I share your cynicism, but not depression about it. Many key aspects of today's America will change. It will be painful for many, and probably will regress toward the mean in terms of median liberty and wealth. That's gonna suck.
We won't necessarily give up everything, though. Both mechanical/electronic technology (how to make stuff) and human-manipulation technology (how to organize a firm, how to motivate a partner, etc.) have made serious advances in the last 100 years, and those advances will make the future better than it would have been without them.
The comparison to the roman empire is a good one. It ramped up somewhat more slowly than us, and declined far more slowly than I expect we will. But it was a grand success in showing how city life can be preferable to subsistance farming, and had lasting influence on everything that came after. Just because something is over doesn't make it a failure.
"The more things change, the more they stay the same."
Growing up in Minneapolis, one of the big events of my adolescence was the construction of the Metrodome. It wasn't until 25 years later that I found out that the Roman Coliseum was functionally equivalent with the exception of electricity. I expect the cyclical nature of empire is still equally relevant today. I also expect, just as then, the natural structure for society is hierarchical, and nothing will change that.
Uncle Sam's Original Sin?slowjoeMarch 15 2010, 20:15:16 UTC
Brit here, sorry to butt in...
I understand your point refers to slavery. They compromised on the practice of slavery to avoid civil war. But slavery ended 150 years or so ago, and the seed of the abolition was placed in the founding documents.
But how the hell do you figure that damaged the country irrevocably from the outset?
BTW, the interesting followup to this line of thinking is "how do I protect myself and my preferred way of life through the upcoming crises"?
Borrowing in dollars and buying physical gold, which you smuggle to your refuge in Canada or New Zealand seems one good option. You certainly run some risks in doing so - robbery/confiscation being chief among them, but also simple devaluation if the decline is slower than you predict.
This works for a few families, but doesn't really help on a wide scale. patrissimo's work on seasteading is the only thing I know of making a serious attempt at fundamental structural change, and I'd give that a fairly low chance of success (but a high payout if it hits
( ... )
Comments 14
We won't necessarily give up everything, though. Both mechanical/electronic technology (how to make stuff) and human-manipulation technology (how to organize a firm, how to motivate a partner, etc.) have made serious advances in the last 100 years, and those advances will make the future better than it would have been without them.
The comparison to the roman empire is a good one. It ramped up somewhat more slowly than us, and declined far more slowly than I expect we will. But it was a grand success in showing how city life can be preferable to subsistance farming, and had lasting influence on everything that came after. Just because something is over doesn't make it a failure.
Reply
Growing up in Minneapolis, one of the big events of my adolescence was the construction of the Metrodome. It wasn't until 25 years later that I found out that the Roman Coliseum was functionally equivalent with the exception of electricity. I expect the cyclical nature of empire is still equally relevant today. I also expect, just as then, the natural structure for society is hierarchical, and nothing will change that.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I understand your point refers to slavery. They compromised on the practice of slavery to avoid civil war. But slavery ended 150 years or so ago, and the seed of the abolition was placed in the founding documents.
But how the hell do you figure that damaged the country irrevocably from the outset?
Reply
Borrowing in dollars and buying physical gold, which you smuggle to your refuge in Canada or New Zealand seems one good option. You certainly run some risks in doing so - robbery/confiscation being chief among them, but also simple devaluation if the decline is slower than you predict.
This works for a few families, but doesn't really help on a wide scale. patrissimo's work on seasteading is the only thing I know of making a serious attempt at fundamental structural change, and I'd give that a fairly low chance of success (but a high payout if it hits ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment