One should separate desirability from sustainability. North Korea is undesirable but clearly sustainable. Feeding, clothing, housing and treating the whole human population is desirable but might not be sustainable (a discussion about the ability of Earth to maintain 7 billion humans would ensue, but that is not my point here).

My point is very simple: sometimes people confuse what they like with what is possible.

Do I like the current direction of things? Certainly not, but it has been a sustainable model for my whole life. Do I think it is sustainable in the future? No, but if it collapses only in 40 years, they it would cover virtually my whole life.

This all being said, I think it will collapse sooner, and we might see a strong down-step before 2020.

So, what to do to avoid it? My thesis: nothing can be done. Collapse is a natural.

Lets see potential alternatives:

1. A top-down alternative: trust the government, trust the EU, trust the elites. Well, clearly it is where the cancer is most installed. Getting there (ie, changing the top brass) is impossible: there is almost absolute control of the propaganda machine.

2. A bottom-up alternative: A bottom-up alternative is completely dead for a century or so. Political alternatives (Marxism, old-fashioned social-democracy) are top-down by approach - their proposal is to have control of the state (top-down thus): Which they will not get. Other things like suggesting that people should form a local cooperative to pay to a common pot for communal support (e.g., housing costs) is something in terminal decline. In fact, the current system is precisely defined by the destruction of local community bonds (atomization, self-centeredness and greed).

A grim picture...

This leaves space for individual/family solutions. If collapse happens, be prepared. If you have some degree of preparation then you will have a possibility of influencing your neighbours (who will take note of your relative success). That will be a sound base for community building.

Seems too pessimistic? Just think roaring 20s and then the 30s and early 40s.

Of course you might believe that the human species learns with its past mistakes and a repetition (with the added issues of resource constraints, by the way) is impossible because "we have learned". If you believe in such non-sense then there is not much I can say. Only to suggest that humans are not omnipotent and omniscient gods, in fact they are closer to Baboons than to gods. As a species we do not learn from our past mistakes (or we will forget what we have learned in a couple of generations)