Article 1 of 2 – Dr. Lyons-Weiler. Subscribe to Popular Rationalism for Part 2.

(The material for this article came from Lecture 2 in our course Power and Social Change. Sign up for more lectures – live, Thursdays at 11am ET).

Collapse, Misunderstood

When people hear the word “collapse,” they often imagine a dramatic, cataclysmic end: cities in ruin, governments overthrown overnight, society descending into chaos. This Hollywood version of civilizational breakdown makes for compelling fiction—and dangerously poor analysis.

In reality, collapse is rarely sudden. It is a process. It unfolds not like a thunderclap but like rot. Infrastructure cracks before it fails. Trust erodes before laws are broken. Civilizations degrade gradually through a series of missed signals, ignored feedback loops, and slow-drip dysfunctions that accumulate until critical systems can no longer hold.

We are trained to look for explosions, but most collapses come as slow implosions. And, crucially, most of them are measurable long before they are irreversible.

That brings us to the present. As of April 7, 2025, using a systems-based model grounded in historical precedent, complexity science, and real-time structural analysis, the United States registers a 63.0% weighted systemic risk of civilizational decline. Not collapse itself, but the conditions that make it plausible and potentially self-accelerating.

This number is not a prediction. It does not mean the U.S. will collapse. It means that based on measurable indicators—elite overproduction, loss of civic engagement, epistemic instability, economic precarity, and interlocking institutional strain—the U.S. shows signs of stress in nearly two-thirds of its critical systems, weighted by how interconnected those systems are.

It is not a death sentence. It is a diagnosis.

And like all good diagnoses, it is an opportunity. A call not to panic, but to pay attention. Not to give up, but to become conscious of where we are, how we got here, and what we can still do about it.

Mapping the Risk: What the 63% Actually Means

Civilizations do not collapse from a single failure. They collapse when multiple systems degrade in parallel, when stressors accumulate faster than adaptive responses, and when feedback loops—those delicate circulatory paths of information, legitimacy, and coordination—begin to reverse or shut down entirely.

To understand the 63% figure, we need to look at the model behind it. It is not a guess. It’s the product of a multi-factorial systems map composed of twenty structural variables—each drawn from historical collapse literature, contemporary resilience theory, and verified civilizational case studies (from the Fall of Rome to the Soviet disintegration to the Late Bronze Age collapse). These variables do not just coexist—they interact – via various descriptors: additive linear, multiplicative linear, or non-linear (e.g., exponential), or mixed. And it is those interactions that either maintain societal coherence or accelerates disintegration.

Fig, 2 Factor x Factor Matrix Based on Literature Indicating the Degree and Type of Interactions and Feedback Loops Among Factors that Influence the decline of Civilizations.

To get to the 62%: Each factor was somewhat subjectively assessed based on its current level as a stressor toward deterioration in the United States—on a scale of 0 to 100, where 0 indicates no observable breakdown and 100 indicates catastrophic dysfunction. But these scores individually or even as a set do not tell the full story. Not every factor is equal in systemic impact.

That’s why each was also weighted based on its network connectedness—how many other factors it influences or is influenced by in a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG). This DAG reveals which elements are structural keystones (like civic engagement, elite wealth consolidation, and epistemic capture), and which are downstream effects. A collapse in a highly connected node does not just fail—it ripples.

The math is simple in structure, but profound in implication:

Weighted Risk Score = (Current Factor Rating) × (Systemic Connectedness)

Connectedness was function of stated interactions and type of interaction in the literature (see references below0. This methodology filters out noise and isolates signal. A factor that’s doing poorly but sits on the periphery of the system—like “Sudden Military Defeat”—matters less as an input generating factor than a moderately strained, highly connected one—like “Epistemic Capture”.

Summing all weighted scores across the twenty factors in our toy model yields a total risk score out of 5000. The United States currently stands at 3150—which translates to 63.0% of its theoretical maximum systemic risk.

This does not mean collapse is imminent. It means the scaffolding of resilience is weakened, particularly in areas that historically trigger cascades: when the middle class is displaced, when the truth becomes contested terrain, when legitimacy becomes performative rather than participatory.

Fig 2. Directed Acyclic Graph of the Factors that Influence Decline of Civilizations.

Understanding this map gives us leverage. It identifies the load-bearing points. It shows us what must be reinforced—and what can still be saved.

Share

Where It’s Fragile: High-Risk Structural Zones

Not all weaknesses are created equal. Some cracks appear in distant corners of the system—visible, but not dangerous. Others spread through the load-bearing walls. Understanding the U.S.’s 63% systemic risk score requires us to look at not just which factors are under stress, but which of them are structurally central—those that, if they fail, tend to pull others down with them.

The model identifies several of these keystone vulnerabilities—factors that score high not only in current strain, but in graph centrality, meaning their collapse would cascade through the system with disproportionate force. These are the places where civilization does not just wobble. It pivots.

Elite Wealth Consolidation (Score: 95, Highly Connected)

The compounding of wealth into the hands of a shrinking elite class is not merely an economic issue—it is a structural one. It warps political representation, erodes institutional legitimacy, and transforms public goods into private capture. Historically, such concentration leads to fragile economies, resentment spirals, and governance gridlock. In the DAG, this factor connects deeply to civic engagement, labor displacement, inflation, and epistemic capture. It is a gravitational node.

Decline in Civic Engagement (Score: 90, Core Feedback Node)

This is perhaps the most dangerous kind of decay—not physical or financial, but participatory. When people withdraw from civic life, systems lose their sensors. Problems worsen quietly. Corruption becomes a default assumption. Conspiracy fills the vacuum left by deliberation. In the matrix, civic engagement influences over a dozen other factors, from social fragmentation to elite overproduction to institutional transparency. When citizens stop showing up, systems stop adjusting.

Epistemic Capture (Score: 80+, Multi-Vector Influence)

The rise of propaganda, algorithmic distortion, epistemic capture, and revelation shocks has produced a deeply fragmented reality-space. Citizens no longer agree on what is happening, let alone what to do about it. This is not just a media issue—it’s a core infrastructural failure. In the model, this breakdown corrupts the entire feedback structure: transparency, trust, legitimacy, even perceived truth. When the map no longer reflects the terrain, societies walk off cliffs. Epistemic capture means allowing someone in power to tell you what reality is rather then base your understanding on empirical science. So, we when Fauci and public health dictated reality counter to evidence as if their dictated reality could supplant reality, they committed Epistemic Capture, not science. Never call what Fauci did science. As a scientist, I’m offended by such mislabeling.

National Identity Erosion (Score: 85, Fragile Coherence Node)

National identity is not about slogans or symbols. It’s about the felt continuity of belonging—across class, region, race, and ideology. When identity erodes, people revert to subnational or supranational affiliations: tribalism, ideology, technocracy. In this mode, negotiation becomes war by other means. Shared purpose evaporates. The DAG reveals how national identity connects to social stratification, external threat overload, and the rise of parallel power structures.

These are not isolated pathologies. They are interlocking conditions, often reinforcing each other. Wealth consolidation begets political capture. Political capture erodes civic trust. Eroded trust feeds disengagement. Disengagement enables epistemic fragmentation. Fragmentation weakens identity. Identity loss encourages factionalism. Factionalism makes reform impossible.

This is how empires collapse—not when one thing breaks, but when everything bends toward the breaking point at the same time.

In this phase of decline, the system is still reactive—but increasingly brittle. The lights are still on. The rules are still in place. But the culture that sustains those rules—the informal web of expectations, sacrifices, and shared legitimacy—is fraying. And history teaches us: when that web snaps, collapse accelerates.

What’s Holding: Structural Buffers Still Intact

If the previous section maps where collapse is taking root, this one maps where resilience still resides. A 63% collapse risk means there is still 37% integrity—and that integrity is not passive. It’s the result of systems that continue to function, communities that continue to adapt, and networks—formal and informal—that still carry capacity.

The story of collapse is never just one of decay. It is also a story of resistance. And in the United States, there remain several critical buffersthat are actively absorbing stress, distributing pressure, and in some cases, adapting faster than the threats can metastasize.

Institutional Elasticity (Selective but Functional)

Despite repeated strains, many American institutions remain resilient—particularly at sub-national levels. The judicial system, while under pressure, continues to function as a site of contestation and review, especially in the lower courts. Federalism, often overlooked, acts as a structural redundancy: when federal responses falter, states and cities often step in with alternative policies, disaster response systems, and public communication channels.

While the executive branch has become increasingly polarized and volatile, the bureaucratic core of governance—civil servants, inspectors general, state regulators—still holds substantial procedural memory. This memory acts as a kind of resilience algorithm: it does not prevent dysfunction, but it slows it down and localizes it, which buys time.

Civil Society Redundancy (Local Strength in a National Storm)

One of the most overlooked forms of resilience is horizontal trust—the ability of people to coordinate voluntarily, outside of market or state directives. In the U.S., this takes the form of mutual aid groups, decentralized disaster response networks, food sovereignty movements, volunteer-based media accountability projects, and educational innovations like community-based schools or co-ops. And IPAK-EDU.

These institutions are the civic immune cells of a complex body politic. They are small, distributed, and often underfunded—but they scale fast in emergencies. During crises like COVID-19, civil society outpaced federal readiness in many communities. That capacity has not disappeared. It has evolved, quietly, beneath the noise.

Technological Dynamism (Adaptability in Innovation)

For all its faults, the United States still maintains global leadership in innovation—particularly in areas that confer long-term adaptability: artificial intelligence, biotech, energy transition, and decentralized communication systems. While some of these technologies are being misused or misallocated, the innovation engine remains intact.

The resilience implication here is critical: systems that innovate adapt faster. Innovation can introduce new forms of coordination, new safety valves, new tools for epistemic correction, and even new narratives that re-cohere identity. It is not a guarantee, but it is a vital asset.

Cultural Pluralism (Micro-Resilience Within Macro-Tension)

While national identity is fraying, subcultural cohesion remains strong. Ethnic, regional, religious, and ideological communities still hold deep internal trust. While these communities may clash at the national level, they also offer pockets of stability—spaces where social norms are enforced, where mutual obligation persists, and where younger generations are still initiated into meaning systems.

Cultural pluralism creates risk—but also diversity in response models. Some communities will fracture. Others will innovate. And history shows that civilizations do not regenerate from the center—they regenerate from what are perceived to be the margins.

These buffers are not invincible. But they are meaningful. And in systems thinking, resilience is not about perfection. It’s about absorptive capacity, redundancy, adaptability, and coherence. On those fronts, the U.S. still retains weapons in its arsenal—if it chooses to use them wisely.

This particular factor, of course has itself been weaponized, and so everything it touches is disrupted. The risk is real. But so is the resistance.

A Word of Caution: This Could Still Tip

For all the structural buffers that remain intact, there is a simple truth in the mathematics of complex systems: resilience can erode faster than it can regenerate. And in high-complexity civilizations like the United States, where interconnected systems are constantly balancing each other, a few well-placed shocks can tip the entire equilibrium.

This is not alarmism. It’s systems logic.

Collapse Is Not Linear

The belief that decline proceeds predictably—like a slow, manageable slide—is comforting. But it is wrong. Civilizations, like ecosystems and economies, do not respond proportionally to stress. They absorb, absorb, absorb—until they suddenly do not.

As Joseph Tainter famously noted in The Collapse of Complex Societies, complexity itself becomes a liability when the cost of maintaining integration outweighs the benefits. At that point, systems begin to shed complexity rapidly, often in unpredictable ways. What looks like stability may actually be rigidity—an inability to adapt that masquerades as order.

Historian Karl Butzer (PNAS, 2012) demonstrated this in his analysis of ancient Egypt: regimes maintained appearances even as their internal cohesion crumbled. Collapse came not as a visible unraveling, but as a slow contraction punctuated by abrupt regime shifts and cascading feedback failures.

Risk Scores Change Quickly

The 63% figure is not static. It reflects the current condition—but that condition is volatile. In just the first quarter of 2025, several stressors have intensified:

• The U.S. imposed a sweeping 10% baseline tariff and a 34% tariff on Chinese goods—triggering a global market correction and retaliatory economic pressure.
• The Dow Jones fell over 3%, the Nasdaq over 5%, as consumer confidence and corporate forward projections plummeted.
• “Hands Off” protests erupted in over 50 cities, expressing distrust in both the executive branch and private technocratic influence.
• Multiple resignations at the Department of Justice mirrored historical events like the 1973 Saturday Night Massacre, deepening concerns about the politicization of law enforcement.

Each of these developments nudged scores upward, especially in factors like External Threat Overload, Inflation, Civic Engagement, and Epistemic Capture. And because these factors are tightly coupled to others in the system, even small increases in tension can trigger disproportionate changes in resilience.

Speed Amplifies Fragility

In an age of hyperconnected media, AI-accelerated narrative warfare, and just-in-time infrastructure, the speed at which shocks travel has outpaced the system’s ability to metabolize them.

This is the essence of what analysts call a “polycrisis”: not a series of crises, but crises that interact and amplify each other faster than society can adapt. It’s not just that problems accumulate—it’s that they converge and compound, changing not only what is wrong, but how everything responds to what is wrong.

A tariff becomes a cultural grievance. A protest becomes an epistemic rupture. A court ruling becomes a national identity referendum.

And once feedback loops reverse—once systems begin reinforcing decline rather than buffering it—collapse accelerates.

Modeling Is Not Prediction

Finally, it must be said again: the model is a map, not a prophecy. It captures structure, not destiny. It shows us which rooms are filling with smoke, not which ones will burn first. It offers leverage, not certainty.

The 63% score is a diagnostic tool—one grounded in history, complexity science, and real-time indicators. It is not designed to scare. It is designed to clarify.

But its warning is clear: we are closer to systemic tipping points than many realize, and history does not reward the willfully unaware.

\In systems this complex, collapse does not need a conspiracy. It just needs momentum. The question is whether we will continue to drift—or choose to steer.

So What Can Be Done? (Bridging to Citizen Agency)

If collapse is the outcome of systemic failure across institutions, markets, and cultural frameworks, then resilience must come—at least in part—from outside those systems. Not in opposition to them, but in parallel to them. From the ground up. From people who choose to act, connect, adapt, and cohere even when the central structure begins to tremble.

In other words: you.

This is not sentiment. It is strategy. Civilizations do not endure simply because governments get things right. They endure because citizens remain active nodes of feedback, generating coherence, memory, redundancy, and adaptation even when the scaffolding of formal governance falters.

It’s why we founded IPAK. And IPAK-EDU. And Science, Public Health Policy & the Law. and the IPAK-EDU IRB. And more to come.

(The material for this article came from Lecture 2 in our course Power and Social Change. Sign up for more lectures – live, Tuesdays at 11am ET).

Understand the System You’re In

A citizen cannot strengthen what they do not see. The 63% figure only has meaning because we built a model—identified key variables, mapped their relationships, assessed their strain, and weighted them by their structural centrality.

You can do the same in your own community.

Ask:

• Which institutions matter most here?
• Where is trust strongest—and weakest?
• Which systems are absorbing pressure? Which are magnifying it?

System awareness is the first step in system resilience.

Act at the Level You Can Influence

You cannot reform the federal judiciary tomorrow. But you can attend your local school board meeting. You can learn who controls your municipal water authority. You can meet your neighbors and build informal safety nets. You can mentor. You can teach. You can show up.

Resilience does not require mass mobilization. It requires distributed coherence: many people, in many places, doing slightly better than nothing.

Curate Your Cognitive Environment

In a system where epistemic breakdown is one of the most dangerous collapse accelerators, one of the most powerful forms of citizenship is epistemic stewardship. This means:

• Seeking truth and evidence, not just affirmation.
• Sharing signal, not noise.
• Refusing to make every disagreement existential.
• Creating spaces—online and offline—where unfettered dialogue is not just possible: it is fostered.

When public discourse becomes an information war, listening becomes a revolutionary act.

Cultivate Functional Redundancies

Civilizations collapse when they become brittle. Resilient systems survive by being redundant: multiple ways to grow food, access energy, share information, resolve conflict, and maintain meaning.

You can participate in this by:

• Growing something.
• Learning something analog.
• Supporting local production.
• Investing in cooperative tools and mutual aid infrastructure.

These are not acts of survivalism. They are acts of stewardship.

Build and Maintain Local Trust

The simplest, most powerful form of collapse prevention is this: know and support the people around you. High-trust communities bend. Low-trust communities shatter.

Be the person who organizes. Who notices. Who helps. Who forgives. Who mediates. Who remembers.

“Local” no longer necessarily means geographic.

This is not about saving the world. It’s about holding your part of it together—long enough, stable enough, flexible enough—for others to do the same.

If enough of us do that, the system does not collapse. It transforms.

That is what civilizations do when they survive.

Conclusion: Do Not Panic — Participate

When faced with complex threats and rising instability, it is tempting to retreat into despair—or denial. One tells you it’s too late. The other tells you it’s not happening. Neither leads anywhere.

But between those extremes is a third path: participation with eyes open.

The United States faces a measurable, structural, and historically recognizable risk of civilizational failure. The 63% collapse risk is not hyperbole or conjecture. It is a composite of the signals visible from every vantage point: economic concentration, civic apathy, epistemic drift, identity fragmentation, and institutional stress. Together, they sketch a picture not of catastrophe but of convergence.

Yet collapse is not a fixed point on the horizon. It is a direction. And directions can change.

This model—rooted in real systems, verified history, and structural mathematics—does not exist to predict the end. It exists to illuminate the present. To offer a map where intuition alone fails. To help us see not just what is failing, but what is still holding—and where energy is best directed if we want to shift the outcome.

If there’s one lesson from every civilizational decline in the historical record, it is this: collapse is not total until coherence is gone. As long as there is shared meaning, voluntary coordination, adaptive feedback, and a commitment to something beyond the self, there is still a chance—not just for preservation, but for renewal.

This moment in American life—and by extension, global life—is neither stable nor hopeless. It is transitional. Transitional moments are dangerous, but they are also full of leverage.

So do not panic. At the same time, do not wait for someone else to fix it.

Observe carefully. Act locally. Think systemically. Connect meaningfully. Prepare quietly. Speak clearly. Build redundantly. Remember generously.

History does not just repeat. It rehearses. And it listens closely to those who show up.

Methods: Constructing the U.S. Collapse Risk Model

1. Factor Identification and Thematic Structuring

The model is constructed around 20 empirically grounded systemic risk factors drawn from peer-reviewed literature on societal decline and collapse, particularly:

– Butzer (2012) Collapse, Environment, and Society (PNAS)
– Tainter (1988) The Collapse of Complex Societies
– PNAS (2011), Royal Society (2020), arXiv (2018), ScienceDirect (2022)
– Syntheses in IPAK-EDU’s POWER COURSE LECTURE 2 (2025)

Factors were grouped into five functional domains:
1. Government & Institutional Power
2. Economic and Labor Systems
3. Social and Cultural Integrity
4. Information and Knowledge Systems
5. Military and Security Dynamics

Factors were selected based on their presence in comparative civilizational literature, representation in collapse theory, specificity, and structural interactivity. Each factor was operationalized as a discrete node capable of dynamic interaction.

2. Relationship Mapping (Factor Interactions)

We manually coded directed edges between factors based on explicit causal references in scholarly literature, theoretical models (additive, multiplicative, nonlinear dynamics), and known historical feedback loops. Each edge was assigned one of seven types:

1 = Additive
2 = Multiplicative
3 = Nonlinear (Threshold effect)
4 = Feedback loop (Self-reinforcing)
5 = Exponential
6 = Propaganda/Informational
7 = MUST IMPACT (expert-identified structural keystone)

These relationships were encoded into a 20 × 20 adjacency matrix A, where A(i,j) denotes the relationship type from factor i to factor j.

3. Deriving Factor Connectedness

Each factor’s connectedness subscore Ci was calculated as the sum of its out-degree and in-degree:

Ci = Out-degree_i + In-degree_i

For example:
– ‘Decline in Civic Engagement’ had 6 outbound and 3 inbound connections → Ci = 9
– ‘Labor Displacement’ had 4 outbound and 1 inbound → Ci = 5

All Ci values were compiled in the Factor Influence Ranking table.

4. Scoring U.S. Conditions (April 2025)

Each factor was scored on a 0–100 scale based on real-time observation of U.S. conditions. 0 = no strain; 100 = full systemic breakdown. These values were derived from analysis of:

– Policy developments (e.g., tariffs, DOJ resignations)
– Market trends (e.g., 2025 Q1 performance)
– Protests and civil movements
– Institutional reporting and historical analogs

Examples:
– Elite Wealth Consolidation: Ri = 95
– Civic Engagement Decline: Ri = 90
– Sudden Military Defeat: Ri = 10

5. Risk Calculation per Factor

Each factor’s risk contribution Si was calculated using the formula:

Si = Ri × Ci

Where:
– Ri = risk score for factor i
– Ci = connectedness of factor i

This ensured that more structurally significant factors contributed proportionally more to the total.

6. Aggregate Risk Score

Total Score = ∑ Si
Maximum Score = ∑ (100 × Ci)
Collapse Risk (%) = (∑ Si / ∑ 100 × Ci) × 100

In our analysis:
– ∑ Si = 3150
– ∑ 100 × Ci = 5000
→ Collapse Risk = (3150 / 5000) × 100 = 63.0%

7. Visualization Tools

Color-coded matrix:
– Matrix A visualized using seaborn/matplotlib.
– Relationship types are color-coded.

Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG):
– Nodes sized by Ci
– Edges labeled by relationship type
– Layout generated using spring layout (networkx)

Implementation: Python (pandas, networkx, seaborn, matplotlib), LaTeX, Jupyter.

 

CITATIONS

Core Collapse Literature

1. Butzer, K. W., & Endfield, G. H. (2012). Critical perspectives on historical collapse. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(10), 3628–3631.
   https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3309742/pdf/pnas.201114772.pdf
2. Butzer, K. W. (2012). Collapse, environment, and society. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(10), 3632–3639.
   https://www.pnas.org/doi/epdf/10.1073/pnas.1114845109
3. Bardi, U., Falsini, S., & Perissi, I. (2018). Toward a general theory of societal collapse: A biophysical examination of Tainter’s model. arXiv preprint.
   https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.07056

Social, Political, and Epistemic Dynamics

4. Zhang, D. D., et al. (2013). Periodic climate cooling enhanced social conflict and population collapse in pre-industrial societies. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 280(1762), 20122845.
   https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3574335/pdf/rspb20122845.pdf
5. Lu, Z. (2024). The causes of the collapse of civilization and the threat of civilization are studied from political and environmental factors. Madison Proceedings, Advances in Education, Humanities and Social Science Research, 12(1), 410–413.
   https://madison-proceedings.com/index.php/aehssr/article/view/2979/3003

Reference Models and Public Understanding

6. Wikipedia contributors. (2024). Societal collapse. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_collapse
7. Wong, J. C. (2024, November 30). The deep historical forces that explain Trump’s win. The Guardian.
   https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/30/the-deep-historical-forces-that-explain-trumps-win