I love this topic. The author asserts: All empires eventually lose power. This premise seems true. Excess resource extraction and unequal wealth distribution were crucial to every civilizational...
I love this topic. The author asserts:
All empires eventually lose power. This premise seems true.
Excess resource extraction and unequal wealth distribution were crucial to every civilizational collapse of the past 5,000 years. I don't know what backs up this claim, but it sounds true, especially if you only consider civilizations that were once regionally/globally dominant.
and from this they predict that the American empire is declining because it is experiencing excess resource extraction and unequal wealth distribution. They further support this prediction by pointing out that US dollar may no longer be the global reserve currency, the country is not prepared for the next inevitable financial crisis, and it's completely over-extended, meddling in everyone's business and pissing at least half of the world off.
I agree with the author, and I'm very curious what the decline will look like. How far will the US decline and how quickly? Will the states fragment into separate countries, or will the US remain intact but become an isolationist? What will the rest of the world do? China's belt and road initiative seems like their take on the American Marshal Plan and Truman Doctrine, and it seems unopposed by the west, which is distracted by Russia's shenanigans and the desires of Saudi Arabia/Israel, so I suspect China will replace the US as the world's hegemon. Lastly, how will environmental degradation affect the decline process? Which region of the world do you think will be the most stable or safest place to be over the next 50-100 years?
There is good news (for once) about the amount of dread to feel about carbon warming the atmosphere. There's still a bit to go before it gets to implementation, but the fact that people are...
We're set up for some major humanitarian crises the moment the US food supply gets disrupted, so as far as the safest place to live in 50-100 years is concerned, I'd have to say either China or the US would be the safest in the world in which the two superpowers do not come to blows over China's increasingly ambitious stature in world affairs. If they do come to blows, find a hovel in the most sparsely populated areas of Russia, Mexico, or Canada, friend. And get good at finding your own food. Nature would be a safer place than the hellspawn that would come from a general war between two superpowers (and, we can assume, their allies). Hell, failed states like Somalia might be better places in that scenario.
Maybe the farmland of Ireland would be fine too. But there's too much infrastructure there for me to be confident.
This speculative article at least sent me down the rabbit hole to learn what Special Drawing Rights (SDR's) and the Renminbi are. The first is a "unit of exchange" (my phrase) set up by the...
This speculative article at least sent me down the rabbit hole to learn what Special Drawing Rights (SDR's) and the Renminbi are. The first is a "unit of exchange" (my phrase) set up by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the second is the official name of Chinese currency. The Chinese Renminbi has joined the basket of currencies that make up the SDR. (Other currencies currently include the U.S. Dollar, the Euro, the Pound Sterling, and the Japanese Yen. )
The article speculates or rather asserts that the U.S. dominance of the world economy is largely related to dollars being the universal rate of exchange in the open market, soon to be undermined by the IMF and the SDR. Googling further, it sounds more like the SDR is something that is not to be used on the open market.
I'm pretty green when it comes to monetary policy.
Well the line of thinking I've heard about why the U.S. is so far in bed with the Saudis is based on the fact that they require their customers to purchase in U.S. dollars. If that stops, then the...
The article speculates or rather asserts that the U.S. dominance of the world economy is largely related to dollars being the universal rate of exchange in the open market
Well the line of thinking I've heard about why the U.S. is so far in bed with the Saudis is based on the fact that they require their customers to purchase in U.S. dollars. If that stops, then the demand for U.S. dollars drops and the value will decrease (perhaps dramatically).
I'll believe it when I see it. I've been told from doomsayers and wanna-be Nostradami that the reign of the U.S. is ending since I was old enough to remember. This, of course, in addition to...
I'll believe it when I see it. I've been told from doomsayers and wanna-be Nostradami that the reign of the U.S. is ending since I was old enough to remember. This, of course, in addition to various articles and theories that have predicted the same thing (through different measures) for at least the past century.
Here's a "hard" truth: The world is largely post-imperial. Using the fall of empires as a metric to predict events in a post-imperial global society is like using a fork to eat soup. If there's anything solid in there you'll get it, but really you're missing out on like...80% of the soup. Which in this analogy I guess is made of people?
This one might have gotten away from me.
E - Empirical -> Imperial because my dictionary called me a fucking moron
It took about a century or more of decline for Rome to officially “fall.” Throughout that process your typical Roman citizen probably wouldn’t have recognized much of anything being that...
It took about a century or more of decline for Rome to officially “fall.” Throughout that process your typical Roman citizen probably wouldn’t have recognized much of anything being that different. It’s only in hindsight, after the Capital gets sacked by wandering plunderers, that they would look back and think “huh. Guess we’ve been headed this way for a while now.”
Can you define post-empirical? It sounds like an oxymoron. Here's where I'm at: Empirical: Relying on or derived from observation or experiment Post-empirical: Moving beyond relying on observation...
Can you define post-empirical? It sounds like an oxymoron. Here's where I'm at:
Empirical: Relying on or derived from observation or experiment
Post-empirical: Moving beyond relying on observation or experiment?
How does one achieve post-empirical and still remain grounded in reality? Seems impossible to me. Are you saying that the world is now now longer grounded in reality?
Ha, okay. I spent too much time on that. What makes you think the world is post-imperial? I don't think it is. I think it's still very imperial, except the imperial-ness isn't as overt. The US...
Ha, okay. I spent too much time on that.
What makes you think the world is post-imperial? I don't think it is. I think it's still very imperial, except the imperial-ness isn't as overt. The US doesn't need to declare a lesser state to be its colony and extract its resources. That sounds mean and oppressive. Instead, corporations, since they're free in the US, are allowed/encouraged to run amok and economically subjugate these lesser states to extract their resources. To me, it's just imperialism with some extra steps. That's my condensed view of the world. So what makes you think the world is post-imperial
When it comes to academic discourse I'm a bit of a traditionalist on verbage. That might seem strange given my writings on Tildes, Staining The Timbre, and my short stories are full of made-up...
When it comes to academic discourse I'm a bit of a traditionalist on verbage. That might seem strange given my writings on Tildes, Staining The Timbre, and my short stories are full of made-up suffixes and words used for their lesser-known meanings, but for me it's two different situations.
Anyway, for me "post-imperial" means exactly what it is defined as: "Of, designating, or characteristic of a period following the dissolution or collapse of an empire." Well how are we defining empire, might be your next question. If we follow the same standard, our definition of empire is, "An extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch, an oligarchy, or a sovereign state." So, given that fewer and fewer countries are collectively ruled by monarchies, oligarchies, or sovereign states, I would say we live in a largely post-imperial world.
Per Oxford's living dictionary, however, empire can also be defined as you've noted: "A large commercial organization owned or controlled by one person or group." If we go by that definition then you are absolutely correct, the world is still very much imperialistic.
So really it just depends on which definition you consider more "correct", and as what I would refer to as a "linguistic traditionalist", I err to the former definition.
Declining in what respect? I don't think any of the ways in which the US is failing are indicative of imperial decline (because, again, I dont think the US is an empire) but there are definitely...
Declining in what respect? I don't think any of the ways in which the US is failing are indicative of imperial decline (because, again, I dont think the US is an empire) but there are definitely aspects of our culture, politics, and economy that are in decline.
This is a topic I have thought a lot about, so some starting hot takes: The United States' status as THE hegemonic global power only started in the early 1990s with the fall of the Soviet Union,...
This is a topic I have thought a lot about, so some starting hot takes:
The United States' status as THE hegemonic global power only started in the early 1990s with the fall of the Soviet Union, and will not last more than two more decades.
There will be no replacement hegemonic power so long as the United States exists. Only competitors/rivals, making a bipolar or multipolar global order.
The periods of most violent global instability come when a country challenges the current global power structure AND the existing power(s) fail to make room to integrate that power.
The question for me is not whether China will rise as a global super power that can compete with the US. That ship has sailed. The question is what will the US do in reaction to China's rise. If the US finds a way to coexist, things can continue largely as they are for a long while. Probably decades. If it can't, like the escalating trade wars under our current administration suggest, then we may be on a road to a more cataclysmic upheaval that could potentially leave neither China nor the US as world powers at the other side.
The basis for my suggesting that comes largely out of what happens in other conflicts between powers that turns violent. Neither the UK nor Germany came out of the two World Wars looking...
The basis for my suggesting that comes largely out of what happens in other conflicts between powers that turns violent. Neither the UK nor Germany came out of the two World Wars looking particularly powerful (Germany was even split in two while the UK slid inexorably away from its colonial holdings); France ended the Napoleonic era effectively as a client state of the other European powers (though not forever); Hell, even going back far enough Sparta versus Athens ended in both of their materially weakened positions and questionable relevance in the regional stage. Once things move from Cold to Hot when it comes to tensions, it seems really difficult for two forces of roughly equal strength to both survive the onslaught.
Edit: The only real example I can think of where a power fought another force of roughly equal strength and survived it is Rome in the First Punic War (and they very nearly didn't). Wars in those days were much more army-focused affairs, where you brought all your troops to one or two central locations and fought it out. Wars today do not work out that way and tend to follow the total war approach we've seen since the French Revolution where you fight with your nation, not with your army alone.
Edit (cont): At the same time, I'm not necessarily sure that a multipolar international order would be better for anyone. You'd just have multiple villains as opposed to just the one or two we got in the last century. What's worse, we can assume that each of them would be acting in their own self interests, which would increase the room for miscommunication and distrust as tensions between them tilt toward the unaddressable. I don't have any studies on me, but some clever political scientists and historians over the years tried to estimate whether the world was a more or less peaceful place because of the unipolar/bipolar system we've had since the end of world war II by looking back to different eras, and without getting too far down that rabbit hole of vaguely referenced research, I wasn't particularly convinced that a multipolar system would be inherently better than a unipolar or bipolar one.
I love this topic. The author asserts:
and from this they predict that the American empire is declining because it is experiencing excess resource extraction and unequal wealth distribution. They further support this prediction by pointing out that US dollar may no longer be the global reserve currency, the country is not prepared for the next inevitable financial crisis, and it's completely over-extended, meddling in everyone's business and pissing at least half of the world off.
I agree with the author, and I'm very curious what the decline will look like. How far will the US decline and how quickly? Will the states fragment into separate countries, or will the US remain intact but become an isolationist? What will the rest of the world do? China's belt and road initiative seems like their take on the American Marshal Plan and Truman Doctrine, and it seems unopposed by the west, which is distracted by Russia's shenanigans and the desires of Saudi Arabia/Israel, so I suspect China will replace the US as the world's hegemon. Lastly, how will environmental degradation affect the decline process? Which region of the world do you think will be the most stable or safest place to be over the next 50-100 years?
There is good news (for once) about the amount of dread to feel about carbon warming the atmosphere. There's still a bit to go before it gets to implementation, but the fact that people are figuring out a more energy efficient method for taking carbon out of the atmosphere should give a little bit of hope that maybe we're not too far beyond "somewhat fucked" in terms of climate change.
We're set up for some major humanitarian crises the moment the US food supply gets disrupted, so as far as the safest place to live in 50-100 years is concerned, I'd have to say either China or the US would be the safest in the world in which the two superpowers do not come to blows over China's increasingly ambitious stature in world affairs. If they do come to blows, find a hovel in the most sparsely populated areas of Russia, Mexico, or Canada, friend. And get good at finding your own food. Nature would be a safer place than the hellspawn that would come from a general war between two superpowers (and, we can assume, their allies). Hell, failed states like Somalia might be better places in that scenario.
Maybe the farmland of Ireland would be fine too. But there's too much infrastructure there for me to be confident.
This speculative article at least sent me down the rabbit hole to learn what Special Drawing Rights (SDR's) and the Renminbi are. The first is a "unit of exchange" (my phrase) set up by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the second is the official name of Chinese currency. The Chinese Renminbi has joined the basket of currencies that make up the SDR. (Other currencies currently include the U.S. Dollar, the Euro, the Pound Sterling, and the Japanese Yen. )
The article speculates or rather asserts that the U.S. dominance of the world economy is largely related to dollars being the universal rate of exchange in the open market, soon to be undermined by the IMF and the SDR. Googling further, it sounds more like the SDR is something that is not to be used on the open market.
I'm pretty green when it comes to monetary policy.
Well the line of thinking I've heard about why the U.S. is so far in bed with the Saudis is based on the fact that they require their customers to purchase in U.S. dollars. If that stops, then the demand for U.S. dollars drops and the value will decrease (perhaps dramatically).
I'll believe it when I see it. I've been told from doomsayers and wanna-be Nostradami that the reign of the U.S. is ending since I was old enough to remember. This, of course, in addition to various articles and theories that have predicted the same thing (through different measures) for at least the past century.
Here's a "hard" truth: The world is largely post-imperial. Using the fall of empires as a metric to predict events in a post-imperial global society is like using a fork to eat soup. If there's anything solid in there you'll get it, but really you're missing out on like...80% of the soup. Which in this analogy I guess is made of people?
This one might have gotten away from me.
E - Empirical -> Imperial because my dictionary called me a fucking moron
It took about a century or more of decline for Rome to officially “fall.” Throughout that process your typical Roman citizen probably wouldn’t have recognized much of anything being that different. It’s only in hindsight, after the Capital gets sacked by wandering plunderers, that they would look back and think “huh. Guess we’ve been headed this way for a while now.”
Ehhhhhhh, I see your point but I remain unconvinced. Thank you for the insight though.
Can you define post-empirical? It sounds like an oxymoron. Here's where I'm at:
Empirical: Relying on or derived from observation or experiment
Post-empirical: Moving beyond relying on observation or experiment?
How does one achieve post-empirical and still remain grounded in reality? Seems impossible to me. Are you saying that the world is now now longer grounded in reality?
I meant imperial, my mistake. Fixed in the OP.
Ha, okay. I spent too much time on that.
What makes you think the world is post-imperial? I don't think it is. I think it's still very imperial, except the imperial-ness isn't as overt. The US doesn't need to declare a lesser state to be its colony and extract its resources. That sounds mean and oppressive. Instead, corporations, since they're free in the US, are allowed/encouraged to run amok and economically subjugate these lesser states to extract their resources. To me, it's just imperialism with some extra steps. That's my condensed view of the world. So what makes you think the world is post-imperial
When it comes to academic discourse I'm a bit of a traditionalist on verbage. That might seem strange given my writings on Tildes, Staining The Timbre, and my short stories are full of made-up suffixes and words used for their lesser-known meanings, but for me it's two different situations.
Anyway, for me "post-imperial" means exactly what it is defined as: "Of, designating, or characteristic of a period following the dissolution or collapse of an empire." Well how are we defining empire, might be your next question. If we follow the same standard, our definition of empire is, "An extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch, an oligarchy, or a sovereign state." So, given that fewer and fewer countries are collectively ruled by monarchies, oligarchies, or sovereign states, I would say we live in a largely post-imperial world.
Per Oxford's living dictionary, however, empire can also be defined as you've noted: "A large commercial organization owned or controlled by one person or group." If we go by that definition then you are absolutely correct, the world is still very much imperialistic.
So really it just depends on which definition you consider more "correct", and as what I would refer to as a "linguistic traditionalist", I err to the former definition.
Okay. So what makes you think the US isn't declining?
Declining in what respect? I don't think any of the ways in which the US is failing are indicative of imperial decline (because, again, I dont think the US is an empire) but there are definitely aspects of our culture, politics, and economy that are in decline.
This is a topic I have thought a lot about, so some starting hot takes:
The question for me is not whether China will rise as a global super power that can compete with the US. That ship has sailed. The question is what will the US do in reaction to China's rise. If the US finds a way to coexist, things can continue largely as they are for a long while. Probably decades. If it can't, like the escalating trade wars under our current administration suggest, then we may be on a road to a more cataclysmic upheaval that could potentially leave neither China nor the US as world powers at the other side.
That seems preferable (although the lead-up to this situation won't be). As bad as the US is I'm glad China isn't the world superpower today.
The basis for my suggesting that comes largely out of what happens in other conflicts between powers that turns violent. Neither the UK nor Germany came out of the two World Wars looking particularly powerful (Germany was even split in two while the UK slid inexorably away from its colonial holdings); France ended the Napoleonic era effectively as a client state of the other European powers (though not forever); Hell, even going back far enough Sparta versus Athens ended in both of their materially weakened positions and questionable relevance in the regional stage. Once things move from Cold to Hot when it comes to tensions, it seems really difficult for two forces of roughly equal strength to both survive the onslaught.
Edit: The only real example I can think of where a power fought another force of roughly equal strength and survived it is Rome in the First Punic War (and they very nearly didn't). Wars in those days were much more army-focused affairs, where you brought all your troops to one or two central locations and fought it out. Wars today do not work out that way and tend to follow the total war approach we've seen since the French Revolution where you fight with your nation, not with your army alone.
Edit (cont): At the same time, I'm not necessarily sure that a multipolar international order would be better for anyone. You'd just have multiple villains as opposed to just the one or two we got in the last century. What's worse, we can assume that each of them would be acting in their own self interests, which would increase the room for miscommunication and distrust as tensions between them tilt toward the unaddressable. I don't have any studies on me, but some clever political scientists and historians over the years tried to estimate whether the world was a more or less peaceful place because of the unipolar/bipolar system we've had since the end of world war II by looking back to different eras, and without getting too far down that rabbit hole of vaguely referenced research, I wasn't particularly convinced that a multipolar system would be inherently better than a unipolar or bipolar one.