>>Of course it has meaning. Seems to me like it means pretty much what I’ve been saying: your refusal to entertain the plausibility of worst-case scenarios doesn’t seem to be entirely reasonable.<<
So, you are really, with a straight face, suggesting that the entire world will break down and we will, inside of our generation, be thrown back to an agrarian society and culture? No technology, no manufacturing (even if imported or exported), no imports nor exports. Just each of us tending our mini-farms with sentries on the roof to keep our gold and food safe?
“So, you are really, with a straight face, suggesting that the entire world will break down and we will, inside of our generation, be thrown back to an agrarian society and culture? No technology, no manufacturing (even if imported or exported), no imports nor exports. Just each of us tending our mini-farms with sentries on the roof to keep our gold and food safe?”
Are you going to be unreasonable now? I didn’t say anything about “the whole world.”
There are a number of events that could disrupt distribution of goods and power sufficiently to require that people would have to defend themselves against starving marauders. Or become a starving marauder. How long that would last is anybody’s guess.