I deliberately made my analysis overly conservative because I didn't want to come off as a paranoid nut. I could have easily come to much higher figures.
Here is an example. Let's suppose that we're observing the USA at a random point in its history. Then there is a 10% chance that we're looking at it within the last 10% of its history. The USA turns 240 this year, so that means that there is a 10% chance of it collapsing in the next 24 years.
That figure is much, much higher than the 1% odds I used of collapse in the next 30 years. It is also likely to be more realistic. "Stable governments" survive in periods measured in centuries, not millennia. However that number is so high that it would have left me more easily dismissed as a paranoid nut, so I avoided it.
History demonstrates that humans tend to over-estimate the stability of whatever exists now. And are surprised when the present turns out not to be permanent. You should try to compensate for such perceptual biases when you find them in yourself. And should try not to trip such biases in others.
Here is an example. Let's suppose that we're observing the USA at a random point in its history. Then there is a 10% chance that we're looking at it within the last 10% of its history. The USA turns 240 this year, so that means that there is a 10% chance of it collapsing in the next 24 years.
That figure is much, much higher than the 1% odds I used of collapse in the next 30 years. It is also likely to be more realistic. "Stable governments" survive in periods measured in centuries, not millennia. However that number is so high that it would have left me more easily dismissed as a paranoid nut, so I avoided it.
History demonstrates that humans tend to over-estimate the stability of whatever exists now. And are surprised when the present turns out not to be permanent. You should try to compensate for such perceptual biases when you find them in yourself. And should try not to trip such biases in others.