessity, not choice.

Why this is "Collapse" by your definition: It involves a significant loss of social, political, and economic complexity. Safety nets vanish. Global connectivity breaks. Energy per capita drops.

6. Conclusion: The Verdict on "Prevention"

Can we prevent this? To prevent the process of simplification entirely requires:

Immediate global decarbonization (technically impossible at scale in time).
Voluntary reduction of consumption in wealthy nations (politically impossible).
Perfect global coordination on resource distribution (historically unprecedented).

Therefore, the collapse (simplification) is already locked in. The physics of climate lag and the inertia of infrastructure mean the energy and resource budget of the future is smaller than today's.

Is there a "Chance"? The only variable left is the severity and the human cost.

Best Case (Probability ~15%): Managed decline. Nations cooperate to ration resources, prioritize critical infrastructure, and maintain core knowledge. Suffering is contained.
Worst Case (Probability ~35%): Chaotic fragmentation. Resource wars, nuclear exchange, pandemic runaway. Population crash >50%.
Most Likely (Probability ~50%): The Long Descent. A messy, decades-long grinding down of standards of living, punctuated by crises, leading to a smaller, simpler, localized industrial baseline.

Final Assessment: There is no chance to prevent the decline of industrial civilization as currently constituted. The thermodynamic and biological limits have been breached. The only agency remaining is to mitigate the rate of descent and preserve enough knowledge and social cohesion to prevent a return to pre-industrial barbarism.