I think it's very likely counterfactually better than USSR (now Russian) or Chinese hegemony. Imagine if Al Gore had won 2000 - America at the helm while growing increasingly wary of violent foreign interventions seems like the least bad path for Earth. (I am not sure if such a path still remains.)
China ultra-liberalizing and becoming a democracy and then the hegemon could be an okay path but I am not too optimistic about the prospects of those first parts.
> I think it's very likely counterfactually better than USSR (now Russian) or Chinese hegemony.
Why is it either or the other? Just because the US happens to turn inwards and stop acting like the world police, doesn't mean that other countries suddenly start dreaming of world domination. China and Russian both have plenty of problems in their home fronts and surrounding areas.
> China and Russian both have plenty of problems in their home fronts and surrounding areas.
Do you know how Russia got so large? They started out small.
They solve such problems by doing the one thing they have always done: expanding. Successful conquest temporarily mitigates internal problems, injustices and inefficiencies.
It seems likely that at least for a few more centuries, humanity and Earth are going to play the typical geopolitical games they've played during the past centuries.
China and Russia are consistently led by ruthless people who like power. Plus, even if China does only just conquer Taiwan and then leaves everyone else alone as the hegemon, there's still the matter of them oppressing ~20% of the humans on the planet (their own people). Even if it's the sort of oppression that you don't necessarily ever notice so long as you always stay in line.
China is the alternative. How many countries has China waged war against, toppled democratic governments, established puppet março-states and invaded since 1949?
It could be the case that they become the hegemon and don't ever conquer anyone besides Taiwan and it still sucks due to how they treat ~20% of the Earth's population (their own citizens).
A liberal, democratic China becoming the hegemon is very possibly better than the status quo (especially under Trump and with the surge of far-right mainstreaming in the US), but China as it is now cannot be trusted to be a good steward of a hypothetical Pax Sinica, just as Trumpist America cannot be trusted.
The greatest timeline for Europe in its history? Post WW2 to now.
The greatest timeline for Latin America overall? Post WW2 to now.
The greatest timeline for Oceania overall? Post WW2 to now.
The greatest timeline for India? Post WW2 to now.
The greatest timeline for the rest of Asia overall? Post WW2 to now.
Coming up on 80 years. Here's a short list, please tell me which prior ~80 year period in history these nations had it better overall for their people.
Britain, Ireland, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Romania, Poland, Switzerland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Greece, Slovakia, Austria, Slovenia, Hungary, Croatia, Bulgaria. Russia, Turkey, Kazakhstan. Australia, New Zealand, Canada. China, Japan, Indonesia, India, Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand. Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, Peru, Chile, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Panama. Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain.
Just most of the world population in that little list.
Even Russia - the people of Russia have far higher standards of living at the median today than they have at any other point in their history. It's not even remotely close.
'But but but the world isn't perfect.' No kidding.
It's popular to hate the US but I'd like to know what country you think would be better at the role of global hegemon. What country would you suggest would do a better job? Be specific.
> The concept that living in a hegemony is acceptable is incoherent
Wishing upon a star that humans were better is not a solution.
Revoking the Pax Americana frees America to pursue more wars of conquest. Not fewer. It's a revocation of the rules-based international order that America (and the former Soviet Union) put in place following WWII.
It similarly frees every other wannabe global and regional hegemony to assert their spheres of influence.
The greatest era of prosperity expansion and peace in world history courtesy of pax Americana. The best decades - measurably - for humanity overall have taken place since the US assumed that role post WW2.
Depends on where you were during those decades. If you're in one of the unlucky countries that didn't do what the US wanted you likely suffered enormously.
Part of it is ideas and ideals. America represents ideas of liberty, liberalism, democracy, and individualism. The USSR/Russia and China represent the exact opposite.
America has failed to live up to those ideals (slavery, plunder, toppling democratically elected leaders to install military dictatorships, unnecessary wars with mass civilian casualties) on multiple occasions, but if you at least look at things on paper, America is selling a better product. And with the (now gutted) aid we provided to the world, and the economic boons of American consumer demand helping to speed up industrialization of poorer countries, benefits weren't just lofty principles.
One nice thing about American ideals is that, domestically, Americans who respect them can fight for them and fight for their preservation and expansion. There exists a noble thing to fight for which can in fact be fought for, and that thing encompasses the principle of not ever permitting people in other countries to suffer so that the United States may gain. Good luck doing any of that in Russia or China in 2025, and likely also in 2050.
I think it's very likely counterfactually better than USSR (now Russian) or Chinese hegemony. Imagine if Al Gore had won 2000 - America at the helm while growing increasingly wary of violent foreign interventions seems like the least bad path for Earth. (I am not sure if such a path still remains.)
China ultra-liberalizing and becoming a democracy and then the hegemon could be an okay path but I am not too optimistic about the prospects of those first parts.
The good thing is that we'll be able to fact check this comment in 50 years
> I think it's very likely counterfactually better than USSR (now Russian) or Chinese hegemony.
Why is it either or the other? Just because the US happens to turn inwards and stop acting like the world police, doesn't mean that other countries suddenly start dreaming of world domination. China and Russian both have plenty of problems in their home fronts and surrounding areas.
> China and Russian both have plenty of problems in their home fronts and surrounding areas.
Do you know how Russia got so large? They started out small.
They solve such problems by doing the one thing they have always done: expanding. Successful conquest temporarily mitigates internal problems, injustices and inefficiencies.
Video: The History of Russia: Every Year - https://youtu.be/uCIp3CF33ms
8 replies →
It seems likely that at least for a few more centuries, humanity and Earth are going to play the typical geopolitical games they've played during the past centuries.
China and Russia are consistently led by ruthless people who like power. Plus, even if China does only just conquer Taiwan and then leaves everyone else alone as the hegemon, there's still the matter of them oppressing ~20% of the humans on the planet (their own people). Even if it's the sort of oppression that you don't necessarily ever notice so long as you always stay in line.
That has never stopped Russia before
As bad as American domination is, wnat's coming after is might easily be worse.
Why?
China is the alternative. How many countries has China waged war against, toppled democratic governments, established puppet março-states and invaded since 1949?
Korea 1950, Tibet 1951, Vietnam 1979 (yes, China invaded Vietnam after USA withdrew).
China also has had border skirmishes with Burma, India, USSR.
2 replies →
China also didn't have the ability to do most of that until very recently.
How many Chinese people did they kill via governmental policies in that time?
It could be the case that they become the hegemon and don't ever conquer anyone besides Taiwan and it still sucks due to how they treat ~20% of the Earth's population (their own citizens).
A liberal, democratic China becoming the hegemon is very possibly better than the status quo (especially under Trump and with the surge of far-right mainstreaming in the US), but China as it is now cannot be trusted to be a good steward of a hypothetical Pax Sinica, just as Trumpist America cannot be trusted.
1 reply →
Worse for US Americans probably - rest of the world? Not so clear cut
The greatest timeline for Europe in its history? Post WW2 to now.
The greatest timeline for Latin America overall? Post WW2 to now.
The greatest timeline for Oceania overall? Post WW2 to now.
The greatest timeline for India? Post WW2 to now.
The greatest timeline for the rest of Asia overall? Post WW2 to now.
Coming up on 80 years. Here's a short list, please tell me which prior ~80 year period in history these nations had it better overall for their people.
Britain, Ireland, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Romania, Poland, Switzerland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Greece, Slovakia, Austria, Slovenia, Hungary, Croatia, Bulgaria. Russia, Turkey, Kazakhstan. Australia, New Zealand, Canada. China, Japan, Indonesia, India, Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand. Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, Peru, Chile, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Panama. Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain.
Just most of the world population in that little list.
Even Russia - the people of Russia have far higher standards of living at the median today than they have at any other point in their history. It's not even remotely close.
'But but but the world isn't perfect.' No kidding.
4 replies →
The US has screwed up but to state we've been nothing but bad since 49 is a genuinely revisionist take.
I guess I respect you being honestly pro-war. Not sure that’s what everyone wants.
It's popular to hate the US but I'd like to know what country you think would be better at the role of global hegemon. What country would you suggest would do a better job? Be specific.
That's not a hard question. Any country that invaded, plundered and destroyed democracies less than the US has in the last hundred years.
Oh good, I'm glad it's not hard. Which one is that?
It’s a flawed question.
The concept that living in a hegemony is acceptable is incoherent.
> The concept that living in a hegemony is acceptable is incoherent
Wishing upon a star that humans were better is not a solution.
Revoking the Pax Americana frees America to pursue more wars of conquest. Not fewer. It's a revocation of the rules-based international order that America (and the former Soviet Union) put in place following WWII.
It similarly frees every other wannabe global and regional hegemony to assert their spheres of influence.
7 replies →
Oh, so you figured out a way to make people not be terrible. Awesome. How's that work?
1 reply →
The greatest era of prosperity expansion and peace in world history courtesy of pax Americana. The best decades - measurably - for humanity overall have taken place since the US assumed that role post WW2.
The post WWII peace was made possible due the existence of nuclear weapons. It will go on after the next global power takes over.
Depends on where you were during those decades. If you're in one of the unlucky countries that didn't do what the US wanted you likely suffered enormously.
Part of it is ideas and ideals. America represents ideas of liberty, liberalism, democracy, and individualism. The USSR/Russia and China represent the exact opposite.
America has failed to live up to those ideals (slavery, plunder, toppling democratically elected leaders to install military dictatorships, unnecessary wars with mass civilian casualties) on multiple occasions, but if you at least look at things on paper, America is selling a better product. And with the (now gutted) aid we provided to the world, and the economic boons of American consumer demand helping to speed up industrialization of poorer countries, benefits weren't just lofty principles.
One nice thing about American ideals is that, domestically, Americans who respect them can fight for them and fight for their preservation and expansion. There exists a noble thing to fight for which can in fact be fought for, and that thing encompasses the principle of not ever permitting people in other countries to suffer so that the United States may gain. Good luck doing any of that in Russia or China in 2025, and likely also in 2050.
5 replies →
> courtesy of pax Americana
Can we back this up? As an american, I'd like to think it's true, but I'd take a historian's viewpoint seriously.
Henry Kissinger? I thought you died!