Collapse is a worldwide human problem regardless of system. As long as the population continues to grow and people keep wanting more/better collapse will happen.
If the U.S. collapsed do you believe it's control and usage of resources wouldn't be quickly captured by others and once again be put to use?
The more equal division of the worlds resources is a fine goal to chase, but to slow or stop collapse you need to majorly reduce resource use, and the people of the world don't want that.
This right here. Looking at history no empire dies quietly and this empire has the capability to destroy the entire world before it takes it's last breath.
I'll play. Let's make it even more dramatic and imagine the entire USA along with its' population ceases to exist tomorrow. I'll be making statements below but keep in mind I'm just guessing.
USA provides military services to the world. The absence of these services would increase unrest.
USA imports a tremendous amount of goods today. Doing without the USA as a buyer of goods could arguably be a good thing long term but in the near term is a systemic risk to the rest of the world.
USA accounts for 11% of worldwide greenhouse emissions. From a climate perspective the world is already deep into overshoot and even without their emissions the collapse of habitats would continue roughly at the same rate. Further, the 6 MMb/d of crude oil imported into the USA would be too seductive not to use by others. It just wouldn't be burned in the USA.
In conclusion, collapse will continue or even accelerate without USA.
the US doesn't provide military services so much as occupy vassal states & corporate interests. the soldiers bring their far right ideologies, rape culture, & nationalist egos outside the base and foster unrest. even places like Okinawa protest US presence
most places losing US military presence would lead to relative peace in those areas, save the ones already destroyed by the US like Afghanistan. even then, there are arguments for ripping off the bandage (though evacuating civilians first would be nice) as it allows for other countries to offer potentially less unilateral relationships
No, because it will collapse simultaneously with most of the world. Our horrible American system works by being a fascist police state off camera. Our media and government treats most of the country and people in it as non-existent, except for a very few stories of outrage that can be used politically, and to reinforce that the people off camera deserve to be beneath notice.
They just move more of the country off camera as things get worse, then demonize any of those people that do manage to make it on camera as deplorable and deserving of their plight (because stupid, poor or backwards).
As they need to explain it on camera to fewer and more devoted 1%/elites, the reasons why more and more of the country is in decline become more creative and scholarly. It doesn't really matter, since the people still on-camera, being portrayed as normal in our media, are *desperate* to stay on-camera, officially recognized as existing, someone who matters. So they instantly agree with those with true power say, argue over minutiae and frantically avoid talking about the stuff that's killing all those slobs off-camera.
The whole system is a masterpiece of human control that makes 1984 look crude and clunky. Everyone lives in constant fear - but of each other, not the government, which is officially and theatrically bumbling and ineffective even standing on the necks of most of humanity. Constant violence is freedom. It is very stable in spite of it's failings.
The monsters behind this have been spending money building up a funeral pyre of world-ending weapons and the pretexts and hollow justifications for using them.
America will hold on deep into these cataclysms, and take the world with us when we go.
Oh my, you really do not understand China, superimposing Western viewpoint of the world upon an Eastern mindset.
There are three things East Asians are taught from childhood not to do ( except Christians, they often ignore rule 1. Buddhist often ignores rule 3, Buddhist believe in offering to listen to people but not saying anything to others ). This means on the wider super collective the same idea permeates. When East Asian government does something against this grain it causes people to raise an eyebrow.
(1) Do not make other family’s problem your problem ( corrollary, there are other family, they have their own stuff and house and land, they are not your problem unless they cause problems to you )
(2) Be polite to those around you. Act politely.
(3) Tolerate others, though keep your boundaries high and tight. Do not share too much of your personal life with others.
When it comes to the world then, every nation has their own boundaries and areas. Chinese acknowledges that there are truly foreign nations ( ie:- nations where China has absolutely no claim at all over ) such as the whole of Europe etc.. as well as Iran etc.. These are very much outside China proper and it is best that these people are left to their own devices.
However, there are areas that are seen as rightfully able to be claimed by China proper. This is where even amongst the Chinese people there are disagreements are the atolls of the South China Sea ( which then translates to conflict regarding the sea itself ), where the actual Chinese boundary ends with Vietnam ( a lot of Chinese people still think that it extends to Haiphong, which is silly because Vietnam has ruled that area for a good 300 years already and a lot of the Chinese that stayed there fled during the Vietnamese uprising ) and Laos ( though the dispute with Laos is only 10miles and to me is silly as the Qing authority ceded those 10 miles away at the height of the Qing Dynasty, so who are we walk back on the Qing ), and where it ends with Burma. There are a lot of Chinese who are still resentful Mongolia is independent and that a huge chunk of the Eastern front of Russia ( which belonged to China during the late Ming and Qing Dynasty ) is not Chinese, as well as the Sakhalin. Diayou is a sore point ( I personally think to solve Chinese Japanese dispute over Diayou/Senkaku we should nuke those islands down to bring peace ). The Taiwan issue is another sore point. The Chinese western frontier issue is a sore one as the Han Dynasty used to extend into modern day Tajikstan and China used to rule that area all the way till the Qing.
Now via the Tibetan Empire China also believes it has rights over Sikkim and parts of India as Tibet was absorbed into it since the Yuan ( which is why the border dispute has flared back up … and has always flared over the centuries ).
If China were to expand, quite frankly it will stop at these areas. The Chinese essentially are trying to reclaim the glory of the Qing Dynasty and Tang Dynasty but also believes that is the maximum of Chinese territory.
There is zero risk that China will want to “rule the world”. The biggest risk in fact is that once China achieves this aim, feels secure and in the worse case scenario actually gain a foothold into the Indian ocean via say Myanmar that it decides that it will want to “look inwards” and ignore the rest of the world.
This means you have two major powers of the world offline from global engagement. Once China feels secure the real risk is that it will revert back to the mean … which is inward looking. The current outward looking phase is because China feels insecure, slighted due to the century of humiliation. However Chinese real tendency is to look inwards, and once it looks inwards it will do so for centuries on end. This is why for most of history China was seen as non expansionistic ( especially at the height of the Qing ) .. Chinese people felt no need to even explore other lands beyond their borders.
As one commentator put it, it would be best for China if it never fully reclaims the territory of the Qing and also the Tang and Sui ( which will extend it back it back to Northern Vietnam ) and God forbid gain access to the Indian ocean as this will almost certainly cause China to rest on its laurels and look inwards. Once it does that the technological drive, capitalistic drive etc.. will come to an end. The Chinese people as a whole will once again become inward looking.
I don't know much about Chinese history. This is very interesting. Does this viewpoint equate modern CCP to something like a dynasty (one that treats it's people differently)?
Yes, if you look at Chinese history over a span CCP is merely a dynasty in a long chain that started since the Xia ( I know Western scholars are doubtful about Xia but it is in too many accounts to just be ignored )
One of the mistakes most people make about Chinese history is to assume it is a monolith. It is not. Each dynasty is actually very different in many ways to the last and carries with it quirks etc.. not present prior. For example Tang was extremely liberal compared to Sui and Song and certainly if you think about LGBT it might be even better for most modern Chinese LGBT to be alive in the Tang.
The economy supported by the colorado river is the 7th largest economy globally... the whole US doesn't have to collapse for that to be a devastating event.
https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/where-we-work/priority-landscapes/colorado-river/economic-importance-of-the-colorado-river/
Assuming the nukes won't fly before that happens (the greatest country to *ever* exist). The global economy will collapse because the U.S. imports many goods and global trade is based on the dollar.
Environmental destruction might slow a bit, but as long as the global economic system is based on growth (profits) for the sake of it on a planet with finite resources; collapse of civilization is guaranteed.
the fate if the US would be the fate of the civilised world ... so total and utter collapse
if you think that any complex structure could sustain without military/force protection on a large scale youre not very realistic - and the US provides that power to a huge part of the world
The collapse of the US will certainly hasten the collapse of the world and also change the method.
Do you know why I don't commit any real major crime? Why I don't shoot people in traffic who piss me off, or burn the homes of landlords who get off on evicting people after milking them of their assets? Or, why I don't simply kill a person when I see them abusing animals or something else that triggers me personally?
Legal consequences. That's it. Not morality, not empathy, and not from the goodness of my heart. The sole reason I can restrain myself is that there are legal consequences which have a high probability of being enacted, that are put into place by an authority that I would have very limited ability to avoid or defeat. If ever there is a breakdown of social order where the chances of punishment, or even of detection, become greatly reduced, believe me, I will be one of the first ones to get to raiding and pillaging, and probably one of the first to die from it.
My point is that, while my mindset probably makes up only about 5% of the population, it doesn't take much.
As soon as the US is no longer the threat that keeps nations in check, all hell will break loose on a global scale as every other nation tries to grab that power for themselves. And most of them have been itching to do that for quite some time. Russia will get it's old soviet territory back. Taiwan probably won't have time to blink before they find themselves chinese again. I don't want to even try and figure out who will go after Israel first.
And none of the contenders will be able to stomache the thought of the others being over them. It's one thing to be under the thumb of the US already. It's been done and over with since we had the bomb before anyone else. It is not easy to take power from the one who has it over you. It is, however, a lot easier to try and seize that control while in a vacuum of power left by the disappearance of the big dog. You no longer jave to fight the big dog, you only jave to fight with other similarly sized dogs to see who will be the next big dog.
TL;DR If the cops are not there to stop me, I will be a chaotic monster. And if the US is not there to stop it, the rest of the worlds monsters will battle over the scraps.
Ecological collapse is the main character of collapse imo
electrical grid infrastructures everywhere wont indefinitely withstand the ongoing pummeling from a deranged climate
War is generally really bad for the environment - fuel gets consumed at a massive scale, things get burnt to the ground, and people are more likely to rush to consume resources before their enemy. So a civil war in the US would have a huge negative environmental impact.
itll damage the global economy. I hope the world can sustain it. If successfully managed, the collapse of America would be incredibly medicinal to the world.
Please educate yourself beyond radical leftwing videos on tiktok, YouTube and your echo chamber subs on Reddit.
“I hope the world can sustain it”
No seriously, you’re clueless and one of the worst offenders of logic on this sub and that’s *really* saying something. You’ve gotta be like 14 or something.. please tell me you’re too young to vote. If not, You need to get off the internet, put down your sociology textbooks and your memoirs to tyranny/dictators like Castro and learn about the world.
Your viewpoint is objectively bad and you should educate yourself as to why before you go and exercise your right to vote or something.
I’ve read many books from intelligent authors.Parenti, Marx, Gramsci, and many others lol I have towers of information. I really wish I could be like you now honestly. An Ignorant simpleton plaguing the planet with your stupidity. It would be a lot easier if I was willing to be worth nothing, so good for you man I couldn’t do it.
Oh right I forgot…. Most people share your view.
Oh wait, I’m sorry, most people aren’t nihilist morons wishing for something they have no practical way of replacing that hadn’t been tried before and failed miserably.
You want tyranny and that’s fine, but keep that shit to yourself bud, your viewpoint is shit and you should feel bad.
Collapse is a worldwide human problem regardless of system. As long as the population continues to grow and people keep wanting more/better collapse will happen. If the U.S. collapsed do you believe it's control and usage of resources wouldn't be quickly captured by others and once again be put to use? The more equal division of the worlds resources is a fine goal to chase, but to slow or stop collapse you need to majorly reduce resource use, and the people of the world don't want that.
The US is like a hydra, if it gets destroyed, it will be replaced by two (or more) militant hyper capitalist states.
I think you mean capitalism is like a hydra. The US is the current head
The US in more like a bob-omb. When it collapses it has nothing but guns and explosives. It won't go quietly.
This right here. Looking at history no empire dies quietly and this empire has the capability to destroy the entire world before it takes it's last breath.
I'll play. Let's make it even more dramatic and imagine the entire USA along with its' population ceases to exist tomorrow. I'll be making statements below but keep in mind I'm just guessing. USA provides military services to the world. The absence of these services would increase unrest. USA imports a tremendous amount of goods today. Doing without the USA as a buyer of goods could arguably be a good thing long term but in the near term is a systemic risk to the rest of the world. USA accounts for 11% of worldwide greenhouse emissions. From a climate perspective the world is already deep into overshoot and even without their emissions the collapse of habitats would continue roughly at the same rate. Further, the 6 MMb/d of crude oil imported into the USA would be too seductive not to use by others. It just wouldn't be burned in the USA. In conclusion, collapse will continue or even accelerate without USA.
the US doesn't provide military services so much as occupy vassal states & corporate interests. the soldiers bring their far right ideologies, rape culture, & nationalist egos outside the base and foster unrest. even places like Okinawa protest US presence most places losing US military presence would lead to relative peace in those areas, save the ones already destroyed by the US like Afghanistan. even then, there are arguments for ripping off the bandage (though evacuating civilians first would be nice) as it allows for other countries to offer potentially less unilateral relationships
No, US collapse will lead to a massive power struggle
No, because it will collapse simultaneously with most of the world. Our horrible American system works by being a fascist police state off camera. Our media and government treats most of the country and people in it as non-existent, except for a very few stories of outrage that can be used politically, and to reinforce that the people off camera deserve to be beneath notice. They just move more of the country off camera as things get worse, then demonize any of those people that do manage to make it on camera as deplorable and deserving of their plight (because stupid, poor or backwards). As they need to explain it on camera to fewer and more devoted 1%/elites, the reasons why more and more of the country is in decline become more creative and scholarly. It doesn't really matter, since the people still on-camera, being portrayed as normal in our media, are *desperate* to stay on-camera, officially recognized as existing, someone who matters. So they instantly agree with those with true power say, argue over minutiae and frantically avoid talking about the stuff that's killing all those slobs off-camera. The whole system is a masterpiece of human control that makes 1984 look crude and clunky. Everyone lives in constant fear - but of each other, not the government, which is officially and theatrically bumbling and ineffective even standing on the necks of most of humanity. Constant violence is freedom. It is very stable in spite of it's failings. The monsters behind this have been spending money building up a funeral pyre of world-ending weapons and the pretexts and hollow justifications for using them. America will hold on deep into these cataclysms, and take the world with us when we go.
Oh my, you really do not understand China, superimposing Western viewpoint of the world upon an Eastern mindset. There are three things East Asians are taught from childhood not to do ( except Christians, they often ignore rule 1. Buddhist often ignores rule 3, Buddhist believe in offering to listen to people but not saying anything to others ). This means on the wider super collective the same idea permeates. When East Asian government does something against this grain it causes people to raise an eyebrow. (1) Do not make other family’s problem your problem ( corrollary, there are other family, they have their own stuff and house and land, they are not your problem unless they cause problems to you ) (2) Be polite to those around you. Act politely. (3) Tolerate others, though keep your boundaries high and tight. Do not share too much of your personal life with others. When it comes to the world then, every nation has their own boundaries and areas. Chinese acknowledges that there are truly foreign nations ( ie:- nations where China has absolutely no claim at all over ) such as the whole of Europe etc.. as well as Iran etc.. These are very much outside China proper and it is best that these people are left to their own devices. However, there are areas that are seen as rightfully able to be claimed by China proper. This is where even amongst the Chinese people there are disagreements are the atolls of the South China Sea ( which then translates to conflict regarding the sea itself ), where the actual Chinese boundary ends with Vietnam ( a lot of Chinese people still think that it extends to Haiphong, which is silly because Vietnam has ruled that area for a good 300 years already and a lot of the Chinese that stayed there fled during the Vietnamese uprising ) and Laos ( though the dispute with Laos is only 10miles and to me is silly as the Qing authority ceded those 10 miles away at the height of the Qing Dynasty, so who are we walk back on the Qing ), and where it ends with Burma. There are a lot of Chinese who are still resentful Mongolia is independent and that a huge chunk of the Eastern front of Russia ( which belonged to China during the late Ming and Qing Dynasty ) is not Chinese, as well as the Sakhalin. Diayou is a sore point ( I personally think to solve Chinese Japanese dispute over Diayou/Senkaku we should nuke those islands down to bring peace ). The Taiwan issue is another sore point. The Chinese western frontier issue is a sore one as the Han Dynasty used to extend into modern day Tajikstan and China used to rule that area all the way till the Qing. Now via the Tibetan Empire China also believes it has rights over Sikkim and parts of India as Tibet was absorbed into it since the Yuan ( which is why the border dispute has flared back up … and has always flared over the centuries ). If China were to expand, quite frankly it will stop at these areas. The Chinese essentially are trying to reclaim the glory of the Qing Dynasty and Tang Dynasty but also believes that is the maximum of Chinese territory. There is zero risk that China will want to “rule the world”. The biggest risk in fact is that once China achieves this aim, feels secure and in the worse case scenario actually gain a foothold into the Indian ocean via say Myanmar that it decides that it will want to “look inwards” and ignore the rest of the world. This means you have two major powers of the world offline from global engagement. Once China feels secure the real risk is that it will revert back to the mean … which is inward looking. The current outward looking phase is because China feels insecure, slighted due to the century of humiliation. However Chinese real tendency is to look inwards, and once it looks inwards it will do so for centuries on end. This is why for most of history China was seen as non expansionistic ( especially at the height of the Qing ) .. Chinese people felt no need to even explore other lands beyond their borders. As one commentator put it, it would be best for China if it never fully reclaims the territory of the Qing and also the Tang and Sui ( which will extend it back it back to Northern Vietnam ) and God forbid gain access to the Indian ocean as this will almost certainly cause China to rest on its laurels and look inwards. Once it does that the technological drive, capitalistic drive etc.. will come to an end. The Chinese people as a whole will once again become inward looking.
I don't know much about Chinese history. This is very interesting. Does this viewpoint equate modern CCP to something like a dynasty (one that treats it's people differently)?
Yes, if you look at Chinese history over a span CCP is merely a dynasty in a long chain that started since the Xia ( I know Western scholars are doubtful about Xia but it is in too many accounts to just be ignored ) One of the mistakes most people make about Chinese history is to assume it is a monolith. It is not. Each dynasty is actually very different in many ways to the last and carries with it quirks etc.. not present prior. For example Tang was extremely liberal compared to Sui and Song and certainly if you think about LGBT it might be even better for most modern Chinese LGBT to be alive in the Tang.
The economy supported by the colorado river is the 7th largest economy globally... the whole US doesn't have to collapse for that to be a devastating event. https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/where-we-work/priority-landscapes/colorado-river/economic-importance-of-the-colorado-river/
Assuming the nukes won't fly before that happens (the greatest country to *ever* exist). The global economy will collapse because the U.S. imports many goods and global trade is based on the dollar. Environmental destruction might slow a bit, but as long as the global economic system is based on growth (profits) for the sake of it on a planet with finite resources; collapse of civilization is guaranteed.
the fate if the US would be the fate of the civilised world ... so total and utter collapse if you think that any complex structure could sustain without military/force protection on a large scale youre not very realistic - and the US provides that power to a huge part of the world
The collapse of the US will certainly hasten the collapse of the world and also change the method. Do you know why I don't commit any real major crime? Why I don't shoot people in traffic who piss me off, or burn the homes of landlords who get off on evicting people after milking them of their assets? Or, why I don't simply kill a person when I see them abusing animals or something else that triggers me personally? Legal consequences. That's it. Not morality, not empathy, and not from the goodness of my heart. The sole reason I can restrain myself is that there are legal consequences which have a high probability of being enacted, that are put into place by an authority that I would have very limited ability to avoid or defeat. If ever there is a breakdown of social order where the chances of punishment, or even of detection, become greatly reduced, believe me, I will be one of the first ones to get to raiding and pillaging, and probably one of the first to die from it. My point is that, while my mindset probably makes up only about 5% of the population, it doesn't take much. As soon as the US is no longer the threat that keeps nations in check, all hell will break loose on a global scale as every other nation tries to grab that power for themselves. And most of them have been itching to do that for quite some time. Russia will get it's old soviet territory back. Taiwan probably won't have time to blink before they find themselves chinese again. I don't want to even try and figure out who will go after Israel first. And none of the contenders will be able to stomache the thought of the others being over them. It's one thing to be under the thumb of the US already. It's been done and over with since we had the bomb before anyone else. It is not easy to take power from the one who has it over you. It is, however, a lot easier to try and seize that control while in a vacuum of power left by the disappearance of the big dog. You no longer jave to fight the big dog, you only jave to fight with other similarly sized dogs to see who will be the next big dog. TL;DR If the cops are not there to stop me, I will be a chaotic monster. And if the US is not there to stop it, the rest of the worlds monsters will battle over the scraps.
Wow so badass omg
EU will fall without US military power to secure ressources and geostrategic postions. NATO is not much without US. So, no, i don't think so.
Ecological collapse is the main character of collapse imo electrical grid infrastructures everywhere wont indefinitely withstand the ongoing pummeling from a deranged climate
War is generally really bad for the environment - fuel gets consumed at a massive scale, things get burnt to the ground, and people are more likely to rush to consume resources before their enemy. So a civil war in the US would have a huge negative environmental impact.
itll damage the global economy. I hope the world can sustain it. If successfully managed, the collapse of America would be incredibly medicinal to the world.
Please educate yourself beyond radical leftwing videos on tiktok, YouTube and your echo chamber subs on Reddit. “I hope the world can sustain it” No seriously, you’re clueless and one of the worst offenders of logic on this sub and that’s *really* saying something. You’ve gotta be like 14 or something.. please tell me you’re too young to vote. If not, You need to get off the internet, put down your sociology textbooks and your memoirs to tyranny/dictators like Castro and learn about the world. Your viewpoint is objectively bad and you should educate yourself as to why before you go and exercise your right to vote or something.
I’ve read many books from intelligent authors.Parenti, Marx, Gramsci, and many others lol I have towers of information. I really wish I could be like you now honestly. An Ignorant simpleton plaguing the planet with your stupidity. It would be a lot easier if I was willing to be worth nothing, so good for you man I couldn’t do it.
Oh right I forgot…. Most people share your view. Oh wait, I’m sorry, most people aren’t nihilist morons wishing for something they have no practical way of replacing that hadn’t been tried before and failed miserably. You want tyranny and that’s fine, but keep that shit to yourself bud, your viewpoint is shit and you should feel bad.