|
|
|
|
|
by alexandercrohde
3264 days ago
|
|
I've heard people say that before, but I don't see why I should believe it. 230 years ago America didn't exist. 150 years ago black people were property. 100 years ago women could not vote. 50 years ago nobody owned a computer. Until recently, weed was illegal. The world is changing really fast, and the rate of change is getting faster. When people argue "That could never change!" I have to wonder if they have any real evidence... Do you? |
|
1+2. One way or another, America will "stop playing world police". It might do things like adopt the metric system (depending on how long the "rugged independence" streak runs). U.S. climate policy is about as important to the world as Californian climate policy is to the rest of the country (near zero). The internet is already splintering into interlinked regional networks, and will continue to do so naturally.
3. War isn't inherently a way to enrich private entities, although it's clearly true that that's one effect of it, in this country right now (and arguably, currently the primary reason). War has been a constant reality, at least since the time humans began agriculture. Maybe it'll go away in the future, but I see no evidence of it.
4. One over-arching nation, with some division of regional governments. Conflict will just move down the tree.
5. A single, universal language isn't an inherently good thing. It sounds like a great way to kill off cultural diversity.
6. We'll have to change the nature of the human animal. We're naturally prone to categorizing, ranking, organizing, and using those structures to assess threat levels. Denying that is fighting nature; you won't win that war.
> The world is changing really fast, and the rate of change is getting faster. When people argue "That could never change!" I have to wonder if they have any real evidence... Do you?
True, true. Things will change. They'll follow the path of least resistance, on the macro and micro levels. Your 6 steps are fighting entropy the whole way. They're radical claims. Radical claims require radical evidence...do you have any?