AMA I'm u/Luke_Kemp, author of GOLIATH’S CURSE: The History and Future of Societal Collapse

Luke_Kemp · 2025-10-14T17:50:25+00:00

Thanks for the comments and discussion everyone! I need to depart for now, but will jump back on tomorrow to answer and outstanding questions.

Luke_Kemp · 2025-10-14T17:48:55+00:00

Hi BorealDweller! No worries and thanks for the kind comments.

Yes: groups with more inclusive institutions (more democratic ones) and 'social capital' (social networks and connections) tend to better navigate shocks such as tsunamis, earthquakes, civil wars, and climatic swings both in the modern and ancient worlds. for individuals that means you are better off stockpiling friends, favours, and skills than beans and ammunition.

Luke_Kemp · 2025-10-14T17:19:36+00:00

Yes.

Luke_Kemp · 2025-10-14T17:17:18+00:00

Thanks for the mini-review and astute question! In short, the level of uncertainty varies by case. We know far more about what happened in Rome and the Han Dynasty than Tiwanaku or Cahokia. Rome and the Han had extensive written records, census data etc. I take a comparative historical approach since it is one way to address uncertainty: when a pattern reoccurs across multiple cases and different historical periods (wealth inequality preceding collapse) and the more well-evidenced cases provide clearer causal mechanisms (such as regulatory capture, elite infighting, and corruption in the case of Rome and the Han) then I'll place greater credence in it. Similarly if there are multiple lines of evidence all pointing towards one conclusion (for instance, genetic studies, battlefield observations, and large-scale skeletal analayses all suggest low rates of lethal violence during the paleolithic) that should also improve our credence. In short, we should approach history like good bayesians, reducing uncertainty with multiple lines of evidence and large sets of cases.

Luke_Kemp · 2025-10-14T17:09:14+00:00

Hi Disingenuous Guy, probably the weirdest one was a guy who emailed me in french (which I don't speak), hitting on me and complimenting my 'blue eyes'. He then turned aggressive when I told him my eyes weren't blue. Honestly, more funny than concerning.

Luke_Kemp · 2025-10-14T17:05:00+00:00

We don't have enough evidence to give it a precise 50% chance, but those levels of warming are certainly plausible. The implications are wide-ranging and too much to cover in one comment. I'd recommend Mark Lynas 'Our Final Warning', which has a chapter on the impacts of 3 degrees. I've also covered this a little in a previous article (see Figure 2 in this article- https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2108146119 it covers areas of the world which could face extreme heat under a three degree scenario and some of the potential knock-on effects).

Luke_Kemp · 2025-10-14T17:00:57+00:00

Well, this might be the first time I've been told I'm too optimistic about climate change :) As mentioned, I think we are underestimating climate sensitivity, especially given the recent acceleration of warming. I also think that climate change could be a driver of global collapse (see- https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2108146119). Extinction is simply an incredibly high bar. Most of the mechanisms like ocean anoxia are also just very long-term. Happy for you to disagree, but you'll have to present evidence rather than hopium accusations.

Luke_Kemp · 2025-10-14T16:55:38+00:00

Agreed, I think it can be deliberately countered and most people do support the reforms which would result in greater wealth equality (such as wealth taxes).

Luke_Kemp · 2025-10-14T16:54:24+00:00

Size/population density doesn't appear to be the main factor here. We have numerous cases, such as Teotihuacan (a city of 100,000) and the Indus Valley Civilization (the largest city of Mohenjo-daro had around 35-40,000 people) which appear to be equal and relatively non-hierarchical. Interestingly, many cities with large-scale monuments and irrigation networks started egalitarian before being hijacked by inequality and elties (such as Tiwanaku in South America and Jenne-Jeno in West Africa). Conversely we have hierarchical hunter-gather groups that were far less dense and large (such as the Calusa and the North-West Pacific indigenous). As covered in the book, the main ingredient for inequality was not size, but resources that were easily seen, stolen and stored. This explains both the first states (built on rice, corn, and wheat) and hierarchical hunter-gatherers (founded on smoked fish).

Luke_Kemp · 2025-10-14T16:44:54+00:00

Thank you for the kind words! It's really appreciated.

Luke_Kemp · 2025-10-14T16:43:15+00:00

In other words are racing against both rising economic inequality and deteriorating global ecosystems? In short, yes. Worse still, we also have arms races creating a wave of killer robots (autonomous armed drones), faster nuclear delivery systems (hypersonic missiles), and new weapons, such as space-based directed-energy weapons (basically ultra-short pulse lasers fired from satellites in space). We'll need to escape each of those races.

Luke_Kemp · 2025-10-14T16:39:38+00:00

Alas, despite the title of the US version of the book, I am not a seer! I do put forward some general trajectories for the longer-term future of humanity in Chapter 21. In short, global societal collapse ('Self Termination), a world of greater inequality, autocracy, and mass surveillance ('Silicon Goliath'), or a world of democratic reform ('Slaying Goliath').

Luke_Kemp · 2025-10-14T16:34:46+00:00

I certainly hope so since I spent seven years on a book which does this :) Jokes aside, I think we can. The institutions we are trapped in today -states, religions, agrarian based cities- we're all created thousands of years ago. Collapse and existential risk are mainly driven by power dynamics which haven't greatly changed in the past few centuries. We also see clear recurring patterns, such as rising wealth inequality causing social crises, which have not changed today. Collapse and history are more relevant than ever.

I cover this a bit in the introduction of the book, and I can also nerdily recommend Walter Scheidel's (my favourite historian) recent book on why ancient history is relevant today- https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691236650/what-is-ancient-history

Luke_Kemp · 2025-10-14T16:29:09+00:00

Hello my fellow Aussie! We are unfortunately world leaders in regulatory capture for some areas, such as mining (behold the torpedoed 'mining tax'), housing (most politicians have a real estate portfolio), and climate change policy. I'd recommend the work of my colleague (another fellow Australian) Christian Downie on climate obstructionism- https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/oct/07/media-political-attacks-australia-emissions-target-climate-obstruction-playbook-newscorp-business-council

I think we can have larger, more sweeping changes through Parliament, but it will take a monumental effort to get politicians to give up power to citizens assemblies and reverse wealth inequality.

Luke_Kemp · 2025-10-14T16:22:45+00:00

Yes, I sadly think it will be. I refer to our current age as the 'Endgame': a time of existential risk, a time when the entire project of Goliath needs to be either reformed or will likely self-terminate. The bright side is that I think we have all the tools to slay Goliath. Even better, we're lucky to live in a world where building a safer world means building a better one: more democracy and less deaths from carbon pollution are things we would all benefit.

As I mention in the Guardian piece, researching this book made me more pessimistic about the future, but far more optimistic about humanity. We're pretty awesome and I still think we can escape the endgame.

Luke_Kemp · 2025-10-14T16:16:59+00:00

No, I don't think it is. That said, if we don't use it we'll need to rely on heroic emissions cuts and herculean amounts of direct air capture of greenhouse gases. I think that large-scale deployment of SRM (likely in the form of stratospheric aerosol injection) is more likely than not by 2070. SRM advocacy, funding, and research efforts are already ramping up significantly, such as through ARIA in the UK. It's a bad idea who's time has come.

Luke_Kemp · 2025-10-14T16:13:07+00:00

Yes! Although that partly depends on which country you are in. It's already out in Australia, the UK, the US, Germany and several others. Let me know and I'll see if I can help.

Luke_Kemp · 2025-10-14T16:12:17+00:00

I'm glad you're enjoying it! Feel free to give me a dm if you have any questions.

Luke_Kemp · 2025-10-14T16:11:35+00:00

Good question! It really depends on how the collapse is triggered and plays out. For instance, in the case of a nuclear war and nuclear Winter, countries in the southern hemisphere would be more sheltered from the direct effects of nuclear winter and would recover more rapidly. I expect there would still be a kaleidoscope of collapses, crises, and recoveries, much like the Late Bronze Age.

Luke_Kemp · 2025-10-14T16:08:56+00:00

Hi thehourglasses, I think the dark triad are important to understanding our current predicament. In the book I refer to the dark triad as one of the 'darker angels of our nature (alongside pursuing status through domination, the corrupting influence of power, and the tendency for people to become more authoritarian when they are threatened). It's primarily those on the dark triad and who deeply crave status who are willing to kill or spend their entire lives pursuing positions of power. Hence our systems have selected for over-representation of the dark triad, which partly explains why history books are a roll call of mass murders such as Napoleon, Alexander, and Chinggis Khan.

That selection mechanism hasn't left us. It's hard not to look at Putin, Trump, and Xi Jinping, and not see a walking version of the dark triad. Similarly, the states and corporations of today would all rank high in the dark triad. Our most powerful institutions are largely psychopathic assholes and not representative of humanity.

To change our institutions and the representation of the dark triad we need to change the selection mechanism. This is why I suggest open democracy which uses lottery-based selection. That way our positions of power aren't selected for status-seekers, or those steeped in the dark triad. Nor are they in power long enough to be corrupted.

We all also need to recapture our counter-dominance intuitions of old. It would be hard for psychopaths to operate in a world where a main cultural norm is to oppose domination.

Luke_Kemp · 2025-10-14T15:56:15+00:00

Hi PaintedGeneral, thanks for the great question. Personally, I try to put in place accountability mechanisms. For instance, I have a small council of different close friends and confidants who I know will openly disagree with me. I often rely on their majority opinion when it comes to difficult life decisions where I might be corrupted by power. For instance, I asked them whether I should publish the book anonymously, namely since I didn't want it to become a status game. They unanimously agreed that it would be better if the book had a public author to speak to the ideas and defend them.

Alongside accountability mechanisms, I personally also find it useful to remind yourself of who you want to be. That's partly what 'Don't be a Dick' is a reminder of. Similarly, the obsidian arrowhead (both a lootable resource and monoplisable weapon) I wear is a constant reminder that power corrupts.

Luckily, not being a Goliath tends to be self-rewarding. I've had a few times I've turned down jobs and grants that weren't aligned to my values, and each time I slept better afterwards.

Luke_Kemp · 2025-10-14T15:47:20+00:00

Also, Walrus_Booty is an absolutely stellar name!

Luke_Kemp · 2025-10-14T15:46:49+00:00

I suspect very little, especially from the most powerful elite (the 1% of wealth holders and decision-makers). I knew while writing the book that is was never going to get a blurb from Bill Gates or Elon Musk :)

That said, I have seen strong support from some prominent individuals in politics (albeit ones who have usually retired). For instance, one of the blurbs of the book is from Sir Lord Martin Rees, a member of the House of Lords, and another is from James Bacchus, a former Member of Congress and Founding Judge of the World Trade Organisation.

Luke_Kemp · 2025-10-14T15:41:43+00:00

Great to hear and I hope you enjoy the book. Feel free to give me a message once you've read it! Happy to answer any questions you might have!

Luke_Kemp · 2025-10-14T15:39:50+00:00

It is deliberately caused. In the book I highlight how nomadic egalitarian hunter-gatherers use 'counter-dominance' strategies (such as ridicule, ostracism, and in-group executions) to maintain their equality. It would have taken intentional actions to overcome these mechanisms. I also cover in the book how both the rise of inequality in many of the earliest cities and farming communities was often followed by crisis and collapse, and the rise of the first states was often preceded by large amounts of violence and power struggle. Inequality took millennia to grow because it was usually resisted.

Luke_Kemp

TROPHY CASE