Exploring how to communicate about collapse risk, processes, readiness, and possibilities in a helpful way.
Workshop designed by Jem Bendell of the Metacrisis Initiative, for an online salon in October 2026. It is also a format for an online peer mentoring session or a self-organised in-person gathering.
Released as Creative Commons (use and adapt, but always mention it came from the Metacrisis Initiative).
Online or in-person for 2 hours, with a group of 15 to 40 people, using breakout groups of 4–5 persons.
This workshop explores a practical question:
How can we talk with other people about societal disruption and collapse in ways that are honest, relational and useful?
Rather than teaching participants a single “right way” to communicate, the workshop invites them to examine their own experiences: what has worked, what has gone badly, what they were trying to achieve, and what they might do differently.
A central theme is that what we say is only part of communication. Why we are saying it, what relationship we have with the listener, and what we hope will happen as a result matter just as much.
In preparation for the workshop/salon, participants are asked:
Think about a time when you have discussed ecological or societal collapse with someone. Perhaps it might be:
- a conversation that went surprisingly well;
- one that went badly;
- one where you wished you had said something differently;
- or one where you said very little and wondered afterwards whether that was the right decision.
Think about what your intention was and what the outcome was, or might have been.
1. Arrival and framing — 10 minutes
Opening
Briefly explain: “Most of us have had conversations about climate change, ecological breakdown, social fragmentation, metacrisis or collapse that went very differently from how we hoped. Sometimes people became curious. Sometimes they became defensive. Sometimes they stopped talking to us. Perhaps we realised afterwards that we were trying to shock them, reassure ourselves, or prove that we were right.”
Then explain three principles:
1. There is not one communication formula. Different people, relationships and contexts require different approaches.
2. We are here to learn from experience.
3. We can examine our own motivations without judging ourselves.
Defining what we are talking about
Speak to the following points and paste them into the chat box if online, or put them on a screen.
There are some simple distinctions, relating to certainty of collapse and its cause, which can generate very different emotions. It is helpful to keep in mind which of these we are discussing when considering experiences.
Relating to certainty:
“I think major disruption is very likely.”
“Societal collapse is going to happen.”
“Societal collapse is already underway.”
Relating to cause:
“It is because of humanity and natural processes.”
“It is because of a bad system.”
“It is because of bad people.”
Chat prompt
This is a topic with strong emotions. Knowing that, it influences how often we talk about it, with whom and when. Ask everyone to reflect for a moment and then put one word in the chat (or share it verbally in a circle) answering:
“When you think about talking to other people about collapse, what feeling comes up first?”
Don’t discuss the answers yet. Simply acknowledge the range.
2. Personal experience — 20 minutes
Breakout groups of 4–5 – 10 minutes
[the following instructions are explained and then pasted into the chat for online meetings, or shared on a screen]
Ask for a couple of volunteers, one to describe a conversation that went well (or well enough), and another to describe one that did not go so well (about collapse, ecological breakdown or a related existential concern). Each person has approximately 2–3 minutes for that.
Then the person with the longest hair volunteers as the facilitator, and asks both presenters:
- How did the people they spoke with respond at the time?
- What happened to the relationship afterwards?
- Looking back, what do you think you were trying to achieve?
Participants listen and discuss, avoiding trying to give advice or switching to talk about their own experiences. The facilitator tries to hear from everyone, keeps the group on topic, and doesn’t answer everyone with their own opinion.
The whole group — 10 minutes
Ask:
“What patterns did you notice?”
Invite the facilitators from each group to speak first. Guide conversation to help cover the following:
What helped / What didn’t help / What surprised us
Paste those three guides into the chat (or put them on a screen), as follows:
From the experiences shared in your group: What helped a conversation on collapse, what didn’t help, and what surprised you about these stories?
Don’t interpret the answers. Let the group’s experience build the foundation.
3. Motivation check — 15 minutes
Present motivations and emotions involved
Remind everyone that the content of our message does not necessarily define our intention or function of the conversation. So before deciding to be open to a conversation on collapse, or before we begin a specific one, or even such as conversation begins, we can ask ourselves:
“What do we actually want a conversation to accomplish?”
Possible aims include the following (paste the following in the chat, and then read them aloud):
- being witnessed;
- clarifying our own understandings.
- processing our own emotions;
- finding companionship;
- inviting someone into a community;
- helping someone understand;
- warning someone we care about;
- persuading someone;
- challenging perceived complacency;
- stimulating political action;
There can be shadows (‘negative’ near neighbours) to our positive motivations, as I described in my essay. Breaking Taboos: Discussing Societal Collapse with Friends and Colleagues.
Having a particular motivation doesn’t automatically make a conversation wrong. It helps to be aware of these motivations, so we aren’t being driven by them unconsciously.
Therefore, it is useful to take the time to reflect on what we are trying to do when discussing collapse.
With this prior reflection, in those moments when we begin to discuss metacrisis or collapse with someone, we can check in on our motivations, by asking ourselves:
“What is happening in me right now? What are my emotions as well as my aims?”
Paste all these questions in the chat, and then read them aloud.
- Am I frightened?
- Am I angry?
- Am I excited by having discovered a framework that explains things?
- Am I lonely and wanting someone else to see what I see?
- Am I trying to relieve my own anxiety by getting others to agree?
- Am I trying to establish myself as someone who understands?
- Am I genuinely concerned about this person?
- Am I trying to recruit them?
- Am I trying to align our interests and aims?
- Am I trying to win?
- Am I trying to make sense of something difficult?
Breakout exercise — in threes — 5 minutes
One person who did not share previously, volunteers to share, and the other two ask questions to better understand.
Ask: “Think of a conversation that didn’t go well. What might you have been motivated by that you didn’t recognise at the time?”
Then: “What might you have done differently if you had recognised that motivation beforehand?”
4. What helps and what doesn’t? — 15 minutes
Create breakout groups again, mixing people into different groups. Give them the following task for a total of 10 minutes.
Build two lists.
- Conversations that tend to open people up: What behaviours have you experienced or observed that create space for genuine conversation?
- Conversations that tend to close people down. What behaviours have you experienced or observed that close down the space for genuine conversation?
Back in the whole group, for 5 minutes, share two illustrative lists and discuss.
Aspects of conversations that tend to open people up:
- asking questions before making claims;
- listening for what matters to the other person;
- starting from shared observations;
- acknowledging uncertainty;
- distinguishing evidence from interpretation;
- avoiding unnecessary jargon;
- talking about practical implications;
- sharing one’s own experience rather than diagnosing someone else’s;
- allowing people to disagree;
- knowing when to stop;
- maintaining the relationship.
Aspects of conversations that tend to close people down:
- overwhelming someone with information;
- treating disagreement as ignorance;
- presenting speculation as established fact;
- using fear as a persuasion technique;
- constantly correcting people;
- making the conversation about one’s own knowledge;
- using collapse as an identity or status marker;
- continuing after the other person has clearly disengaged.
Ask for comments from any participant who thinks that something discussed in a breakout group is missed or not quite articulated in these lists.
5. Break – 5 minutes
For 5 minutes.
In the break, set up the breakout groups with named scenarios, listed below.
6. Collapse Conversation Clinic — 20 minutes
Role play – 5 minutes
For 5 minutes, begin with a role play, with 2 volunteers. One person will pretend to be a family member who is dismissive of collapse.
The relative says variations of: “I don’t really worry about climate change. Humans have always adapted.”
The other relative believes significant disruption is increasingly likely and wants to explore how to prepare.
After the role play, don’t discuss what just happened, but state that hopefully it has reminded us of some of the dynamics that can occur.
Discussing Conversation Scenarios in small groups — 15 minutes.
Put participants into groups of 4–5. Give each group one scenario (listed below).
Explain the following (and paste as instructions into the chat if online, or show on a screen in person).
The person with the shortest hair is invited to be the facilitator (who tries to hear from everyone, keeps the group on topic, and doesn’t answer everyone with their own opinion).
Explain that for each scenario, the group will first discuss how best to respond.
After a few minutes the facilitator uses the following questions to guide conversation:
- A response that would probably make things worse.
- A response that might open a conversation.
- A question one could ask instead of making another assertion.
- A point at which one would stop talking about it.
The facilitator writes up “A question one could ask” ready to share with the whole group.
Scenario A — The family member
A relative says:
“I don’t really worry about climate change. Humans have always adapted.”
You believe significant disruption is increasingly likely and want to explore how to prepare.
Question: How could you respond without turning dinner into a debate?
Scenario B — The colleague
A colleague asks:
“Why are you so interested in collapse? Surely that’s a bit extreme.”
You have five minutes before another meeting and want to accept this opportunity to share.
Question: What would you say?
Scenario C — The curious stranger
Someone at a public event asks:
“Do you actually think society is going to collapse?”
Question: How do you answer honestly without pretending to know the future nor downplaying the situation?
Scenario D — The person who is frightened
Someone tells you:
“I’ve been reading about collapse and now I’m terrified. I can’t stop thinking about it.”
Question: What might be helpful — and what might make things worse?
Scenario E — The sceptic
Someone says:
“Doomers like to think everything is going to fall apart. Maybe that’s what the elites want us to think.”
Question: How could you respond without becoming defensive?
Scenario F — The opportunist
Someone says:
“Collapse was always inevitable and is an opportunity for people to wake up.”
Question: How could you respond to encourage an exploration of the full implications of collapse?
Scenario G — The conspiracist
Someone says:
“Collapse is being orchestrated by a powerful cabal and we need to think positive.”
Question: How could you respond to encourage responses to the mechanisms of collapse you are aware of?
7. Whole-group harvest — 10 minutes
Ask each group to share the question they could ask in their scenario (in the chat or verbally in person) Then ask a few of the people who speak to share why their group came up with that question.
After the question from each group is shared, ask for any key insights or themes.
8. Tips before speaking — 10 minutes
Explain that a useful guide for oneself before raising the subject of collapse with someone is to ask oneself:
1. Is this the right person, place and moment?
2. What am I hoping this conversation will do?
3. Could I try to learn something from this person as we discuss?
Paste this into the chat.
Then ask if people have any other guides for how to approach difficult conversations. E.g. from ancient philosophies.
9. Closing reflection — 5 minutes
Ask everyone to take a few minutes to write privately:
One thing I will do differently in my next conversation about collapse is…
Invite people to share in the chat box (or on a post it note and share on the board) if they feel comfortable doing so. Then ask a couple of people to share in the whole group their reasoning for their commitment.
Close with something like:
“An important capacity we can develop around collapse is not simply how to understand what is happening and might happen next. It is the capacity to remain in relationship with people who understand the situation differently from us, so that we can help each other as difficulties arise.”