ABSTRACT
Haydn Belfield provides a comparative analysis of the methodologies employed in the two fields of existential risk and collapse studies. While both fields study low-probability catastrophic events, existential risk scholars typically examine only cases involving human extinction or changes to humanity’s long-term trajectories. Collapse scholars, on the other hand, focus on societal failures after which there is potential for human reorganization and recovery. Belfield argues, however, that even if society recovers after a collapse, the consequences could still be permanent and severe. In this way, he shows that both collapse and existential risk studies should find common ground around the potential impact on humanity’s long-term trajectory. Through his survey of perspectives, theories, and methodologies in both fields, Belfield presents a prescription for greater collaboration, synergy, and understanding between these two increasingly relevant disciplines.
