You might like Erik Assadourian's piece.

Lessons from Lebanon: A Meditation on Collapse

Collapse may visit you, too, one day. Have you imagined living through this?

I thought this point was genius.

"Funnily, the differences in lifestyles between living in collapse and intentionally preventing collapse aren’t all that great — in both cases, gone are the cars, the larger homes, the rich diet, the extreme levels of comfort.

But there is one key difference that is deeply undervalued: security and a feeling of control.

In the No Impact scenario, there are no gangs roaming, no threat to life and limb (other than climate disasters, which we can only make less probable in the No Impact scenario but cannot stop them in either case). No shortages of basic foodstuffs, though electricity and heat, being so expensive (or even rationed), may be in short supply, forcing people to get used to colder homes in the winter and hotter ones in the summer.

But there’d be a positive side too, public transportation might grow in scope so being car-free wouldn’t mean you’d be trapped in your neighborhood. Public services — from water and sewage treatment to libraries and the humble street light (often taken for granted but even that does not work in Beirut) — would still be available. Medicines would be accessible as would bread and at least seasonal produce.

Obviously, I prefer the second scenario, but in reality, like everyone else, I prefer neither. It’s nice to have a bit more room, a warm home, and a car, and to not spend my days hunting for necessities.

But there’s the rub: by not choosing the latter, we all but guarantee the former."

That's the selling point for decarbonization and social re-balancing. Security and control of your life. As opposed to the terror and misery of uncontrolled collapse.