Source item

@NSmolenski A few points. TLDR: my post advocates for understanding tradeoffs, not empire per se. (1) First, please reread the post. It's not "advocating" for empire. It is, at most, devil's advocating for empire. That is, it's pointing out that one should consider that (a) the American empire exists, and (b) generates enormous amounts of money for at least some Americans via money printing, before (c) sunsetting it. (2) As context, most people either deny that empire even exists, or only point out the costs and not the benefits. Now, it is certainly possible that sunsetting the empire is still desirable on balance, just as sunsetting the Soviet empire was ultimately desirable on balance. (3) But one should understand the full picture, because Russian in the 1990s wasn't a pleasant place. And a post-imperial America might not be either, at least in the short to medium run. Tradeoffs exist, and it's worth viscerally understanding what 1990s Russia was like. I've included a video for those who aren't familiar with the period. (4) Finally, I'm familiar with Tainter's book and have cited it before, along with many other works on the rise and fall of civilizations. I liked Scott Alexander's review from a few years ago[a]. Btw, it is theoretically possible that computers have changed the ability to manage complexity, and hence could stave off system collapse for longer. [a]: https://t.co/gtJ7UXcWAs