[lisper]

> It is inconceivable for us to imagine a rapid regression today

To the contrary, I'm finding it increasingly likely that I will see the collapse of civilization within my lifetime, and I'm 57. I see two prospective tipping points on the horizon: the collapse of democracy in the U.S. leading to nuclear war, and climate change leading to world-wide food shortages. The former seems likely within 5-10 years, and the latter within 20-30.

(And BTW, I am not feeling anywhere near as sanguine about this as the text above makes it sound.)

[antocv]

Havent you noticed that people who see dark future post and tell it more often the past 30 years, than people who think "it will all be just fine"?

I remember the late 90s doom and "oh no millenium 2000" gloom predictions, and 2012 nostradamus end of the world maya calendar the end is near. I read about the 80s cold war "will go hot nuclear any time" and can be seen in movies like Terminator.

US will not collapse, no nuclear war will happen, climate change is not even the biggest fuckup we are doing (cutting down the amazon is, biodiversity loss overall), but we post-pone the imminent danger from a scheduled Ice Age.

[lisper]

I was pretty optimistic in 1990, but since then there is new data. Donald Trump was elected president and led a violent insurrection against the government based on a transparent lie with, so far, no negative consequences. If he runs in 2024 he will win the Republican nomination. Unless the Democrats suspend the filibuster to pass voting rights legislation, he will almost certainly be elected president again (because measures are being put in place at the state level to insure that the election is not "stolen" from him again). And I've seen the effects of climate change with my own eyes. The changes are happening with breathtaking speed. The climate where I live is already dramatically different today than it was when I moved here a mere 11 years ago. All of the data from the last 30 years is dramatically worse than the worst-case projections of 1990. Absent some really dramatic technological or political breakthrough, it is a question of when, not if, climate change destroys civilization. It might be longer than 30 years out (I certainly hope so), but it's not 100 years out, not any more.

[basementcat]

To me this may imply a sort of built-in "failsafe" against political and economic hegemonies that is a part of human nature. This may be useful to ensure that political systems do not last forever so at least some part of humanity is able to explore alternate ways to construct and operate societies.

[lisper]

Well, that's a cheerful way of looking at it I guess. Personally, I'm a fan of civilization, but maybe that's just a reflection of my rich-white-male privilege.

[antocv]

> Donald Trump was elected president

Oh no, the end of the world is upon us, how could the people chose _that_ kind of guy as president. The people where meant to chouse _our_ woman it was _her_ turn.

Ironic really, you are scared of democracy ending yet as main reason why, because democracy worked.

[lisper]

You left out the important part: Trump incited a violent insurrection against the government based on a transparent lie with, so far, no negative consequences.

Trump's election was not a failure of democracy, merely a failure of common sense among the electorate. The failure of democracy began when Trump tried to get the secretary of state of Georgia to "find 11,000 votes". It continues now that he is successfully promulgating the Big Lie. It will be complete when he is "re-elected" in 2024.

[aa-jv]

Why was Trump your indicator that US democracy was failing, and not Bush Jr? IMHO, the latter did far more to destroy American democratic society than Trump - but the wealth and riches he provided through his war crimes seems to occlude this fact from most American's point of view.

Trump is just the latest in a long line of failures one could point at as examples of the destruction of American democracy, and he wasn't even the most effective at altering America's sociopolitical landscape, as Bush and Obama were ..

[lisper]

Yes, the decay certainly goes back further than Trump. Before Trump there was Bush and before Bush there was Nixon. You could probably trace it back as far as the JFK and RFK assassinations, maybe further. Some see what is happening now as an extension of the Civil War.

But Trump is unique in that he:

1. Has never accepted his 2020 election defeat

2. Wields enough control over the rank and file of his party to have the power to terminate the career of any Republican who crosses him in any way, and has demonstrated the willingness to use that power without reservation

3. Demanded that election officials to commit election fraud (and was impeached for it, but not removed from office)

4. Incited a violent insurrection against the government and has suffered no negative consequences for it

It is his ability and willingness to use his power to promulgate the Big Lie that the 2020 election was stolen that makes him a much bigger threat to democracy than anything the U.S. has seen since the Civil War.

[aa-jv]

If only Al Gore had been a bit more ballsy about having the election stolen from him by Bush .. we probably wouldn't be dealing with the failure of democracy that is manifest in America's wanton destruction of so many other sovereign states and the murder of literally millions of people around the world .. the point is, Americans aren't the only ones who suffer when their democracy is corrupted for military purposes.

[kbelder]

I think I've mentioned this before on HN, but I remember a teacher in my highschool class in 1984, asking if we thought there would be a nuclear war with the USSR in our lifetime. I was the only kid out of 30 that didn't think there would be.

Doomsayers are sometimes correct, but usually not, and they are ever-present. And, for some reason, very appealing to many.

[FpUser]

Why would collapse of democracy in the US lead to nuclear war?

[pohl]

If democratically-elected government disappears, something will fill that power void, and they will control that arsenal. Who knows what could happen with them.

[FpUser]

>"Who knows what could happen with them."

Same as with the democratic government. Dictators are not suicidal. They prefer to be left alone.

[pohl]

Tell the people of Ukraine right now how much Putin wants to be left alone.

[FpUser]

I do appreciate your concern about Ukraine but this has nothing to do with Russia being against nuclear proliferation. If it wanted to it would have zero problems seeding those all over the places.

[pohl]

I do appreciate your condescension, but no one said it had to do with something about Russia being for or against proliferation.

[tehjoker]

they'll fight other countries to deflect from internal problems

[nine_k]

Did the collapse of democracy in Russia lead to nuclear war?

[tehjoker]

It didn't which is great news, but tbh I regard the Russians as more rational than us.

[quacked]

You don't know any Russians then, haha

[lisper]

Or you don't know any self-styled "real Americans".

[tehjoker]

I'm thinking more of their cold war strategizing, but I also ask you, have you ever met an American QAnon enthusiast? ;)

[FpUser]

Nothing new. They were fighting other countries all along. Still not suicidal.

[imoverclocked]

The US is a major nuclear power and is one body that actively works to counter-balance nuclear proliferation in the world.

[FpUser]

>"is one body that actively works"

Not true. Unless you count invading other countries under false pretenses as one.

If you think Russia is interested in proliferated I have a nice bridge.

[imoverclocked]

[1] "Preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction is traditionally a top priority of U.S. foreign policy."

I didn't say anything about Russia.

[1] https://www.nti.org/countries/united-states/

[FpUser]

Your post reads as the US is the only one working on NPT. It is not.

As for your reference - US based and owned org is of course totally unbiased. Color me surprised.

[imoverclocked]

I would differentiate "one body" from "the one body" or "the only body." While I didn't explicitly state, "one of many," that was the implied intent.

Another example of similar usage is, "I am one person." This statement does not imply I am the only person. Rather, it eludes to the fact that there are others.

This is just a guess but, while looking through my post and these responses, it appears to me that you are politically charged and might be reading with a heavy confirmation bias. I welcome evidence to the contrary of any of my points. So far, I've only seen conjecture.

[lisper]

Not quite sure how to answer that if it's not already obvious to you. If democracy collapses, the result will almost certainly be Donald Trump being effectively a dictator. He very nearly started a nuclear war on more than one occasion during his first administration when some checks and balances were still in place [1] [2]. Nothing could stop him if he decided to do it again during his second.

[1] https://gizmodo.com/the-pentagon-worried-trump-was-about-to-...

[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/milley-acted-prevent-t...

[FpUser]

>"He very nearly started a nuclear war on more than one occasion during his first administration

The info in the links you've mentioned does not inspire much confidence.

[oh_sigh]

I'll bet you $1M that civilization doesn't collapse within 30 years!

[lisper]

I would like nothing better than to lose that bet, but I don't think my wife would approve. How about a bottle of your favorite scotch? (Which may well cost $1M 30 years from now.)

[weberer]

Pretty sure it was a joke since if it does collapse he wouldn't have to pay anyway.

[lisper]

You need to re-read the GP comment. He was betting that civilization would not collapse.

[wildermuthn]

If he wins the bet, he gets money. If he loses the bet, money is worthless,

[kingcharles]

I don't think any of those events will come to pass, but I suspect you might live long enough to see The Singularity arrive, and that might be the harbinger of doom you are seeking.

[lisper]

One could argue that this has already happened: social media is the singularity. The evil AI doesn't have to be implemented entirely in silicon. Indeed, that fact that it runs in part on human brains helps it remain stealthy.

[bsenftner]

Now that is an interesting take - are you thinking an emergent hive mind is in social media, and that is controlling society? Quite interesting...

[lisper]

More or less. Human brains are an emergent property of a large number of highly interconnected neurons, so I see no reason something similar couldn't emerge from a large number of highly interconnected brains.

But the thing to keep in mind is that this emergent thing is not necessarily conscious or intentional, but if it reaches the point where it self-replicates then it becomes effectively a life form that starts to undergo Darwinian evolution and thus becomes very difficult to get rid of. The point is that all this is (potentially) just a straightforward consequence of the laws of physics, not some sci-fi super-villain going "Bwahahaha! Silly humans!" in the back of data center somewhere.

[lovemenot]

This is epitomised by the word "meme":

  an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture

1976, introduced by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene

[bsenftner]

Yes, I follow your reasoning. I buy the existence of a subtle, self perpetuating public attitude. It may emergently coordinate to the degree it is indistinguishable from an independant living entity. Once it is named, it will be seen and observed everywhere, and blamed for all manner of evils. It's the boogieman, in reality: a manifestation of all our collective fears.

[ecpottinger]

And explains why it is also so messed up at the same time.