Carl Sagan Predicts the Decline of America (1995)(openculture.com)
openculture.com
Carl Sagan Predicts the Decline of America (1995)
https://www.openculture.com/2025/02/carl-sagan-predicts-the-decline-of-america-unable-to-know-whats-true.html
170 comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thucydides_Trap
> Thucydides Trap, is a term popularized by American political scientist Graham T. Allison to describe an apparent tendency towards war when an emerging power threatens to displace an existing great power as a regional or international hegemon
> Allison led a study at Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs which found that, among a sample of 16 historical instances of an emerging power rivaling a ruling power, 12 ended in war.[3] That study, however, has come under considerable criticism, and scholarly opinion on the value of the Thucydides Trap concept—particularly as it relates to a potential military conflict between the United States and China—remains divided.
> Thucydides Trap, is a term popularized by American political scientist Graham T. Allison to describe an apparent tendency towards war when an emerging power threatens to displace an existing great power as a regional or international hegemon
> Allison led a study at Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs which found that, among a sample of 16 historical instances of an emerging power rivaling a ruling power, 12 ended in war.[3] That study, however, has come under considerable criticism, and scholarly opinion on the value of the Thucydides Trap concept—particularly as it relates to a potential military conflict between the United States and China—remains divided.
> I think the only people denying the decline of the US are the same people that think the US can be as powerful and respected as it was in the 50s, i.e. not the most well informed crowd.
Aye. It's illogical to call to "Make America Great *Again*" while also claiming there's no decline. Logic isn't how politics works, so that doesn't stop it.
Aye. It's illogical to call to "Make America Great *Again*" while also claiming there's no decline. Logic isn't how politics works, so that doesn't stop it.
> It's illogical to call to "Make America Great Again" while also claiming there's no decline.
The logic is undiminished potential hobbled by weak leaders, sinister cabals, and their enablers.
The logic is undiminished potential hobbled by weak leaders, sinister cabals, and their enablers.
What, the cabinet? :P
But seriously, even last time, with 2016's MAGA slogans including "drain the swamp", there's a gap between "great but we could be better if not for them" and the implicit absent greatness of the initials forming MAGA.
But seriously, even last time, with 2016's MAGA slogans including "drain the swamp", there's a gap between "great but we could be better if not for them" and the implicit absent greatness of the initials forming MAGA.
Not great but we could be better. Great naturally but restrained artificially.
Which is insane when people like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Devin Nunes, Jim Jordan, and Doug Collins, among others, are not considered as "drain the swamp".
Given what I've seen of Greene, I feel I am better off not knowing who Doug Collins is, and only vaguely recognising Jim Jordan and that Nunes has something to do with cows.
The USA may be happy to cast psychic damage on itself, I wish to only learn what I must to defend myself from the nonsense that spills outside your borders. :)
The USA may be happy to cast psychic damage on itself, I wish to only learn what I must to defend myself from the nonsense that spills outside your borders. :)
> It's illogical to call to "Make America Great *Again*"
So if we want to be "great" again we gotta do something entirely different. The problem seems more similar to that of big companies and monopolies. A monopoly isn't an inherently bad thing, it is just that they frequently abuse their positions as it is easier to extract wealth by using your weight than it is to innovate. Even though a monopoly is in a far better position to innovate than they had been at any other point in time! (You can take on far riskier problems, ones that have high likelihood of failure but that the success would similarly be enormous. That failure kills many startups but is nothing to big company. Google can run X at billions in losses and Zuckerberg can throw money as fast as he can at the Metaverse without real risk of the companies failing). The problem is that in general systems optimize towards their "lowest energy state", which is __not__ innovation (directly. It does include absorbing innovators). It is laziness. In optimization, it is that you stop exploring and rely entirely on exploiting your established knowledge. You're stuck in a local optima if you do this. The problem is that we tend to rest upon our laurels.
Is this not the same thing? American can't repeat the magic of that time period any more than Google can repeat the magic that happened in the early 2000's. Just a few days ago I was arguing that we should be taking higher risks and throwing more money into the sciences[0]. The pushback is about ensuring that the money made its way to productive projects and not conmen. But neither have we stopped conmen nor have we significantly improved in predicting what constitutes the most groundbreaking research. So America relies upon its status to extract money from the system we've created over innovation. We were forced to innovate before, and now we don't. In our fear of losing our status we take fewer risks, but by doing so, we ironically end up taking even greater risks. It is the problem of delayed reward systems and recognizing the difference between long term investments and short term. So I think China's rise can cause America to re-establish it's dominance, but it depends at our reaction. Competition is good because it forces one to not be lazy, but recognizing this cause allows us to approach competition differently and even recognize the results can be obtained without it. Do we rely upon our status to main status or do we recognize that we've become fat and need to "hit the gym." I'm not confident this administration understands the difference nor am I confident that the interest is in that goal. So I worry we will just repeat the process, getting too caught up in the moment that we lose sight of what actually matters. Losing sight of the actual reasons that "made us great" in the first place, being unable to differentiate the real factors. Might as well be a cargo cult.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42925648
Aye. Explore/exploit tradeoff, where any one person is incentivised to start on exploration and switch to exploit.
Optima at 1/e of an opportunity's lifetime, IIRC? May be over specific to the "secretary problem".
Optima at 1/e of an opportunity's lifetime, IIRC? May be over specific to the "secretary problem".
Who is going to replace US? China? Its economy is on the decline with deflation, debts, real estates problem...etc. Europe? Japan?
>Who is going to replace US?
There doesn't have to be a replacement. Just like nobody replaced the USSR after the Cold War ended leaving the US as the worlds lone super power.
A world can exist with no super powers and with multiple conventional powers.
There doesn't have to be a replacement. Just like nobody replaced the USSR after the Cold War ended leaving the US as the worlds lone super power.
A world can exist with no super powers and with multiple conventional powers.
The problem is that China is still self sufficient. Huge country with a single timezone and great infrastructure and now has the expertise to produce for itself and enough people to buy its own products. Sure there's going to be some instability but even then the dictatorship is helping in preventing people to go too crazy. There's a reason musk is pushing for babies: the US is mostly empty land with a few large cities.
What is the relevance of a single time zone?
Easier to do business across the whole country. It tells you how streamlined and organized a lot of the fields are across regions
Fascist movements usually crusade for more babies and venture into (futile) nationalistic pro-natalist policies to try and drive up birth rates. Sometimes they fully commit to eugenics programs. It's a thing. But there's a catch.
Some kinds of babies are good and other babies are bad (in their view). They only want "good" babies.
Trump's unconstitutional executive order targeting birthright citizenship tells you all you need to know about who they think the bad ones are.
And though many have tried, no country has figured out how to meaningfully drive up birth rates with pro-natalist policies.
There's only one proven way to get more babies and sustain economic growth when native birthrates decline: MORE IMMIGRATION.
If immigration to the US continues apace, we surpass China's total population within decades and continue strong economic growth comfortably. If TrumpElon really manage to kill the golden goose, welp... it's been real.
Some kinds of babies are good and other babies are bad (in their view). They only want "good" babies.
Trump's unconstitutional executive order targeting birthright citizenship tells you all you need to know about who they think the bad ones are.
And though many have tried, no country has figured out how to meaningfully drive up birth rates with pro-natalist policies.
There's only one proven way to get more babies and sustain economic growth when native birthrates decline: MORE IMMIGRATION.
If immigration to the US continues apace, we surpass China's total population within decades and continue strong economic growth comfortably. If TrumpElon really manage to kill the golden goose, welp... it's been real.
I don't get your comment. You are saying immigration is the solution to more babies because we haven't figured out yet how to make the local populace make more babies? That doesn't hold. You can't just say there is no solution to a problem because a solution hasn't been found yet.
That's not quite what I'm saying.
First, I'm saying Musk's apparent interest in birth rates is best understood as a component of the neo-fascist, authoritarian project in which he's embedded himself, the likes of which we've seen many times throughout history, and is the kind of thing that often culminates in large scale atrocity.
Second, I'm saying for anyone who is truly interested in driving population growth, the last thing one would do is inhibit immigration. Instead, you'd open the floodgates.
First, I'm saying Musk's apparent interest in birth rates is best understood as a component of the neo-fascist, authoritarian project in which he's embedded himself, the likes of which we've seen many times throughout history, and is the kind of thing that often culminates in large scale atrocity.
Second, I'm saying for anyone who is truly interested in driving population growth, the last thing one would do is inhibit immigration. Instead, you'd open the floodgates.
Maybe they have one timezone, but there are multiple "China's"
A swift google suggests that your assertion that China's economy is "on the decline" to any great extent is quite false. As they say, citation needed.
And, well put this way: the management in China seems to be more grown-up and stable, which is better for long-term prospects.
And, well put this way: the management in China seems to be more grown-up and stable, which is better for long-term prospects.
> China's economy is "on the decline" to any great extent is quite false
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crr54x00857o
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/09/20/chinese-econ...
https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/china-deflation/
https://www.aei.org/economics/chinas-economy-is-in-deep-trou...
https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/06/03/xi-china-economic-decli...
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/14/business/chinas-gdp-q2.ht...
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crr54x00857o
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/09/20/chinese-econ...
https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/china-deflation/
https://www.aei.org/economics/chinas-economy-is-in-deep-trou...
https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/06/03/xi-china-economic-decli...
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/14/business/chinas-gdp-q2.ht...
First article: "China's economy expanded in the third quarter at the slowest pace", second article, "Growth in the world’s second-largest economy is slowing "
"growing slowly" != "declining"
"growing slowly" != "declining"
These quotes do not support the claim of "on the decline", they show the rate at which the economy is growing is not as fast as before, but still at perfectly respectable rates:
> https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crr54x00857o
"China's economy expanded in the third quarter at the slowest pace since early last year, as the country struggles to boost flagging growth."
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/09/20/chinese-econ...
"It has been a grim month for the Chinese economy: A slew of recent data has revealed the world’s second-largest economy is slowing faster than expected, causing analysts to predict it will miss its relatively modest 5 percent growth target this year."
> https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/china-deflation/
*Chart showing growth in all but one quarter since the start of 2019, and good growth in all but one of the growing quarters*
> https://www.aei.org/economics/chinas-economy-is-in-deep-trou...
"This week’s disappointing Chinese GDP (gross domestic product) numbers showed that Chinese economic growth has slowed to 4.75 percent from the very rapid annual economic growth rate of seven to eight percent during the 2010s"
> https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/06/03/xi-china-economic-decli...
"China’s economy is performing dreadfully. The post-pandemic bounce was far smaller and briefer than the Chinese government had anticipated. Despite recording a respectable, if diminished, official growth rate of 5.2 percent in 2023, the reality may have been much slower, with some analysts estimating growth was no more than 1-2 percent."
> https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/14/business/chinas-gdp-q2.ht...
"China’s economy grew 0.7 percent in the second quarter over the previous three months, below the expectations of most economists. When projected out for the entire year, the economy grew at an annual rate of about 2.8 percent — a little less than half the rate in the first three months of this year."
The USA, by comparison, was 2.5% in 2023.
If China is "in decline" from these numbers, so is the USA.
> https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crr54x00857o
"China's economy expanded in the third quarter at the slowest pace since early last year, as the country struggles to boost flagging growth."
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/09/20/chinese-econ...
"It has been a grim month for the Chinese economy: A slew of recent data has revealed the world’s second-largest economy is slowing faster than expected, causing analysts to predict it will miss its relatively modest 5 percent growth target this year."
> https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/china-deflation/
*Chart showing growth in all but one quarter since the start of 2019, and good growth in all but one of the growing quarters*
> https://www.aei.org/economics/chinas-economy-is-in-deep-trou...
"This week’s disappointing Chinese GDP (gross domestic product) numbers showed that Chinese economic growth has slowed to 4.75 percent from the very rapid annual economic growth rate of seven to eight percent during the 2010s"
> https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/06/03/xi-china-economic-decli...
"China’s economy is performing dreadfully. The post-pandemic bounce was far smaller and briefer than the Chinese government had anticipated. Despite recording a respectable, if diminished, official growth rate of 5.2 percent in 2023, the reality may have been much slower, with some analysts estimating growth was no more than 1-2 percent."
> https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/14/business/chinas-gdp-q2.ht...
"China’s economy grew 0.7 percent in the second quarter over the previous three months, below the expectations of most economists. When projected out for the entire year, the economy grew at an annual rate of about 2.8 percent — a little less than half the rate in the first three months of this year."
The USA, by comparison, was 2.5% in 2023.
If China is "in decline" from these numbers, so is the USA.
Behind this there is the wrong assumption that there must be a replacement for all.
For sure there will be gaps filled by other powers, but it's not necessary, we just got used to it.
> Who is going to replace US?
No one. And everyone.
That's the point. There will be no on 'policing' things (even imperfectly), and so anyone who wants to do a power grab will make an attempt.
"Those in positions of power do what their power permits, while the weak have no choice but to accept it." — Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, 5.89
No one. And everyone.
That's the point. There will be no on 'policing' things (even imperfectly), and so anyone who wants to do a power grab will make an attempt.
"Those in positions of power do what their power permits, while the weak have no choice but to accept it." — Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, 5.89
There will be no one 'policing' things (even imperfectly)
Although, that's a specific part of the "world policing" role that I can see China stepping into.
They certainly have the manpower and the shipbuilding capacity, and they certainly have the incentive to protect international shipping so they can sell their goods everywhere.
I don't think China (yet) wants any part of the other bits of world policing, like deploying armies and/or funding proxy wars on the other side of the world.
> I don't think China (yet) wants any part of funding proxy wars
IDK, I could see China funding a proxy war in Ukraine, any time soon.
Just not in a good way, so to speak.
IDK, I could see China funding a proxy war in Ukraine, any time soon.
Just not in a good way, so to speak.
For the forseeable future I think China mostly wants to stay as neutral as possible and make as much money as possible by selling as much crap as possible to as many countries as possible.
I don't think they want the US as an enemy. It's not good business for them.
I have a 100% unsupported belief that 100% of the public messaging from all sides regarding Taiwan is complete BS. I think that behind closed doors, all parties (except maybe Taiwan themselves) are working out a deal so that Taiwan winds up back in China's hands in the next 10-15 years without a war and everybody gets to save some face. I think that the CHIPS act, TSMC foundries on US soil, etc are all part of this process. It is the most mutually beneficial situation for the US and China: they get Taiwan; we get non-traumatic continuity for our chip supplies, everybody gets to save face, etc. (I'm not endorsing it or decrying it or even touching the morality or lack thereof)
I don't think they want the US as an enemy. It's not good business for them.
I have a 100% unsupported belief that 100% of the public messaging from all sides regarding Taiwan is complete BS. I think that behind closed doors, all parties (except maybe Taiwan themselves) are working out a deal so that Taiwan winds up back in China's hands in the next 10-15 years without a war and everybody gets to save some face. I think that the CHIPS act, TSMC foundries on US soil, etc are all part of this process. It is the most mutually beneficial situation for the US and China: they get Taiwan; we get non-traumatic continuity for our chip supplies, everybody gets to save face, etc. (I'm not endorsing it or decrying it or even touching the morality or lack thereof)
> For the forseeable future I think China mostly wants to stay as neutral as possible and make as much money as possible by selling as much crap as possible to as many countries as possible.
China is thinking long term and building capabilities:
> Except then a war comes, and suddenly you find that B2B SaaS and advertising platforms and chat apps aren’t very useful for defending your freedoms. Oops! The right time to worry about manufacturing would have been years before the war, except you weren’t able to anticipate and prepare for the future. Manufacturing doesn’t just support war — in a very real way, it’s a war in and of itself.
* https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/manufacturing-is-a-war-now
China is thinking long term and building capabilities:
> Except then a war comes, and suddenly you find that B2B SaaS and advertising platforms and chat apps aren’t very useful for defending your freedoms. Oops! The right time to worry about manufacturing would have been years before the war, except you weren’t able to anticipate and prepare for the future. Manufacturing doesn’t just support war — in a very real way, it’s a war in and of itself.
* https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/manufacturing-is-a-war-now
> For the forseeable future I think China mostly wants to stay as neutral as possible and make as much money as possible by selling
I think that you're probably correct, but that goal will be in tension with the corollary "... And Russia next door is buying lots of raw materials and miliary hardware, even at an above-market price".
I think that you're probably correct, but that goal will be in tension with the corollary "... And Russia next door is buying lots of raw materials and miliary hardware, even at an above-market price".
Yeah, I think they're going to play a classical "make money from both sides" role. They'll titrate the amount of commerce they do with all parties so that everybody is equally unhappy but equally dependent on China.
china is playing the long game, because its leader (and/or whoever will come next) does not have to bother about being re-elected and essentially doesn't have to bother with political antagonists.
i'm not saying it's good or bad, but i think this is a thing that most people don't seem to be recognizing/acknowledging.
> I think that the CHIPS act, TSMC foundries on US soil, etc are all part of this process.
very likely
i'm not saying it's good or bad, but i think this is a thing that most people don't seem to be recognizing/acknowledging.
> I think that the CHIPS act, TSMC foundries on US soil, etc are all part of this process.
very likely
A bunch of Network states run by libertarians with blackjack and bitcoin.
https://www.thenerdreich.com/trumps-weird-freedom-cities-and...
Wonder how long they'd last if Greenland, Panama and Gaza are up for grabs by non-network states though.
https://www.thenerdreich.com/trumps-weird-freedom-cities-and...
Wonder how long they'd last if Greenland, Panama and Gaza are up for grabs by non-network states though.
[deleted]
We fought a literal civil war and bounced back. We've had multiple presidents assassinated but still had continuity of power. I doubt the U.S. is going anywhere anytime soon except maybe down a couple slots on the world's largest economies lists, and that's soley due to population growth.
Some of us who are optimistic believe that the uniqueness of the U.S. lies in its favorable environment for innovation (e.g. YC), so we hope to invent our way out of problems. We grew up on hopeful sci-fi and will stick to it until our bitter end.
Some of us who are optimistic believe that the uniqueness of the U.S. lies in its favorable environment for innovation (e.g. YC), so we hope to invent our way out of problems. We grew up on hopeful sci-fi and will stick to it until our bitter end.
> We've had multiple presidents assassinated but still had continuity of power.
Sure, with the peaceful transfer being recently violated for the first, but probably not the last time. The literacy rate in the US continues to decline, and the US keep losing respect on the world stage which is only going to get much worse over the next 4 years.
> Some of us who are optimistic believe that the uniqueness of the U.S. lies in its favorable environment for innovation (e.g. YC),
The US doesn't have an especially favorable environment for innovation than other first world countries, arguably it has less given the lack of regulation.
Sure, with the peaceful transfer being recently violated for the first, but probably not the last time. The literacy rate in the US continues to decline, and the US keep losing respect on the world stage which is only going to get much worse over the next 4 years.
> Some of us who are optimistic believe that the uniqueness of the U.S. lies in its favorable environment for innovation (e.g. YC),
The US doesn't have an especially favorable environment for innovation than other first world countries, arguably it has less given the lack of regulation.
Yup, I'm going to dogpile on this:
> favorable environment for innovation
I may be wrong, but all indications are that this is a sort of "past glory".
I've not personally visited Shenzhen, but every online account (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toizHWGD-rE) shows that they are making everything there -- the "Designed in California, Made in China" is a tenuous situation, and not guaranteed to last.
Like how DeepSeek was a wake-up moment, there are several more waiting to happen.
Again, this is my very much "secondhand" perspective, but I think the GP's assertion is on borrowed time.
> favorable environment for innovation
I may be wrong, but all indications are that this is a sort of "past glory".
I've not personally visited Shenzhen, but every online account (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toizHWGD-rE) shows that they are making everything there -- the "Designed in California, Made in China" is a tenuous situation, and not guaranteed to last.
Like how DeepSeek was a wake-up moment, there are several more waiting to happen.
Again, this is my very much "secondhand" perspective, but I think the GP's assertion is on borrowed time.
Continuity of power and government is not what people think it is.
The government can continue even if the US stops being a democracy, citizens lose their basic rights (like they did Jim Crows era), or have a civil war without continuity of government breaking.
The US can smoothly slide into Hungary, then Singapore (parliamentary republics only in the name), or more crash into South American Banana Rebublic with some key blues states working, while large parts of the country are effectively lawless or authoritarian.
The government can continue even if the US stops being a democracy, citizens lose their basic rights (like they did Jim Crows era), or have a civil war without continuity of government breaking.
The US can smoothly slide into Hungary, then Singapore (parliamentary republics only in the name), or more crash into South American Banana Rebublic with some key blues states working, while large parts of the country are effectively lawless or authoritarian.
I think we're going to become Russia, honestly. Or probably even more accurately we're just going to revert to the way we were during the Gilded Age. Oligarchy time.
How do you invent your way out of authoritarian leadership and a sizeable chunk of the population cheering that on? And there's more dystopian sci-fi than there is hopeful sci-fi.
This is not a technical problem; it's a societal/social one.
This is not a technical problem; it's a societal/social one.
> How do you invent your way out of authoritarian leadership and a sizeable chunk of the population cheering that on?
Without mandatory reeducation I don't think it's a solvable problem.
Without mandatory reeducation I don't think it's a solvable problem.
Which recent US administration was NOT authoritarian?
https://ballotpedia.org/Joe_Biden%27s_executive_orders_and_a...
https://ballotpedia.org/Joe_Biden%27s_executive_orders_and_a...
That was back then when people believed in their country, in republic and democracy...
>We grew up on hopeful sci-fi and will stick to it until our bitter end.
American optimism and hope did not derive itself from "hopeful sci-fi" or tech. The sci-fi and tech came in its superpower phase, post-WWII. American optimism preceded that by decades if not centuries, because its population believed--despite everything--that as country it always strove to act in a morally just manner both domestically and internationally. What's more is that this mythology, cause that's what it was, happened to be accepted by much of world as well. That accomplishment in persuasion exceeds any accomplishment in short-term innovation when the goal is to maintain a long-lasting empire.
There was a time when many thought Nazi Germany was the most innovative and advanced entity in the world. Yet, even at the time, no one who believed that would care to immigrate to Nazi Germany for that reason. The same would be true if China became the most technologically advanced country in the world.
It is the man-child delusion of the broligarchy to claim that American optimism is (was) rooted in technological advancement.
"Everything not saved will be lost." -- Nintendo
American optimism and hope did not derive itself from "hopeful sci-fi" or tech. The sci-fi and tech came in its superpower phase, post-WWII. American optimism preceded that by decades if not centuries, because its population believed--despite everything--that as country it always strove to act in a morally just manner both domestically and internationally. What's more is that this mythology, cause that's what it was, happened to be accepted by much of world as well. That accomplishment in persuasion exceeds any accomplishment in short-term innovation when the goal is to maintain a long-lasting empire.
There was a time when many thought Nazi Germany was the most innovative and advanced entity in the world. Yet, even at the time, no one who believed that would care to immigrate to Nazi Germany for that reason. The same would be true if China became the most technologically advanced country in the world.
It is the man-child delusion of the broligarchy to claim that American optimism is (was) rooted in technological advancement.
"Everything not saved will be lost." -- Nintendo
the uniqueness of the U.S. lies in its favorable environment for innovation
The Trump administration is doing serious damage to that ability on several fronts.
The US isn't doing bad but it's had a relative decline because the rest of the world is advancing. In the 1950s much of the world was wrecked from WW2 and socialism didn't do much for India and China. Now they are mostly doing quite well.
In the cultural revolution China sent all it's educated out to the fields or worse. Now:
>China awarded 1.38 million engineering bachelor’s degrees in 2020. The comparable American number is 197,000 https://asiatimes.com/2022/07/a-tale-of-two-talents/
That's China advance, not a US decline.
In the cultural revolution China sent all it's educated out to the fields or worse. Now:
>China awarded 1.38 million engineering bachelor’s degrees in 2020. The comparable American number is 197,000 https://asiatimes.com/2022/07/a-tale-of-two-talents/
That's China advance, not a US decline.
The latter is called Thucydides Trap.
The US has already practically surrendered economically by ceasing to produce things. The copium was that the USA produces designs to be manufactured by China, but now China designs things too and they're better and cheaper. If not for inertia, we'd be doing international payments in something linked to yuan, or euros (China has a stronger economy but it doesn't like to let people use its currency outside its borders, so might be disqualified).
There was a much more thorough treatment for the reasons and causes in the body of work of Chalmers Johnson. Dismantling the Empire: America's Last Best Hope was recommended reading at the CIA. And here's an hour video from May 2004: https://youtu.be/oOjYteh-ZRs
From a geopolitical perspective, the real concern isn’t just whether America is in decline, but whether we are witnessing a broader cycle of decline across Western civilization, or even globally. While competition between nations is important, it isn’t enough on its own. What we truly need is a world where the average person has more viable options, economically, politically, and technologically. If our current systems are stagnating, the focus should be on creating new pathways for individual prosperity rather than just shifting power between competing states.
I personally believe that we do have unprecedented number of tools in our disposal to be successful, compared to any other time in our history. The problem is somewhere else.
> The focus should be on creating new pathways for individual prosperity rather than just shifting power between competing states.
I'd argue that the focus should be on creating prosperous communities, of mutual benefit to their individual members. But maybe that's just a "pathway" to individual prosperity.
I'd argue that the focus should be on creating prosperous communities, of mutual benefit to their individual members. But maybe that's just a "pathway" to individual prosperity.
Communities should exist because they benefit people, who in turn should support the continuation of something that benefits them.
But people don’t exist for the benefit of communities.
But people don’t exist for the benefit of communities.
Communities form among individuals seeking mutual benefit, not the other way around. The way to create prosperous communities is to maximize opportunities for individuals.
We also still have all of these undemocratic, authoritarian regimes in the world. Hopefully Earth will move beyond that one day.
My current joke is we've overshot the point where nepo baby political and business leaders are smart enough to maintain our technological civilization.
I think the people are capable, given the right environment. I think what destroys it is not letting people in Congress write laws in relative secrecy. When the most powerful, including the political parties, can monitor how every Congress person votes in committee, they can micro-manage and micro-terrorize them into doing what they want.
Let them deliberate without us watching over their shoulders (because it's mostly just the powerful who do) and we might get back to writing laws that solve problems.
Check the work at https://congressionalresearch.org/ for a lot of evidence on this topic.
Let them deliberate without us watching over their shoulders (because it's mostly just the powerful who do) and we might get back to writing laws that solve problems.
Check the work at https://congressionalresearch.org/ for a lot of evidence on this topic.
Let them deliberate without us watching over their shoulders
That’s a recipe for disaster. The Founders came up with a Constitution for a reason. Public debate is not our problem. Any more than freedom of speech is our problem.
That’s a recipe for disaster. The Founders came up with a Constitution for a reason. Public debate is not our problem. Any more than freedom of speech is our problem.
Please check the link and read some of the articles. They have many many quotes from the founders on voting and deliberating in secrecy, even for the creation of the Constitution itself.
So they considered it, and then left it out of the Constitution.
I wonder why?
/s
I'll concede, in the US, just as in everyplace else, we have a long list of issues with which we need to deal. However, things like public debate and freedom of speech are not present on that list. I, personally, would go one step further, and caution everyone to carefully consider the possible motives of anyone calling for the elimination of public debate and discourse in government.
I wonder why?
/s
I'll concede, in the US, just as in everyplace else, we have a long list of issues with which we need to deal. However, things like public debate and freedom of speech are not present on that list. I, personally, would go one step further, and caution everyone to carefully consider the possible motives of anyone calling for the elimination of public debate and discourse in government.
He's not calling for eliminating public debate. He's calling for eliminating lobbyists by making them stay in the lobby and not be privy to committee meetings and committee votes, not final votes.
Some interesting articles about how previously citizen votes were public and how it led to intimidation, and the push for secret ballots for citizens.
Some interesting articles about how previously citizen votes were public and how it led to intimidation, and the push for secret ballots for citizens.
Bernie said it best. Get money out of politics. Full stop.
That's a vague slogan, not a meaningful strategy to accomplish anything of consequence. Money is just a tool. The resources and incentives that the money is being spent on already exist, and it's being used to further ambitions and goals that were always present. Getting "money out of politics" in a formalistic way will just lead to corrupt ambitions being facilitated via some other means.
Bernie's ideas are very dangerous, because he offers simplistic, pat solutions to risks that are fundamental to politics itself (at the expense of the much more nuanced safeguards we've developed over the ages) while proposing to make the political state far more central to people's immediate lives and livelihoods than it has ever been before.
Getting politics out of civil society is much more important than getting money out of politics.
Bernie's ideas are very dangerous, because he offers simplistic, pat solutions to risks that are fundamental to politics itself (at the expense of the much more nuanced safeguards we've developed over the ages) while proposing to make the political state far more central to people's immediate lives and livelihoods than it has ever been before.
Getting politics out of civil society is much more important than getting money out of politics.
>That's a vague slogan, not a meaningful strategy to accomplish anything of consequence.
Of course. The vast majority of America needs "sound bites" of info. Wish this wasn't the case. But it's worked for decades.
>Money is just a tool. The resources and incentives that the money is being spent on already exist, and it's being used to further ambitions and goals that were always present. Getting "money out of politics" in a formalistic way will just lead to corrupt ambitions being facilitated via some other means.
You're not wrong. But there is a happy medium. Super PACs/Citizens United....this is what he's targeting. Those are dangerous. They are not in the interest of all American people. They benefit the few.
And we cannot have hypocrites at every level. The insider trading that occurs due to politician privilege is insane. But not Bernie, his actions match his words. He lives by his principles. That cannot be said for many politicians.
>Bernie's ideas are very dangerous, because he offers simplistic, pat solutions to risks that are fundamental to politics itself (at the expense of the much more nuanced safeguards we've developed over the ages)
Is that's how things have played our for the folks in Vermont? I grew up in that area. I've watched his policies shape the landscape for decades. But his policies aren't why he's a great candidate.
While his policies are a big part of his platform, what really resonates with a lot of people is his unwavering commitment to first principles values like fairness, equality, social justice, and democracy. These principles drive his entire political career, and they shape his policy proposals, but they also make him stand out in a political landscape where many politicians change their stance based on what's politically expedient or donor-friendly.
Bernie's character and consistency are arguably just as important as his policies in defining who he is as a politician.
>while proposing to make the political state far more central to people's immediate lives and livelihoods than it has ever been before.
This is a concern of mine as well. It's the ultimate balancing act. Provide just enough support for folks that they still hold agency in their life. As Fred Rogers put it, "There's a world of difference between insisting on someone's doing something and establishing an atmosphere in which that person can grow into wanting to do it."
Of course. The vast majority of America needs "sound bites" of info. Wish this wasn't the case. But it's worked for decades.
>Money is just a tool. The resources and incentives that the money is being spent on already exist, and it's being used to further ambitions and goals that were always present. Getting "money out of politics" in a formalistic way will just lead to corrupt ambitions being facilitated via some other means.
You're not wrong. But there is a happy medium. Super PACs/Citizens United....this is what he's targeting. Those are dangerous. They are not in the interest of all American people. They benefit the few.
And we cannot have hypocrites at every level. The insider trading that occurs due to politician privilege is insane. But not Bernie, his actions match his words. He lives by his principles. That cannot be said for many politicians.
>Bernie's ideas are very dangerous, because he offers simplistic, pat solutions to risks that are fundamental to politics itself (at the expense of the much more nuanced safeguards we've developed over the ages)
Is that's how things have played our for the folks in Vermont? I grew up in that area. I've watched his policies shape the landscape for decades. But his policies aren't why he's a great candidate.
While his policies are a big part of his platform, what really resonates with a lot of people is his unwavering commitment to first principles values like fairness, equality, social justice, and democracy. These principles drive his entire political career, and they shape his policy proposals, but they also make him stand out in a political landscape where many politicians change their stance based on what's politically expedient or donor-friendly.
Bernie's character and consistency are arguably just as important as his policies in defining who he is as a politician.
>while proposing to make the political state far more central to people's immediate lives and livelihoods than it has ever been before.
This is a concern of mine as well. It's the ultimate balancing act. Provide just enough support for folks that they still hold agency in their life. As Fred Rogers put it, "There's a world of difference between insisting on someone's doing something and establishing an atmosphere in which that person can grow into wanting to do it."
> Super PACs/Citizens United....this is what he's targeting.
And this is part of the problem. Citizens United was a bog standard first amendment ruling that has been targeted by an aggressive misinformation campaign by a faction that wants the unprecedented power to censor political discourse, and people are eating up the misinformation.
> While his policies are a big part of his platform, what really resonates with a lot of people is his unwavering commitment to first principles values like fairness, equality, social justice, and democracy.
But again, his "commitment" is in the form of talk. The reality of the policy positions he does advance is to set us up for the exact opposite of all of those things. I don't know whether he's a well-intentioned fool or a deceptive manipulator, but either way, the consequences are the same. He's just a mirror image of Trump, using vague emotional appeals to win power, then horribly misusing that power.
> Provide just enough support for folks that they still hold agency in their life. As Fred Rogers put it, "There's a world of difference between insisting on someone's doing something and establishing an atmosphere in which that person can grow into wanting to do it."
Absolutely correct. And the problem here is that "insisting on someone's doing something" is the fundamental nature of the political state, while "establishing an atmosphere in which that person can grow into wanting to do it" is the task of a dynamic and pluralistic civil society, in all its forms.
The more we allow the assertion of political power to solve problems that ought rightly be solved by bottom-up activity in civil society, the more we set ourselves up to be the victims of abuse (especially as the well-intentioned people who created the system of political dependence are superseded first by indifferent functionaries, and then by corrupt powermongers).
And this is part of the problem. Citizens United was a bog standard first amendment ruling that has been targeted by an aggressive misinformation campaign by a faction that wants the unprecedented power to censor political discourse, and people are eating up the misinformation.
> While his policies are a big part of his platform, what really resonates with a lot of people is his unwavering commitment to first principles values like fairness, equality, social justice, and democracy.
But again, his "commitment" is in the form of talk. The reality of the policy positions he does advance is to set us up for the exact opposite of all of those things. I don't know whether he's a well-intentioned fool or a deceptive manipulator, but either way, the consequences are the same. He's just a mirror image of Trump, using vague emotional appeals to win power, then horribly misusing that power.
> Provide just enough support for folks that they still hold agency in their life. As Fred Rogers put it, "There's a world of difference between insisting on someone's doing something and establishing an atmosphere in which that person can grow into wanting to do it."
Absolutely correct. And the problem here is that "insisting on someone's doing something" is the fundamental nature of the political state, while "establishing an atmosphere in which that person can grow into wanting to do it" is the task of a dynamic and pluralistic civil society, in all its forms.
The more we allow the assertion of political power to solve problems that ought rightly be solved by bottom-up activity in civil society, the more we set ourselves up to be the victims of abuse (especially as the well-intentioned people who created the system of political dependence are superseded first by indifferent functionaries, and then by corrupt powermongers).
I want to thank you for the discourse. This is a refreshing conversation on a very nuanced topic. I don't often encounter folks that can hold these opposing thoughts. Understanding how grey the world is.
Cheers!
Cheers!
Likewise! At least there are still some venues online where partisan sloganeering hasn't totally overwhelmed discourse.
>But again, his "commitment" is in the form of talk. The reality of the policy positions he does advance is to set us up for the exact opposite of all of those things. I don't know whether he's a well-intentioned fool or a deceptive manipulator, but either way, the consequences are the same. He's just a mirror image of Trump, using vague emotional appeals to win power, then horribly misusing that power.
I hear what you are saying. But again, his policies have had measurable benefits to his constituents in Vermont. With a track record going back decades. I understand you might not have first hand experience with this as I did. But to discredit years of his work saying it's all talk is a little tongue in cheek.
At the end of the day I think we both know it'll always be an attempt to pick the "least evil."
I hear what you are saying. But again, his policies have had measurable benefits to his constituents in Vermont. With a track record going back decades. I understand you might not have first hand experience with this as I did. But to discredit years of his work saying it's all talk is a little tongue in cheek.
At the end of the day I think we both know it'll always be an attempt to pick the "least evil."
> Citizens United was a bog standard first amendment ruling that has been targeted by an aggressive misinformation campaign by a faction that wants the unprecedented power to censor political discourse, and people are eating up the misinformation.
Everyone who disagrees with me is gullible and misinformed.
Everyone who disagrees with me is gullible and misinformed.
On this particular topic, yes, absolutely. Just read the ruling.
> That's a vague slogan, not a meaningful strategy to accomplish anything of consequence
And "Make America Great Again" is as well, but over 70 million people rallied behind it
And "Make America Great Again" is as well, but over 70 million people rallied behind it
Yep. The number of people rallying behind superficial nonsense without any substantive policy positions backing them up has never been higher. Trump and Sanders are two sides of the same coin.
If there's any evidence of a decline, it's definitely found in the extent to which people are both (a) looking to federal politics to solve their local and personal problems for them, and (b) supporting incompetent sloganeers as the people they want managing federal politics.
If there's any evidence of a decline, it's definitely found in the extent to which people are both (a) looking to federal politics to solve their local and personal problems for them, and (b) supporting incompetent sloganeers as the people they want managing federal politics.
[deleted]
I think the only way to do this is to pay members of Congress extremely generous salaries and then have a large agency whose only job is to monitor their finances like a swarm of starving animals with zero tolerance for outside influence. If any one of these motherfuckers or their neighbor or third cousin accepts so much as a fucking cup of coffee from a lobbyist they can forfeit it all, go to prison for ten years, and pay their salary back.
Pay them each a million bucks a year, for fuck's sake. That's $535 million dollars -- but remember we immediately get a lot of that back in taxes. Fuck, round it up to a billion dollars to include the cost of the agency to watch them. A whole team for each congress-critter. Half of the salaries go into escrow and the escrow money gets paid out after they leave office. And they can't work for 5 years after they leave office -- none of that indirect bribery where "cooperative" congresspeople get cushy jobs at the companies they helped during their tenure on capitol hill.
That's still only like a tenth of a percent of the total US Government budget.
Anybody who thinks that this won't improve the functioning of our government by at least 0.14% is welcome to tell me why.
Pay them each a million bucks a year, for fuck's sake. That's $535 million dollars -- but remember we immediately get a lot of that back in taxes. Fuck, round it up to a billion dollars to include the cost of the agency to watch them. A whole team for each congress-critter. Half of the salaries go into escrow and the escrow money gets paid out after they leave office. And they can't work for 5 years after they leave office -- none of that indirect bribery where "cooperative" congresspeople get cushy jobs at the companies they helped during their tenure on capitol hill.
That's still only like a tenth of a percent of the total US Government budget.
Anybody who thinks that this won't improve the functioning of our government by at least 0.14% is welcome to tell me why.
Honestly, I don’t see how that is compatible with a capitalist society. Money is power and politics is the exercise of power.
Considering how NEW citizens United United is...and how every other democracy seems to be able to handle this somewhat sanely... Why is it so hard to imagine? It wasn't like this even in 1995...
Well, 1995 was seven years before Congress passed the statute that the FEC was misinterpreting in the Citizens United case.
The Citizens United ruling had essentially noting to do with "money in politics" and was just a bog standard first amendment ruling against a federal agency attempting to read the power to regulate political speech into a statute that had been passed a mere eight years earlier.
Contrary to the misinformation spread through the media, the court did not rule that "money is speech", but ruled almost exactly the opposite: it was the FEC that was attempting to argue that "speech is money" -- that using resources to speak in a way that might persuade voters was equivalent to donating those resources directly to a candidate -- and therefore they had the right to restrict the publication of "electioneering communications". The court ruled that no, speech is not money, and is protected by the first amendment under all circumstances.
So the ruling put things back the way they were in 1995, before the FEC had ever gotten the idea that they had the power to censor speech.
The Citizens United ruling had essentially noting to do with "money in politics" and was just a bog standard first amendment ruling against a federal agency attempting to read the power to regulate political speech into a statute that had been passed a mere eight years earlier.
Contrary to the misinformation spread through the media, the court did not rule that "money is speech", but ruled almost exactly the opposite: it was the FEC that was attempting to argue that "speech is money" -- that using resources to speak in a way that might persuade voters was equivalent to donating those resources directly to a candidate -- and therefore they had the right to restrict the publication of "electioneering communications". The court ruled that no, speech is not money, and is protected by the first amendment under all circumstances.
So the ruling put things back the way they were in 1995, before the FEC had ever gotten the idea that they had the power to censor speech.
This is just lying by ommision or gaslighting.... Yes citizens United opened the floodgates to money in us politics overturning nearly A CENTURY old precedent and allowing something unlike anything that had happened in that previous century.... And to downplay it as just going back to status quo is absurd .
This is a good point. No matter the intent, we must also focus on the real world outcomes of said policy.
The Citizens United ruling didn’t just clarify the FEC’s authority, it fundamentally reshaped the landscape of American politics by allowing unlimited corporate and union spending on elections, which critics argue disproportionately amplifies the influence of wealth. While the Court didn’t explicitly equate money with speech, its decision enabled the flow of money into the political system in a way that is effectively treated as free speech under the First Amendment. Far from "restoring the status quo," Citizens United created a system where the wealthy can now spend unlimited amounts of money to sway elections, a shift that has drastically altered democratic representation.
The Citizens United ruling didn’t just clarify the FEC’s authority, it fundamentally reshaped the landscape of American politics by allowing unlimited corporate and union spending on elections, which critics argue disproportionately amplifies the influence of wealth. While the Court didn’t explicitly equate money with speech, its decision enabled the flow of money into the political system in a way that is effectively treated as free speech under the First Amendment. Far from "restoring the status quo," Citizens United created a system where the wealthy can now spend unlimited amounts of money to sway elections, a shift that has drastically altered democratic representation.
> While the Court didn’t explicitly equate money with speech
The court did the exact opposite, and repudiated the attempt by the FEC to equate money with speech.
The FEC were effectively arguing that "speech is money" and that their authority to regulate campaign donations allowed them to censor the direct expression of political opinions by organizations that weren't associated with candidates in any way, under the theory that the expenditure of resources in a way that might influence voters' opinions is equivalent to directly donating the monetary value of those resources to whichever candidates might benefit from shifts in opinion.
Prior to the FEC's attempted enforcement of the 2002 BCRA, this wasn't even an issue at question -- the right of individuals and organizations alike to express their own opinions with their own resources was never in doubt.
The court did the exact opposite, and repudiated the attempt by the FEC to equate money with speech.
The FEC were effectively arguing that "speech is money" and that their authority to regulate campaign donations allowed them to censor the direct expression of political opinions by organizations that weren't associated with candidates in any way, under the theory that the expenditure of resources in a way that might influence voters' opinions is equivalent to directly donating the monetary value of those resources to whichever candidates might benefit from shifts in opinion.
Prior to the FEC's attempted enforcement of the 2002 BCRA, this wasn't even an issue at question -- the right of individuals and organizations alike to express their own opinions with their own resources was never in doubt.
No, it didn't. There's gaslighting going on, but I'm afraid you've been gaslit by the media here. CU was not about campaign donations, despite the frenzied attempts by various factions to pretend otherwise. No donations of money to political candidates were involved in the facts of the case or in the ruling in any way whatsoever.
There was no century old precedent at stake at all. The case, and the ruling, was about the FEC attempting to use a 2002 statute to censor the release of a movie in 2008, invoking a concept ("electioneering communication") that did not exist at all prior to the 21st century.
There was no century old precedent at stake at all. The case, and the ruling, was about the FEC attempting to use a 2002 statute to censor the release of a movie in 2008, invoking a concept ("electioneering communication") that did not exist at all prior to the 21st century.
So are you stupid, malicious, or a lawyer? I don't mean the term precedent as in the specifics of this legal case.
What I meant was that before this case ....there were a variety of limits and checks regarding money in politics from a variety of sources... and especially regarding corporate donations.... And after the case was ruled this way... money flowed in a way that it hasnt in 100 years prior. Any attempt to deny this is just criminal.
What I meant was that before this case ....there were a variety of limits and checks regarding money in politics from a variety of sources... and especially regarding corporate donations.... And after the case was ruled this way... money flowed in a way that it hasnt in 100 years prior. Any attempt to deny this is just criminal.
Citizens United didn't overturn any other precedent apart from Austin (Buckley v. Valeo still holds, for example), didn't alter any rules regarding corporate campaign donations (which are still entirely prohibited!), and everything went back to the way it was pre-2002, before any attempts to censor speech under the guise of regulating campaign donations were made.
Your facts are just straight-up wrong.
Your facts are just straight-up wrong.
The answer is regulation.
Regulation doesn't work. It's usually co-opted by the very parties it's intended to regulate, and used as a means to entrench rather than limit their power. In the worst case, it actually makes things far worse by allowing established interests to manipulate regulation to create barriers to entry for competition, produce collusive outcomes that would otherwise be illegal, and replace common-law liability for the actual consequences of their behavior with prescriptive rules that they can comply with performatively.
Regulation works fine - you can observe it working fine in every other first world country directly mitigating and resolving many of the problems still present in the US.
I'm afraid I can't observe any of that. All I can see is superficial appearances -- I can't see behind-the-scenes corruption or measure superior alternatives that were suppressed in favor of locking in a marginally mitigated version of the status quo ante.
I can, however, see the some of the unintended consequences of regulatory interventions in other countries. For example, Germany's ban on nuclear power made them dependent on Russian oil imports, inadvertently propping up Putin's regime.
I can, however, see the some of the unintended consequences of regulatory interventions in other countries. For example, Germany's ban on nuclear power made them dependent on Russian oil imports, inadvertently propping up Putin's regime.
> I'm afraid I can't observe any of that. All I can see is superficial appearances
This sounds like you are observing much of that, and then dismissing the results as superficial appearances.
Dismissing regulation here would be like dismissing a comparison of a correlation between laws against murder and a low murder rate and a correlation between no laws against murder and a high murder rate.
This sounds like you are observing much of that, and then dismissing the results as superficial appearances.
Dismissing regulation here would be like dismissing a comparison of a correlation between laws against murder and a low murder rate and a correlation between no laws against murder and a high murder rate.
>Dismissing regulation here would be like dismissing a comparison of a correlation between laws against murder and a low murder rate and a correlation between no laws against murder and a high murder rate.
The reality is there is a hint of truth in everything. We must be careful to assign cause where correlation exists.
Let's use Vermont's gun laws for example. Over the last 40 years, the state's approach to firearms has been quite permissive, with relatively few restrictions, but it still maintains a reputation for having one of the lowest gun violence rates in the country. Vermont is one of the few states in the U.S. where people can carry a concealed weapon without a permit. So is it regulation that prevents the gun violence, as many would lead you to believe, or is it a combination of factors. Factors like social stability, cultural attitudes toward guns, and the state's strong focus on community engagement. Those all contribute to the relative lack of gun violence, rather than simply the laws themselves.
But speaking from experience, when we are deep into ego development years (think teens), I would have absolutely killed someone if it wasn't for murder laws. But today, what holds me back is empathy, and not the law.
The reality is there is a hint of truth in everything. We must be careful to assign cause where correlation exists.
Let's use Vermont's gun laws for example. Over the last 40 years, the state's approach to firearms has been quite permissive, with relatively few restrictions, but it still maintains a reputation for having one of the lowest gun violence rates in the country. Vermont is one of the few states in the U.S. where people can carry a concealed weapon without a permit. So is it regulation that prevents the gun violence, as many would lead you to believe, or is it a combination of factors. Factors like social stability, cultural attitudes toward guns, and the state's strong focus on community engagement. Those all contribute to the relative lack of gun violence, rather than simply the laws themselves.
But speaking from experience, when we are deep into ego development years (think teens), I would have absolutely killed someone if it wasn't for murder laws. But today, what holds me back is empathy, and not the law.
> Vermont is one of the few states in the U.S. where people can carry a concealed weapon without a permit
That was true for decades, but over the past 15 years, 28 more states have adopted Vermont-style permitless concealed carry laws, so it's now a majority of states that allow this.
That was true for decades, but over the past 15 years, 28 more states have adopted Vermont-style permitless concealed carry laws, so it's now a majority of states that allow this.
"Capitalist society" can have many different meanings. Pure 100% capitalism does not exist and has never existed, and no serious capitalist thinker has ever argued for it.
I'd argue that what critics of "capitalism" use the term to describe is essentially a straw man that has never accurately represented any real-life economy.
I increasingly thing most of what Bernie says is right, it’s just too soon for such views to be mainstream successful.
But someone has to seed them
But someone has to seed them
The demon haunted world was my favorite book back in my college years more than 20 years ago.
wow
"when the United States is a service and information economy; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues"
"when the United States is a service and information economy; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues"
On the other hand, people losing the ability to think critically, being concerned at power being concentrated amongst the few and thinking the next generation is more ignorant are perennial concerns since forever.
Yes. Example, late state Roman Republic, power concentration into a few Generals with armies. This lead to a dictatorship.
But this time, current time, with technology, it seems different.
Even though you could make same arguments that the printing press had similar effects and criticisms. Hence this is just another cycle of technology change. But really, does seem different in scale this time around.
But this time, current time, with technology, it seems different.
Even though you could make same arguments that the printing press had similar effects and criticisms. Hence this is just another cycle of technology change. But really, does seem different in scale this time around.
Another succinct view from roughly the same point in history that I return to every now and then is Deleuze's Postscript.
"It’s a capitalism of higher-order production. It no longer buys raw materials and no longer sells the finished products: it buys the finished products or assembles parts. What it wants to sell is services and what it wants to buy is stocks. This is no longer a capitalism for production but for the product, which is to say, for being sold or marketed."
'The conquests of the market are made by grabbing control and no longer by disciplinary training, by fixing the exchange rate much more than by lowering costs, by transformation of the product more than by specialization of production. Corruption thereby gains a new power. Marketing has become the center or the “soul” of the corporation. We are taught that corporations have a soul, which is the most terrifying news in the world. The operation of markets is now the instrument of social control and forms the impudent breed of our masters.'
"There is no need to fear or hope, but only to look for new weapons."
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/gilles-deleuze-posts...
"It’s a capitalism of higher-order production. It no longer buys raw materials and no longer sells the finished products: it buys the finished products or assembles parts. What it wants to sell is services and what it wants to buy is stocks. This is no longer a capitalism for production but for the product, which is to say, for being sold or marketed."
'The conquests of the market are made by grabbing control and no longer by disciplinary training, by fixing the exchange rate much more than by lowering costs, by transformation of the product more than by specialization of production. Corruption thereby gains a new power. Marketing has become the center or the “soul” of the corporation. We are taught that corporations have a soul, which is the most terrifying news in the world. The operation of markets is now the instrument of social control and forms the impudent breed of our masters.'
"There is no need to fear or hope, but only to look for new weapons."
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/gilles-deleuze-posts...
the Chinese have been saying, 'The East is rising and the West is declining,' but China's current economy is on the decline, and Europe is no better. That leaves the U.S. still standing with economic growth. I guess we'll see.
Economy is not a game of absolute value--it is a game of _relative_ value and scale, and the US having economic growth _by itself_ is a mirage.
The claim that the US has "economic growth" and that China does not is a strong claim, and does not seem to be supported by any real-world facts.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jan/17/china-econo...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jan/17/china-econo...
the China 5% growth in the article...is it believable? the real world fact that you cited come from China. which stop reporting youth unemployment when the numbers is bad back in 2023. only to restart reporting the number with new method.
Can you trust Chinese's numbers when its real estates, foreign investment drop, deflation...etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JYWFUI5kEc
https://apnews.com/article/china-youth-unemployment-slowdown...
Can you trust Chinese's numbers when its real estates, foreign investment drop, deflation...etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JYWFUI5kEc
https://apnews.com/article/china-youth-unemployment-slowdown...
So your argument is that "nobody knows anything"? It's hardly an argument that you know something.
It's also a straw man to nitpick the number, as your claim "That leaves the U.S. still standing with economic growth" - was that China was not growing, at all.
It's also a straw man to nitpick the number, as your claim "That leaves the U.S. still standing with economic growth" - was that China was not growing, at all.
He's no prophet. Outsourcing of everything was well underway even in the 90s with no sign it would stop short of a catastrophe. As for the ignorance and superstition aspect of it, that's his whole schtick. I don't think people are necessarily a lot more ignorant about science than they were in the 90s, despite the decline of US industry.
What might strike some people as odd is that it took like 50 years for people to start to panic about the future of our economy. And even that is probably inaccurate. I think people did panic in the 70s and 80s, but we have so far to fall and nobody expected it to take so long.
What might strike some people as odd is that it took like 50 years for people to start to panic about the future of our economy. And even that is probably inaccurate. I think people did panic in the 70s and 80s, but we have so far to fall and nobody expected it to take so long.
Predict eh? I think Mr. Sagan saw a seemingly endless cycle. Cycles are kinda predictable because of their nature. However we might have a few chances to modify the cycle until the next giant civilication wants to dictate it all, because they think their way is the best way. Some would call that evolution. Try try try and try again until something works. And if it doesn't anymore. Try again again.
-Sagan’s 1995 predictions are now being heralded as prophetic. As Director of Public Radio International’s Science Friday, Charles Bergquist tweeted, “Carl Sagan had either a time machine or a crystal ball.”
Prophetic, time machine, crystal call.
That's exactly the lenguage of darkness and superstition...
Prophetic, time machine, crystal call.
That's exactly the lenguage of darkness and superstition...
They acknowledge the irony in the very next sentence:
"Matt Novak cautions against falling back into superstitious thinking in our praise of Demon Haunted World. After all, he says, “the ‘accuracy’ of predictions is often a Rorschach test” and “some of Sagan’s concerns” in other parts of the book “sound rather quaint.”"
"Matt Novak cautions against falling back into superstitious thinking in our praise of Demon Haunted World. After all, he says, “the ‘accuracy’ of predictions is often a Rorschach test” and “some of Sagan’s concerns” in other parts of the book “sound rather quaint.”"
Don’t forget to read the comments of the article.
roger.
>February 4, 2025 at 11:07 am
>In the immortal words of Ghandi “When an idiot is elected to power, the people who voted for him is well represented.”
>February 4, 2025 at 11:07 am
>In the immortal words of Ghandi “When an idiot is elected to power, the people who voted for him is well represented.”
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.* — H.L. Mencken
Arguing about the decline of the US with idealism is just as meaningless as arguing about the prosperity of the US with idealism.
"Nah, we'll rise again like some mythical bird," said a voice in Arizona.
Oh God.
Don’t say that. Nothing says “thoroughly defeated” quite as well as people lacking in self-awareness running around shouting, “The South shall rise again!”.
Let’s just put our heads down and come up with some ideas on how we can better operate in the newly leveling global context.
Don’t say that. Nothing says “thoroughly defeated” quite as well as people lacking in self-awareness running around shouting, “The South shall rise again!”.
Let’s just put our heads down and come up with some ideas on how we can better operate in the newly leveling global context.
Where did you get a reference to "the South shall rise again" out of the previous comment?
I began reading the book (The Demon Haunted World) and it shocked me how casually Sagan states that he hallucinated, and it gave me an epiphany:
The schizophrenic doesn't understand that other people are sane!
Suddenly, it makes perfect sense - a schizophrenic (or perhaps a group of them) somehow came up with science. And for them it was a world changing event, as they could disprove their hallucinations one by one. It turned them from something that was barely surviving on the outskirts of society into somewhat functional beings.
But, for the same reason why he was insane in the first place, sooner or later he corrupts his science as well.
However the schizophrenic doesn't uderstand that others are sane.
So, when he was convincing the sailors that scurvy isn't from the lack of fruit, he fought their insane belief, like when he believed a leprechaun stabbed him. When he is convincing you that there are more genders than men and women, he is fighting your insane delusion, like when he disproved that there were fire spitting dragons flying in the sky! He's merely trying to bring you out of darknes, just like he did himself.
The schizophrenic doesn't understand that other people are sane!
Suddenly, it makes perfect sense - a schizophrenic (or perhaps a group of them) somehow came up with science. And for them it was a world changing event, as they could disprove their hallucinations one by one. It turned them from something that was barely surviving on the outskirts of society into somewhat functional beings.
But, for the same reason why he was insane in the first place, sooner or later he corrupts his science as well.
However the schizophrenic doesn't uderstand that others are sane.
So, when he was convincing the sailors that scurvy isn't from the lack of fruit, he fought their insane belief, like when he believed a leprechaun stabbed him. When he is convincing you that there are more genders than men and women, he is fighting your insane delusion, like when he disproved that there were fire spitting dragons flying in the sky! He's merely trying to bring you out of darknes, just like he did himself.
yaya69(7)
Carl Sagan died the year after this quote. With the greatest respect to him as a science communicator, he has not lived to see an entire generation of politics. When he died, the liberal capitalist post-historical consensus was in full swing. World leaders believed that all notions of identity and nationhood would gently fade away, to be replaced by a world of fungible, peaceful shoppers, administered by an all-knowing, all-loving class of technocratic managers.
The election of Trump (especially Trump 2.0) is a ground-up repudiation of this consensus by ordinary people, who have a completely different life experience to the managerial cosmopolitan class (of whom this website largely represents). Trump, and various other right-wing ascendants throughout the world, are a statement by the common people of the belief that a desire for identity, sovereignty and representation does not disappear the moment a McDonald's appears in their home country.
The (understandable!) lamentations of the academic class towards the current actions of the Trump administration have, to my mind, a deficit of self-reflection and theory of mind towards the people supporting these actions. For decades, the stage of "democracy" has been increasingly garnished with explicitly non-democratic embellishments. NGOs, panels of "experts", bureaucratic oversight, international "obligations" and so on.
This is the exact same situation that motivated the people of Britain to vote for Brexit 9 years ago. Michael Gove, while I have very little time for him as a politician, made a point in a news interview that was condemned for years, but that I think was an accurate capture of working-class sentiment in that time. The soundbite form was "Britain has had enough of experts". And he was exactly right.
For decades, academia has been part of an ongoing anti-democratic, elitist movement to effectively take control away from common people. Health matters are deferred to "listening to the experts", and ordinary people were made to feel as if they didn't deserve a say on if they should be allowed to leave their own homes in 2020-21. NGO-funded academic studies serve to tell normal people that despite their own experiences, mass immigration has been an unambiguous good in their lives, and they have no right to express otherwise. This idea of deference to unelected experts peaked when normal people started being told that it was not within their jurisdiction to define for themselves what the words "man" and "woman" mean -- these two words that are foundational to human civilisation and the language spoken in it were to become the domain of a sect of largely self-appointed modern-day clerics, who expected the public to believe that they were completely rational, objective, and blind to ideology.
This is what the conversation on "anti-intellectualism" very often misses, when being discussed by those in the intellectual classes. While criticising the "uneducated" masses for being so unenlightened, they fail to notice that they also have biases, incentives, and ideological motivations, and it is these that the public are pushing back against, not the noble pursuit of objective knowledge.
The election of Trump (especially Trump 2.0) is a ground-up repudiation of this consensus by ordinary people, who have a completely different life experience to the managerial cosmopolitan class (of whom this website largely represents). Trump, and various other right-wing ascendants throughout the world, are a statement by the common people of the belief that a desire for identity, sovereignty and representation does not disappear the moment a McDonald's appears in their home country.
The (understandable!) lamentations of the academic class towards the current actions of the Trump administration have, to my mind, a deficit of self-reflection and theory of mind towards the people supporting these actions. For decades, the stage of "democracy" has been increasingly garnished with explicitly non-democratic embellishments. NGOs, panels of "experts", bureaucratic oversight, international "obligations" and so on.
This is the exact same situation that motivated the people of Britain to vote for Brexit 9 years ago. Michael Gove, while I have very little time for him as a politician, made a point in a news interview that was condemned for years, but that I think was an accurate capture of working-class sentiment in that time. The soundbite form was "Britain has had enough of experts". And he was exactly right.
For decades, academia has been part of an ongoing anti-democratic, elitist movement to effectively take control away from common people. Health matters are deferred to "listening to the experts", and ordinary people were made to feel as if they didn't deserve a say on if they should be allowed to leave their own homes in 2020-21. NGO-funded academic studies serve to tell normal people that despite their own experiences, mass immigration has been an unambiguous good in their lives, and they have no right to express otherwise. This idea of deference to unelected experts peaked when normal people started being told that it was not within their jurisdiction to define for themselves what the words "man" and "woman" mean -- these two words that are foundational to human civilisation and the language spoken in it were to become the domain of a sect of largely self-appointed modern-day clerics, who expected the public to believe that they were completely rational, objective, and blind to ideology.
This is what the conversation on "anti-intellectualism" very often misses, when being discussed by those in the intellectual classes. While criticising the "uneducated" masses for being so unenlightened, they fail to notice that they also have biases, incentives, and ideological motivations, and it is these that the public are pushing back against, not the noble pursuit of objective knowledge.
> For decades, academia has been part of an ongoing anti-democratic, elitist movement to effectively take control away from common people
When you declare that "studying things" is elitist, that's when you know your argument is cooked.
A PhD student earning $40k a year is not, in any sense, part of the elite.
When you declare that "studying things" is elitist, that's when you know your argument is cooked.
A PhD student earning $40k a year is not, in any sense, part of the elite.
This is the kind of dishonest motte-and-bailey framing that is all too common in academia, that my post was trying to highlight. There are many aspects and fields of academia that are very obviously ideologically captured, whether that's "studies" in economics and sociology that are obvious attempts to reify the modern consensus of human beings as identical, fungible, latently-liberal economic units. Or it could be well-known physicists being taken to task about how their research on cosmological inflation contributes to the cause of diversity [0].
When such things are rightly levied in criticisms of academic ideological capture, the discussion reverts to the idea that the entire industry is nothing more than "studying things", as you put it, for knowledge and knowledge alone.
>A PhD student earning $40k a year is not, in any sense, part of the elite.
You could say the same thing about a private-rank soldier, or a party secretary. The relatively low wages of one particular person is incidental to the main issue of the overall power structure, and who it serves.
[0] https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/39160/
When such things are rightly levied in criticisms of academic ideological capture, the discussion reverts to the idea that the entire industry is nothing more than "studying things", as you put it, for knowledge and knowledge alone.
>A PhD student earning $40k a year is not, in any sense, part of the elite.
You could say the same thing about a private-rank soldier, or a party secretary. The relatively low wages of one particular person is incidental to the main issue of the overall power structure, and who it serves.
[0] https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/39160/
I just think “elite” has no meaning if you’re just using it as a synonym for “people I don’t like”.
“Elite” is traditionally a synonym for rich white men educated at Ivy League universities working comfortable, high-earning jobs. Those people still exist! Trump is one of them, as is George W Bush, and his father before him.
“Elite” is traditionally a synonym for rich white men educated at Ivy League universities working comfortable, high-earning jobs. Those people still exist! Trump is one of them, as is George W Bush, and his father before him.
The contradictions in that definition and its examples indicates to me how outdated it is. Connecting "white men" and Ivy League universities, despite those institutions adopting an ideology explicitly designed to dispossess white men from institutional power. Connecting universities and Trump, despite the Trump administration occupying an opposing faction of power to academia (hence the articles bemoaning this being posted on HN). Connecting Trump to Bush despite Trump existing outside and against the Bush dynasty (to the point that the Democrats took Liz Cheney onboard in their campaign against Trump).
The better definition is simply that the elites of a nation are the ones that hold the most outsized political power, often the kind of intangible power that they are loathe to admit having. Trump is more or less attempting a small-scale revolution in America, being the replacement of one class of elites with another. What the prospective replacement class of elites looks like is harder to say than who they're attempting to replace.
The better definition is simply that the elites of a nation are the ones that hold the most outsized political power, often the kind of intangible power that they are loathe to admit having. Trump is more or less attempting a small-scale revolution in America, being the replacement of one class of elites with another. What the prospective replacement class of elites looks like is harder to say than who they're attempting to replace.
> The election of Trump (especially Trump 2.0) is a ground-up repudiation of this consensus by ordinary people
Or maybe it's just a reaction to the "class of technocratic managers" becoming corrupt and dysfunctional, and attempting to control things that were far outside of the role that the "liberal capitalist post-historical consensus" had defined for them.
Or maybe it's just a reaction to the "class of technocratic managers" becoming corrupt and dysfunctional, and attempting to control things that were far outside of the role that the "liberal capitalist post-historical consensus" had defined for them.
Carl Sagan may very well be correct, however he didn't make predictions about when such an event might occur, and his predictions were aimed at avoiding it occurring at all.
I've seen this article appear several times in two distinct time periods, one was after Trump was elected the first time, and the second is now.
Why is it popular now? Because people opposed to the present political party want to portray it as a decent into darkness and superstition. It's being used as a tool and it's hyperbole.
Don't fall for the trap, things in the US at least appear to be improving tremendously in just a matter of weeks. Border security is improving, cutting off trafficking and drugs. Middle East peace is advancing. Ukraine might be settled. Significant waste is being cut from government spending etc.
I've seen this article appear several times in two distinct time periods, one was after Trump was elected the first time, and the second is now.
Why is it popular now? Because people opposed to the present political party want to portray it as a decent into darkness and superstition. It's being used as a tool and it's hyperbole.
Don't fall for the trap, things in the US at least appear to be improving tremendously in just a matter of weeks. Border security is improving, cutting off trafficking and drugs. Middle East peace is advancing. Ukraine might be settled. Significant waste is being cut from government spending etc.
Threatening to close the Dept of Education and blocking scientific research is not an improvement. And nothing has changed on Border, Drugs, ME or UKR - same as it was. Bro just talked a game and some believe without evidence
Yes, my crystal auras suggest things are getting much better too so I don't see what people are worried about.
> Middle East peace is advancing
Trump just announced what amounts to a genocide on Palestinians and occupation of Gaza as American territory.
This won't be a lasting peace.
Trump just announced what amounts to a genocide on Palestinians and occupation of Gaza as American territory.
This won't be a lasting peace.
Yet, 30 years later America is on the lead, large and sound.
Until it decides to go on a mission of self fulfilled prophecy, trying to undo everything overnight.
Until it decides to go on a mission of self fulfilled prophecy, trying to undo everything overnight.
Americans may not think of themselves as an “empire,” but much of the world does. The average age of empires, according to a specialist on the subject, the late Sir John Bagot Glubb, is 250 years. After that, empires always die, often slowly but overwhelmingly from overreaching in the search for power.
the US is 249 years old.
the US is 249 years old.
Thinking about, that's around 5 generations, if we calculate, with each generation having roughly 50 years of power and relevant impact. So we have the first generation build the empire, the second solidifying it, and the next three upholding and slowly losing it. Interestingly, this mirrors how many rich families develop over time until they fall back into "poverty".
If you're talking about that book, he handpicked the empires and the "dates of decline" to fit the narrative harder than undergrad writing their thesis night before deadline. ;)
The US wasn’t an empire until at least around 1900 and maybe not truly until 1945. Sounds like we have another century left!
Uh — Roman Empire lasted in part something like 1500 years and imperial China around 2100 years.
Average implies that it’s not a hard and fast rule they die at that particular point — as the following sentence implies.
Average implies that it’s not a hard and fast rule they die at that particular point — as the following sentence implies.
That's true, but those empires also had periods of traumatic decline and upheaval. Given if you grant those entities continuity for those time scales, there were absolutely periods in the middle where everything went to shit. Using a 1500 year number for Rome includes having half the empire drop off and die.
The more important idea isn't the 250 years (I agree), the idea is that it's not unreasonable to model aspects of America as an empire.
The more important idea isn't the 250 years (I agree), the idea is that it's not unreasonable to model aspects of America as an empire.
I’d argue that the US is experiencing the transition from republic to empire that Rome did — also during a period of decline and political corruption.
My point was that decline and regrowth, or even political transition as with Rome, happen frequently — not just decline followed by collapse (or “death”).
My point was that decline and regrowth, or even political transition as with Rome, happen frequently — not just decline followed by collapse (or “death”).
That's fair enough, but I feel like more modern examples are probably more relevant than Ancient Rome or China. The modern world offers significantly more ways for rival powers to assert influence in periods of weakness.
I'd also argue that for most people anxious right now, the idea that America might be in a transitional period of turmoil, but that it'll emerge stronger in 20 years (I made up that number) is of cold comfort.
I'd also argue that for most people anxious right now, the idea that America might be in a transitional period of turmoil, but that it'll emerge stronger in 20 years (I made up that number) is of cold comfort.
China is also a modern example: they endured a political collapse and century of humiliation, but successfully reconstituted themselves into a world power comparable in many ways to imperial China. Russia at the end of the USSR has also successfully endured a period of collapse, during which Putin rose to power and successfully navigated to being an influential country. (Though, less so than China and with remaining challenges.)
> I'd also argue that for most people anxious right now, the idea that America might be in a transitional period of turmoil, but that it'll emerge stronger in 20 years (I made up that number) is of cold comfort.
Trump is popular precisely on that platform — that we can do hard work now and reverse the decline in the US.
I think people would be comforted to know that it would only be twenty years — a lot of Millennials in that movement don’t believe they’ll see it, but are nevertheless doing it for their children (or relatives). A not infrequent sentiment is “it’s over for us bros, but do it for the kids!”
> I'd also argue that for most people anxious right now, the idea that America might be in a transitional period of turmoil, but that it'll emerge stronger in 20 years (I made up that number) is of cold comfort.
Trump is popular precisely on that platform — that we can do hard work now and reverse the decline in the US.
I think people would be comforted to know that it would only be twenty years — a lot of Millennials in that movement don’t believe they’ll see it, but are nevertheless doing it for their children (or relatives). A not infrequent sentiment is “it’s over for us bros, but do it for the kids!”
That's cool, I didn't understand that about the movement. I'm honestly very skeptical and dismayed about many aspects of the movement. For example, I'm instinctively skeptical that the timescale and depth of turmoil and rebirth is truly understood and accepted amongst the majority of movement supporters. And I'm afraid of the tools being unleashed to achieve and lock in changes.
But it was also clear that there were many aspects of status quo that were deeply problematic. So I understand the urge at least.
But it was also clear that there were many aspects of status quo that were deeply problematic. So I understand the urge at least.
Coincidentally, few democracies last much longer than 250 years. Monarchies and oligarchies tend to last longer.
Some argue that all organizations, including governments, eventually become oligarchies. See The Iron Law of Oligarchy (1911)
Some argue that all organizations, including governments, eventually become oligarchies. See The Iron Law of Oligarchy (1911)
Broken Clock is right twice a day.
A civilization declines? If I didn't read history, I'd be shocked.
Isnt America still number 1 in GDP and the only regional hedgemon?
"I predict that America will decline." Someone write an article, I will be correct at some point.
And on the comments about superstition... religion is at an all-time low... So, I suppose that isnt perfectly correct.
A civilization declines? If I didn't read history, I'd be shocked.
Isnt America still number 1 in GDP and the only regional hedgemon?
"I predict that America will decline." Someone write an article, I will be correct at some point.
And on the comments about superstition... religion is at an all-time low... So, I suppose that isnt perfectly correct.
> Isnt America still number 1 in GDP
GDP is a completely outdated metric that didn't say anything about civilization decline when it was valid and still doesn't say anything about civilization decline now that's it's next to useless
GDP is a completely outdated metric that didn't say anything about civilization decline when it was valid and still doesn't say anything about civilization decline now that's it's next to useless
Was GDP ever meant to be used as a metric of success? It almost seems like it adds in all the broken window fallacies in the world and celebrates them as an achievement. The US broken scam healthcare system is likely a significant contributor to the GDP number but its really just a parasite on the American worker that makes them more expensive and less competitive in a global market.
Well if I give 1 person a $1 bill and they pass it on to 9 other people. That's $10 worth of GDP.
> Isnt America still number 1 in GDP and the only regional hedgemon?
No, GDP has a few ways to measure it, China beats the US on some of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)
I think China is also as much of a *regional* hedgemon as the US.
Might argue the EU as well, the Brussels effect etc., but that's less clear. Even after Brexit, the GDP-PPP is very close to the USA, though it is also definitely behind the USA.
No, GDP has a few ways to measure it, China beats the US on some of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)
I think China is also as much of a *regional* hedgemon as the US.
Might argue the EU as well, the Brussels effect etc., but that's less clear. Even after Brexit, the GDP-PPP is very close to the USA, though it is also definitely behind the USA.
EU will still stand strong, but... as a regional power. I don't buy that we will decline totally; but we'll be like Indonesia or Nigeria. Strong regional powers, but no power projection.
Perhaps. I like living in the EU, I like its (current) values, so I would like this to be the case.
But the world changes, and that change leads to political pressure. Even putting aside any possible radical technological shift (AKA "the singularity"), in 50 years from now, the EU may exist as is, or have disintegrated, or may have properly unified into a single polity much as the USA is today — and if the latter, it's likely it will have a single army and engage in hard-power-projection the way the USA does.
But the world changes, and that change leads to political pressure. Even putting aside any possible radical technological shift (AKA "the singularity"), in 50 years from now, the EU may exist as is, or have disintegrated, or may have properly unified into a single polity much as the USA is today — and if the latter, it's likely it will have a single army and engage in hard-power-projection the way the USA does.
Me too. Me too...
I feel using the GDP as a metric to assess how a country is doing, is unreasonable.
If you look at wealth distribution, housing, cost of living, future prospects for young people, actual policies, you get a better picture.
The picture the USA is showing looks like a horror show to me.
Carl Sagan was right and the Right understood him well. Buying up radio stations, media to mold the larger public into a state where you basically have inoculated them against any form of nuance or reason gains you the power to overthrow democracy.
If you look at wealth distribution, housing, cost of living, future prospects for young people, actual policies, you get a better picture.
The picture the USA is showing looks like a horror show to me.
Carl Sagan was right and the Right understood him well. Buying up radio stations, media to mold the larger public into a state where you basically have inoculated them against any form of nuance or reason gains you the power to overthrow democracy.
Yes. History is filled with empires that have fallen.
Still some value in trying to figure out 'why'. Treat History as a science and ask what are the overall patterns, is there something we can distill out to help guide the future.
US is at the top right 'now'. Wouldn't it be great to prevent the decline that history would say is on the way.
Read some Peter Turchin, he has some good analysis. Patterns in past cycles of growing, then falling, empires.
Still some value in trying to figure out 'why'. Treat History as a science and ask what are the overall patterns, is there something we can distill out to help guide the future.
US is at the top right 'now'. Wouldn't it be great to prevent the decline that history would say is on the way.
Read some Peter Turchin, he has some good analysis. Patterns in past cycles of growing, then falling, empires.
Sarcasm/Irony/Nonsense:
Religion's gonna have a come-back once all those Jesuses crawl out from their Mom's basement and start their TikTok Channels for of and by advertisement, sry, I mean people, the people.
Opinion/POV:
America will decline as much as our species will decline, which is not at all, because all we'll do is change which is what America is doing right now.
I always found Tyler Cowen and Paul Graham "yucky", even words like 'obnoxious' felt like giving them too much credit for who they are, which is an opinion I derived from some of their writing and which is how I came to the liminal conclusion that they are exactly that kind of people who want back-doors into teen minds for the sake of an economy that rewards crowd control for the sake of propagating ALL markets, whatever trash-tv ethics they were build on; from punched drugs and cosmetics that destroy the kids' skin so that they have to continue to buy products to alleviate or hide the damage all the way to TV shows and live events that skew their sense of reality and social (and sexual) exploration to the point where "anything goes, just give in, let it happen, let it be, it is what it is" become the foundations of their virtues, much hidden in the subtext of "content" spanning a decade that tries "to warn" while it's actual "substance" works in harmony with the many things that fuck with teen minds and more than enough adolescents and grown ups.
But I recently came to understand that, and I think one of them even phrased it in some way himself, they (et al) are dead serious about 'leading' (to whom it applies) and steering the attention of those who pay attention via bad example and the worst versions of how they can make the economy work. It might be worse but they don't want to ruin or eliminate chances, they just really want to keep it all as open as possible to whomever is capable of doing what must be done to do better.
So whether America will decline or not, and whether our species will, is a matter of people getting the fuck up and going into merciless competition (with representatives, their interest groups, the legislative, executive, judicial branches) using the so obviously better ways that exist to change - not disrupt, evolve, really - the many industries that need to evolve. It's implicit, really, that if people stick to the wrong teachings, then things will break down. Evolution is slow burn, much like that turtle vs that Greek dude and can often seem like its 'plateauing' but in the bodies and brains of the living happens a lot that is subject to the innate mechanisms of an interconnected system. This is why the OODA [0] loop - observe, orient, decide, act - must be actively taught and emphasized and practiced in school, in games, and it should be made one of the key themes for interns in any industry.
It is the old guards fault that the world is what it is, and it will be all our fault if we fail to enable all the youngest generations to properly apply what they observe while they orient themselves in the free and in the professional world. Change isn't hard, but the people demanding and implementing it must be hard, so I believe the whole "it's declining" theme is an implicit challenge that emerged from the simple fact, that the old guard was annoyed to have raised such weak and systems-serving rather than systems-improving offspring, both theirs and that of all the other people.
A lot of what I just wrote is, to me, why some many PhD holders and Ivy league kids appear so disappointing.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop
Religion's gonna have a come-back once all those Jesuses crawl out from their Mom's basement and start their TikTok Channels for of and by advertisement, sry, I mean people, the people.
Opinion/POV:
America will decline as much as our species will decline, which is not at all, because all we'll do is change which is what America is doing right now.
I always found Tyler Cowen and Paul Graham "yucky", even words like 'obnoxious' felt like giving them too much credit for who they are, which is an opinion I derived from some of their writing and which is how I came to the liminal conclusion that they are exactly that kind of people who want back-doors into teen minds for the sake of an economy that rewards crowd control for the sake of propagating ALL markets, whatever trash-tv ethics they were build on; from punched drugs and cosmetics that destroy the kids' skin so that they have to continue to buy products to alleviate or hide the damage all the way to TV shows and live events that skew their sense of reality and social (and sexual) exploration to the point where "anything goes, just give in, let it happen, let it be, it is what it is" become the foundations of their virtues, much hidden in the subtext of "content" spanning a decade that tries "to warn" while it's actual "substance" works in harmony with the many things that fuck with teen minds and more than enough adolescents and grown ups.
But I recently came to understand that, and I think one of them even phrased it in some way himself, they (et al) are dead serious about 'leading' (to whom it applies) and steering the attention of those who pay attention via bad example and the worst versions of how they can make the economy work. It might be worse but they don't want to ruin or eliminate chances, they just really want to keep it all as open as possible to whomever is capable of doing what must be done to do better.
So whether America will decline or not, and whether our species will, is a matter of people getting the fuck up and going into merciless competition (with representatives, their interest groups, the legislative, executive, judicial branches) using the so obviously better ways that exist to change - not disrupt, evolve, really - the many industries that need to evolve. It's implicit, really, that if people stick to the wrong teachings, then things will break down. Evolution is slow burn, much like that turtle vs that Greek dude and can often seem like its 'plateauing' but in the bodies and brains of the living happens a lot that is subject to the innate mechanisms of an interconnected system. This is why the OODA [0] loop - observe, orient, decide, act - must be actively taught and emphasized and practiced in school, in games, and it should be made one of the key themes for interns in any industry.
It is the old guards fault that the world is what it is, and it will be all our fault if we fail to enable all the youngest generations to properly apply what they observe while they orient themselves in the free and in the professional world. Change isn't hard, but the people demanding and implementing it must be hard, so I believe the whole "it's declining" theme is an implicit challenge that emerged from the simple fact, that the old guard was annoyed to have raised such weak and systems-serving rather than systems-improving offspring, both theirs and that of all the other people.
A lot of what I just wrote is, to me, why some many PhD holders and Ivy league kids appear so disappointing.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop
It really is crazy to see the way the US is going. I remember reading every time in history an emerging superpower was replacing a declining power, the declining power got antsy and shot first, leading to them getting whooped by the emerging superpower, cementing them as a superpower. I wonder if that will happen with the US.