The collapse-concerned majority: could it be a cause for hope?
The fourth of a series of Substack articles that delves into the 6 silent majorities and how they can unlock the deep changes our systems desperately need
Business as usual is no longer safe
Public debate often frames systemic change – imagining alternatives for society – as a reckless gamble, assuming the status quo is otherwise stable. But polling tells a different story. Majorities in many countries already believe that civilisation as we know it is at risk within their lifetimes. War, inequality, and widespread distrust of new technologies all feed that sense of unease.
Based on the latest research on Mobilising Silent Majorities.
A majority of people silently believe more of the same equals hurling ourselves off a cliff
This means seriously imagining a Plan B becomes the safest, most desirable option. Yet these beliefs are rarely voiced. Like death, collapse gets mentioned but not in a way that sinks in — swiftly acknowledged, then politely brushed off.
The collapse-concerned majority becoming aware of itself is a huge source of untapped potential: the fact that this majority already senses something is deeply wrong is a source of hope, not paralysis, as it means most people are internally getting ready for the scale of change we need.
‘Polycrisis’ goes mainstream
The notion that we are in a polycrisis is more and more publicly accepted by establishment actors including UN agencies, the World Economic Forum, and the Financial Times. In many cases, this reflects a loss of faith in government, especially political leadership. It points to the need for deep change far beyond carbon emissions. Discussion of collapse will likely intensify, though, as signs of collapse such as crop shortages become obvious and precipitate discussions regarding investment and local adaptation planning. Figures such as Jem Bendell and UN chief António Guterres have recently discussed such matters without being cancelled (as they probably would have been until recently), setting precedents for more people to speak up.
Searches for societal collapse and synonyms have shot up since 2020
In 2020, 56% of Britons thought society was likely to collapse within their lifetimes (source here). Since then, Google searches and ngrams for “societal collapse” and related terms have grown exponentially — alongside the price of gold, a traditional indicator of forecasted systemic instability. Taken together, these signals suggest that if that poll were repeated today, the figure would be considerably higher.
Deep social change requires us to build our moral imaginations
Once we agree that Plan B is the most responsible choice, the question becomes: which one? Right now, there are very few spaces in society for rigorous, imaginative conversations about what different futures could actually look like. Even higher education is largely failing this challenge — still preparing young people for a world that is visibly breaking down.
This is why we are building a collaboration with Moral Imaginations. We need processes that combine technical rigour with genuine vision — the kind of thinking that has driven transformative change before, for better and for worse: the labour movement, independence movements, women’s suffrage, and yes, darker chapters like fascism too. No, this is not the end of history. We are reaching a tipping point. And a collapse-aware majority that begins to see itself could, paradoxically, become the foundation for a safer and more meaningful future.
The answer isn’t to suppress or manage our fears about the future. It’s about making space for them — especially in contexts where people feel emotionally supported enough to be honest. When we have those conversations openly, something important tends to emerge: deep systemic change isn’t the scary option. It’s the responsible one.
Like other times in history, there is a silent majority that doesn’t yet see itself and its own power. When it does, we can start building a better future.
 | A guest post by
|
This sort essay just helped me hone my own work in creating a self-sufficient bioregion. I have been enlisting people (farmers and civic leaders) with this question: "Do we grow enough food in our bioregion to feed everyone who lives here?" The question is met with visible reactions of fear and "Why do you ask such a thing?" and this is quite the opposite of my intent.
The much simpler and much more positive question is in this article: "What would it take to grow sufficient amounts and types of healthy food for all of the residents of our bioregion?" This is a call to action, an invitation to work in a positive direction and contains the assumption of a condition of possible food insecurity while offering a proposal for a desirable outcome. Problem of language and framing and emotion and equity solved. Thank you CMP and Ms. Tickell.