The technological foundation of each civilization determines its living conditions and prosperity (Sargentis, 2022; Sargentis et al., 2021a; Koutsoyiannis and Sargentis, 2021). Access to discussed resources should not be viewed as solely an individual concern, since abundance is significantly shaped by economies of scale and collective practices. At the same time, they are fundamentally linked to the political practices that must be followed. Wittfogel noted that hydraulic works requiring collective effort have underpinned social structures depending on elite oversight mainly due to their complexity (Wittfogel, 1981) which refers to the behaviour of a system or model characterized by a large number of interconnected components, nonlinear interactions, and emergent properties that cannot be fully understood by analysing individual parts in isolation (Lorenz, 1963).

However, there is always a turning point in economies of scale where, past a certain threshold, the rising managerial costs increases the unit cost (Coase, 1937; Koutsoyiannis, 1979). Projecting this principle onto social dynamics, we note that, there is an optimal point at which society gains the most from cooperative behaviour (Dunbar, 1992), yet it becomes inefficient when social structures expand to such an extent that the cost of their coordination outweighs the provided benefits (Williamson, 1973; North, 1990).

The challenges of balancing cooperative benefits with coordination costs in achieving economies of scale by state regulations have been addressed through socio-political theories emphasizing the state’s role. Adam Smith recognized that cooperative market interactions, facilitated by minimal state intervention, could create economies of scale through specialization and trade, with the state ensuring basic legal frameworks (Smith et al., 1776; Phillipson, 2010). Karl Marx argued that cooperative labor under capitalism, while initially fostering economies of scale, required state-led collectivization to equitably distribute benefits and overcome exploitative capital accumulation (Marx, 1867; Marx, 1875). John Maynard Keynes emphasized state-driven cooperation, advocating for public investment and demand management to stabilize markets and sustain economies of scale during economic downturns (Keynes, 1936). Neoliberalism, led by figures like Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, critiqued state overreach, promoting cooperative market mechanisms with minimal state involvement to maximize economies of scale through competition and innovation (Hayek, 1960; Friedman, 1960).

These perspectives shaped societal systems, with capitalism and communism as the most prominent rivals (Hobsbawm, 1994). It is interesting to note that both the Soviet Union (communism) and the United States (capitalism) landed humans on the moon in late 1960s, demonstrating that each system, could equally effectively achieve the monumental milestone of that era (Siddiqi, 2010; Logsdon and John, 2010).

The same principle applies to technological applications—there is a limit beyond which the evolution of complexity ceases to be beneficial. For instance, the embedded complexity in various consumer goods, such as cars, creates vulnerabilities that render these vehicles prematurely obsolete (Cummings, 1984; Arthur, 2010). While in earlier times this was often regarded as a disadvantage, today it appears that the temporariness of an object, which creates the need for its replacement within a short period, promotes the desired outcome: the consumption of new products to replace it (Schumpeter, 2013). This could imply that the durability of things is almost undesirable (Slade, 2007).

Within the framework of globalization, this may not have been a flaw, as global trade was encouraged to enable easy replacement and consumption, affecting every aspect of modern life (Sargentis and Koutsoyiannis, 2023; Stiglitz, 2017). However, it presupposes a complex, interconnected economic system that is fragile in the face of various regulatory attempts (Lester, 2011). For example, maritime transport (Figure 1) underpins the global economy, facilitating approximately 80% of international trade by volume (left pie chart in the bottom of Figure 1) and around 70% by value (right pie chart in the bottom of Figure 1), underscoring its critical role in the global movement of goods (Figure 1) (United Nations Trade and Development, 2024).

Systemic vulnerabilities are weaknesses within a system that arise from its structure, interconnections, or dependencies, making it susceptible to cascading failures or disruptions when stressed (Beck, 1992). These vulnerabilities are often hidden and emerge under specific conditions as in electronic-based solutions. Electronics-based solutions (Taleb, 2012) present systemic vulnerabilities beyond the regulatory risks evident in the 2022 Russian sanctions (Sargentis et al., 2022a) or the recent U.S. trade conflicts (April 2025) (The Washington Post, 2025). Unlike simpler mechanical systems, these technologies are inherently susceptible to disruptions in sensitive supply chains, cyberattacks, and electromagnetic pulses—creating layers of systemic vulnerability often overlooked in technological adoption decisions (Cummings, 1984; Kopp and Brauch, 2003).

Systemic vulnerabilities in complex system appears highly unstable—especially when considering isolated technical incidents, such as two small fires at Heathrow Airport which disrupted global air travel. In addition, the rapidly interconnected world, which must manage emerging complexity with tools that have not yet reached full maturity, becomes vulnerable to malicious actions such as the Mt. Gox Hack (2014).

Resilience is the capacity of a system to absorb disturbances, adapt to changes, and maintain its core functions and structure in the face of stress or shocks (Allen et al., 2014). As it is a desired goal, a question arises as to whether and how societies can thrive without the emerging complexity that has been imposed through technological solutions as well as the communication and cooperative policies that sustain global trade.

Ensuring social thriving is critical, an optimization is required—one that is simple, resilient, self-sufficient, and capable of supporting at least the foundation of societal prosperity—through available adaptations (Sargentis et al., 2024a), (Sargentis and Kougkia, 2024).

Section 2 analyzes the methodology used to approach the vulnerabilities inherent in complex systems, focusing on their susceptibility to disruptions. Section 3 delves into examples of governmental failures and technical failures, using the evolution of technology of vehicles and digital infrastructure as case studies to illustrate fragility in advanced technologies. Section 4 emerges the role of critical aspects of modern civilization: digital infrastructures and satellites. Section 5 explores future technological paradigms, weighing the promises and perils of automation, digital currencies, and interconnected systems arguing that progress is neither linear nor guaranteed. The discussion in Section 6 synthesizes these insights, proposing strategies for resilience at governance and technological levels. Finally, Section 7 concludes with recommendations for proactive design and planning to ensure robust systems, emphasizing the urgency of action during periods of stability.

This study adopts a multidisciplinary approach to analyze the interplay between technological complexity, systemic vulnerabilities, and resilience in modern civilizations, with a focus on resource management perspectives. The methodology comprises three key components.

The Industrial Revolution and the Electronic Era established sophisticated infrastructures driven by economies of scale, rapid communication, global connectivity, and widespread access to knowledge. Evidently, global poverty rates dropped dramatically over the past century, a triumph humanity owes to these technological breakthroughs (Sargentis et al., 2022b).

Economies of scale and large-scale infrastructure have enabled the clustering of the population in major urban centers (Sargentis et al., 2020a). Megacity aqueducts (Sargentis et al., 2019), supply chains (Sargentis and Koutsoyiannis, 2023), industrial production, refineries, and critical infrastructure facilitate human coexistence (Human Progress, 2025). However, these systems demand complex management, forming a fragile equilibrium that sustains societies. A deliberate or accidental failure in any major infrastructure, especially to the communication system which solves this puzzle, could immediately trigger an existential crisis.

The vulnerability of the contemporary communication system, underpinned by the internet, is exemplified by approximately 1.4 million kilometers of submarine fiber-optic cables linking over 1,200 landing points worldwide (Finn and Yang, 2009). Figure 3 visualizes the comparison of this global infrastructure with the scale and capacity of the mid-19th-century telegraph network, which relied on copper cables to transmit rudimentary Morse code messages (Standage, 1998; Du Boff, 1983; Huurdeman, 2003; Love, 2018). The comparison, spanning roughly 150 years of technological advancement from 1872 to the present, underscores the profound transformation in global connectivity (Carter et al., 2015). While such infrastructures are indispensable for supporting globalization, facilitating the management of complex economic systems, and enabling the distribution of critical resources, their immense scale simultaneously introduces significant vulnerabilities, including susceptibility to cyberattacks and exposure to geopolitical tensions (Headrick, 1991; Brodsky, 2023).

In present, high-frequency trading and interconnected financial networks introduced vulnerabilities that triggered the 2008 global economic crisis, an unexpected outcome hidden by the inherent complexity of the system (Haldane, 2009). Concurrently, advancements in artificial intelligence and cybersecurity heighten concerns about cyber warfare (O’Neil, 2016), underscoring the need for proactive safeguards to prevent societal-threatening consequences.

Today, the discourse on climate change (IPCC, 2021-2023; UNEP, 2024), a narrative that remains under discussion and not fully understood due to its complexity and conflicting viewpoints (Koutsoyiannis, 2025; Iliopoulou and Koutsoyiannis, 2025; Koutsoyiannis and Iliopoulou, 2024; Koutsoyiannis et al., 2023; Vicente-Serrano et al., 2025), has led to policies aimed at reshaping the energy mix through the adoption of renewable energy sources. Even if the narrative of climate change and the associated technologies supporting it are subject to debate (Clintel, 2025), the associated technologies introduce new challenges in their management due to their stochastic nature.

The above vulnerabilities suggest that there is always the possibility that society could become trapped in a death spiral (Schippers et al., 2024) of complexity, from which it would be very difficult to break free.

A depiction of civilization’s collapse following a limited Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) attack is provided by Paul Craig Roberts (Roberts, 2025), who outlines how three high-altitude nuclear detonations over the United States could devastate power grids and critical national infrastructure. According to the analysis, pulses would instantly damage electronic devices, crippling hospitals, water supply systems, telecommunications, and transportation networks. This reliance on interconnected electrical systems amplifies vulnerability, as even a minor disruption could trigger cascading failures across urban centers.

Uncertainties further arise with the potential implementation of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), which, while offering digital efficiency, could become inoperable in such scenarios due to their dependence on electronic infrastructure, thus exacerbating economic paralysis (Dionysopoulos et al., 2024).

Conversely, decentralized systems like blockchain could provide resilience, ensuring transparency and security in critical operations, i.e., supply chains or emergency response coordination (Tapscott and Tapscott, 2016). Blockchain’s distributed nature might safeguard data integrity even if parts of the network fail, offering a counterbalance to centralized vulnerabilities (Nakamoto, 2008). While these technologies hold potential, their effectiveness hinges on preemptive deployment and robust infrastructure, highlighting the dual-edged nature of innovation in facing existential threats like an EMP-induced collapse.

Assessing each economy’s self-sufficiency in critical resources is essential to secure basic needs, as outlined in Maslow’s hierarchy which traditionally outlines the hierarchy of human needs (Maslow, 1943) (Figures 8, 9a).

In the current context, Maslow’s hierarchy (Maslow, 1943), appears to require a reassessment to reflect modern societies’ critical dependence on digital technology (Madhusudan Rao and David, 2022) and below the base of the pyramid, which covers survival needs such as water, energy and food, we could add a new, foundational level: digital connectivity. This level encompasses internet and satellite infrastructures (with their functional energy) which have become prerequisites for accessing information, communication, and the management of complexity as supply chains, energy grid, water infrastructures, economy and other essential services (Figure 9b).

Söderbaum assumes that modern societies, overly reliant on electronics, could collapse to pre-industrial levels in a crisis like an electromagnetic pulse, lacking fallback technologies or infrastructure (Söderbaum, 2016). Sargentis and Kougia [38] note that, in present, everything depends on digital infrastructures, the technologies of the 1970s no longer exist (Sargentis et al., 2025b), and even working animals are absent in developed societies (Sargentis et al., 2024b). Therefore, modern societies cannot sustain even their basic functions, as digital infrastructure is integrated into every aspect of daily life. In a crisis scenario, the collapse of this digital layer could paralyze societies, making even the fulfillment of basic needs extremely challenging, thus amplifying the regression to primitive, hunter-gatherer era.

The pursuit of automation, the registration of electronic identities and biometric data, and the control of money through digital currencies have sparked significant debate, as they promise efficiency but also raise concerns about privacy and stability (Koutsoyiannis et al., 2024). These initiatives rely on a hyper-connected world with immense computational power and robust digital security to prevent data theft or leaks, yet such security is far from guaranteed (Schneier, 2015).

When governance depends on digital records, stability is not assured, as vulnerabilities in interconnected systems can lead to catastrophic failures, such as data breaches or system collapses [110] (e.g., the reliance on digital currencies like CBDCs could expose economies to cyber risks, where a single breach might disrupt entire financial systems, highlighting the fragility of these technological advancements).

It is historically documented that progress is not linear, and the complexity of modern systems may precipitate regression, as seen in the Minoan civilization around 1500 BCE, which boasted advanced sanitation systems, a technology that was lost for nearly 2,500 years after Minoan’s collapse (Angelakis, 2017; Angelakis et al., 2003).

This historical precedent suggests that the future envisioned for 2050, filled with technological marvels, is not guaranteed; a connected world could just as easily unravel due to over-reliance on fragile digital infrastructure (Homer-Dixon, 2006). The risk of regression looms large if cybersecurity and systemic resilience are not prioritized, potentially leading to a scenario where the remarkable comforts of the modern era could be lost to the annals of history.

It is observed in nature, infrastructure, and societies that clustering (which needs the creation and management of complexity) fosters growth through economies of scale optimizing the use of resources (Sargentis et al., 2020a; Sargentis et al., 2024c) but reduces resilience. Conversely, declustering enhances resilience as a defensive strategy (Sargentis et al., 2022c) but slows growth. Societies that adapt their socio-technological model to circumstances, embracing flexible structures, ensure stability, resilience, optimism, and dominance.

The vulnerabilities embedded in intricate systems, whether governmental corruption, economic interdependence, or fragile technological designs, threaten societal stability, as evidenced by historical collapses and contemporary crises.

Megacities rely on intricate infrastructure—aqueducts, supply chains, and industrial systems—forming a fragile equilibrium where failures, like water-energy and food supply disruptions can trigger existential crises. Decentralized systems, such as localized water-energy and food management (Sargentis et al., 2024a; Sargentis et al., 2020b; Sargentis et al., 2021b) or regional manufacturing, can enhance resilience by reducing dependency on interconnected world.

The resilience of governmental and technological systems hinges on deliberate design, optimally implemented during periods of stability and prosperity. What is achievable today—whether an innovative concept or a practical tool—may become unattainable following a systemic collapse, underscoring the urgency for proactive planning (Markantonis et al., 2023). It is essential for societies to engage in critical self-reflection to construct robust governance frameworks and technological infrastructures, a necessity that spans both domains (Sargentis et al., 2022d).

By adopting resilience frameworks and adaptive governance, humanity can steer technological growth towards sustainable thriving rather than disintegration. The path forward lies in striking a balance—tempering complexity with oversight, pairing innovation with regulation, and aligning progress with accountability. Only through such equilibrium can societies navigate the challenges of an increasingly interconnected and technology-dependent world, ensuring that advancements bolster resilience rather than precipitate collapse.