DeepSeek – DeepSeek 3.2 Thinking

Inference: 2025-11 China

Low avoidance probability

As of late 2025, 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

Based on a comprehensive and realistic analysis of the interconnected risks facing industrial civilization, including empirical evidence, historical patterns, and current trends, the chance to prevent a protracted collapse---defined as a significant loss of social, political, and economic complexity over decades---is extremely low, likely less than 10%. This conclusion is not based on pessimism but on a cold evaluation of systemic inertia, human behavior, and the cumulative, reinforcing nature of the risks involved. While a narrow pathway exists for prevention, it requires immediate, globally coordinated action on an unprecedented scale, which is highly improbable due to political, social, and economic constraints.

Full response

Assessment of the Chance to Prevent Collapse of Industrial Civilization as of Late 2025

Key Reasons for the Low Probability of Prevention

1. Systemic Inertia and Feedback Loops:

- Climate Change: Even if all greenhouse gas emissions ceased today, committed warming (due to past emissions) would continue for decades, leading to irreversible impacts such as sea-level rise, extreme weather events, and ecosystem shifts. Feedback loops (e.g., permafrost thawing releasing methane) are already accelerating, making mitigation increasingly difficult. Current policies put the world on track for 2.5--3°C of warming by 2100, which would severely disrupt food production, water availability, and human settlements.

- Economic and Supply Chain Fragility: The globalized economy is optimized for efficiency rather than resilience, with just-in-time supply chains and high interdependency. Events like the COVID-19 pandemic revealed how easily disruptions can cascade, causing shortages and inflation. Reforming this system would require massive investment in redundancy and local capacity, but short-term profit motives and political resistance make this unlikely.

- Resource Depletion: Critical resources like phosphorus (essential for fertilizers), freshwater, and fossil fuels are being depleted faster than they are replaced. Phosphorus has no substitute, and its scarcity could trigger food crises. Fossil fuel depletion is exacerbated by geopolitical tensions, with producing countries likely to hoard reserves for their own use, undermining the energy transition.

2. Political and Social Barriers to Action:

- Loss of Trust and Polarization: Trust in institutions (governments, media, science) has eroded due to scandals, corruption, and misinformation. Political polarization (e.g., rise of far-right movements in the U.S., Europe, and elsewhere) hinders consensus-building on critical issues like climate policy or public health. Social polarization, fueled by deepfakes and AI-generated content, undermines shared reality and democratic processes. Historical examples (e.g., the failure of the League of Nations) show that divided societies struggle with collective action.

- Democratic Shortcomings: In democracies, citizens consistently reject policies that reduce consumption or privileges, as seen in protests against carbon taxes or austerity measures. Elected leaders prioritize short-term electoral gains over long-term sustainability, making it nearly impossible to implement necessary sacrifices. Autocracies like China may act more decisively but often pursue national interests at the expense of global cooperation.

- Historical Precedent: Human history is marked by cycles of cooperation and conflict. While we have succeeded in addressing specific threats (e.g., the Montreal Protocol on ozone depletion), these were isolated issues with clear solutions. Today's challenges are interconnected and global, resembling the "tragedy of the commons" where individual rationality leads to collective ruin. Past wars (e.g., World Wars I and II) required imminent, visible threats to mobilize action; slow-moving crises like climate change do not trigger similar urgency.

3. Technological and Environmental Risks:

- AI and Cybersecurity: AI weaponization, deepfakes, and cyberattacks pose existential risks to financial systems, critical infrastructure (e.g., power grids, water supplies), and political stability. Regulation lags behind innovation, and AI runaway, while unlikely, cannot be ruled out. These technologies also amplify disinformation, further eroding trust.

- Biodiversity Collapse and Pollution: Ecosystem breakdown reduces resilience and potential sources for new medicines (e.g., antibiotics). Pollutants (e.g., endocrine disruptors, plastic waste) accumulate in air, soil, and water, causing health crises and further straining healthcare systems. Legacy issues like dumped WWII ammunition or nuclear waste remain unaddressed due to cost and complexity.

- Health Pandemics: Climate change increases the risk of pandemics by altering disease vectors and antibiotic resistance. The COVID-19 response showed that even with advanced warning, global cooperation is fragile, with vaccine nationalism and supply chain failures.

4. Interconnected Cascading Failures:

- Climate-Food-Water Nexus: Climate-induced droughts or floods reduce crop yields, leading to food price spikes, social unrest, and migration waves. This strains receiving countries, potentially triggering conflict and further political instability. For example, the 2007-2008 food crises contributed to the Arab Spring.

- Energy-Agriculture Link: Modern agriculture relies on petrochemical-based fertilizers and irrigation. Energy shortages or price spikes directly affect food production, creating a vicious cycle. The transition to renewable energy is slow due to mineral scarcity (e.g., lithium, cobalt) and the need for fossil fuels to build infrastructure.

- Infrastructure Aging: Global infrastructure (e.g., bridges, pipelines) is aging and requires massive investment for renewal, but competing priorities (e.g., military spending, debt servicing) divert funds. Failures could cause cascading breakdowns in transportation, energy, and water systems.

What Can Be Done Realistically? The Gap Between Knowledge and Action

For many risks, we know what to do but fail to act due to constraints:

Climate Change: Transition to renewables, enhance energy efficiency, and protect ecosystems. Realistically, progress is too slow; fossil fuel subsidies persist, and carbon pricing remains politically toxic. Geoengineering attempts (e.g., solar radiation management) could introduce new risks without addressing root causes.
Resource Management: Implement circular economies, reduce consumption, and invest in alternatives. Realistically, this requires behavioral changes that societies resist. Phosphorus recycling is technically feasible but not scaled due to cost.
Political Reform: Strengthen international institutions, combat corruption, and promote media literacy. Realistically, nationalism and polarization are rising, making global governance weaker (e.g., UN climate talks often end in deadlock).
Technological Governance: Regulate AI, secure cybersecurity, and invest in resilient infrastructure. Realistically, innovation outpaces regulation, and public investment is insufficient.

For some risks, we lack solutions:

AI Runaway: While unlikely, control mechanisms are not proven.
Kessler Syndrome: No effective method exists to clean up space debris.
Antibiotic Resistance: New drug development is slow, and overuse continues.

Historical Context and Human Behavior

Human history shows that civilizations collapse when they exceed environmental limits and fail to adapt (e.g., Roman Empire, Easter Island). While we have technological advantages, our globalized system is more complex and vulnerable. Past successes in cooperation (e.g., post-WWII reconstruction) occurred under specific conditions: clear threats, strong leadership, and relative homogeneity. Today, the diffuse nature of risks and deep divisions make similar cooperation unlikely.

Conclusion: The Most Probable Outcome

Based on current trajectories, industrial civilization is likely to enter a protracted collapse within the next few decades, characterized by rolling crises in food, energy, and governance. Late 2025 is too late for decisive prevention because:

The window for effective climate action is closing rapidly.
Political will remains insufficient.
Resource depletion and environmental degradation are accelerating.
Feedback loops are already triggering irreversible changes.

While human ingenuity and resilience could mitigate the severity of collapse---for example, through local adaptation or technological breakthroughs---the overall process of simplification and decline appears inevitable. The chance to prevent collapse entirely exists only in theory, requiring a fundamental shift in human behavior and global cooperation that is not supported by evidence. Therefore, the focus should shift to managing the decline and preserving key functionalities to reduce suffering.