The way you describe the transition events elides the incredible instability that people living through them experienced (wars, revolutions, famines, etc.), which I think is what Stross is getting at here, and ultimately is probably right about.

Will things end up better? Maybe, and based on history you could even make a case for "probably", but will it be better for _us_, the ones alive _right now_? Again, based on history, almost certainly not.

> Will things end up better? Maybe, and based on history you could even make a case for "probably", but will it be better for _us_, the ones alive _right now_? Again, based on history, almost certainly not.

I find myself in this odd internal conflict. I genuinely care about the planet, but I'm approaching 60 and childfree, and have definite misanthropic tendencies. While there's big part of me that's a tree-hugging greenie and who wants to attend every protest about human rights abuses and war, here's always a loud voice in my head telling me "it only all needs to last another couple of decade without completely collapsing".

I think what you are saying is that it would be great to live after the French revolution happened and settled, good enough to live before the revolution happens; and the worst is during the revolution?

all of those things were also very common outside of energy transitions until about the last century.

for all of its faults, one thing the globalized system has allowed is that it makes relieving famine possible by shipping food from other parts of the globe.

Possibly you read an early version of the comment before I edited it.