I'm more of a fan of anthropologist Joseph Tainter's theories from Collapse of Complex Societies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Tainter#Social_complexi...). Civilizations are problem solving entities that have some sort of trick they've developed for solving civilizational problems. They exploit that trick with ever increasing levels of complexity until it doesn't work anymore and starts delivering negative marginal returns. They usually fail to realize that the downward spiral has begun and that leads to the collapse as they keep trying to use the strategies that no longer work.
Sometimes a technological breakthrough, like the development of the steam engine in Britain, will reverse the decline and lead to a whole new civilizational development curve.
The theory is independent of population levels and so is not a Malthusian derivative, like most of the popular ones that have been in fashion since the 1970s. I think Tainter's approach is different and unique because he's an anthropologist and not an economist. For example, the total collapse of Rome, the historic civilization most similar to our own, was not caused by environmental factors, but by diminishing marginal returns that eventually went negative of the
"conquer and extract tribute" methodology of the Roman empire.
Sometimes a technological breakthrough, like the development of the steam engine in Britain, will reverse the decline and lead to a whole new civilizational development curve.
The theory is independent of population levels and so is not a Malthusian derivative, like most of the popular ones that have been in fashion since the 1970s. I think Tainter's approach is different and unique because he's an anthropologist and not an economist. For example, the total collapse of Rome, the historic civilization most similar to our own, was not caused by environmental factors, but by diminishing marginal returns that eventually went negative of the "conquer and extract tribute" methodology of the Roman empire.