5 ms·

How Is America Going To End?

23 points by robg 17y ago

dan_the_welder 17y ago
Aw crap. I thought this was how the world was gonna end. http://vinay.howtolivewiki.com/blog/global/the-second-amendment-in-iraq-combat-robotics-and-the-future-of-human-liberty-820 http://vinay.howtolivewiki.com/blog/global/the-second-amendm... Now I have to worry about Skynet and La Raza? And I was just finishing up all the Yoder's Canned Bacon I bought when Cobol was going to kill us all.
mdasen 17y ago
I'd argue that America is going to simply fade as national borders become less meaningful. We're seeing that a bit in Europe as people get the right to live, work, vote in other places. Already I question the border with Canada whenever I go there. I mean, if we had open immigration with Canada, it's not like we'd see unchecked immigration there. It would probably be similar to the "immigration" between Massachusetts and New York. The United States is unlikely to break up. The Russian "professor" that they reference in the article seems to know less about the United States than the people who made the "United States of Canada/Jesusland" maps which were meant to be humorous. We are too mobile a society. Many of us have friends and family all across the country. I mean, you wouldn't want to cross a border to get to a relative's house. Nor would you want to have to deal with tariffs/importation on something you got from Amazon. If anything, the world wants less of that as evidenced by the European Union. Now, the US might become more localized and that would suit some, but we aren't going to see a dramatic breakup. And what people forget is that, through all the nonsense that's gone on in the past decade, we aren't actually that different. We have a common culture, even if that culture is a result of many cultures. It binds us together even through the heated arguments of the recent past/present. Catastrophe is unlikely as well for a few reasons. First, it's hard to replace the US government which makes it hard to implement any sort of unchecked policy. To replace the President takes 4 years; to replace the legislative branch takes 6 - and it can't be done on a whim, it has to be 6 years of people deciding to go the same way. In other governments, you can completely switch the government in a week. Second, there are more checks and balances. The executive isn't a prime minister, but rather separate from the legislature. And we have a constitution that grants limited powers and yes, to this day still provides a good check on authority despite what has happened in the recent past. Third, US politics are local politics. Senators and especially Representatives aren't easily replaced because they form roots in their communities. Even beyond that, you can't appeal to fringe groups to get elected. While 1% of the country might think that a fascist or a stalinist would be good to have in government, they get no representation because they aren't able to carry a district. In other countries, representation is usually done on the basis of how much of the national vote you get which means that radical elements have a much greater say in those governments. Now, some of what I've mentioned above can come off as bad things - they certainly mean that it's hard to implement good, new policies. But that also means that it's hard to implement bad, new policies. Plus, for all the crap that I'll give the US government, they are genuinely responsive to big things. I mean, unemployment is around 10% right now. In many highly developed places (like Europe), that's not even bad. And everyone on television is calling this the worst crisis of our time. Where I grew up, unemployment was, during good times, about 20%. Now, the US doesn't have the social services that make unemployment more livable so it's very harsh on those who are unemployed, but we've seen the government take steps to make sure that things, generally speaking, run smoothly. I mean, Argentina a little while back had a huge crisis that really wiped out the middle class - robbing them of the vast majority of their money (cash money). While one might not like some of the steps that the US government has taken, it has meant that no one's bank account has been lost (at the very least). And Americans aren't radicals. I mean, I have friends who call themselves radical, but what they mean by that is that they have a CSA (community shared agriculture) and would like European-style socialism. Oh, and maybe taking a year off somewhere to work on a hippy farm. No guns, no violence, no death to people that don't think like them. No looting, no riots. . . We sure as hell yell about things and have strong opinions (like the Professor Gates incident in Cambridge, MA), but has there been mass violence in response or whatnot? No, life has gone on as normal. Even when one looks at immigration, the US is one of the most immigrant friendly countries. That might be hard to believe given some of the rhetoric, but we're one of the few countries that still has "born on a rock, citizen of that rock". Even beyond that, what's our anti-immigrant policies? The biggest seems to be the national language debate which, while possibly symbolically important, wouldn't have a practical impact. I mean, anywhere that currently provides foreign language assistance would continue to. Laws are already written in English. English is the lingua franca. And yes, there is a dislike of "illegal" or "undocumented" immigration (depending on the side of the debate you come from) and there have been (in some places) harsh measures taken. But the attitude toward legal immigration is much better than in many places in Europe. France just a few years back had huge riots over this issue with wonderful flaming cars and all. Heck, the right-wing position in this country tends to be "well, smart people are always good to have coming in and the dumb ones are taking jobs no one wants anyway." -- There are simply too many nice practicalities to staying together (like currency, ease of travel and commerce, etc.) and too few radical elements. And the US has a great history of absorbing immigrants and facing the problems that have befell it. I mean, we got through a civil war, two world wars, and the cold war. While we might have problems now, they aren't of the same magnitude. Yes, we need to face the challenges of today. However, the challenges of today aren't so bad when you compare them to sending your kids to Vietnam - or being sent there yourself. A touch job market != being plopped down in south asia with an automatic weapon expecting to survive a few weeks.
- jhancock 17y ago
  "but has there been mass violence in response or whatnot? No, life has gone on as normal." There has been quite a bit of mass violence. How many have we killed in Iraq and Afghanistan these last 8 years? Depending on who's numbers you believe its in the several hundred thousand to well over a million range. Just because we have sanitized the killing so we don't see the dead bodies on TV doesn't mean its not happening. This violence is a direct result of our energy policies. I classify those policies and the general American's attitude as "radical" (assuming I can bend the term radical to apply to what is the majority).
  - fatdog789 17y ago
    I believe he met domestic mass violence, i.e., riots. The only major US riots of the past few years are the LA and Detroit race-riots, neither of which was related to overarching policy.
    - jhancock 17y ago
      I am very aware he meant domestic. Its not a valid argument to only select violence in your own neighborhood/state/country when you are discussing if someone exhibits radical behavior. It just makes you a wealthy radical.
tokenadult 17y ago
"His first idea: racial warfare. By 2050, whites will no longer be a majority in the United States and Hispanics will make up an estimated 29 percent of the population. 'Most violence is committed by males 18 to 35,' Schwartz explains. 'Now picture a very large, low-employed Hispanic population of males not too pleased with their lot or their ability to control a white-dominated world. . . . That population then becomes violent and disruptive. And now you get into racial and identity politics--it's all those illegal immigrants we let across the border.'" If this did happen, it would be the result of suicidal national policies that increase the degree of race-consciousness in American society. In my youth, "Hispanic" was not a federally counted category, and it wasn't a category in the MINDS of most people who lived then in the United States. (How many of you are old enough to remember the first clumsy category of "Spanish-surnamed Americans"?) Once upon a time, people now categorized as "Hispanic" mostly categorized themselves as "white," with some localities being prejudicially aware of "Mexicans," but anyway the overall aspiration was an aspiration of assimilation, not of "racial warfare." Let me tell another story about that. I'm a baby boomer, which is another way of saying that I'm a good bit older than most people who post on Hacker News. I distinctly remember the day that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated--the most memorable day of early childhood for many people in my generation--and I remember the "long hot summer" and other events of the 1960s civil rights movement. One early memory I have is of a second grade classmate (I still remember his name, which alas is just common enough that it is hard to Google him up) who moved back to Minnesota with his northern "white" parents after spending his early years in Alabama. He told me frightening stories about Ku Klux Klan violence to black people (the polite term in those days was "Negroes"), including killing babies, and I was very upset to hear about that kind of terrorism happening in the United States. He made me aware of a society in which people didn't all treat one another with decency and human compassion, unlike the only kind of society I was initially aware of from growing up where I did. So I followed subsequent news about the civil rights movement, including the activities of Martin Luther King, Jr. up to his assassination, with great interest. It happens that I had a fifth-grade teacher, a typically pale, tall, and blonde Norwegian-American, who was a civil rights activist and who spent her summers in the south as a freedom rider. She used to tell our class about how she had to modify her car (by removing the dome light and adding a locking gas cap) so that Klan snipers couldn't shoot her as she opened her car door at night or put foreign substances into her gas tank. She has been a civil rights activist all her life, and when I Googled her a few years ago and regained acquaintance with her, I was not at all surprised to find that she is a member of the civil rights commission of the town where I grew up. One day in fifth grade we had a guest speaker in our class, a young man who was then studying at St. Olaf College through the A Better Chance (ABC) affirmative action program. (To me, the term "affirmative action" still means active recruitment of underrepresented minority students, as it did in those days, and I have always thought that such programs are a very good idea, as some people have family connections to selective colleges, but many other people don't.) During that school year (1968-1969), there was a current controversy in the United States about whether the term "Negro" or "Afro-American" or "black" was most polite. So a girl in my class asked our visitor, "What do you want to be called, 'black' or 'Afro-American'?" His answer was, "I'd rather be called Henry." Henry's answer to my classmate's innocent question really got me thinking. I am appalled that forty years later, a typical college applicant has to wonder, "What 'race' should I mark on my application form?" and "Can I just leave that question blank?" Current federal policies are not helping us regard our neighbor Henry as Henry. They are not helping us regard all our fellow citizens as fellow citizens. That's an intentionally risky policy. P.S. Does anyone else remember when all south Asian people were reclassified as belonging to the "Asian" race rather than the "white" race? That's an example of how arbitrary the federal categories are. Here's the latest federal regulation on the subject: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/rewrite/fedreg/ombdir15.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/rewrite/fedreg/ombdir15.html
leif 17y ago
I got a high y value close to the y axis.
hipsterelitist 17y ago
Via self-fulfilling pessimism.
tybris 17y ago
By electing George Double You Bush. ... 3 times.
asciilifeform 17y ago
Anyone else see a credit card ad ("Approval in 60 seconds!") on the top right corner of the article? Ironic?
dmm 17y ago
Somebody should tell this guy about the infinite robot brains we're all going to have by the 2030s.
aidenn0 17y ago
...From what I've tasted of desire I hold with those who favor fire. But if it had to perish twice, I think I know enough of hate To say that for destruction ice Is also great And would suffice.
- gjm11 17y ago
  http://xkcd.com/312/ http://xkcd.com/312/ (see also the alt-text).

23 points by robg 17y ago

Aw crap. I thought this was how the world was gonna end. http://vinay.howtolivewiki.com/blog/global/the-second-amendment-in-iraq-combat-robotics-and-the-future-of-human-liberty-820 http://vinay.howtolivewiki.com/blog/global/the-second-amendm... Now I have to worry about Skynet and La Raza? And I was just finishing up all the Yoder's Canned Bacon I bought when Cobol was going to kill us all.

mdasen 17y ago

I'd argue that America is going to simply fade as national borders become less meaningful. We're seeing that a bit in Europe as people get the right to live, work, vote in other places. Already I question the border with Canada whenever I go there. I mean, if we had open immigration with Canada, it's not like we'd see unchecked immigration there. It would probably be similar to the "immigration" between Massachusetts and New York. The United States is unlikely to break up. The Russian "professor" that they reference in the article seems to know less about the United States than the people who made the "United States of Canada/Jesusland" maps which were meant to be humorous. We are too mobile a society. Many of us have friends and family all across the country. I mean, you wouldn't want to cross a border to get to a relative's house. Nor would you want to have to deal with tariffs/importation on something you got from Amazon. If anything, the world wants less of that as evidenced by the European Union. Now, the US might become more localized and that would suit some, but we aren't going to see a dramatic breakup. And what people forget is that, through all the nonsense that's gone on in the past decade, we aren't actually that different. We have a common culture, even if that culture is a result of many cultures. It binds us together even through the heated arguments of the recent past/present. Catastrophe is unlikely as well for a few reasons. First, it's hard to replace the US government which makes it hard to implement any sort of unchecked policy. To replace the President takes 4 years; to replace the legislative branch takes 6 - and it can't be done on a whim, it has to be 6 years of people deciding to go the same way. In other governments, you can completely switch the government in a week. Second, there are more checks and balances. The executive isn't a prime minister, but rather separate from the legislature. And we have a constitution that grants limited powers and yes, to this day still provides a good check on authority despite what has happened in the recent past. Third, US politics are local politics. Senators and especially Representatives aren't easily replaced because they form roots in their communities. Even beyond that, you can't appeal to fringe groups to get elected. While 1% of the country might think that a fascist or a stalinist would be good to have in government, they get no representation because they aren't able to carry a district. In other countries, representation is usually done on the basis of how much of the national vote you get which means that radical elements have a much greater say in those governments. Now, some of what I've mentioned above can come off as bad things - they certainly mean that it's hard to implement good, new policies. But that also means that it's hard to implement bad, new policies. Plus, for all the crap that I'll give the US government, they are genuinely responsive to big things. I mean, unemployment is around 10% right now. In many highly developed places (like Europe), that's not even bad. And everyone on television is calling this the worst crisis of our time. Where I grew up, unemployment was, during good times, about 20%. Now, the US doesn't have the social services that make unemployment more livable so it's very harsh on those who are unemployed, but we've seen the government take steps to make sure that things, generally speaking, run smoothly. I mean, Argentina a little while back had a huge crisis that really wiped out the middle class - robbing them of the vast majority of their money (cash money). While one might not like some of the steps that the US government has taken, it has meant that no one's bank account has been lost (at the very least). And Americans aren't radicals. I mean, I have friends who call themselves radical, but what they mean by that is that they have a CSA (community shared agriculture) and would like European-style socialism. Oh, and maybe taking a year off somewhere to work on a hippy farm. No guns, no violence, no death to people that don't think like them. No looting, no riots. . . We sure as hell yell about things and have strong opinions (like the Professor Gates incident in Cambridge, MA), but has there been mass violence in response or whatnot? No, life has gone on as normal. Even when one looks at immigration, the US is one of the most immigrant friendly countries. That might be hard to believe given some of the rhetoric, but we're one of the few countries that still has "born on a rock, citizen of that rock". Even beyond that, what's our anti-immigrant policies? The biggest seems to be the national language debate which, while possibly symbolically important, wouldn't have a practical impact. I mean, anywhere that currently provides foreign language assistance would continue to. Laws are already written in English. English is the lingua franca. And yes, there is a dislike of "illegal" or "undocumented" immigration (depending on the side of the debate you come from) and there have been (in some places) harsh measures taken. But the attitude toward legal immigration is much better than in many places in Europe. France just a few years back had huge riots over this issue with wonderful flaming cars and all. Heck, the right-wing position in this country tends to be "well, smart people are always good to have coming in and the dumb ones are taking jobs no one wants anyway." -- There are simply too many nice practicalities to staying together (like currency, ease of travel and commerce, etc.) and too few radical elements. And the US has a great history of absorbing immigrants and facing the problems that have befell it. I mean, we got through a civil war, two world wars, and the cold war. While we might have problems now, they aren't of the same magnitude. Yes, we need to face the challenges of today. However, the challenges of today aren't so bad when you compare them to sending your kids to Vietnam - or being sent there yourself. A touch job market != being plopped down in south asia with an automatic weapon expecting to survive a few weeks.

jhancock 17y ago
"but has there been mass violence in response or whatnot? No, life has gone on as normal." There has been quite a bit of mass violence. How many have we killed in Iraq and Afghanistan these last 8 years? Depending on who's numbers you believe its in the several hundred thousand to well over a million range. Just because we have sanitized the killing so we don't see the dead bodies on TV doesn't mean its not happening. This violence is a direct result of our energy policies. I classify those policies and the general American's attitude as "radical" (assuming I can bend the term radical to apply to what is the majority).
- fatdog789 17y ago
  I believe he met domestic mass violence, i.e., riots. The only major US riots of the past few years are the LA and Detroit race-riots, neither of which was related to overarching policy.
  - jhancock 17y ago
    I am very aware he meant domestic. Its not a valid argument to only select violence in your own neighborhood/state/country when you are discussing if someone exhibits radical behavior. It just makes you a wealthy radical.

tokenadult 17y ago

"His first idea: racial warfare. By 2050, whites will no longer be a majority in the United States and Hispanics will make up an estimated 29 percent of the population. 'Most violence is committed by males 18 to 35,' Schwartz explains. 'Now picture a very large, low-employed Hispanic population of males not too pleased with their lot or their ability to control a white-dominated world. . . . That population then becomes violent and disruptive. And now you get into racial and identity politics--it's all those illegal immigrants we let across the border.'" If this did happen, it would be the result of suicidal national policies that increase the degree of race-consciousness in American society. In my youth, "Hispanic" was not a federally counted category, and it wasn't a category in the MINDS of most people who lived then in the United States. (How many of you are old enough to remember the first clumsy category of "Spanish-surnamed Americans"?) Once upon a time, people now categorized as "Hispanic" mostly categorized themselves as "white," with some localities being prejudicially aware of "Mexicans," but anyway the overall aspiration was an aspiration of assimilation, not of "racial warfare." Let me tell another story about that. I'm a baby boomer, which is another way of saying that I'm a good bit older than most people who post on Hacker News. I distinctly remember the day that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated--the most memorable day of early childhood for many people in my generation--and I remember the "long hot summer" and other events of the 1960s civil rights movement. One early memory I have is of a second grade classmate (I still remember his name, which alas is just common enough that it is hard to Google him up) who moved back to Minnesota with his northern "white" parents after spending his early years in Alabama. He told me frightening stories about Ku Klux Klan violence to black people (the polite term in those days was "Negroes"), including killing babies, and I was very upset to hear about that kind of terrorism happening in the United States. He made me aware of a society in which people didn't all treat one another with decency and human compassion, unlike the only kind of society I was initially aware of from growing up where I did. So I followed subsequent news about the civil rights movement, including the activities of Martin Luther King, Jr. up to his assassination, with great interest. It happens that I had a fifth-grade teacher, a typically pale, tall, and blonde Norwegian-American, who was a civil rights activist and who spent her summers in the south as a freedom rider. She used to tell our class about how she had to modify her car (by removing the dome light and adding a locking gas cap) so that Klan snipers couldn't shoot her as she opened her car door at night or put foreign substances into her gas tank. She has been a civil rights activist all her life, and when I Googled her a few years ago and regained acquaintance with her, I was not at all surprised to find that she is a member of the civil rights commission of the town where I grew up. One day in fifth grade we had a guest speaker in our class, a young man who was then studying at St. Olaf College through the A Better Chance (ABC) affirmative action program. (To me, the term "affirmative action" still means active recruitment of underrepresented minority students, as it did in those days, and I have always thought that such programs are a very good idea, as some people have family connections to selective colleges, but many other people don't.) During that school year (1968-1969), there was a current controversy in the United States about whether the term "Negro" or "Afro-American" or "black" was most polite. So a girl in my class asked our visitor, "What do you want to be called, 'black' or 'Afro-American'?" His answer was, "I'd rather be called Henry." Henry's answer to my classmate's innocent question really got me thinking. I am appalled that forty years later, a typical college applicant has to wonder, "What 'race' should I mark on my application form?" and "Can I just leave that question blank?" Current federal policies are not helping us regard our neighbor Henry as Henry. They are not helping us regard all our fellow citizens as fellow citizens. That's an intentionally risky policy. P.S. Does anyone else remember when all south Asian people were reclassified as belonging to the "Asian" race rather than the "white" race? That's an example of how arbitrary the federal categories are. Here's the latest federal regulation on the subject: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/rewrite/fedreg/ombdir15.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/rewrite/fedreg/ombdir15.html

leif 17y ago

I got a high y value close to the y axis.

hipsterelitist 17y ago

Via self-fulfilling pessimism.

tybris 17y ago

By electing George Double You Bush. ... 3 times.

asciilifeform 17y ago

Anyone else see a credit card ad ("Approval in 60 seconds!") on the top right corner of the article? Ironic?

dmm 17y ago

Somebody should tell this guy about the infinite robot brains we're all going to have by the 2030s.

aidenn0 17y ago

...From what I've tasted of desire I hold with those who favor fire. But if it had to perish twice, I think I know enough of hate To say that for destruction ice Is also great And would suffice.

gjm11 17y ago
http://xkcd.com/312/ http://xkcd.com/312/ (see also the alt-text).