The impression that I get from this comment is the idea that society and culture moves "forward," whatever that means, and therefore stability is holding back society. Sure, there's short-term pain in collapse, but what rises from the ashes will be better than before.

This is absolutely not the case. It's more than likely that whatever rises out of the *hellscape* of a societal collapse will be worse than what was there before.

The collapse of Rome did not lead to a better Rome. It was hundreds of years of suffering and death. In fact, the stability of Rome is what allowed for it to reach its peak over hundreds of years - something that was undeniably good for its citizens.

some folks say that to have good times, you must have bad times; bad times create good times.

When you look at data around economics what you find instead is that good times create good times.

you want stability, but not stasis. you hella do not want punctuated equilibriums

Instability doesn't have to be transient. Society can remain unstable for a really long time.