Talk:Societal collapse

The first part of the "Demographic dynamics" section reads like a political manifesto
The first part of the demographics section is reaching pretty far without providing any sources that share the sentiments described there. The sources provided merely mention numbers, policies, and rhetoric meant to justify policies by the political leaders of that time, but do not mention any modern scholarly consensus or works that blame divorces, birth rates, and the like as factors for societal collapse.

And even if they did, it would be more prudent to mention actual examples of birth rates and divorces causing societal collapse instead of writing about laws introduced at the time of Augustus when Rome had already been dominating the Mediterranean for centuries, and would still dominate for centuries more.

It seems that the section is trying to link the fall of the republic to divorce and birth rates, which is an incredible stretch, and unless more credible sources are provided within the next few days, it should be removed.

84.215.26.170 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * It's been almost two weeks. I've removed the poorly written section. 84.215.26.170 (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


 * It should not be removed. Birth rates tend to decline during a collapse. Not saying that's what causes collapse, but it's more of an indicator that something is wrong, like things become more expensive and there's no need to have kids during economic difficulties.


 * There is a strong correlation between low birth rates and recessions. Recessions cause low birth rates. Low birth rates do not cause recessions as some right wingers are claiming.2601:C2:0:BAC4:2C51:1EAF:8288:5BEB (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And if the section that was removed said those things, it shouldn't have been removed. However, the sources aren't reflecting a modern scholarly consensus, and are instead merely re-telling the viewpoints of Polybius and Augustus.
 * If the section is to be re-added, it'll have to be both shortened, and specify that those aren't the opinions of scholars but rather Augustus' viewpoints. Arsacis (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Some problems with this article
I have a lot of problems with this article. In the lead it says ‘Societal collapse is generally abrupt.’. This is just not true. The Roman empire was already declining for about a century before its ‘fall’. The fall of Constantinople happened when the Byzantine empire was already reduced to only Constantinople. The Ottoman and Holy Roman empire where also long past their prime when they where dissolved. I think ‘Generally’ is not the right word here.

Also, the article talks a few times about societies being absorbed by another society. In the first sentence it says that the collapse of a society is characterised by among other things, loss of social complexity and the downfall of government. If a society is absorbed by another one, it doesn’t have to mean losing social complexity or a government, they’re just replaced. Does that mean that absorbed societies didn’t collapse, or do the things in the opening sentence not matter for the definition?

The other one is the loss of cultural identity. The article then goes on to state ‘the influence of a collapsed society, such as the Western Roman Empire, may linger on long after its death.’ So the cultural identity isn’t lost, so why is this societal collapse? The articles definition is confused, and it should be better explained when what kind of collapse is talked about.

The last one ‘rise of violence’ also at least doesn’t apply to societies listed under ‘abandonment’. If the characteristics aren’t vital to the definition, then is societal collapse just the end of any society? In that case the sentence ‘Virtually all civilizations have suffered such a fate’ is totally meaningless. I also feel this article is generally lacking substance, and I know that that is vague. I am not an expert on the topic, and I wanted to know what other people think. Wikifan153 (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)