The United States: are we watching the last days of the Holy Roman Empire?

[Retroboy]

Compare the current state of the United States to the last decades (centuries?) of the Roman Empire.

Suggested similarities:
- Military might in comparison to the rest of the world
- Domination in technology
- Long-term history of being the biggest guy in the playground, coupled with defensive desire to be the biggest (or at least the most protected) guy on the playground
- Economic management (i.e. percentage of wealth owned by the rich vs. owned by the poor)
- Worldwide pervasiveness of cultural influence

Suggested differences
- Level, and pace of advancement, of world technology
- Ability to instantaneously communicate and near-instantaneously travel anywhere (i.e. ability to command and project force remotely)
- Governmental structure (democracy vs republic)
- Relative standard of living and lifespan for base population

Is the United States about to follow in the footsteps of the Roman Empire, and fall off the world stage as a leader?
---------------------------------------------------------------
My theory: Yes, but despite the pace of world advancement, it'll take another 30-50 years unless independent innovators are successful at shaking up the economy through paradigm-shifters like asteroid mining. I find both these, and other possibilities, unlikely. It'll take quite a while to really be apparent because the US is effectively consolidating and turtling, but eventually someone is going to catch up and crack their shell.

[Starfisher]

The Roman Empire took hundreds of years to fully "fall off the world stage". I think history gives a vastly compressed view of the pace of such events.

We're more analogous to the British Empire. We'll never fully "collapse" the way the Roman Empire did (it's doubtful that anyone will bother actually sacking Washington DC when they can just buy our debt), and most of our problems can result in much more rapid changes of status than the Romans faced. While we lack the overt colonial presence of the British, which means our disengagement will be less obvious, I think we will follow a British "collapse" model moreso than a Roman one.

[Arinax]

Starfisher you mixed up the Roman Empire with the Holy Roman Empire, which are 2 complete diffrent countries ^^ actually i see the US supermacy threatend by uprising powers like China, but I would not say that within a few years or even decades the USA is going to vanish

[Agdune]

Yay! Retroboy thread! Don't want to jinx it, but I always remember these being great for discussion. Long time no see!

I think the west in general is facing something of a decline, given our current direction. I'm not all that up with Euro politics but what I have heard indicates that a fair portion of the politics is going in the same direction as the USA/Australia/Britain (and kinda Canada too, I suppose. Most people just sorta lump you guys in with the Yanks); socially conservative and most importantly; anti-intellectual. While I'm no idealist who thinks pure academia is going to solve every issue ever, I'm getting right sick to death of all the "what do SCIENTISTS know? Them in their ivory towers!" rhetoric that's picking up speed yet again in certain circles. Rhetoric on its own doesn't do much, but in Australia at least, once those politicians get into power they strip funding from the public education systems (y'know, to stick it to those lazy teachers and latte sipping lefty elite), which doesn't do much for a while, but some effects start being noticed a few years later when school results start dropping inexplicably, because a fundamental part of the younger generation's education was cut. Short term savings at the price of long-term skills. Not wanting to rely on any anecdotes, but I think it's a decent example; I went to a public primary school during the Howard era, when school funding was heavily cut. Strange that my agegroup has inexplicably weaker reading and writing skills than the agegroups before and after us, when funding was fairly average...

I mean, it's happened before (and will happen again), but for the last few hundred years it hasn't mattered; we as the west have been in a position of power and could afford to screw around with counter productive crap often. having a few dunce generations didn't have that huge an impact. Not so much now that the rest of the world is well-positioned to take the lead in research and economic development. We're probably going to retain an edge in social research/policy for a fair while, but I wouldn't be too surprised if that lead also starts to strain once the effects of our economies becoming second-rate starts to kick in.

(By second rate I mean more reliance on foreign investment; Much like the current support economies, which are actually fairly poor realistically, but live off the economic offrun of the major powers)

[Tiresias]

Any attempt to bring comparison between different ages of history only works generally on the broad strokes. Economic power tends to ebb and flow and seems likely as the southern Hemisphere booms (I hear they call it the 'north atlantic recession' in Brazil) while the west declines you may see China and Brazil being the power houses of the future. Historians tend to think that the decline of the roman empire was greatly exaggerated, and the Holy Roman Empire, well that just became the catholic church really, can't see America becoming a church...

[n0z3k1ll3r]

Can I clarify whether we're talking about the HRE or the Roman Empire? Topic title says one, first post says (and implies) the other.

To be honest I kind of see the HRE comparison more, since both states consisted of a large number of substates with a high degree of autonomy and power, as well as strong cultural divides between those substates (the Protestant/Catholic divide in the HRE, and the Republican/Democrat divide in the USA, which to a large degree is regional).

[Starfisher]

Er, yeah, from Retro's post I assumed Roman Empire, not Holy Roman Empire. Me should read better

[Codex]

and the Holy Roman Empire, well that just became the catholic church really, can't see America becoming a church...

Now my history isn't great, but I was lead to believe that the Kaiser and the Pope constantly got into struggles for dominance in the minds of Catholic folk, but at the same time I was lead to believe the papacy won.

[Tiresias]

Fair point there was that whole period...there were two popes at one point...Which just seems to make no sense with the comparison really, what I meant was when the Holy Roman Empire fell apart it sort of became subsumed into teh church

[Rukoth]

In General. The way the U.S. is going, it is deteriorating to some degree, I think more on a governmental level. I wouldn't be suprised to see my country end up splitting up into several countries in the next 100 years. Unless of course the government pulls their heads out of their butts and stops arguing amongst themselves to do anything. And oh, the people for that matter too.

[Aron_DeTomado]

The Pope holds the title of Pontifex Maximus, which is an institution implemented in the Kingdom of Rome in the ballpark of 2500 years ago, if that's what your referring to. I'm not sure how the HRE could "become" the Catholic Church.

The America comparison works far better with the HRE than with Rome, because it does not work with Rome at all. America has been a superpower for maybe 70, Rome was a superpower for ten times as long. America is 230 years old, Rome became 1200 years old, and if you count Byzantium you can stick another millenium on to that. The comparison breaks down through sheer scale.

What's more, I don't think America will be consigned to a thousand years of historical and political irrelevance in the way Rome was. From the ashes of the HRE arose Germany, which after a brief career as archvillain of the century became the economic powerhouse we see today. I could see a similar future in store for America: Not a global superpower, not a political non-entity, but a regional great power with a lot of influence over its closest neighbours.

[Nurizeko]

I think the west in general is facing something of a decline, given our current direction. I'm not all that up with Euro politics but what I have heard indicates that a fair portion of the politics is going in the same direction as the USA/Australia/Britain (and kinda Canada too, I suppose. Most people just sorta lump you guys in with the Yanks); socially conservative and most importantly; anti-intellectual.

Sorry what?

As far as I'm aware there has never been a major anti-intellectual majority current in the UK.

We have 'chavs' and 'yoofs' but the first are the dregs at the bottom of society who can't impose their stupidity on others beyond base criminality and benefit fraud, and the latter if we're lucky grow out of it. They don't even vote in any substantial way.

I've never met anyone in this country who would be proud to admit they're thick as shit.


We just don't have that culture that values the 'common sense wisdom of the average mid-western Joe'. In parts of the states you can be 'a simple God-fearing man' and still be respectable. You can be smart and act dumb. Just not possible in the UK. Intelligence is respected, stupidity is heavily shunned.


I agree with Fisher, the US is probably going to withdraw the global stage at some point as it attempts to deal with domestic issues, but it unlikely to fail catastrophic collapse. On the other hand I can't see the US for the foreseeable future conceding the power vacuum to the existing alternatives. But I grew up in a global economy with a single dominant power to vaguely 'oversee' it.

Can't imagine a situation where there is no major player to enforce global cooperation.

[Aron_DeTomado]

The natural successor would be the European Union, since Europe has, shall we say, previous job experience when it comes to ruling the world, and since the EU is actually the largest economy in the world. We're going through the same sort economic collapse as America. My money is on countries like India and Brazil. China is frequently brought up as "the next super power" and while I'm sure they'll shape up to be a real military and economic powerhouse, it is unlikely they will achieve the cultural dominance of America or the European empires of old. As a superpower, they would face legitimacy problems so long as the dictatorship persists. Even the empires of 200 years ago had some sort of system of representation, and I have a hard time seeing China being looked up to without anything coming close to that sort of constitutional framework. India has problems with corruption and illiteracy, but at least the have the democratic groundwork already laid out.

[GeoffS]

Strange that my agegroup has inexplicably weaker reading and writing skills than the agegroups before and after us, when funding was fairly average...

What is your source for this? I didn't spend a whole lot of time Googling, but I can't find any comparative studies of Australian student literacy covering the 1996-2008 period. There are NAPLAN results for 2008-2011, but they only relate to a period of Labour government, so they aren't helpful in comparing different governments.

[CommissarRezail]

It will take awhile for us to vanish as a leader or from the planet. Dis spite what you hear on the news, things aren't as bad as the Roman Empire, or as they are putting out on the news(damn the news love to exaggerate how a broken pencil dooms the artist)0, not to mention we don't have barbarians at our gates at least not yet. If so i just pick up my chain sword and get busy.

[Aron_DeTomado]

No, it is actually pretty bad, and that's just the economic side of things.

[Kirjava]

I've never met anyone in this country who would be proud to admit they're thick as shit.

We just don't have that culture that values the 'common sense wisdom of the average mid-western Joe'. In parts of the states you can be 'a simple God-fearing man' and still be respectable. You can be smart and act dumb. Just not possible in the UK. Intelligence is respected, stupidity is heavily shunned.

It's not quite how you portray it Nuri, not in my experience anyway. There's a strong conservative bent to UK politics (note 'conservative', not necessarily right wing), and intellectualism is denigrated in subtle ways. It's always nice to be the one that knows things, and as a university student you will have been part of an environment where learning was lauded, but there is a distrust of experts and a deification of "common sense" from the upper all the way down to the working classes. It extends into government and media, particularly populist tabloid media, which favour a brand of homespun wisdom over academic expertise (though the tabloids are not above abusing said expertise when it suits their own ends).

As I say, it's nowhere near as prevalent and distinct as in the US, where (from a foreigner's perspective) the right seems to equate wanting to learn things with raping eight year olds, but it is definitely there and it should not be ignored.

[Carl]

Indeed. But much of the blame for this can be laid at the feet of sucsessive goverments. When they use and abuse experts to convince us XYZ is the right course of action. Then we get a great big mess out of it where inclined to lump the experts and the goverment together in our minds when blaming people. The actions of various goveremnts have badly tarnished the image and trustworthyness of anyone called an expert by their actions.

That said i don't see this as being what brings things down IMHO.

[Agdune]

Geoff; Like I said, that's anecdote. Pure first-hand experience, based only on my workplace and personal life experience. Take it the same way you'd take any other anecdote; might be sorta credible and suggests something, but far from being any sort of proof. Mind you, after 3 years of a psychology degree studying forms of assessment, I'd be pretty hesitant to consider most formal measures of people's capacity as being reliable either, so I don't think it's a matter that's going to have any sort of decent clarity any time soon.

I kinda wanna talk about the whole anti-intellectual thing, but hey, I'm tired and hungry. It's fairly indepth and actually kindof hypocritical of me to go on about it (on a couple of levels, anyway). See my above paragraph? That's actually a great example of the whole intuitive approach dismissing the empirical approach that most of the anti-intellectualism I talked about was based off.

'course, I like to think mine's generally based on something decent (my experience of people my age having terrible literacy skills? Yeah, fairly flimsy, I won't try to fight over the point if anyone has evidence. But my opinion on formal assessment is actually coming from a combination of first hand experience and reasonably thorough understanding of the internal mechanics most psychological testing relies on) unlike most of the people you see casually dismissing things they don't agree with, mainly on the basis that an academic said it. Some probably is. Nothing's intrinsically wrong with reliance on implicit knowledge, but yeah, in Aus at least, I'd say most people really go way, way too far with it and seem to think their gut feeling is the be all and end all of knowledge; anything else is unnecessary.

Edit: The reason I think this is a factor worth taking into account is because I think this is one of the driving forces in social stagnation. Once a society begins dismissing higher education (read: anything that does not have a DIRECT financial utility, such as pure research or human services. Higher education in finances are are still reasonably acceptable to most neo-conservatives) as useless, it's going to lose its edge in education. Once education standards start slipping because society doesn't consider them a priority (or fails to understand what parts of it are important and utilises kneejerk quick fix solutions that fail to address fundamental issues), stagnation starts setting in. Once your society has started to stagnate, there's not much that can be done about it any more, because it's no longer fostering the talent needed to continue leading anymore; it can't be anything but a follower of other, more powerful societies.

[roflmao]

There's two ways the United States can "collapse":

- It can collapse economically.
- It can "collapse" by having the developing world grow to the point where they rival first world countries.

I see a bit of both happening, but am hopeful that more of the latter will happen than the former.

@Aron_DeTornado: I love that video so much! I've always been weary about linking to it since LearnLiberty has a huge libertarian bias, but it's really a great video.

[Carl]

@Agdune: I'd agree that education is important and all this knee-jerk reaction stuff is bad. It doesn’t change the fact that, (here in the UK at least), the education system is simply flawed root and branch. I'll list what i learned at GCSE that i use today in day to day life.

English Litriture.

That’s it. Most of what we teach at GCSE level in secondary school isn't much use to the majority of people who occupy mostly menial jobs. Yes people in the upper tiers need that stuff, but they also need college, and often university level qualifications, and the jobs market is doing a horrible job of providing such jobs atm. Sigh. I could go off on a lot longer discussion but this isn't the place for it. Maybe I’ll start a new thread once i figure out windows sound recorder. Easier to talk than to type something that long.

[Nurizeko]

It's not quite how you portray it Nuri, not in my experience anyway. There's a strong conservative bent to UK politics (note 'conservative', not necessarily right wing), and intellectualism is denigrated in subtle ways. It's always nice to be the one that knows things, and as a university student you will have been part of an environment where learning was lauded, but there is a distrust of experts and a deification of "common sense" from the upper all the way down to the working classes. It extends into government and media, particularly populist tabloid media, which favour a brand of homespun wisdom over academic expertise (though the tabloids are not above abusing said expertise when it suits their own ends).

As I say, it's nowhere near as prevalent and distinct as in the US, where (from a foreigner's perspective) the right seems to equate wanting to learn things with raping eight year olds, but it is definitely there and it should not be ignored.

Indeed, though not quite as bad as killing albinos for their voodoo magicks ey? :P

Also it depends by what you mean not trusting 'experts'.

If you mean a lot of people have healthy scepticism of every 'expert' and so called scientist then indeed. Every other day there is a panel of experts or mediocre scientists claiming this will give us cancer, that is a non-viable policy.

Carl is spot on when he points out successive governments have used experts who support their opinions, and this is ignoring NGOs that have their own agendas.

I'm perfectly happy like most Brits to take a genuine expert's word...but only after I've looked into their research/reasoning and tested it against what I know/what other experts and scientists say.

And yes, Red-top tabloids are trash, there's a reason why when someone cites the Daily Mail they are considered to have automatically lost an argument.

Agdune: You can't decry education in the west then become a psyche major lol.

[Paladin]

It's not quite how you portray it Nuri, not in my experience anyway. There's a strong conservative bent to UK politics (note 'conservative', not necessarily right wing), and intellectualism is denigrated in subtle ways. It's always nice to be the one that knows things, and as a university student you will have been part of an environment where learning was lauded, but there is a distrust of experts and a deification of "common sense" from the upper all the way down to the working classes. It extends into government and media, particularly populist tabloid media, which favour a brand of homespun wisdom over academic expertise (though the tabloids are not above abusing said expertise when it suits their own ends).

As I say, it's nowhere near as prevalent and distinct as in the US, where (from a foreigner's perspective) the right seems to equate wanting to learn things with raping eight year olds, but it is definitely there and it should not be ignored.

I think there is valid criticism to be made of our current "expert" fetish. When we talk about an expert nowadays, we are talking about people who attain this rank simply by virtue of being declared so by academics who are themselves often detached from practical reality. We've created a culture in which it's normal for people to take the attitude that they should never have to learn or know anything that isn't directly a part of their specific career choice, and who have no practical life skills whatsoever.

I'm not knocking specialization per se, but the fact that one emerges from a post-graduate program an "expert" despite having never actually engaged in any real, practical application of the field in which they supposedly are expert, is a grave concern to me.

It also produces people who have little in the way of critical thinking skills, and tend to be dogmatic, as well as highly resistant to suggestions or criticism because "I'm an expert! I have a little piece of paper that says so! You don't have a piece of paper so you can't have an opinion!", despite the fact that the people they're talking to have 30+ years of hands on experience implementing the plans of experts like themselves and have genuinely valid insight to share that the expert in question would be well advised to listen to.

We used to value real world experience, but now it's almost looked upon as a sin, carrying the taint of a blue collar and a lower social strata.

It's a sorry state of affairs, and I genuinely believe that the primary school aged kids that we currently lock in nerf foam padded safety zones with no exposure to doing anything real and meaningful, while we (Often futilely) attempt to batter rote memorization of facts into their heads through brute force, should actually be out in the woods learning to make fires, working with hand tools to build things, and other such "blue collar" activities.

Why? For a couple reasons. First, these are things that little kids instinctively want to know. They are magical grownup abilities that give them power and control over their world in a concrete fashion that's immediately understandable to them. Allowing young children to fulfill this drive creates a sense of accomplishment and mastery, a confidence in one's own ability to do things that matter which I find sorely lacking in our adult population these days. Second, these are all things that require you to actually plan and think about them. You have to consider the ramifications of each action you take along the process of say, building a little toolbox, or a birdhouse, or any of the traditional kids' shop projects. If you don't, you end up realizing that you did a step out of order and you have to start over because now it can't be done with the piece you just modified, or you find yourself holding something you can't let go of, and needing two hands for the next step, or you end up whacking your thumb with a hammer or nicking yourself with a hand saw, which is great conditioning and reinforcement to get you to think about the task.

They exercise a portion of your brain that is currently left fallow in our bubble-wrapped kids, and which translates into underdeveloped abilities in adults when it comes to critical thinking and planning, and also leads to people believing that anything they haven't specifically studied in school is a black box that they can't possibly understand. Which leaves them easy prey for unethical "experts". Witness the mortgage backed security debacle and the resulting financial collapse. We actually have enough people in our populace who are so fully conditioned to believe experts without even trying to work things out for themselves, that people were able to pull off what amounts to a con and a scam on the entire world for years. All because nobody had the sense to realize that when someone is telling you that the tanstaafl rule can be violated, that you can, in fact, have a free lunch, that someone is being exploited.

And if you're sitting at the poker table and you can't identify the sucker...

But people just thought "Oh well, if the realtor says so... If the lender says so... If my broker says so..." and assumed that finance was simply too complicated for them to ever understand and didn't even try to work out for themselves how it was supposed to work (In which case they would have quickly realized that it simply doesn't).

I do agree that there's a rampant streak of anti-intellectualism in the US (Dunno about other western nations), but I also think that our intelligentsia has somewhat brought it upon themselves.

[Jonny]

I think Starfisher has got it. Unless something comes out of left field and triggers another World War the U.S. won't go down in fire and sword like Rome and I doubt it will have the luxury of a long, slow decline like the H.R.E. Much like the British Empire was eventually broken by the strain of the two World Wars and a vigorous competitor, I suspect America will go down as being broken by the economic millstone it slung around it's own neck combined with even more vigorous competitors in the form of China, India and Brazil.

Note I use "broken" in the sense that the British Empire was broken, we didn't collapse in chaos and bloodshed, we just lost our ability to hold onto the top spot.

[NastyNoodle]

I may be a bit biased as a Brit Agdune, but I'm not entirely sure it's fair to throw Britain in with America as being 'anti-intellectual', considering that we are the primary exporters at the moment, what with Hitchens, Dawkins, Hawking, Rushdi etc, and everyone still holds having a degree from Oxbridge in high regard.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

I think it really depends whether we are headed for a 'end of history' situation. If resource shortages, global warming, or some other peril causes a major global crisis we could see some really swift realignments. Otherwise I hope there will be a Great Blanding of some kind that evens out global inequalities and development.

Part of the weirdness here is that (in my view) America's 'empire' consists of two components: the worldwide military complex that is a legacy of the Cold War and economic hegemony arising from capitalist opportunism and throwing our post-war weight around. #2 is already blatantly on the way out, killed by the nature of unrestricted capital. #1 will likely wither on the vine in the next few decades, barring rising tensions.

#3 would be the political leadership and increased stature obtaining from 1 and 2, which will likely linger for decades if not a century or more (as long as we don't just throw it away, which we have damn well come close to.) Though I'm just pulling that out of my ass.

[Nurizeko]

Is there any other uni aside from Oxbridge?

Can you say: "Meal ticket"?

[Kirjava]

I had an interview there. Didn't get in (they let me know on Christmas Eve...) and in hindsight was usually happy about the situation, but since graduating and, at some points, having struggled to find a job, I've often found myself wondering whether the fairly instant walk-in position a degree from Oxford would have provided might not have been worth the over-work and catastrophic social snobbery...

[Liljagare]

Personally, I think both Europe and USA are in the dumpz.. we just haven't realized that our financial systems died ca' 1990.

I think we will start seeing suprising nations spring to the forefront in the next decade.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Our financial systems didn't die - quite the opposite. They expanded massively, siphoning ever increasing percentages of wealth. Some of this was productive, much has not been. But dead? Not hardly.

[Zallis]

http://conservapedia.com/Worst_College_Majors

As an example of the anti-intellectual streak in the USA (and the website in general being a posterboard for the bipartisan silliness people engage in. It seems they despise any academia that is solely for intellectual development, as opposed to practical studies like finance.

Curiously, world history is not included in that list, despite having little "practical" application beyond spouting random facts. It seems they value history solely because it lets them spout their own twisted version of facts (This country was founded by Jesus Freedom Washington, carrying a shotgun in one hand and the bible in the other, riding on a chariot pulled by bald eagles)

At a guess, though, i think it has more to do with people rejecting things (and the associated institutions) that don't fit into their pre-conceived world view rather than any deep-seated hatred of higher learning. The animosity for college/university education is probably just an attempt to discredit academia, allowing people to ignore what they don't like more easily. It's most evidenced on this site, where they praise anythign that supports their world view and mock something that opposes it. For example, they decry The Dark Knight Rises as a liberal propaganda scheme because the villain's name is a homophone for Mitt Romney's company. A handful of hours later they're praising the movie as one of the greatest conservative movies of all time because the villains apparently say some socialist-sounding stuff.

[Jondu]

This idea of US collapse or "western demise" is mostly fiction, or, i dont find it plausible at all. For one thing, I would simply point out, that US is in much better demographic state than Europe,China or Russia. That alone should point to a favorable future.

[LoCo]

Jondu: Would you care to explain any of what you just said?

Why is it mostly fiction?

Why not plausible?

Where do you get your demographic numbers from?

Why would that point to a favorable future?

Why don't you create a complete post?

[Langy]

http://conservapedia.com/Worst_College_Majors

As an example of the anti-intellectual streak in the USA (and the website in general being a posterboard for the bipartisan silliness people engage in. It seems they despise any academia that is solely for intellectual development, as opposed to practical studies like finance.

I have to admit, I actually agree with most of that list. Those are terrible majors to pursue, for the most part. I mean, 'Art History'? 'Women's Studies'? Those are bullshit classes that are pretty much useless at helping you get a job, making them a horrible investment. And that's what a college degree is - an investment. If you're rich enough to spend tens of thousands on something useless just because you'll enjoy it, great for you - most people aren't lucky enough to do that, and they need to get a degree that's actually useful for something or not go to college at all and instead study that stuff on their own.

[Logic_Bomb]

Jondu: Would you care to explain any of what you just said?

Why is it mostly fiction?

Why not plausible?

Where do you get your demographic numbers from?

Why would that point to a favorable future?

Why don't you create a complete post?

Lol, I'm also curious what "better demographics" might mean when comparing countries' likelihood of economic/social/political collapse. Citizens less in debt? Better armed? More supportive of government austerity measures? More job security? Better educated? Less elderly and ill people? I guess demographics could be a factor in some kind of feedback loop of larger forces that would be more directly related to the collapse vs prosperity of a country (economic policy for example).

[SpitfireMK461]

Lol, I'm also curious what "better demographics" might mean when comparing countries' likelihood of economic/social/political collapse. Citizens less in debt? Better armed? More supportive of government austerity measures? More job security? Better educated? Less elderly and ill people? I guess demographics could be a factor in some kind of feedback loop of larger forces that would be more directly related to the collapse vs prosperity of a country (economic policy for example).

In regards to China, they have a quickly aging population and a declining work force. They are also facing a very likely economic bubble burst similar to what Japan had in the 90s (and is still recovering from).

These issues tend to be overlooked by most media and pundits, yet are crucial to understanding why China has a ways to go before it's a true global power, let alone superpower. They have benefited from a large population in third world conditions, allowing them to create a large workforce with little pay and thus produce cheap goods on a mass scale, but they are facing difficulties modernizing and industrializing for the same reason. People just don't have money, thus they can't afford to live permanently in the cities where the government has spent massive amounts building modern apartments and shopping malls. China's insistence on a planned economy is why they have grown so quickly economically, and is also why they are facing stagnation and decline in the near future.

[Jonny]

I have to admit, I actually agree with most of that list. Those are terrible majors to pursue, for the most part. I mean, 'Art History'? 'Women's Studies'? Those are bullshit classes that are pretty much useless at helping you get a job, making them a horrible investment. And that's what a college degree is - an investment. If you're rich enough to spend tens of thousands on something useless just because you'll enjoy it, great for you - most people aren't lucky enough to do that, and they need to get a degree that's actually useful for something or not go to college at all and instead study that stuff on their own.

There's some intensely moronic ones on that list though, Geology, Climatology, Environmental Science, Anthropology, Astronomy, Wildlife Management, Horticulture, all fields that society generally finds people trained in to be useful. Lumping them in with Puppetry and Surf science is dumbfuckery at it's finest, it might as well be a "We can't see how you'll be an immediately useful drone to make us money" list.

[Jondu]

I dont explain much because i find the idea absurd, based on the information i have and the opinions i hold. Just wanted to add a disagreeing voice
It's something people like to talk about when in troubled times. Doom talk.
I dont see how in long historical perspective, is the United States or "the West" in danger of collapse that would amount to anything more than a decade of financial turmoil.

Population numbers mean that there are more people to pay for stuff and to make stuff, to keep economy going. When a counntry suddenly finds that all it has is old people, it wont be able to do much Crises will come and go.
There wont be a catastrophic collapse of everything in the US, people may lose their money but they wont all suddenly decide to go completely nuts There will be hard times, and there will be fixes for these problems. No need to go all apocalyptic on this
Bad example perhaps, but Russia is still there, still at the table, still influencing the world quite strongly, and they did have something like a complete collapse of EVERYTHING, something that will probably not happen to US.

I would take a positive attitude and look at the slow but sure demise of religious influence on the Unites States. It wont go anywhere any time soon, but it will slowly give ground to more rationality.
Population i already mentioned. Something that Russia is losing heavily, and will cause problems for Chinese growth in the future.
United States has MASSIVE cultural influence on the world. Its people work with all countries and on all fields. From governments to charities.
As someone mentioned, United States has military presence and alliances all over the world, and even with reductions incoming, it is still the only country to have such huge coverage.
Also, it has very unique geographical situation. It has no land based hostile nations next to it. A slight slip wont result in Canada storming Washington or Mexico invading Texas.

The reason why United States might not stand out from the crowd one day, would be that the crowd has cached up, not because United States has "collapsed".

I could write more and more and go deeper into each point, but at the end of the day, it will be just a forum post. And in this context, all i want is to say that i disagree, i don't think the facts speak of approaching collapse.

There are of course many political questions still standing that could tip the balance one way or another, for a while, they may make mistakes and wrong decisions that result in bad things. Education is one of big concerns, but it has not failed yet. These things are always of concern, there wont be a moment where a State is "Ready".


Might add a funny quote here...

“You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.”
-Churchill

[Langy]

There's some intensely moronic ones on that list though, Geology, Climatology, Environmental Science, Anthropology, Astronomy, Wildlife Management, Horticulture, all fields that society generally finds people trained in to be useful. Lumping them in with Puppetry and Surf science is dumbfuckery at it's finest, it might as well be a "We can't see how you'll be an immediately useful drone to make us money" list.

Wait, geology's on there? Geologists make mad cash working in the oil industry. The rest in your list are pretty junk, though, from a 'help me find a job and make money!' standpoint, which is the only point that matters when comparing investments.

Population numbers mean that there are more people to pay for stuff and to make stuff, to keep economy going. When a counntry suddenly finds that all it has is old people, it wont be able to do much Crises will come and go.

The US has a pretty big problem with old people already, and it'll only get worse as the Baby Boomers retire. Not nearly as bad as Japan and China, though.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

Langy: Women's studies is a huge benefit to almost any job that involves working with women but not men. I don't like the way it's taught a lot of the time but it's not useless by any measure.

[Akranadas]

I think the issue with those course Langy is most of the are simply popular because they are easy, so as more people enroll in those course they become more popular and those sections get more funding. I knew a few students when I went to University who simply chose degrees in the 'Arts' for the sole fact they like going to university, socialising and everything else that came with it. They planned to attend university as long as possible because they simply liked the lifestyle.

[Carl]

Wait, geology's on there? Geologists make mad cash working in the oil industry. The rest in your list are pretty junk, though, from a 'help me find a job and make money!' standpoint, which is the only point that matters when comparing investments.

The same can/could have been said about a lot of "sciences" that ultimately led to major breakthroughs. A great many subjects that are, on the surface of it, not great for getting a job may nonetheless hold the key to the next "big thing" that totally re-writes our way of life. We just don't know.

The real issue with our current education system is that at secondary level it's far too broad spectrum. Your taught a great swathe of stuff, especially at GCSE, that is only relevant if you want to become a specialist in something. For those who don't get a collage or university qualifications, and subsequently a job from that qualification the current secondary school curriculum is of only limited use in terms of aiding their employability. The way it's taught doesn’t help, (and I’m not just talking teaching to the test or teaching to meet targets), as it does littlie to encourage independent thought and creativity. That’s why I said English was the only relevant subject for me. The coursework actually asked you to use your brain.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

Also I should point out that Anthropologists are the people you hire to do market research if your company is in any way smart.

[Zallis]

Yeah, a lot of those qualify for "worst major. period". I wasn't even aware there was such a thing as surf science, but whatever. That might actually have a practical use in watercraft design, but I may be just talking out of my ass here.

it also depends quite a bit on what you view your degree as. If it's, as you say, an investment, then yeah, quite a few of those are totally useless. But so is military or world history, but that isn't on there. There are a handful, like geology and anthropology, shouldn't really belong on the list. Fashion design can get a shit ton of money too, but is unreliable at best.

On the other hand, if you're going to college because you're passionate about a particular subject and want to become an expert in the field, for further research or to become part of the university faculty, then any major is pretty much fine. I'm not sure about in the US, but in Canada university professors make a pretty good living.

A handful are only on there because they either oppose or disagree with the site's creators/administrators' worldview. They're young earth creationists, hence why they think geology is useless and/or a load of bull. They oppose relativity (though I can't exactly figure out why) so theoretical and quantum physics is also frowned upon (though I don't think they listed that on that particular page). Any art-related major they dislike because it makes no sense from a fiscal investment standpoint. They're also opposed to the whole "liberal institution of public colleges/universities", so they'd think my point about academic development is a load of liberal touchy-feely, no-one-is-a-loser talk. They hate universities so much that they're going so far as to say that "liberal education" was a contributing factor in James Holmes' decision to shoot up a theatre.



That sort of bipartisan thinking also raises another point, though, about why America seems utterly screwed to the rest of the world. The only other issue that I can think of that has brought this kind of divisiveness is religion or race. To have it from politicians is one thing, considering they seem fairly detached from reality as it is, but it also seems a significant portion of the population engages in this sort of stuff. It's by no means isolated to the US, but seems more prevalent in the US than the rest of the world. It could be that people are just exercising their right to voice their opinions, but coming from the most conservative (and arguably ass-backward) province in Canada, both parties seem too far to the right for our liking. If Obama is a socialist, then the rest of the western world by comparison are surely evil, god-hating communists.

[Agdune]

Psychology's on there too. Even with my issues with the field, it's a hell of a long shot to say that a psychology degree is useless. If you're looking for a career in human services, it's about one of the most useful degrees you can possibly have. Also, I guess there's no such thing as a doctor of psychology, eh? If there were any, they definitely haven't done anything useful over the last century and a half!

Anyway, let's all remember, it's Conservapedia. About 50% of that site's content was created by trolls so any particular example, no matter how hillarious, needs to be taken critically. Even those that would have been posted for non-trolling purposes are being ripped out of context and presented in the worst possible light. Whether or not we think sufing studies is useful doesn't matter, because chances are none of us are planning on making a career out of surfing (remember those pro surfers out there in the world who make a better living than most of us will ever have out of something most people regard as a hobby? Saying 'you can't make a career out of surfing!' is demonstrably false). If people are willing to pay for those degrees, what exactly is wrong with offering them again? I mean, here I was thinking the free market promoted the supply of specialist services if there was a market for them... but I guess promoting the stamping out services or ideas, thus manipulating the free market on an ideological basis is A-OK, if it means people aren't learning about things I or we don't like.

At the end of the day, (picking random example here; ) Horticulture is a pretty fucking useful degree if you're looking for a career in Horticulture, opinions of people outside of the field can go fuck themselves; unless they've done the degree and had a career that's taken them to every. single. part. of those industries which involve horticulture, they know fuck all about how useful the degree can be.

angry tangent rant

That applies to just about everyone too. Things only have the use that we get out of them; whether you're head coordinator of Harvard's staff faculty or Joe mc-ultraconservative-factory-worker, chances are your valuations on what's valuable or useful or not are based off fucking nothing more than your own prejudices. I've had professors of psychology tell me that psychology students who can't write APA formatted research reports shouldn't be psychologists (note: skills to create research reports are only useful for researchers. Practicing psychologists really only have to read them. This is a point because that professor felt that the only 'real' application for psychology was pure research) and I've had 3rd generation unemployed people at bus stops tell me that they know exactly what use my career choice will be to the world and exactly how hard I'll have to work to get it; that I shouldn't bother and go get a real job. (note 2: the term 3rd generation unemployed means no-one since their great-grandparents has had a job. In Australia they tend to end up in public housing suburbs and spend their time in and out of court or prison for petty crime. In the USA, they'd probably constitute the majority of homeless people and hardcore drug addicts, but chances are they wouldn't necessarily be of a particular generation; it's our social welfare system that lets us categorise people so neatly)

Frankly, both knew fuck-all about the subject they were addressing. It's not relegated to any one political philosophy, it's just human nature; we think we're all mighty gods of intellect and understanding, even when we're talking about things we've never even heard about before. We like to think that our way of doing things is the end-all and be-all of reason and is thus the only way of doing things. I'm prone to it, you're prone to it, "leftists are conspiring to destroy civilisation" man is prone to it. It's something that we're never going to be fully rid of as a society, but even so we can at least control it a bit; but this stupid 'lol folksey wisdom!' bullshit just flat-out embraces it and tries to justify gut-instinct, ill-informed arguments about how useful this or that is. At least the other philosophies TRY to give justification for their prejudices beyond "LOL STUPID BOOK LEARNIN' ". It's a combination of willfull ignorance and economic rationalism; pure self serving dross based around the ideology of generating capital for the sake of generating capital.

I suppose it's because I've had this argument on a news site comments field lately and was infuriated by how thick some people are; suggestions that the LHC and discovery of the Higgs Bosun is a waste of money because the guy who theorised it didn't have any ideas as to applications for the discovery. Development and advancement requires the application of new ideas to existing situations in an attempt to solve problems or improve situations. But you can't do that if those ideas were never discovered in the first place. So yes, you can still solve problems with targeted research. but most of our major, revolutionary advancements have come from people taking an idea previously regarded as useless and applying it to a situation no-one had thought to apply it in before. That can't happen if we're discouraging people from studying 'useless' things that do not currently have a direct application. It's about the creation and circulation of ideas, not whether or not it's the optimal financial course of action for the circumstances that exist RIGHT NOW. It's a stereotype, but how prosperous would be we be if someone like Einstein or Newton had simply done the financially beneficial thing and applied their mathematical intellect to the financial system or some other do-nothing field? Almost nothing those scientists did had an actual application when they were devised, but they form the basis of almost every major field of applied sciences nowdays!

(teehee... "Why Occupy Wall Street? The History and Politics of Debt and Finance - New York University" is a bad unit? Seems like discussing the causes of public discontent as a consequence of financial practices seems pretty damn useful in a finance degree to me! Ethics and public relations are pretty fucking important in business! Also notice some of the sources they're citing there. I like the Yahoo news article that directly contradicts a few of their points by telling us that a few of those 'useless' fields have 0% unemployment.)

[GeoffS]

I would take a positive attitude and look at the slow but sure demise of religious influence on the Unites States. It wont go anywhere any time soon, but it will slowly give ground to more rationality.
Population i already mentioned. Something that Russia is losing heavily, and will cause problems for Chinese growth in the future.
United States has MASSIVE cultural influence on the world. Its people work with all countries and on all fields. From governments to charities.
As someone mentioned, United States has military presence and alliances all over the world, and even with reductions incoming, it is still the only country to have such huge coverage.
Also, it has very unique geographical situation. It has no land based hostile nations next to it. A slight slip wont result in Canada storming Washington or Mexico invading Texas.

There are a few things here I think are worthy of comment...

• Looking at it from the outside, there doesn't seem to be any noticeable reduction in the amount of religious influence on US politics. Candidates are still pretty much required to be seen to be practising Christians or they become unelectable (Note: That's an observation, nothing more). Any change to that would only serve to bring the US closer to other western nations.
• Yes, the cultural influence is massive, but that doesn't make Jersey Shore a good thing.
• Military presence is one thing, using it is another. I'm not sure that the US would be keen on getting involved in another Iraq or Afghanistan at the moment.
• The geographical situation is not unique at all. Here are a few other countries with no land based hostile nations next to them: Antigua, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica... and the list goes on, pretty much the whole world except for the Korean Peninsula, Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa.

[Jondu]

Yes, well it is all just a huge speculation, what conclusions to make and how to look at or interpret information.

Jersey Shore doesn't have to be a good thing, but i know what it is without having a TV or ever looking at any entertainment of that kind. And pulling out the "bad" example of US cultural products only tells that you look at the issue from negative perspective. United States cultural influence extends beyond TV shows. It goes deep into how many other countries function through all kind of NGOs, special contracts and many many other things.
United States is much more complex entity than just Hollywood and McDonald's. Do not let the abundance of freely available information fool you

Your list of countries is incorrect and does not apply in the context. Hope you can figure out why, I don't feel like explaining.

It may happen that i am entirely wrong. But that would be rather sad news for the world.

[Nurizeko]

Langy: Women's studies is a huge benefit to almost any job that involves working with women but not men. I don't like the way it's taught a lot of the time but it's not useless by any measure.

I think you're severely over-estimating the usefulness there.

Women are not alien creatures, and I think you tend to benefit more from knowing the relevant field of study rather than learning the history of how horrible men are and still are.

Women's studies came out of the feminist movements of the 60's and about as relevant.

The same can/could have been said about a lot of "sciences" that ultimately led to major breakthroughs. A great many subjects that are, on the surface of it, not great for getting a job may nonetheless hold the key to the next "big thing" that totally re-writes our way of life. We just don't know.

No, actually Geologists are literally useful for making mad money, it has nothing to do with 'break-throughs', as he said, the oil industry relies on them for the mundane practice of scoping out fields, advising on the nature of the bedrock so the correct drilling can be done.

They rake in the cash and do little in the way of research. I know, I live in 'the oil capital of Europe', almost everyone local who has half a brain-cell for uni education goes into oil industry fields if they can.

[LoCo]

Why would that be sad news for the world?

Have you been out into that world?

The US is not the bastion of greatness you seem to be implying it is.

Further, the US may have a lot of good propaganda out there, but there is a powerful counter-propaganda working these days which not only matches or subdues the US propaganda, but outstrips it. The cultural dominance that the US once had is no longer that dominant nor is it as stable. Both the US's foreign policies and the internet had a lot to do with the erosion of it's propaganda, and thus it's cultural dominance, but other countries have also been upping their game. The UK and the EU are pumping money into their own creative ventures, trying to expand their influence into the growing markets, which means not so much focused on the US as a market, and China and Japan have had (and are still having) booms in their own propaganda spheres.

There is also a new player in the game that nobody saw coming. Before the internet, nobody thought that small groups of ordinary people with similar interests and/or ideas could be a big enough market to bother about. But with the internet, those small groups have become much, much larger. Hell, the group size of an individual now holds a lot of power. The biggest propagandist these days is not any country in particular, but a non-entity called The Internet. Countries are becoming more and more irrelevant. People identify as a Gamer, a Geek, a Paintball Player, a Gun Enthusiast, an Anime Fan, etc. more than they identify as American, British, Chinese, etc.

Most people on this forum don't even have indicators in their profiles about where they come from. Those that do, have it there for silly reasons like me (it's a FIFA thing from last year I think). It's simply not that important for people's identity anymore. What's more important is how you think and what you do. Hell, even outside of the internet it is no longer that big a deal even in the US. You aren't "American" anymore, you are Republican or Democrat.

So, no. The US cultural influence is not as strong or stronger than it used to be. It's not as relevant to people.

And the more time goes by, and the more acclimated people get to the new world, the less the US is going to matter and the faster it will spin off into that depressing place the British found themselves in 20 years or so after the Victorian Era ended. The Victorians thought they were on top of the world too.

They rake in the cash and do little in the way of research. I know, I live in 'the oil capital of Europe', almost everyone local who has half a brain-cell for uni education and don't have any interests of their own goes into oil industry fields if they can.

Fixed

[n0z3k1ll3r]

I think you're severely over-estimating the usefulness there.

Women are not alien creatures, and I think you tend to benefit more from knowing the relevant field of study rather than learning the history of how horrible men are and still are.

Women's studies came out of the feminist movements of the 60's and about as relevant.

Not all women's studies courses are ignorant misandry. Some are, sure, but nowhere near all, hence why they're starting to rename it Gender Studies.