Yes, it is a big question, and I think there's one aspect here that hasn't been considered and which I was alluding to earlier, which is that there are two different dominant paradigms that we're looking at here.
If we are talking about limits to growth and any possibility of collapse, then we need to be viewing things from a systemic paradigm. Right now, some people would suggest that the dominant one is more of a mechanistic paradigm that is not looking so much at the interconnections, the relationships, and the systems thinking, although that's starting.
Just to get back to what would happen, I want to say that some of the things I'm talking about are an end-of-growth model. There is a lot of literature on the end of growth. That's why we're talking about the limitations of a dominant neo-liberal model that's based on free trade in order to create more growth.
There are suggestions coming from the financial sector and from the general economic sector that this is not going to be able to go on. I alluded to some of the economists who are talking about the fact that there will be no more growth. Even Larry Summers, who advises the Liberal Party, is saying that we're into “secular stagnation” for 10 years. Another famous economist, Gordon, is saying it could be 25 years.
Paul Mason, an economic journalist in the U.K., is analyzing the Kondratev curves, the 50-year curves illustrating how we go down into depression and we come out. He's saying that we aren't going to come out of this, partly because of technology and robots, but partly because of the limits to growth too. There is a lot of literature on that as well.