Erik Michaels is an insightful writer, but I wouldn't put too much weight on his insights as they always leave out the fundamental aspect of humanity: our ability to adapt. He, like most writers in this space, ignores this aspect of humanity because it doesn't fit with the narrative they are trying to sell. If you acknowledge our collective ability to adapt to our changing world and adapt the world to us, the entire argument falls apart. Sure, entire ecosystems may fall apart and die, and the entire planet may change in huge and dramatic ways, but the leap from those effects to the end of civilization is asserted but never shown. There is no compelling argument about why this must be the case other than "we are all intertwined" or some other kind of kumbaya nonsense. The writers in this space are too rooted in the present to see anything different. Just because the world works one way now doesn't mean it must work that way in the future. They fundamentally fail to recognize how we as a species have both successfully and unsuccessfully adapted to our environments and our environments to us. They exclusively focus on the failures. We've had far more successes than failures, and that's why there are 8 billion of us now. The world in 100 or 1000 years will be very different, just like today is different than 100 or 1000 years ago, but none of that means that civilization will collapse.