I read Bates essay, and then clicked-thru to the followup post, which I found much better: http://peaksurfer.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/recharting-collapseniks.html

One hidden aspect to this debate is I think, an urban/rural perspective.

I.E. hard-core Collapseniks are generally rural-focused, as they view the capital and resource intensity of cities as unsustainable. But within more ‘reformist’ spheres, you get quite vibrant debates about whether affluent Western lifestyles are less resource-intensive in an urban setting (via use of public transport, more sharing of parks and other resources etc) than rural or ex-urban ones.

(Holmgren is part of an interesting small sub-set here, arguing for lower density suburbia to be re-purposed towards home-based production as a viable, or at least non-futile, strategy).

We then get the useful concept of ‘resilience’ from people who study large human societies like cities emerging. Looking at how effectively systems can deal with change as it comes – and that the concentration of physical and intellectual capital cities represent can be a positive force here, not just a handicap. I think this is potentially a more useful direction than a strict collapsitarian – utopian distinction.