Ahh, good old Niall Ferguson. I get that it's a forward thinking article so he kinda gets away with the "What If?" angle here but Ferguson's a bit of an odd figure here in the UK. He loves him...
Ahh, good old Niall Ferguson. I get that it's a forward thinking article so he kinda gets away with the "What If?" angle here but Ferguson's a bit of an odd figure here in the UK.
He loves him some British Empire, huge empire apologist, and is a professional contrarion. Whatever opinion is generally held in historical consensus, he will probably have the opposite (the ones I remember are his view that Germany in the run up to WWI was the most anti-military country in Europe and that propaganda had no effect in recruiting young men to the frontlines).
He also believes that if Germany had won WWI, there would be no such thing as communism, socialism or the EU because the victorious Germany would have set up a better EU had they won the war.
He also believes that everything culturally or scientifically significant came from Europe or the US and doesn't particularly like Muslims, believing that all of Europe will fall to Islam.
He has also aligned himself with PragerU's mental right wing politics recently, has gone on record saying some pretty racist things about Obama and was also caught out being a homophobe.
I also find it odd he keeps referring to Britain and the Brits in the article as if he isn't one, he's a dual national, Scottish (apologies from a fellow Scot) and American.
I was skeptical enough coming into this - but I hit this part that made me drop out Ummm... What about Beetlemania? Boy bands? The Rat Pack? Every decade post WW2 has had escapism and celebrities....
I was skeptical enough coming into this - but I hit this part that made me drop out
Rather than contemplate dystopian futures, they prefer to immerse themselves in the Taylor Swift cult — a form of mass escapism that recalls the mania for screen goddesses in the isolationist 1930s.
Ummm... What about Beetlemania? Boy bands? The Rat Pack? Every decade post WW2 has had escapism and celebrities. But like... Wasn't Black Mirror incredibly popular a few years back? Squid Game? These are just recent examples - going back further to Escape from New York and...
Well, I clicked on the comments to whine about that and, lo and behold, I see your comment letting me know I wasn't far off the mark with my gut feeling.
I just read the whole thing and I agree. It struck me as terribly out of touch with both young people and Americans. Also, for an article titled "What would America look like if it lost WWIII"...
I just read the whole thing and I agree. It struck me as terribly out of touch with both young people and Americans. Also, for an article titled "What would America look like if it lost WWIII" there is actually very little of that guesswork in the article. The last 20% deals with... well, it's unclear. China invades Taiwan, communications go down, and suddenly the CCP is in charge in the US with surveillance everywhere. It seems like the author himself has a hard time imagining an American defeat of that scale, given the sparsity of detail.
For anyone reading the comments first, I would say it's not worth reading the whole thing, but do make your own conclusions on that front.
This is such a funny sentence. It has all the energy of "kids don't want to learn these days, they just want to party," but instead of talking about math class or something else useful... Well,...
Rather than contemplate dystopian futures, they prefer to immerse themselves in the Taylor Swift cult
This is such a funny sentence. It has all the energy of "kids don't want to learn these days, they just want to party," but instead of talking about math class or something else useful...
Well, yes, Mr Ferguson. I would rather listen to Taylor Swift than sit around contemplating dystopian futures. Mostly because anyone who identifies that as a hobby is 99% likely to be an insufferable douche.
Your comment reminded me about Yale's Existential Threats Initiative, which I learned about from this Atlantic article. Relevant paragraphs:
Your comment reminded me about Yale's Existential Threats Initiative, which I learned about from this Atlantic article.
Relevant paragraphs:
Yale’s competitive-admission clubs include many that are notoriously exclusive but also more surprising entries, such as the community-service club. One of Zhang’s rejections came from the Existential Threats Initiative, which meets to discuss issues such as climate change and AI. Zhang was turned away for not having enough experience dealing with existential threats. Her rejection email encouraged her to listen to more podcasts, such as 80,000 Hours (tagline: “In-depth conversations about the world’s most pressing problems”) or otherwise gain expertise in the field.
Ben Snyder, a recent Yale grad who co-founded Existential Threats in 2022, told me the club is simply not for beginners.
“We wanted to be more selective so we could have more advanced conversations,” said Snyder, whose expertise in this subject includes having researched the risk potential of pandemics at the Stanford Center for International Security and Cooperation last summer.
I don't even know what to say here except "lol". Continuing our digression, I have found that the educated elite are often more prone to exactly the type of navel-gazing that I think...
Her rejection email encouraged her to listen to more podcasts,
I don't even know what to say here except "lol".
Continuing our digression, I have found that the educated elite are often more prone to exactly the type of navel-gazing that I think "contemplating dystopian futures" exemplifies, while being simultaneously much more likely to think they're making a difference.
As an example, the podcast in question was fairly notorious (they've backed off a bit) for advocating for earning to give - a practice in which you focus on taking a high paying job so that you can donate a lot.
Is that really doing more for the world than a working-class parent in Alberta who spends their free time mentoring foster kids?
I'm skeptical. But I certainly know which one is more likely to talk a lot about it.
I also think the focus on donations is kind of funny because at the point you're earning money in the kind of ballpark they are talking about you have much more power in the decisions you make at...
I also think the focus on donations is kind of funny because at the point you're earning money in the kind of ballpark they are talking about you have much more power in the decisions you make at work (using company money/resources/power) than the decisions you make with your personal compensation (exploitation of surplus labour and all that).
I had the exact same gut feeling haha. I don't always do so but figured it was best to check who I was reading because it was setting off those little alarm bells. Sure enough, saw his name and...
I had the exact same gut feeling haha. I don't always do so but figured it was best to check who I was reading because it was setting off those little alarm bells. Sure enough, saw his name and figured I'd flag him up in case anyone wasn't aware of who Niall Ferguson is and what an odd ball he can be.
The thing is that he has lots of crazy opinions but he is actually a pretty good historian (if you read his books, e.g. the Rothschild history). His popular persona is also somewhat different to...
The thing is that he has lots of crazy opinions but he is actually a pretty good historian (if you read his books, e.g. the Rothschild history). His popular persona is also somewhat different to his academic one (same kind of ideas but much more simplified and Manichean when it comes to his popular stuff compared to his academic work).
Uh, what? I agree that letting foreign adversaries run rampant would be disastrous, and China could definitely inflict a lot of damage on the US in a hot war. But the piece kind of breezily skips...
Uh, what? I agree that letting foreign adversaries run rampant would be disastrous, and China could definitely inflict a lot of damage on the US in a hot war. But the piece kind of breezily skips from that to de facto CCP conquest of the country, somehow. It's like an only slightly less absurd version of this Onion article.
In this (ridiculous) scenario of America being beaten down enough to lose control of itself to China, there is no way China are left in any better state. No one is going to win ww3. Maybe someone...
In this (ridiculous) scenario of America being beaten down enough to lose control of itself to China, there is no way China are left in any better state. No one is going to win ww3. Maybe someone loses less, but there is no winning that fight.
Also, the jump from 'attack on carrier group' to 'America is under the thumb' is cosmic to say the least.
The headline is actually an interesting question, although I think the oceans and our size would make us difficult to conquor and hold long term. I do think as an american that we risk becoming...
The headline is actually an interesting question, although I think the oceans and our size would make us difficult to conquor and hold long term. I do think as an american that we risk becoming complacent and take risks that we shouldn't geopolitically because we rely on the strategic success of previous generations. Being the dominant power for so many generations has shaped the worldview of our decision makers.
Ahh, good old Niall Ferguson. I get that it's a forward thinking article so he kinda gets away with the "What If?" angle here but Ferguson's a bit of an odd figure here in the UK.
He loves him some British Empire, huge empire apologist, and is a professional contrarion. Whatever opinion is generally held in historical consensus, he will probably have the opposite (the ones I remember are his view that Germany in the run up to WWI was the most anti-military country in Europe and that propaganda had no effect in recruiting young men to the frontlines).
He also believes that if Germany had won WWI, there would be no such thing as communism, socialism or the EU because the victorious Germany would have set up a better EU had they won the war.
He also believes that everything culturally or scientifically significant came from Europe or the US and doesn't particularly like Muslims, believing that all of Europe will fall to Islam.
He has also aligned himself with PragerU's mental right wing politics recently, has gone on record saying some pretty racist things about Obama and was also caught out being a homophobe.
I also find it odd he keeps referring to Britain and the Brits in the article as if he isn't one, he's a dual national, Scottish (apologies from a fellow Scot) and American.
I was skeptical enough coming into this - but I hit this part that made me drop out
Ummm... What about Beetlemania? Boy bands? The Rat Pack? Every decade post WW2 has had escapism and celebrities. But like... Wasn't Black Mirror incredibly popular a few years back? Squid Game? These are just recent examples - going back further to Escape from New York and...
Well, I clicked on the comments to whine about that and, lo and behold, I see your comment letting me know I wasn't far off the mark with my gut feeling.
I just read the whole thing and I agree. It struck me as terribly out of touch with both young people and Americans. Also, for an article titled "What would America look like if it lost WWIII" there is actually very little of that guesswork in the article. The last 20% deals with... well, it's unclear. China invades Taiwan, communications go down, and suddenly the CCP is in charge in the US with surveillance everywhere. It seems like the author himself has a hard time imagining an American defeat of that scale, given the sparsity of detail.
For anyone reading the comments first, I would say it's not worth reading the whole thing, but do make your own conclusions on that front.
When Homefront: The Revolution is more plausible than your published Guardian article, maybe it's time to give up writing as a day job.
This is such a funny sentence. It has all the energy of "kids don't want to learn these days, they just want to party," but instead of talking about math class or something else useful...
Well, yes, Mr Ferguson. I would rather listen to Taylor Swift than sit around contemplating dystopian futures. Mostly because anyone who identifies that as a hobby is 99% likely to be an insufferable douche.
Your comment reminded me about Yale's Existential Threats Initiative, which I learned about from this Atlantic article.
Relevant paragraphs:
I don't even know what to say here except "lol".
Continuing our digression, I have found that the educated elite are often more prone to exactly the type of navel-gazing that I think "contemplating dystopian futures" exemplifies, while being simultaneously much more likely to think they're making a difference.
As an example, the podcast in question was fairly notorious (they've backed off a bit) for advocating for earning to give - a practice in which you focus on taking a high paying job so that you can donate a lot.
Is that really doing more for the world than a working-class parent in Alberta who spends their free time mentoring foster kids?
I'm skeptical. But I certainly know which one is more likely to talk a lot about it.
I also think the focus on donations is kind of funny because at the point you're earning money in the kind of ballpark they are talking about you have much more power in the decisions you make at work (using company money/resources/power) than the decisions you make with your personal compensation (exploitation of surplus labour and all that).
i agree. Recreational cynicism is a weird thing to hold up as the hallmark of maturity.
I had the exact same gut feeling haha. I don't always do so but figured it was best to check who I was reading because it was setting off those little alarm bells. Sure enough, saw his name and figured I'd flag him up in case anyone wasn't aware of who Niall Ferguson is and what an odd ball he can be.
The thing is that he has lots of crazy opinions but he is actually a pretty good historian (if you read his books, e.g. the Rothschild history). His popular persona is also somewhat different to his academic one (same kind of ideas but much more simplified and Manichean when it comes to his popular stuff compared to his academic work).
Uh, what? I agree that letting foreign adversaries run rampant would be disastrous, and China could definitely inflict a lot of damage on the US in a hot war. But the piece kind of breezily skips from that to de facto CCP conquest of the country, somehow. It's like an only slightly less absurd version of this Onion article.
Mirror, for those hit by the paywall:
https://archive.is/idkYf
In this (ridiculous) scenario of America being beaten down enough to lose control of itself to China, there is no way China are left in any better state. No one is going to win ww3. Maybe someone loses less, but there is no winning that fight.
Also, the jump from 'attack on carrier group' to 'America is under the thumb' is cosmic to say the least.
The headline is actually an interesting question, although I think the oceans and our size would make us difficult to conquor and hold long term. I do think as an american that we risk becoming complacent and take risks that we shouldn't geopolitically because we rely on the strategic success of previous generations. Being the dominant power for so many generations has shaped the worldview of our decision makers.
But this article and this author aren't serious.