6 ms·

I am unconvinced, both by the comparison of the modern social order to a bicycle and by historical comparisons to Rome. In the first place, economic growth slo

I am unconvinced, both by the comparison of the modern social order to a bicycle and by historical comparisons to Rome. In the first place, economic growth slows down and reverses from time to time. Society doesn't collapse. People paint the Great Depression as having been "saved" by WW2, not as a sequence of events that all fed into each other. In other words, if the Great Depression and subsequent world war wasn't a perfect example of the worst that could possibly happen, I dare you to point out a plausible worse scenario. No, nuclear war doesn't count, even the worst nuclear war imaginable won't be as bad as WW2 was. Nuclear winter is a myth, the particles fall out of the air too quickly, and the inverse square law greatly limits direct damage. Most civilian population centers won't get hit, unless we start another arms race, so we're looking at a few decades at most of economic disruption in the worst possible case. Finally, the Roman Empire was in no way comparable to the current global regime. The political systems seen by Rome were downright primitive compared to our representative democracies, multi-state unions, and trade federations. The Anglosphere is in no way vulnerable to dictatorship, and while Europe was once capable of fascism in the past, the days where a would-be Hitler or Mussolini could whip populations into a murderous frenzy are long gone. The worst that can happen is sovereign devolution AKA Brexit, Grexit, Scottish independence et al. The might of Western hegemony is going to slowly fade away and new regional orders will slowly gain strength. The EU will slowly evolve along those orders and the world will stumble towards a new, multi-polar equilibrium, out of which a new global governing body will emerge, fail, then emerge again. Rome "collapsed" by spreading across Europe, Western civilization will "collapse" by spreading across the globe.

jcranmer 10y ago
> Finally, the Roman Empire was in no way comparable to the current global regime. The political systems seen by Rome were downright primitive compared to our representative democracies, multi-state unions, and trade federations. The Anglosphere is in no way vulnerable to dictatorship, and while Europe was once capable of fascism in the past, the days where a would-be Hitler or Mussolini could whip populations into a murderous frenzy are long gone. The worst that can happen is sovereign devolution AKA Brexit, Grexit, Scottish independence et al. War is the ultimate test of political systems. In France alone, the First Republic, First Empire, Second Empire, Vichy France, Third Republic, and Fourth Republics all collapsed due to strains of war. Similarly, loss in WWI proved the end of several strains of government. In the United States, the American Civil War prompted Lincoln to more or less tear up the Constitution (although it should also be noted that many provisions only apply in times of peace). Merely asserting that Western governments are immune to the foibles of fascism and dictatorship is folly. While I agree that many countries have fairly strong checks against reversion from democracy, a prolonged period of weakening could still very well happen.
- vinceguidry 10y ago
  Governments may not have survived, but the countries themselves did. > Merely asserting that Western governments are immune to the foibles of fascism and dictatorship is folly. The goalposts keep getting moved back. The world survived the Nazis and Holocaust and eventually became more stable. What could be worse than that?
  - jonnathanson 10y ago
    What could be worse than the Holocaust? From a moral standpoint, little that I can imagine. From a human-cost standpoint, howabout unchecked and cascading climate change? If the world's powers retrench into regional hegemonies, and trust erodes along with trans-regional communication, then we're less and less likely to do anything on a global scale -- and we need to. If we let the ball get away from us here, we're talking about potentially billions of lives lost to war and famine, not to mention the billions whose way of life will be lost. And the worst part is, we don't even need fascism to get us there. We get there easily enough through the direction the status quo is bending towards.
Fauntleroy 10y ago
> even the worst nuclear war imaginable won't be as bad as WW2 was It wouldn't take that many major cities to get past the death toll of WW2. The "worst nuclear war" would easily have more civilian casualties than WW2. How on Earth can you even say this?
- mrec 10y ago
  Yup. Karachi, Shanghai and Beijing alone would put you above the total casualties of WW2. I've no idea what GP is smoking.
  - vinceguidry 10y ago
    In order to destroy NYC one would require on the order of 40 warheads. Nuclear weapons are far less devastating than we think. Using weapons on civilian populations leaves intact enemy military forces which would be free to counter-attack. For this reason most war plans target enemy military installations. You want to keep a certain number of weapons in reserve, it makes approximately zero sense to completely obliterate a city. The only reason major population centers were targeted in WW2 was because those centers were also major military targets, destroying them would have been crucial to the planned amphibious assault. Had we not had nuclear weaponry on hand, they would have been conventionally bombed like all the others. Warfare has changed, materiel is now located outside of population centers, on military bases. Putting countries on war footing would take 18 months and it's unlikely any major conflict would last that long. Strategic materials are the ultimate limiter to high-tech warfare like we see today. We just don't have enough to keep pumping out weapons. In the end, the very stakes of warfare keep local conflicts from escalating. It's in everybody's best interest to keep the cash flowing. Trade was far more regional 80 years ago.
    - petre 10y ago
      > The only reason major population centers were targeted in WW2 was because those centers were also major military targets Like Dresden? Beer factories and civil industry, all reduced to rubble by carpet bombing. Do read Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut. Not your average anti war book.
drspacemonkey 10y ago
>I dare you to point out a plausible worse scenario. What about collapse of the ecosystem due to global warming?
- vinceguidry 10y ago
  The world isn't one ecosystem. Some ecosystems, like the Great Barrier Reef, will collapse, but this sort of thing won't put much of a dent in global commerce. Lots of people's livelihoods are threatened, but humanity isn't.
  - pg314 10y ago
    You complain about moving goalposts in another comment in this thread, but you're doing that exact thing here. In your original comment you asked about societal collapse, here you're talking about threats to humanity. There are plenty of societies that have collapsed, yet humanity is still here...
    - vinceguidry 10y ago
      In the worst-case scenario, it's all the other societies that don't make up Western civilization that are threatened. Western Civilization, defined by the Anglosphere plus Europe, will survive and perhaps even thrive. We can adjust. Large scale civil engineering feats that could save the likes of Miami, London, and New York from sea level rise, the worst threat to Western civilization posed by climate change, are well within the ability of those cities to pursue. It will be very expensive, but not an existential threat.
      - cholantesh 10y ago
        Mass migrations are an assured consequence of climate change, and such events are culturally transformative on a grand scale.
        drspacemonkey 10y ago
x0137294744532 10y ago
> No, nuclear war doesn't count, even the worst nuclear war imaginable won't be as bad as WW2 was. Let's do some math. Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed ~100,000 people, making it 50,000 per bomb. The US has currently 31,175 nuclear weapons at its disposal. If it were to even use 5% of its arsenal, assuming they have the same power as the bombs from '45 (which they don't), it would amount to 150,000,000 deaths. This is 2.5 times more than the total casualties of ww2, without even accounting for the nuclear weapon use of the opposing side.
- vinceguidry 10y ago
  You're assuming all the bombs will be dropped on population centers. They won't. Most weapons will be used on military targets. Removing your enemy's ability to wage war will always take priority over non-military targets.
  - pg314 10y ago
    > You're assuming all the bombs will be dropped on population centers. He isn't. He is assuming 5% of bombs will be dropped on population centers. > Removing your enemy's ability to wage war will always take priority over non-military targets. You are applying conventional military tactics in a nuclear war. They don't apply. See MAD[1], the cornerstone of nuclear deterrence. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
    - mrec 10y ago
      MAD isn't current US policy and hasn't been for some time. US doctrine allows for flexible responses and the possibility of a nuclear exchange staying within the bounds of a regional conflict, rather than automatically escalating immediately to all-out nuclear spasm. And I don't think it was ever the official policy of the USSR; their planners believed that even all-out nuclear war was both survivable and winnable. (Which made the whole concept distinctly iffy as the foundation of deterrence.)
      - 10y ago
pc2g4d 10y ago
> The Anglosphere is in no way vulnerable to dictatorship Just yesterday Donald Trump called Turkey's Erdogan to congratulate him on seizing nigh-dictatorial powers in his country. Somehow I feel we're _very_ vulnerable to dictatorship right now....
petre 10y ago
It's all superimposed economic cycles. It was the same with the rise and fall of all empires: Roman Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, Austria-Hungary, the British Empire, the USSR, the EU etc. Most of them ended in wars/revolutions because those that amassed power and territories would not give it up peacefully when a disruptive event occured (drought, famine, plague usually followed by economic crisis) and public unrest spiked. Other empires and/or outside invaders usually finished things up. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
dkersten 10y ago
I think a more interesting historical event to study for insight into what may lead to an advanced society to collapse is the late Bronze Age collapse, which seems to have been caused by a perfect storm of events (from what I've read about it, at least. I'm no expert) leading multiple interconnected civilisations to collapse in a short (100 year or so) time frame.

jcranmer 10y ago

> Finally, the Roman Empire was in no way comparable to the current global regime. The political systems seen by Rome were downright primitive compared to our representative democracies, multi-state unions, and trade federations. The Anglosphere is in no way vulnerable to dictatorship, and while Europe was once capable of fascism in the past, the days where a would-be Hitler or Mussolini could whip populations into a murderous frenzy are long gone. The worst that can happen is sovereign devolution AKA Brexit, Grexit, Scottish independence et al. War is the ultimate test of political systems. In France alone, the First Republic, First Empire, Second Empire, Vichy France, Third Republic, and Fourth Republics all collapsed due to strains of war. Similarly, loss in WWI proved the end of several strains of government. In the United States, the American Civil War prompted Lincoln to more or less tear up the Constitution (although it should also be noted that many provisions only apply in times of peace). Merely asserting that Western governments are immune to the foibles of fascism and dictatorship is folly. While I agree that many countries have fairly strong checks against reversion from democracy, a prolonged period of weakening could still very well happen.

vinceguidry 10y ago
Governments may not have survived, but the countries themselves did. > Merely asserting that Western governments are immune to the foibles of fascism and dictatorship is folly. The goalposts keep getting moved back. The world survived the Nazis and Holocaust and eventually became more stable. What could be worse than that?
- jonnathanson 10y ago
  What could be worse than the Holocaust? From a moral standpoint, little that I can imagine. From a human-cost standpoint, howabout unchecked and cascading climate change? If the world's powers retrench into regional hegemonies, and trust erodes along with trans-regional communication, then we're less and less likely to do anything on a global scale -- and we need to. If we let the ball get away from us here, we're talking about potentially billions of lives lost to war and famine, not to mention the billions whose way of life will be lost. And the worst part is, we don't even need fascism to get us there. We get there easily enough through the direction the status quo is bending towards.

Fauntleroy 10y ago

> even the worst nuclear war imaginable won't be as bad as WW2 was It wouldn't take that many major cities to get past the death toll of WW2. The "worst nuclear war" would easily have more civilian casualties than WW2. How on Earth can you even say this?

mrec 10y ago
Yup. Karachi, Shanghai and Beijing alone would put you above the total casualties of WW2. I've no idea what GP is smoking.
- vinceguidry 10y ago
  In order to destroy NYC one would require on the order of 40 warheads. Nuclear weapons are far less devastating than we think. Using weapons on civilian populations leaves intact enemy military forces which would be free to counter-attack. For this reason most war plans target enemy military installations. You want to keep a certain number of weapons in reserve, it makes approximately zero sense to completely obliterate a city. The only reason major population centers were targeted in WW2 was because those centers were also major military targets, destroying them would have been crucial to the planned amphibious assault. Had we not had nuclear weaponry on hand, they would have been conventionally bombed like all the others. Warfare has changed, materiel is now located outside of population centers, on military bases. Putting countries on war footing would take 18 months and it's unlikely any major conflict would last that long. Strategic materials are the ultimate limiter to high-tech warfare like we see today. We just don't have enough to keep pumping out weapons. In the end, the very stakes of warfare keep local conflicts from escalating. It's in everybody's best interest to keep the cash flowing. Trade was far more regional 80 years ago.
  - petre 10y ago
    > The only reason major population centers were targeted in WW2 was because those centers were also major military targets Like Dresden? Beer factories and civil industry, all reduced to rubble by carpet bombing. Do read Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut. Not your average anti war book.

drspacemonkey 10y ago

>I dare you to point out a plausible worse scenario. What about collapse of the ecosystem due to global warming?

vinceguidry 10y ago
The world isn't one ecosystem. Some ecosystems, like the Great Barrier Reef, will collapse, but this sort of thing won't put much of a dent in global commerce. Lots of people's livelihoods are threatened, but humanity isn't.
- pg314 10y ago
  You complain about moving goalposts in another comment in this thread, but you're doing that exact thing here. In your original comment you asked about societal collapse, here you're talking about threats to humanity. There are plenty of societies that have collapsed, yet humanity is still here...
  - vinceguidry 10y ago
    In the worst-case scenario, it's all the other societies that don't make up Western civilization that are threatened. Western Civilization, defined by the Anglosphere plus Europe, will survive and perhaps even thrive. We can adjust. Large scale civil engineering feats that could save the likes of Miami, London, and New York from sea level rise, the worst threat to Western civilization posed by climate change, are well within the ability of those cities to pursue. It will be very expensive, but not an existential threat.
    - cholantesh 10y ago
      Mass migrations are an assured consequence of climate change, and such events are culturally transformative on a grand scale.
      - drspacemonkey 10y ago

x0137294744532 10y ago

> No, nuclear war doesn't count, even the worst nuclear war imaginable won't be as bad as WW2 was. Let's do some math. Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed ~100,000 people, making it 50,000 per bomb. The US has currently 31,175 nuclear weapons at its disposal. If it were to even use 5% of its arsenal, assuming they have the same power as the bombs from '45 (which they don't), it would amount to 150,000,000 deaths. This is 2.5 times more than the total casualties of ww2, without even accounting for the nuclear weapon use of the opposing side.

vinceguidry 10y ago
You're assuming all the bombs will be dropped on population centers. They won't. Most weapons will be used on military targets. Removing your enemy's ability to wage war will always take priority over non-military targets.
- pg314 10y ago
  > You're assuming all the bombs will be dropped on population centers. He isn't. He is assuming 5% of bombs will be dropped on population centers. > Removing your enemy's ability to wage war will always take priority over non-military targets. You are applying conventional military tactics in a nuclear war. They don't apply. See MAD[1], the cornerstone of nuclear deterrence. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
  - mrec 10y ago
    MAD isn't current US policy and hasn't been for some time. US doctrine allows for flexible responses and the possibility of a nuclear exchange staying within the bounds of a regional conflict, rather than automatically escalating immediately to all-out nuclear spasm. And I don't think it was ever the official policy of the USSR; their planners believed that even all-out nuclear war was both survivable and winnable. (Which made the whole concept distinctly iffy as the foundation of deterrence.)
    - 10y ago

pc2g4d 10y ago

> The Anglosphere is in no way vulnerable to dictatorship Just yesterday Donald Trump called Turkey's Erdogan to congratulate him on seizing nigh-dictatorial powers in his country. Somehow I feel we're _very_ vulnerable to dictatorship right now....

petre 10y ago

It's all superimposed economic cycles. It was the same with the rise and fall of all empires: Roman Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, Austria-Hungary, the British Empire, the USSR, the EU etc. Most of them ended in wars/revolutions because those that amassed power and territories would not give it up peacefully when a disruptive event occured (drought, famine, plague usually followed by economic crisis) and public unrest spiked. Other empires and/or outside invaders usually finished things up. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

dkersten 10y ago

I think a more interesting historical event to study for insight into what may lead to an advanced society to collapse is the late Bronze Age collapse, which seems to have been caused by a perfect storm of events (from what I've read about it, at least. I'm no expert) leading multiple interconnected civilisations to collapse in a short (100 year or so) time frame.