Jared Diamond: Why societies collapse

I think Jared's comb-over has collapsed

killer comb over

European settlers in Americas offer good example.
First tended to extinction; very religious.
Those who broke with religious dogmas, The friendly rational ones, adapted to native culture, invited natives into their homes for thanks giving for instance, thus survived.
Social funds and resources, like barn making; allowed Americans to succeed. churches got small.
maintenance of moronic prides and worsening inequality damages us all.
bigotry and infighting, short term greed, wot brings us down. IMO

If these causes don't lead to collapse, why do they need to be fixed? It would be an inefficient/immoral allocation of resources; only delaying our fixing issues like hunger, disease, or returning to the moon. One could argue environment has to be balanced against the economy, or that technology will solve our problems, or if not, the problems will occur in the distant future after we die, so they can't be taken seriously.

I'm not entirely sure where to start with this. Are you seriously claiming that a problem that doesn't lead to the collapse of an entire civilization isn't worth fixing? Slavery generally hasn't been a cause of civilizational collapse in the history of the world (exceptions exist). So you argue that slavery isn't worth ending?

As far as I know, no civilization has collapsed due to child abuse. You argue that it's not worth fighting?

The "child abuse" question is such an obvious red herring--it doesn't deserve a response. The slavery issue fits well under #5--as it literally tore our young nation apart. But the context of my question is that business-as-usual is routinely defended with one-liners like the ones mentioned. Any hope of fixing even one of his civilzation show-stoppers requires us to acknowledge their gravity.

Closer to the point, I think you are going off on a tangent.
Where is the implied hyberbolic claim? Not 7:18 when he states that all collapses are different--but there are common threads.
As for invasion from the outside--see #4 Relations with Enemies.

His claim is contradicted by basic application of first order predicate logic.

Deductive logic is used in math and philosopy--not history. This analysis is inductive-- based on repeated experience. Its arguments are not binding, but may be cogent. It is appropriate to listen with practical skepticism and common sense, but its inappropriate to try to prove or disprove it with formal deductive logic or scientific method.

On further thought--he is using inductive reasoning based on a comparison outcomes of natural experiments. This method is commonly used by the historical sciences (sciences with a historical component) like astronomy, geology, paleontogy, and evolutionary biology. Rather than repeat experiments in a lab--they compare the outcomes of experiments offered up by nature. Does this help any?