I’d be interested to see some empirical research about this claim. It should be straightforward to come by since both ‘neurodivergence’ and ‘collapse awareness’ (or ‘acceptance’) are in principle measurable and can be correlated (or not).
My own neurodivergent take is that the main differences between those who recognise collapse, those who deny it, and everyone in between is not about neurodivergence or neurotypicality. I’m already pattern-matching, but the important pattern here is grid-group cultural theory. This proposes there are four distinct worldviews which see the prospect of collapse very differently from one another.
The egalitarian worldview is already primed for collapse because it sees resources as perpetually scarce.
The Individualist worldview scoffs at this negativity and claims we live in a utopia of opportunity, fuelled by human ingenuity as much as by physical resources.
And there are two more worldviews with different perspectives still. The Hierarchical worldview assumes the main problem is management, which can be resolved with more management. Lastly, the Fatalist worldview has no idea about the collapse of civilisation but trusts to luck and keeping your head down, as ever.
These worldviews, the ‘four cultures’ of the theory, argue strongly about the prospect of civilisational collapse. And this has little to do with neurodiversity. As I say, though, it would be interesting to see some actual research on the matter.
As Richard Fardon says in the introduction to his edited collection of articles by Mary Douglas, the social anthropologist who first developed the theory of four cultures:
“Values are made real through dangers that can be unleashed in the guise of properties of the social and natural orders within which we live”
Richard Fardon, in Mary Douglas, A Very Personal Method. Sage, 2013, p.7.
In other words, the question of civilisational collapse is perpetually marshalled differently by the four cultures to promote their respective positions and denigrate those of the others. ‘Acceptance’, ‘denial’ or any other principled position is conditioned by this prior commitment.
Meanwhile, a scholarly but very accessible discussion of how this framework can inform our understanding is available in Mike Hume’s book, Why We Disagree About Climate Change, and in his subsequent ‘climates and cultures’ work.
Four Cultures 