Remix.run Logo
ceejayoz a day ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empi...

> The Roman Empire lost the strengths that had allowed it to exercise effective control over its Western provinces; modern historians posit factors including the effectiveness and numbers of the army (check), the health and numbers of the Roman population (check), the strength of the economy (check), the competence of the emperors (check), the internal struggles for power (check), the religious changes of the period (check), and the efficiency of the civil administration (check). Increasing pressure from invading peoples outside Roman culture (check) also contributed greatly to the collapse. Climatic changes (check) and both endemic and epidemic diseases (check) drove many of these immediate factors.

c7b a day ago | parent | next [-]

The decline of the Roman Empire, depending on how you define it, played out over centuries, if not a millennium. It is such a bad analogy for the kind of within-our-lifetimes collapse that is being speculated about here that it undermines the original concern. The decline of Germany as the leading scientific powerhouse in the first half if the 20th century would be a better case study imho.

ceejayoz a day ago | parent | next [-]

> The decline of the Roman Empire, depending on how you define it, played out over centuries, if not a millennium.

Sure, and before COVID-19 pandemics often took years/decades to spread around the globe. Agriculture took thousands of years to develop; iPhones were invented twenty years ago.

Things move faster in a world of eight billion people who can get anywhere on the planet in 24 hours.

jebarker a day ago | parent [-]

Hence you can’t take the starting conditions from thousands of years ago and assume they will evolve in the same way now

ceejayoz a day ago | parent [-]

Sure. It might be much worse and faster this time! People have nukes and machine guns!

bryanlarsen a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sure, but it's also likely that some (but not all) historians will put the peak of the American Empire in the 1960's somewhere, perhaps onat the moon landing. Declines often start out slow and are often indistinguishable from random noise until well after the fact, and there will be rises and falls after the peak.

senordevnyc a day ago | parent [-]

it's also likely that some (but not all) historians will put the peak of the American Empire in the 1960's somewhere

Based on what metric?

ceejayoz a day ago | parent [-]

https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

https://www.reddit.com/r/medicine/comments/61z8jv/oecd_life_...

senordevnyc 18 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, historians notoriously focus all of their analysis of the rise and fall of an entire country on the ratio of worker pay to productivity.

The health care cost one is so dumb I won't even bother with it.

ceejayoz 18 hours ago | parent [-]

Scroll bar doesn't work, huh?

There's… substantially more than one chart on that page.

senordevnyc 18 hours ago | parent [-]

Fair, I did not see that :)

I would assume that you can take virtually any society that goes through rapid change over the course of a few decades and make all manner of cherry-picked charts like this. Just ignore all the charts with shapes that don't fit your hypothesis (like they show divergence way outside 1971, or gasp, they show positive changes!).

Honestly, I find the attitude that the best times in America were 50-60 years ago to be baffling.

So let me ask it this way: you can be born at a random place as a random person in America. You can't control your gender, your race, your sexual orientation, your intelligence, your socioeconomic standing, your family, your health, nothing. The only thing you can pick is the year.

What year are you going to choose?

I'd love a serious answer too. I never seem to get one that supports the idea that America's best days are behind us, but maybe you'll provide some reasoning.

bryanlarsen 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I didn't say the best times in the US were 50-60 years ago.

I said that historians would consider the start of the decline was 1969 or 1973 or similar.

Declines start in the second derivative -- progress is positive, but the rate of progress increases is decreasing. It takes a long time with a negative second derivative to make the first derivative negative, but the decline started when the second derivative turned negative. And the second derivative made an obvious turn around 1970.

And it's also measured relatively. It 1969 it was obviously way better to be an American than a European or a Korean or Japanese. Even than a Russian, although it wasn't as obvious at the time. In 2026 I'd rather be born in Europe than the US if I don't get to choose to be born to rich white parents.

ceejayoz 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> So let me ask it this way: you can be born at a random place as a random person in America. You can't control your gender, your race, your sexual orientation, your intelligence, your socioeconomic standing, your family, your health, nothing. The only thing you can pick is the year.

2012, as long as I can bring some news articles with me, to convince people that https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/10/473709316... was, if anything, understating things.

TFNA a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Historians today tend to emphasize that, even if the Western Empire ended in the fifth century, ultimately everything goes back to the Crisis of the Third Century. That took place with a short enough space that it must qualify as a within-our-lifetimes collapse.

c7b 19 hours ago | parent [-]

I would agree with that stance and that classical antiquity ended then. But you still have to acknowledge that the Roman state, its culture and institutions not only survived but arguably came out even more dominant (with the exception of pagan religion), e.g. with a second political stronghold in the East.

There are many episodes in Roman history that people would have experienced as decline or even collapse within their lifetimes, including multiple sackings of the city of Rome itself. But in most of those cases things actually did bounce back and the Empire continued to dominate. That's kind of the point I was making. Empires would seem to be far more resilient than contemporary observers would think if one only looked at Roman history. But the problem is that the Roman Empire is a bit of an outlier in that regard. Ancient cultures of Central America would be interesting to study there (there were far more than just the Mayas, Inkas and Aztecs, most of them relatively short-lived, hence good case studies for the question of collapse). Unfortunately much less is known about them than about Romans.

pjc50 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The decline of Germany as the leading scientific powerhouse in the first half if the 20th century

Go on? WW1 and its consequences?

c7b 19 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think the educational policies are most interesting to compare. There was systematic attrition of academic talent driven by xenophobic ideologies. It started slowly and well before the 1930's, before it turned into an all-out purge. There was also ideological alignment of academia in multiple ways. The timing might not perfectly line up with what we're discussing now, but it definitely qualifies as within-lifetime, and I think the overall parallels are interesting.

SideburnsOfDoom 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

WW2 and it's consequences will be a big part of this.

Consider the Oppenheimer movie. The majority of physicists depicted there are people who left Europe around that time.

It's this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49210165

roncesvalles a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It is highly unlikely that the US is going to collapse any time in our lifetimes. Or even those of our children.

Also, let's not forget that the Trump admin is a problem of 2.5 years at most.

Trump has greatly stressed the safeguards in our system, but I don't think that he has broken them. That is actually an optimistic instead of a pessimistic signal -- an anti-statesman even in the highest office couldn't meaningfully damage the country.

ceejayoz a day ago | parent | next [-]

> Trump has greatly stressed the safeguards in our system, but I don't think that he has broken them.

His sentencing for 34 felonies was voided because the justices he personally appointed to run some of those safeguards decided he should be immune to them. Come on.

ben_w 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Also, let's not forget that the Trump admin is a problem of 2.5 years at most.

If he invades Greenland, the US not only loses all NATO allies, but may be at actual war (rather than merely trade war) with them; the Asian allies are also getting worried because of how he's interacting with China. This administration is also somehow managing to piss off Israel despite having gone into a war as a co-belligerent with them against Iran, also pissing off all the other American allies in the middle east, and the Iran conflict is currently making people question the benefit of even having the US as an ally in the first place because the US can't keep them safe from Iranian counterstrikes, but even more broadly the US don't seem to be able to keep Iran from charging tolls on Hormuz so everyone else with a similarly strategic strait may be wondering if they can do the same.

The administration also has problems with re-emergence of diseases due to a combination of cutting funding and chaos (e.g. while screwworm may have come back anyway, the government response was suboptimal), and in some cases actively promoting disinformation (e.g. vaccinations). It takes a lot more work to eradicate some disease than to keep it away.

And this is without any of the current, justifiable, concerns that Trump may use ICE or similar to interfere with even this year's elections, let alone the end of his term.

Trump may not kill the US outright in just this term, the ships of state are slow to turn let alone sink, but he may do a Great Leap Forward.

cindyllm a day ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

specproc a day ago | parent | prev [-]

The US isn't Rome, it's Constantinople. Rome was Europe, the 20th century was about the colonial appendage achieving supremacy over the former imperial centre.

If you want a lesson in what to avoid to maintain dominance, it's internal conflict, that's what wrecked the European empire.

Good luck with that. Trump and Co will dig in. When they fall, there will be blood.

jebarker a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is not convincing. Many of these are debatable when you actually pull apart what is meant then and now. But there’s also a long list of things that are different about the Roman Empire and US (and the world) today.

ceejayoz a day ago | parent [-]

> This is not convincing.

Yeah, we heard that about climate change, too.

We may be Cassandras, but that doesn't make us wrong.

nozzlegear a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Increasing pressure from invading peoples outside Roman culture (check) also contributed greatly to the collapse.

Who is this supposed to be?

A_D_E_P_T a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You could look even earlier. There are a lot of similarities between Trump's style and Emperor Commodus's. And to paraphrase Cassius Dio, Commodus took an empire of gold and transformed it into one of iron and rust.

Every time I hear people praise the stoic Emperor Marcus Aurelius I am reminded of the fact that he failed in his most important duty: To plan well for his succession.

leereeves a day ago | parent | prev [-]

The two worst Roman emperors ruled hundreds of years before the fall: Caligula from 37 to 41 CE, Nero from 54 to 68 CE.

Not many people could name, or recognize the name of, any emperor from the last hundred years of the Western Roman Empire.

So I don't think Rome is a good analogue for the suggestion that the Trump era is going to kill the USA.

ceejayoz a day ago | parent [-]

Sure. We had Nixon.

Most collapses start slow, and I tend to doubt this one is finished.

Waterluvian a day ago | parent | next [-]

I expect things to actually get better by some measures for a little while as the U.S. liquidates its holdings of international political and socioeconomic influence. A sort of short-lived glut from voluntary cannibalization.

flossly a day ago | parent | prev [-]

There a quite popular narrative saying JFK's murder was a coup, and the US is still couped to this day (voting does not truly matter: the dark budget agencies make the policies anyway, those votes into office simple have to follow suit).