Humanity's Endgame
Postedabout 2 months agoActiveabout 2 months ago
noemamag.comOtherstory
calmmixed
Debate
80/100
Collapse of CivilizationsSocial HierarchyHuman Evolution
Key topics
Collapse of Civilizations
Social Hierarchy
Human Evolution
The article 'Humanity's Endgame' discusses the concept of societal collapse and the rise of hierarchical structures, sparking a discussion on the role of culture, technology, and human nature in shaping our societies.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Active discussionFirst comment
N/A
Peak period
16
0-6h
Avg / period
8
Comment distribution48 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 48 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Nov 8, 2025 at 6:58 PM EST
about 2 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Nov 8, 2025 at 6:58 PM EST
0s after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
16 comments in 0-6h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Nov 12, 2025 at 4:40 PM EST
about 2 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45861411Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 5:02:38 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
The same goes for the life of any hunter gatherer. Lack of modern medicine alone is huge. Living as a hunter gatherer might be okay if you were healthy. Get injured or sick and there’s nothing to be done. Infant and maternal mortality were also high.
The wealth of the present age is utterly unprecedented. If it collapses the fall will not be like other falls. I am skeptical about the value of any comparison with any historical example. This is too different in too many ways.
Bit of a silly comparison, though. Material comforts do not make one happy, poke around the internet inquiring about mental health if you are unconvinced. The more relevant comparison to past times wouldn't be a middle class worker vs a king, it's vs being a peasant. Give me the king job any day and twice on Sundays, I'll feel way more alive. I'll get used to the garderobes.
So then the question is... how have we let ourselves, in some of the richest nations in history, re-invent mental misery despite physical comfort? Work in an office job for 40-60 hours a week and then ferry your kids around to scheduled extracurriculars in the evenings and weekends to make their college applications look good so they can replace you in the middle-class-robot-drone-job. Is that the best we can do? Hustle 24/7, but in more comfort than scrabbling in the dirt for a historical king?
> Work in an office job for 40-60 hours a week and then ferry your kids around to scheduled extracurriculars in the evenings and weekends to make their college applications look good so they can replace you in the middle-class-robot-drone-job. Is that the best we can do? Hustle 24/7, but in more comfort than scrabbling in the dirt for a historical king?
Work 60 hours a week, sleep 56, suffer 4 hours per day with your kid (28hrs)... That leaves 24 hours (per week!) of freedom, information and wealth the richest king pre 1800 could only have dreamed of.
That's 1248 hours per year, 52 24 hour days, a month and a half of every year where you can travel anywhere on the globe, eat anything, do practically anything. Let's only count age 30-50 as good years, only 20 years of 52 days of pure freedom... That is a total of 2.8 YEARS of free time. No one, not even a king, ever in history up until modernity has had 3 years of not working with so few strings attached. Not even close!
Absolute imaginationless whining. Just because nobody showed you how to live your life doesn't mean there aren't people out there thriving beyond history's wildest dreams.
Sure you have to vacuum and do laundry and go to the dentist with some of that free time (offset by week long vacations not included above), but goodness you have to have no self awareness to complain about laundry. 50% of babies (virtually the same for kings and peasants) died in infancy in premodern times [https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality-in-the-past]. Your free time is greater than the length of the majority of humans lives pre-1800.
This may not be the best we can do, but it is beyond anything anyone could have fantasized accomplishing, and the only way to describe it is wonderful. Life was brutal and now it decidedly is not. You can do practically whatever you want, why decide to complain (about a lifestyle you chose!)?
Make good use of your life! MILLIONS of children died so that you could have the chunk of time you got!
Almost like an addiction to the desire for comforts. We are like alcoholics given a nearly unlimited supply of cheap rum who think what ails them is the inability to obtain as much top shelf vodka as they desire.
You throw around terms like "imaginationless" while ranting that "material comfort" is all anyone should be expected to find interesting in life? When you confuse non-consecutive "free time" with consecutive years of leisure and power? Please.
My claim is that we have the means, now, that we can build a better society, with happier people, if we try. We have staggering abilities that people of the past did not. Let's fucking use them better. You're telling me to give up and be a good happy little peon. Raise your sights.
The number of downvotes I got for the top message shows how pervasive the romanticization of the past is in the developed world. Romanticizing scarcity and poverty is only possible among people who have never experienced it before.
For this process to reverse, one of two things must occur: 1. Scab immigration is completely stopped. 2. Every society on earth normalizes to the same level of material comfort.
We didn't re-invent mental misery, globalization created the conditions to allow your bosses to impose it on you. The good news is it is likely temporary.
The survey of polity mortality this book is supposedly about seems fundamentally biased by the idea that power-seeking and inequality are inherently negative, when that's only a framework that is applicable to the 1859-1973 period of labor shortages relative to land under cultivation making economic growth dependent on restraining the expression of hard power.
In societies without a state there is almost universally a high rate of male mortality from infrequent violent squabbles (about once a year) over territory used for social production - game rangelands, prey pastureland, cropland, marriageable women, adoptable children, choice of protégés. When labor is in the normal case of oversupply second sons don't always make peace with having little to inherit and despots act as a way to restrain the activity of their class.
.
It seems a lot of damage done unintentionally in academic works conflating valuable discovery with unevidenced bias comes from being insufficiently reductionist.
People with dark triad traits don't materialise out of the ether, they are selected for by their effect on group reproductive fitness. Their motives and those motives' motives are accountable and transparent to sufficiently thorough psychoanalysis and the root causes for why they keep becoming privileged economically can be found by digging into the weeds of information theory.
Also, I read that portion of your comment to suggest that the concepts of inequality and power-seeking are only societally negatives when considering a specific (very recent) period of human history. Is that the claim you’re making? If so, why would classifying inequality as a negative aspect of culture/civilzation/nation/etc not be applicable outside your specifically referenced ~100 year period?
Life isn't fair. Trying to make it fair (counter-intuitively) often only results in more suffering. An anti-suffering ethos is going to be a lot more successful for you (or anyone really) than an anti-inequality one.
Collapse is one of those tropes that is poorly treated, popular among people who aren’t interested in the details of history and only some grand lesson or some justification for some feeling in their gut about impending doom.
Like much of the oligarchic class, the boy-gods of Silicon Valley still cleave to Hobbesian myths to justify their grip on wealth and power. Their techno-Utopian convictions, encapsulated in Bill Gates’ mantra that “innovation is the real driver of progress,” are merely a secular iteration of the divine mandates that Goliaths once used to legitimize their rule. Promises of rewards in the afterlife have been supplanted by dreams of a technological singularity and interplanetary civilization."
- Google doesn't serve Huel - Google has maybe two total pong pong tables in the London office and staff here are some of the most diligent coworkers I know. - Google actively is working to, and has reduced, conflict cobalt from the supply chain. - No one I know in Silicon Valley "cleaves to Hobbesian myths" to "justify" their grip on anything. Everyone I know shows up to work to provide for their family, grow professionally, or self-actualize. - People who "dream of Singularity and interplanetary civilization" isn't a thing, no one dreams of this fantasy.
If the so called professional being cited here cannot avoid use hyperbolic drivel and unfounded fantasy to substantiate the claim, it's difficult to give credence to the case.
Two parties agreeing on a price for something is not exploitation. Both parties benefit from working together.
I use any number of professionals’ knowledge or skills or supplies just the same as I use natural gas to heat the home or water to hydrate myself or clean whatever.
Maybe something about the seller (or buyer) being under duress would be a start to defining exploitation.
Similar to the rare earths situation, which I've mentioned before.
This is why we have raw material shortages. The materials exist, but prices are too volatile for the capital required.
[1] https://jervoisglobal.com/projects/idaho-cobalt-operations/
[1] https://www.dailymetalprice.com/metalpricecharts.php?c=co&u=...
The current bottleneck in rare earths is separation. There are four steps - mining, beneficiation (mechanically sorting the good stuff from lots of unwanted rock, done at the mine), separation (sorting out the different rare earths chemically, can be done anywhere), and conversion to metals (smelting). The US doesn't have anywhere near enough separation capacity and Mountain Pass has been shipping ore after beneficiation to China for further processing. That's being fixed, but not fast enough.
Market price and availability swing wildly over about a 4:1 range, resulting in repeated gluts, shutdowns, and bankruptcies. Last big rare earth glut was in 2015, and most non-China production shut down.
I'd like to point that that mantra on its own can go in two wildly-different directions, depending on whether you believe "innovation" comes from:
1. An incremental process of millions of contributors doing small unsung pieces of work until eventually some threshold of opportunity, motive, preliminary ideas, and luck is reached which makes for a visible shift and simple story.
2. A magical threshold only broken through by Great Men, who were not lucky at all and deserve Great Wealth for their Greatness.
As you might guess, I subscribe to (1). Humans are wired to dislike randomness and broad causes, so we dramatically underestimate (and undervalue) all the people making innovations of higher-precision parts, or a chemical reaction that can use a cheaper reagent that's also waste from another process, or basic research like "these proteins are highly conserved in the virus."
Peter Thiel's "Antichrist" talks come pretty close...
Dreams of the singularity and interplanetary civilizations are actually achievable at some point in the future. Random god king paychobabble isn’t.
I’m not for this Luddite bullshit and you’re severely harming any legitimate opposition to the billionaire class by undermining yourself.
Agh no. Please don't use average utility (or its proxies like height or income) to evaluate societies. It matters how many people there are too! If disease wipes out half the population, and the remainder now has more to eat and grows taller, that is not a good thing.
Of all of them, I'm most attracted by the concept that, through most of our evolution, our culture contained an immune system that limited the harm ambitious psychopaths could inflict. But our present culture is adapted to maximize the impact of those same psychopaths.
> In this way, humankind gravitated “from hunting and gathering to being hunted and gathered,” Kemp writes. Early states had little to distinguish them from “criminal gangs running protection rackets.”
... are fair assessments of how we got here, imo. If you have criminals in control, able to institute a self-serving brainwashing culture (education) in the populace for a few hundred years, we are where you would expect - with people demanding forcible extraction from their masters out of fear (government, taxes).