According to the post, yes. To state that such event may lead to total collapse wouldn't be a new idea at all. It's the mainstream hypothesis since the cold war

According to the post, yes. To state that such event may lead to total collapse wouldn't be a new idea at all. It's the mainstream hypothesis since the cold war. To challenge those ideas by articulating the opposite (that it may not lead to total collapse) it's new (to me at least) and good food for thought. Can't cite anything, but I'm pretty sure that the nimble investment in nuclear energy that society has made as a whole in the past decades were fueled by fear of total collapse as if it's impossible for humans to play with fire without completely obliterating ourselves. And considering the new(ish) challenges we have (climate and others) I find it helpful to think that past demons/fears can be managed in a constructive way.