|
|
Post by mao on Jan 11, 2019 10:25:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Jan 11, 2019 16:13:40 GMT -5
I found that to paint a rather depressing picture. |
|
|
|
Post by mao on Jan 11, 2019 16:59:19 GMT -5
I found that to paint a rather depressing picture. I'm sorry, It's been a long time since I read it, and should have given it a warning, again sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Jan 11, 2019 22:55:53 GMT -5
I found that to paint a rather depressing picture. I'm sorry, It's been a long time since I read it, and should have given it a warning, again sorry. Chill mao, you didn't need to give a warning, I'm no snowflake. No that is quite apocalyptic and when you said "excellence" I was expecting a more fun world to play in not the SJW future the real world is facing. |
|
|
|
Post by raikenclw on Jan 12, 2019 17:20:35 GMT -5
I found it extremely confusing, probably because the author is apparently referring to fictional future historical developments, particularly toward the end. While I tend to agree with the comments about the cultural suicide potential of what is more popularly known as "political correctness," I don't think the slide is as inevitable as the author makes out. In recent years, there has been plenty of pushback against that trend, from a myriad of pop culture figures (Gary Oldman, Clint Eastwood, Richard Dreyfus and Stephen Fry, just to name a few). Even the recent MeToo movement - while initially all-encompassing - soon sparked quite a bit of "Hey, wait a minute. This is going rather too far." reactions. As to immigrants/barbarians taking over Western society, that's sort of true. As in his historical examples, the New Guys just want to share in the wealth of the culture the Old Guys created. The Goths and Vandals didn't want to destroy the Romans, they wanted to BECOME Romans. But the Romans had unfortunately already largely destroyed their own prosperity, through rapacious taxation. This made the society weak enough to be taken over. But we're not at that point or anywhere near it. I much prefer the view that Thomas F. Madden (an Ancient Rome historian) puts forward in his book "Empires of Trust: How Rome Built - and America is Building - a New World." www.amazon.com/Empires-Trust-Built-America-Building/dp/0452295459Basically, 21st-century America much more closely resembles the expanding Roman Republic than it does the late (and collapsing) Roman Empire. Romans of that era had much in common with traditional American values, values which haven't changed markedly despite superficial evidence. Early in his book, he cites the Abu Ghraib debacle, but with a twist. Rather than decrying it, Madden points out that through most of history, such an incident would excite no comment whatsoever. Yet for America it was a shocking event. The early Roman Republic faced a similar issue; a conquered enemy town was looted by the Roman governor appointed to temporarily rule it. The Roman Senate not only received a delegation from the conquered city and listened to their complaint, they appointed a committee to investigate. When the investigation determined that the governor had indeed exceeded his authority, the Senate sentenced him to death and paid the city an indemnity as well. Madden titles his book "Empires of Trust" because America like Rome is in large part trusted by the rest of the world to behave honorably, even when opponents do not. As with early Rome, America is - slowly, haphazardly and very much against its own wishes - building an empire, because whether they openly admit it or not pretty much everyone outside the Western democracies would prefer to be ruled (or at least "reigned over lightly") by the U.S. than by their native elites. When something bad happens somewhere, the cry is always "Why isn't America doing something?" The assumption is that America *should* be doing something, because we're the White Hat Guys, after all. |
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Jan 13, 2019 16:22:27 GMT -5
Excellent post raikenclw, have an Exalt! Thoughtful, informative and thought provoking! |
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on Apr 23, 2019 17:20:53 GMT -5
In that projection, take the current year and add a worldwide EMP, then project from that. What does each part of the world look like in 50 years?
|
|
|
|
Post by raikenclw on Apr 25, 2019 20:15:35 GMT -5
In that projection, take the current year and add a worldwide EMP, then project from that. What does each part of the world look like in 50 years? Probably not a whole lot different. Of course, the initial impact and close follow-on effects of such an EMP would be quite deadly, on a global scale. Since the rise of "just in time" inventory systems, most places in the world have only a three-day supply of food on hand at any given moment. This includes not only the developed world but also the so-called developing world; grain shipments don't arrive if modern ship engines die and can't be restarted. Mid-term, the developed world would probably recover fairly quickly, as we still have some [not yet recycled] non-digital tech or could kitbash such back together in an emergency. Also, currently there are still some living people among us who remember how to build and use such antiquated tech. But the developing world largely skipped past the earlier stages of industrialization in favor of going directly digital, so being forced onto their own intrinsic resources would likely entail a widespread shift back to pre-industrial tech. By the time two generations (50 years) have elapsed, world population and peak tech levels will have largely recovered to current levels. Details might differ - I would not expect large nation states (China, Russia, U.S.) to have survived the collapse politically intact - but on the whole the world would be a recognizable one. |
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on May 18, 2019 0:03:32 GMT -5
Hmm. I would expect a heavy death toll and strong man rule everywhere and a long slow climb back to any kind of a civilization that most of us would want to live in.
|
|
|
|
Post by raikenclw on May 18, 2019 1:20:05 GMT -5
Hmm. I would expect a heavy death toll and strong man rule everywhere and a long slow climb back to any kind of a civilization that most of us would want to live in. "Heavy death toll," check. Probably 75%, maybe even higher. At least in the developed world, where pretty much every community (even farming communities, in this highly-mechanized age) is only 3-4 days distance from starvation. "Strong Man rule", check. Actually, a large chunk of the world still currently experiences this type of rule, although it's politely cloaked in legal fictions most of the time. But a Strong Man ruler who can't base his/her legitimacy on established tradition is in a very precarious position. Such a ruler is easily replaced by traditional methods (whatever these might be) the moment that the public thinks that the immediate crisis has passed. A worldwide EMP is a singular disaster that's very unlikely to be repeated. Even a super massive solar flare would likely only affect one-half of the planet. Once it's gone, it's gone and redevelopment of technology would occur fairly rapidly. So a "long, slow climb back" is not very likely, not unless some other disaster intervened. Note that there are at least a couple of more-or-less popular fictional settings where such an "other disaster" does intervene. S. M. Stirling's "Dies The Fire" series assumes that resurgent supernatural forces PROHIBIT the redevelopment of technology, so severe and permanent sociopolitical changes do occur. The cancelled TV show "Revolution" had a Weird Science explanation for why electricity couldn't be used - for any purpose, at any level - even long after the initial worldwide disaster. But absent some such outre limiting factor, modern tech and its accompanying worldview would return fairly quickly. At least, in my opinion, which is based upon extensive fictional and non-fictional reading in this general genre. |
|
