In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
> "The fact is that there were very very few long term ramifications from those events you use as an example."
> I agree, but thought they were good examples of how quickly irrational or exacerbating behaviour can take hold (in response to the three meals analogy)
Indeed. As an aside, remember that the fuel crisis in 2012 was, ahem, mostly caused by the government making stupid statements - it wasn't a lack of authority, it was authority not being very competent.
If authority totally broke down very quickly - say the scenario outlined by Margaret Atwood in "Oryx and Crake" - then it would be totally rational to loot and kill to ensure your family could eat. My point is that this sort of scenario is extremely unlikely, and that in most scenarios that we'd be likely to face, our society and our moral sense would remain intact for a long time. We see this in areas which undergo disasters, eg Japan, the Philippines.
> " If you'd wanted to use a lack of control of authorities resulting in massive social change, you could try the 07/08 financial crash or the Euro debt crises"
> That's a good example...although I would say since the GFC the authorities are pretty hamstrung in their response as often it is political suicide to take the necessary medicine...so when you say "our societies have just about coped" I would say it's too early to tell as the can kicking has been pretty epic and I don't believe the chicken has come home to roost yet (excuse the idioms)
Idioms excused. I lack the economic understanding to agree or disagree in any meaningful way, but from what I've read I suspect you're correct.
> I haven't seen "Threads" , will look it up.
It's all on YouTube. Beware, it's really depressing.