I mentioned yesterday I would post this sometime, this thread is as good as anywhere, I guess.

A couple of years ago I invented this scale as a broad framework for assessing what might be expected. Someday I will probably  devise intermediate points, especially for levels 3 and 4 which I anticipate being the low point of the next 30 years and for which knowledge and skills preservation will be most critical. If anyone knows of similar attempts to devise such a scale I'd be very interested, I've not seen any.

Levels of Collapse

  1. Short term, basic infrastructure and money system remain operational, possible interruptions to electric, gas and water supplies. Less locally devastating than severe floods, earthquakes, storms etc but much more widespread. Many businesses cease operation, significant unemployment. Larger impact than anything in developed countries in last 50 years, worse than 'Great Depression' of 1930s.

  2. Short term, considerable economic dislocation but basic infrastructure and money system (local at least, but probably not at 'normal' value) remain largely intact. Low die off (< 5 to 10% ?) unless widespread lawlessness when it could be higher, perhaps >25% in some dense population areas. Probable need to survive a few weeks or months without normal water / gas / electricity / shopping supplies for a significant proportion of population.

  3. Short term, significant collapse of infrastructure and money but sufficient remains to re-establish pre-existing society if it does fragment and repair most critical damage within months or a few years. Electricity, water, currency value all largely absent for several months, maybe years. Low to medium die off for developed countries, perhaps 20% to 60%. Probably equivalent to go back 40 to 80 years. Most important knowledge probably preserved.

  4. Medium term, most infrastructure, government, money systems fail. Most systems and infrastructure have to be rebuilt locally once the population has learned to survive and feed itself. Medium die off for developed countries, 40% to 80% overall, very variable between urban and country areas, could range from 0% to 95% for different localities. Probably equivalent to go back 100 to 300 years. Significant to most knowledge lost.

  5. Long term. This is mostly differentiated from medium term by the amount of population, skills, knowledge, that are lost. Major die off for developed countries, 70% to 90%. Go back 500+ years. Most knowledge lost.

  6. Very long term. 95% to 99% human population lost, survival and repopulation first priority. Go back 1000+ years, nearly all knowledge lost.

  7. Re-evolve 1. Human experiment terminated. Go back 1+ million years, apes probably still best bet.

  8. Re-evolve 2. Back to small mammals / reptiles / insects, back 50+ million years.

  9. Unicellular / full restart.

The first two levels are insufficient, of themselves, of providing sufficient 're-adjustment' to solve the resource and other problems we will imminently face, thus it is very likely that further shocks / collapses would follow level 1 and 2 collapses.

It is possible that a level 2 collapse might trigger a massive change in human priorities, behavior and intent such that we could avoid anything worse and buy us the time to find solutions - that is my best guess of our best hope. A level 1 collapse is unlikely to be sufficient.

Level 3 or greater collapses will disable countries as functional entities, mostly temporarily in the case of level 3. But local survival becomes the priority for years. Level 3 is the least level of collapse that, of itself, probably makes humanity sustainable for beyond this century.

Using your scale I find the most likely peak oil scenarios between 0.05 and 1.1 but that is only an opinion using my personal intuition.
Very interesting, thank-you for sharing this with us!

Most people that I attempt to talk to about these things have a hard time imagining the several intermediate steps between zero and one on your scale let alone any scenario beyond economic hardship.

For those that are concerned about their future, I attempt to explain the concept of living in and preparing for three different possibilities.

Preparation one: Society as we know it continues but with much greater economic and social problems. Reduced personal freedoms, random shortages of necessities and comsumer items, much higher costs. Higher unemployment and on and on.

Preparation two: Homesteading-back to the land, local communities scenario. Local self-reliance for the basic necessities of life: food, water, warmth and shelter, personal and community healthcare, local safety and security, transportation limited to a few tens of miles.

Preparation three: RUN FOR THE HILLS! Personal and family survival dependant on disappearing into the wilds of nature to avoid the dangers of human contact for whatever the potential reasons. Consider the Jews of Europe and many thousands of others in WWII that ran for the hills before you discount this possibility. I personally had family members that 'ran for the hills' in WWII. Learn basic survival skills such as fire starting and care in all types of weather, wild foraging, basic shelter etc. and practice these skills well before they become necessary. Imagine going "Naked into the Wilderness" (name of a primitive skills book) and imagine the skills needed. At least organize and practice living out of a packpack once in a while.

Good luck to you all!!!

When it comes to running for the hills, leaving Europe resulted in a very high survival rate for European Jews in 1933-45. It was difficult to sneak across borders and obtain false papers, but it was much easier than staying alive in a camp.
Moving to and obtaining legal residency in Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, Australia, or New Zealand is difficult and expensive, but sure beats the alternative of trying to survive a five year nuclear winter in the northern hemisphere while America learns the difference between superiority and supremacy in nuclear weapons capability. Being able to blow up China or India one hundred times when they can only blow us up ten times is not a usefull deterrent.
You do realize that 7 and beyond are impossible without massive nuclear war?
Is that enough? How about steering several massive asteroids to collide with earth?
Or inducing the Sun to go nova.

Pardon me for not writing a comprehensive list. ;-)

...or a major eruption of the Yellowstone Caldera, or really massive climate change, no doubt we can invent a few more. Besides, I think that there is a probability of about perhaps 0.5% per year of a significant nuclear war over the next 30 years.

The latter points on the scale are for completeness, not as probable outcomes for the imminent changes we face. I devised the scale as a context to assess risks and consider appropriate and wise actions, like collecting and preserving important information, tools and skills, should a particular level of collapse seem possible. Once the level of collapse reaches 6 there is little advance planning can do to make much difference.