3 ms·

>As for what will take them down - all large institutions are failing right now. The public education system. The health care system. The government. The mass m

>As for what will take them down - all large institutions are failing right now. The public education system. The health care system. The government. The mass media. The immigration system, and general idea of national borders. The zoning / building code / housing system. Childcare. Wouldn't surprise me if we see the financial system, currency, and military go down next. The trigger is part climate change, part demographics, part COVID, and part the loss of trust triggered by the Internet and Big Tech. Falling? When was the last time in a developed country when an educational system/heathcare failed as a system? Or the government (other than in Argentina), or Military? As for the concept of borders? No, that is not failing either, it's just people in some countries today became convinced it is not worth to use deadly force to defend borders. See for example Sweden, or France for where this path leads to. It is not a pretty picture, but it is very far from "systems failing". As for reasons, why these systems are under pressure I can definitely agree on demographics, but climate change affecting our education/healthcare systems? No way. Periods of boom and bust are a feature of our financial system, I'm not seeing anything unusual. Currencies fail too due to mismanagement. But extrapolating this into some sort of overall systemic failure of everything caused by climate change no less is not rational. On the global scale the biggest challenge in today's world is the growing power of authoritarian nations hell bent on global domination and continued enfeeblement(deindustrialisation, increased corruption, disregard for the rule of law) of the free world. Then demographics, then very far in the distance climate change.

Certhas 3y ago
With you on "institutions are not failing as such". As for biggest challenges: You _massively_ underestimate climate change, and the way it is entangled with everything else. There have always been authoritarian nations. The so called free world does not seem notably more corrupt than it was 50 years ago, it is in many ways freer than it has ever been (see the annoyance and backlash of those that don't think the freedom should extend to such things as chosing your gender), and it's economic power remains unmatched for now. But: We already live in a changed climate. This means we no longer speculate about the damages climate change will do, we can measure them in macroeconomic data already [1]. This was a huge surprise to ke. I would have expected economic systems to be much more resilient to the warming already seen. We are facing a situation where the world's poorest are experiencing reduced growth (meaning not fewer corporate profits, but people fleeing hunger and destitution), while we are all dealing with a massively increased number of extreme events (which _will_ stress institutions not adapted to the new normal, possibly to the breaking point), while we also have to transform or economic systems towards carbon neutrality to prevent even more catastrophic impacts. This is fertile ground for authoritarians, democratic backsliding, loss of liberties and institutional failure. [1] e.g.: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-00985-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-00985-5
- Slava_Propanei 3y ago
  [dead]
whateveracct 3y ago
> Periods of boom and bust are a feature of our financial system, I'm not seeing anything unusual. We had a decade+ of boom boom boom and the moment the economy dips for a couple years, people start freaking out. Some years, things are more expensive and life is harder. Some years, it's easier. That's life. And that's the economy.
benterix 3y ago
> See for example Sweden, or France for where this path leads to. I think mixing France and Sweden on this point makes no sense. France made a deliberate attempt to attract as many refugees (and, at the same time, non-refugee immigrants) as possible in a very short period of time; they understood where it leads to and backpedaled on too open policies but things want a bit too far and they need to deal with the consequences, mainly criminal gang bombings. As for France, the situation is dramatically different. You have several generations of immigrants already, some feeling more French than the French if I may use this expression. This population is very heterogeneous but suffice it to say than when ISIS planned Bataclan attacks, they had to recruit people in Belgium. Also, the countries of origins for immigrants in both cases are very different and in the case of France related to the history of the country, the Algerian War etc. So, if you wanted to lump the two together, it would be proper to say "Sweden and Merkel's Germany" (because today's Germany is quite different, too).
- ajb 3y ago
  Is there a typo in your first para? You seem to want to compare France and Sweden, but both paras refer to France; I'm guessing you meant Sweden in the first.
  - benterix 3y ago
    yes, sorry for that

Certhas 3y ago

With you on "institutions are not failing as such". As for biggest challenges: You _massively_ underestimate climate change, and the way it is entangled with everything else. There have always been authoritarian nations. The so called free world does not seem notably more corrupt than it was 50 years ago, it is in many ways freer than it has ever been (see the annoyance and backlash of those that don't think the freedom should extend to such things as chosing your gender), and it's economic power remains unmatched for now. But: We already live in a changed climate. This means we no longer speculate about the damages climate change will do, we can measure them in macroeconomic data already [1]. This was a huge surprise to ke. I would have expected economic systems to be much more resilient to the warming already seen. We are facing a situation where the world's poorest are experiencing reduced growth (meaning not fewer corporate profits, but people fleeing hunger and destitution), while we are all dealing with a massively increased number of extreme events (which _will_ stress institutions not adapted to the new normal, possibly to the breaking point), while we also have to transform or economic systems towards carbon neutrality to prevent even more catastrophic impacts. This is fertile ground for authoritarians, democratic backsliding, loss of liberties and institutional failure. [1] e.g.: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-00985-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-00985-5

Slava_Propanei 3y ago
[dead]

whateveracct 3y ago

> Periods of boom and bust are a feature of our financial system, I'm not seeing anything unusual. We had a decade+ of boom boom boom and the moment the economy dips for a couple years, people start freaking out. Some years, things are more expensive and life is harder. Some years, it's easier. That's life. And that's the economy.

benterix 3y ago

> See for example Sweden, or France for where this path leads to. I think mixing France and Sweden on this point makes no sense. France made a deliberate attempt to attract as many refugees (and, at the same time, non-refugee immigrants) as possible in a very short period of time; they understood where it leads to and backpedaled on too open policies but things want a bit too far and they need to deal with the consequences, mainly criminal gang bombings. As for France, the situation is dramatically different. You have several generations of immigrants already, some feeling more French than the French if I may use this expression. This population is very heterogeneous but suffice it to say than when ISIS planned Bataclan attacks, they had to recruit people in Belgium. Also, the countries of origins for immigrants in both cases are very different and in the case of France related to the history of the country, the Algerian War etc. So, if you wanted to lump the two together, it would be proper to say "Sweden and Merkel's Germany" (because today's Germany is quite different, too).

ajb 3y ago
Is there a typo in your first para? You seem to want to compare France and Sweden, but both paras refer to France; I'm guessing you meant Sweden in the first.
- benterix 3y ago
  yes, sorry for that