The odds of the US turning into a totalitarian hellhole similar to eg. Nazi Germany

[GGT]

...

This country is full of fence people, and just as full of nuts. Just look at how long it took to weed them out of the Republican primary.

Well, look at how much the GOP has changed since the Reagan era, swinging so far right that even Reagan wouldn't be considered part of its "base". They're letting the social conservative nut-jobs like Gingrich, Santorum, Bachmann, Palin, et al basically hijack the whole party. Huntsman was de-invited to an RNC event after advocating for a third party. He loosely compared that to how China's ruling elite operates, then was roundly criticized by the RNC for that criticism.

Perhaps, but it wouldn't take much to change this if it came down to it. Its not to hard to picture the SCOTUS siding with business interests and their political connections over individuals. What with their recent rulings on eminent domain and personhood.

It's actually more troubling than that, IMO, because states are busy trying to re-define personhood as the religious pro-life extremists dictate: life begins at conception, embryos are people, life begins with ovulation, hormones are abortifacient, the BCP "kills babies", and all sorts of goofy legislation. Their main goal is to overturn Roe v Wade and ban abortion outright, doing it state-by-state. Defunding Planned Parenthood clinics, letting employers opt-out of any female reproductive healthcare insurance, over-regulating gynecologist services so those physicians leave the state (Kansas prime example)...or women under the thumb of legislators instead of their physicians, being required to go through un-necessary procedures -- meant to inconvenience them past the "viability" date, or simply shame them into giving birth against their will.

There IS more religious-based "intervention" in our politics and policy now. There's a case in Fort Wayne, IN <in today's news> where a teacher was fired from a Catholic school for undergoing IVF treatments. Church hierarchy upheld the firing by stating their "employment criteria" requires respect for Catholic tenets, and IVF is considered immoral and sinful. On the flip-side is the Catholic church declaring (R) budget cutting proposals go against church tenets of caring for the neediest among us.

[Nessus]

If you believe humanity has the capability to kill all life on the planet, I think the burden of proof is on you to provide a plausible mechanism. I don't see one.

You're the one who made the definite statement.

[Loki]

No, u.

[Nessus]

No, u.

Have you seen Pulp Fiction?

[GGT]

"Humanity" has the ability to kill all human life on the planet. Micro-organisms and insect lifeforms would still survive, both on land (cockroaches being the "ickiest") and under the seas (particularly deep sea life that doesn't need sunlight or warmth). But the planet Earth itself wouldn't necessarily be obliterated. A planet hostile to human life doesn't mean all planets in our universe or galaxy are "dead".

Choobs, you have an interesting solipsism view of things. When a tree falls in the forest, but no human is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?

[Veldan Rath]

Trees are people too!!11!!

[GGT]

Ha ha to the tree-hugger insinuation.

But more seriously....are you comfortable with the FACT that states can deny homosexual couples marital and/or adoption rights, simply based on their sexual orientation? Do you really think adoptive children should have to fight for their legally protected rights when moving between the states? Would it be considered "okay" if children adopted by same-sex couples in one state...don't have legal status in other states? Contract lawyers can put a thousand holes in pre-nuptual agreements, and states can put a million holes in Family Law.

[Veldan Rath]

Comfortable? No. But I don't need a piece o paper from the mighty state to tell me that my relationship has meaning.

But then again I don't think marriage is the preview of the government.

The issue of us cock suckers will not be solved by the federal government. But by hearts and minds on the local level.

[Ominous Gamer]

Didn't civil rights take a little from column a and a little from column b?

[Dreadnaught]

Up until bringing Russia into the war, is it a fair description that Nazi Germany was a civilization falling apart? Does limiting freedom of the citizens necessarily = falling apart??? Does rounding up and exterminating certain ethnicities necessarily = that?

This is certainly a nitpick and this whole thread is a sorta-brilliant Godwin, but the Nazis did eliminate civil society and replace it with their party. So, in that respect, you could consider it a downfall of sorts.

I don't think the collapse of a civilization necessarily means the descent into caveman-like barbarism.

[Khendraja'aro]

Well, to be frank, you already got your brown-shirts down pat, judging from the weekly horror stories about the TSA.

[Veldan Rath]

Well, to be frank, you already got your brown-shirts down pat, judging from the weekly horror stories about the TSA.

OMG...we agree. (Though the TSA keeps switching from Blue to White shirts)

[GGT]

Comfortable? No. But I don't need a piece o paper from the mighty state to tell me that my relationship has meaning.
But then again I don't think marriage is the preview of the government.
The issue of us cock suckers will not be solved by the federal government. But by hearts and minds on the local level.

But the government does have purview over legal contracts, spousal benefits, survivor benefits, and minor children protections. That's true for any couple (married or not, gay or straight) whose had a Will challenged in probate court, child custody battled in family court, or spousal benefits denied by SSA.

Sadly, non-married gay spouses still have to fight for being considered the primary family member to make medical decisions (even with Power of Attorney), hospital visitation rights, employee-spousal insurance coverage, veteran family and/or death benefits....and grandparents can sue for custody of minor children.

You may think marriage is nothing but a piece o' paper, but it's a contract that's been recognized by the law for hundreds of years, giving married spouses "special status". It makes more sense to extend those same rights to same-sex married couples, than expecting straight married couples to give up that legally recognized status.

[EyeKhan]

You're the one who made the definite statement.

Got nothin', eh?

Choobs, you have an interesting solipsism view of things. When a tree falls in the forest, but no human is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?

I don't understand how you conclude that. In the prior statement you agree with my assertion that humanity can't sterilize the planet, then you say my view of things suggests I think I am god. I know your proof has more steps in it, can you lay them out so I can understand?

In answer to the tree question - it depends on how you define sound. If you're a physicist, you say of course it does. I'm not a physicist, but of course it does.

This is certainly a nitpick and this whole thread is a sorta-brilliant Godwin, but the Nazis did eliminate civil society and replace it with their party. So, in that respect, you could consider it a downfall of sorts.

I don't think the collapse of a civilization necessarily means the descent into caveman-like barbarism.

Ugh. You're provoking a discussion of what civilization means. Nobody wants that.

Also, I would argue 'caveman' society was incapable of the barbarism committed by the Nazis. You have to have the responsibility and compassion diluting capabilities of bureaucracy to achieve that level of cruelty and you need industry to achieve that level of efficiency. Cavemen might occasionally bludgeon to death members of another tribe, but if a sort of genocide occurred, which had to be rare since they wouldn't commonly have that kind of power over "the other," they would at least keep the females.

[Nessus]

Got nothin', eh?

I have plenty, I was complaining about your unfair attitude towards the conversational dynamics.

[GGT]

I don't understand how you conclude that. In the prior statement you agree with my assertion that humanity can't sterilize the planet, then you say my view of things suggests I think I am god. I know your proof has more steps in it, can you lay them out so I can understand?
In answer to the tree question - it depends on how you define sound. If you're a physicist, you say of course it does. I'm not a physicist, but of course it does.

It was the way you said deep sea creatures wouldn't notice anything had happened, I suppose? I'm not sure what to call that human-centric type of statement, but it doesn't have anything to do with God. I'm asking you to lay out your definitions better...so I can understand what you meant, or if I took it too literally.

<ie, remaining non-human planet life would "notice" changes in weather and/or their food sources, maybe even adapt to it before extinction, but of course it wouldn't be a cognitive awareness like humans have. Some of the 'smarter' species (like whales) would probably migrate to other waters, using group/herd/pod behavior that's reactionary--but also proactive and problem-solving--to the best of their abilities anyway.>

[Nessus]

There has actually been no historical example of a democratic country with a GDP per capita of over $6,000 a year becoming non-democratic. Since 1945, there has been no example of any even remotely prosperous democracy becoming an autocracy. Furthermore, one of the greatest predictors of democratic stability is the number of years a country has been a democracy, an indicator on which the US does quite well.

I was hesitant to ask this before, but it has been bothering me; what precisely is the difference between this and Fukuyama's claims? The predictive power seems to be, it'll work until it no longer does. This isn't very useful...

If we combine Van Valen's and Spengler's ideas, it seems to me that the rise of totalitarianism is simply a matter of time. Thankfully, we cannot predict how deep time that'll be, perhaps we'll both be dead before it happens. But especially I would like to point out that the so-called rise of democracies that you high-light in this and other instances seems to fall, energetically, within the third instance of the Red Queen's doubts of dominion, and thereby I would be hesitant to place that much weight on it on the long term. But hopefully, the term will be long...

[Loki]

I was hesitant to ask this before, but it has been bothering me; what precisely is the difference between this and Fukuyama's claims? The predictive power seems to be, it'll work until it no longer does. This isn't very useful...

If we combine Van Valen's and Spengler's ideas, it seems to me that the rise of totalitarianism is simply a matter of time. Thankfully, we cannot predict how deep time that'll be, perhaps we'll both be dead before it happens. But especially I would like to point out that the so-called rise of democracies that you high-light in this and other instances seems to fall, energetically, within the third instance of the Red Queen's doubts of dominion, and thereby I would be hesitant to place that much weight on it on the long term. But hopefully, the term will be long...

The problem with Fukuyama's claim is that relies on the assumption that all autocracies will gradually become more democratic (i.e. if democracies never become autocracies, the only way for everyone to end up democratic is if each autocracy somehow becomes a democracy), and this is an assumption that ignores the substantial number of countries that haven't appreciably democratized over the last half century. Meanwhile, there has never been a case of a long-standing, prosperous democracy becoming autocratic. In fact, countries with all the necessary democratic institutions never become even marginally autocratic. Have a look at the list of countries in the database below and try to find a single example of a country with a democracy score of 10 (all democratic institutions, regardless of how long they existed or how prosperous the country) going down to a 6 or 7 (marginally democratic).

Just because a moderately democratic, moderately prosperous Germany, with no prior history of democratic rule, a terrible economy, and sizable support for revanchism could become a totalitarian state doesn't mean that any modern democracy has much chance of doing the same. Even if there was a democratic country today that was as flawed as Weimar Germany, people do learn from history.

[Nessus]

The problem with Fukuyama's claim is that relies on the assumption that all autocracies will gradually become more democratic (i.e. if democracies never become autocracies, the only way for everyone to end up democratic is if each autocracy somehow becomes a democracy), and this is an assumption that ignores the substantial number of countries that haven't appreciably democratized over the last half century. Meanwhile, there has never been a case of a long-standing, prosperous democracy becoming autocratic. In fact, countries with all the necessary democratic institutions never become even marginally autocratic. Have a look at the list of countries in the database below and try to find a single example of a country with a democracy score of 10 (all democratic institutions, regardless of how long they existed or how prosperous the country) going down to a 6 or 7 (marginally democratic).

Just because a moderately democratic, moderately prosperous Germany, with no prior history of democratic rule, a terrible economy, and sizable support for revanchism could become a totalitarian state doesn't mean that any modern democracy has much chance of doing the same. Even if there was a democratic country today that was as flawed as Weimar Germany, people do learn from history.

I wasn't suggesting that Weimar was anywhere near what we see today (I if anyone am familiar with how flawed an attempt it was!), the question is how far we can generalize from what has happened in the past 50 (100?) years.

The Red Queen plays a zero-sum game, except when she doesn't, and I would be rather open to you suggesting that right now we're not. We invented petrolium, and uranium; the global population sky-rocketed. But I wouldn't be so dismissive of Spengler's basic ideas, and they imply that societies at some point do play the Red Queen's game. Which then implies...

Of course the predictive power of the Red Queen isn't very good for Minx's question, either; the rapid loss of petrolium and uranium will also herald an event of the third type from the Red Queen's perspective (most likely), and we have very poor theories of chaotic situations... We only know historically how mankind decides on the division of diminishing goods, and that prognosis isn't a happy one.

[LittleFuzzy]

I would find it more likely that changes in society, technology and governance indicate that if/when Loki's democracies do end up changing models it will be to new muddled variations we haven't created models of yet. 100 years ago we hadn't conceived of totalitarianism *and I know there are or were people on this board who don't really see a difference between it and authoritarianism* but a number of states found themselves with governments distinct from those which came before and yet sharing some surprising similarities with each other despite differing politico-economic systems. Maybe new models will maintain election components and they will be viewed as democratic in character by the political scientists. Maybe there will be elements of corporatist-directed economic feudalism, which in turn responds to an unaccountable and unelected bureaucracy giving it an authoritarian tinge. Perhaps within that morass there will be a class of freeholders empowered to a libertarian dream by Web 4.0.

That's just pulling on a couple of recent threads about contemporary Western socio-politico-economic dynamics as brought up on this board. I couldn't even venture to guess what might come out of China and how it might influence future governance.

[Nessus]

You're such an optimist! But yes, new things will come about. But I do not, for one, think they will be without barbed wire, and for this I am branded a lunatic (It isn't scientific, after all!)

[LittleFuzzy]

You're such an optimist! But yes, new things will come about. But I do not, for one, think they will be without barbed wire, and for this I am branded a lunatic (It isn't scientific, after all!)

Barbed wire? Barbed wire?! In a resource-scarce future? Why not just completely give in to the thieves and have them made completely out of copper while you're at it.

[EyeKhan]

It was the way you said deep sea creatures wouldn't notice anything had happened, I suppose? I'm not sure what to call that human-centric type of statement, but it doesn't have anything to do with God. I'm asking you to lay out your definitions better...so I can understand what you meant, or if I took it too literally.

Deep sea life - like the ecosystems around the volcanic vents created by sea floor spreading - likely wouldn't be affected at all by the extinction of humanity even via a full scale nuclear exchange. ie they wouldn't "notice" any change.... this is nothing to do with powers of observation, but of the geographic separation their undersea world has from the surface. So in either case, even if I was talking about their simple perceptive abilities, how is that an expression of solipsism???

Definition for reference:

sol·ip·sism

   [sol-ip-siz-uhm] Show IPAnoun1.Philosophy . the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist.

[Nessus]

Barbed wire? Barbed wire?! In a resource-scarce future? Why not just completely give in to the thieves and have them made completely out of copper while you're at it.

It is one of the most ironic things that I've yet to experience that Jean Paul was the one who said, "Hell is other people". What you say is true, in its way, we only need people, and we have them far more than metals...

[EyeKhan]

I have plenty, I was complaining about your unfair attitude towards the conversational dynamics.

Unfair how? I laid out my thinking to a fair level of detail. Then I asked you to do likewise with whatever you include in 'plenty.' Quid pro quo.

[Nessus]

Unfair how? I laid out my thinking to a fair level of detail. Then I asked you to do likewise with whatever you include in 'plenty.' Quid pro quo.

That's not how it goes... It is easy to generate piles and piles of nonsense, but we're not interested in that, are we? You made a specific and limiting claim, I would like to see you cover all your bases... I am not sold, yet.

[EyeKhan]

That's not how it goes... It is easy to generate piles and piles of nonsense, but we're not interested in that, are we? You made a specific and limiting claim, I would like to see you cover all your bases... I am not sold, yet.

You made a specific claim as well - humanity can destroy all life. I deny that claim and I discussed humanity's current destructive abilities to back it up. Then I asked you to point out whatever ability I missed. But you decline, (IMO likely because you go nothin'), citing how unfair it is to ask you to back up your claim. And that, btw, is not characteristic of you.

[Nessus]

You made a specific claim as well - humanity can destroy all life. I deny that claim and I discussed humanity's current destructive abilities to back it up. Then I asked you to point out whatever ability I missed. But you decline, (IMO likely because you go nothin'), citing how unfair it is to ask you to back up your claim. And that, btw, is not characteristic of you.

What an unfair characterization of what transpired. But it is alright, Alexandr has taught me, I do not mind...

There is no theoretical limit to the power of the hydrogen bomb. And as Minx pointed out to me, as he wished the gnashing of teeth and the wailing on me, there is a moral aspect to this as well; even if I am a third-rate mind, the crimes I can perceive are still awful crimes, so should I speak them publically? And if I can think of them, someone else has, also, before...

The idea that we couldn't is either wishful or narrow-minded. We could. That is what we made of ourselves...

[Loki]

http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm

Genius Loki forgot to include the link to the democracy dataset.

[Loki]

I wasn't suggesting that Weimar was anywhere near what we see today (I if anyone am familiar with how flawed an attempt it was!), the question is how far we can generalize from what has happened in the past 50 (100?) years.

The Red Queen plays a zero-sum game, except when she doesn't, and I would be rather open to you suggesting that right now we're not. We invented petrolium, and uranium; the global population sky-rocketed. But I wouldn't be so dismissive of Spengler's basic ideas, and they imply that societies at some point do play the Red Queen's game. Which then implies...

Of course the predictive power of the Red Queen isn't very good for Minx's question, either; the rapid loss of petrolium and uranium will also herald an event of the third type from the Red Queen's perspective (most likely), and we have very poor theories of chaotic situations... We only know historically how mankind decides on the division of diminishing goods, and that prognosis isn't a happy one.

The past might not be a perfect indicator of the future, but it is a pretty good indicator nevertheless. The world has faced numerous crises since WWII, and yet the number of established democracies has never decreased. There are also some pretty good theoretical reasons, supported by empirics, that suggest that most people in established democracies would be unwilling to see the creation of a totalitarian state. I could see economic problems leading to some scapegoating, but I really fail to see how and why it would lead people to abandon their democratic traditions and their own rights in order to let someone else make all the decisions for them.