Live data from Hacker News

Carl Sagan Predicts the Decline of America (1995)

openculture.com

111–120 of 171 posts

Re: Carl Sagan Predicts the Decline of America (1995)

#111
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a vague slogan, not a meaningful strategy to accomplish anything of consequence. Money is just a tool. The resources and incentives that the money is being spent on already exist, and it's being used to further ambitions and goals that were always present. Getting "money out of politics" in a formalistic way will just lead to corrupt ambitions being facilitated via some other means. Bernie's ideas are very dan…

> That's a vague slogan, not a meaningful strategy to accomplish anything of consequence And "Make America Great Again" is as well, but over 70 million people rallied behind it

Yep. The number of people rallying behind superficial nonsense without any substantive policy positions backing them up has never been higher. Trump and Sanders are two sides of the same coin.

If there's any evidence of a decline, it's definitely found in the extent to which people are both (a) looking to federal politics to solve their local and personal problems for them, and (b) supporting incompetent sloganeers as the people they want managing federal politics.

Re: Carl Sagan Predicts the Decline of America (1995)

#112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The claim that the US has "economic growth" and that China does not is a strong claim, and does not seem to be supported by any real-world facts. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jan/17/china-econo...

the China 5% growth in the article...is it believable? the real world fact that you cited come from China. which stop reporting youth unemployment when the numbers is bad back in 2023. only to restart reporting the number with new method. Can you trust Chinese's numbers when its real estates, foreign investment drop, deflation...etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JYWFUI5kEc https://apnews.com/article/china-youth-u…

So your argument is that "nobody knows anything"? It's hardly an argument that you know something.

It's also a straw man to nitpick the number, as your claim "That leaves the U.S. still standing with economic growth" - was that China was not growing, at all.

Re: Carl Sagan Predicts the Decline of America (1995)

#113
-Sagan’s 1995 predictions are now being heralded as prophetic. As Director of Public Radio International’s Science Friday, Charles Bergquist tweeted, “Carl Sagan had either a time machine or a crystal ball.”

Prophetic, time machine, crystal call.

That's exactly the lenguage of darkness and superstition...

Re: Carl Sagan Predicts the Decline of America (1995)

#114
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For decades, academia has been part of an ongoing anti-democratic, elitist movement to effectively take control away from common people When you declare that "studying things" is elitist, that's when you know your argument is cooked. A PhD student earning $40k a year is not, in any sense, part of the elite.

This is the kind of dishonest motte-and-bailey framing that is all too common in academia, that my post was trying to highlight. There are many aspects and fields of academia that are very obviously ideologically captured, whether that's "studies" in economics and sociology that are obvious attempts to reify the modern consensus of human beings as identical, fungible, latently-liberal economic units. Or it could be w…

I just think “elite” has no meaning if you’re just using it as a synonym for “people I don’t like”.

“Elite” is traditionally a synonym for rich white men educated at Ivy League universities working comfortable, high-earning jobs. Those people still exist! Trump is one of them, as is George W Bush, and his father before him.

Re: Carl Sagan Predicts the Decline of America (1995)

#115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A swift google suggests that your assertion that China's economy is "on the decline" to any great extent is quite false. As they say, citation needed. And, well put this way: the management in China seems to be more grown-up and stable, which is better for long-term prospects.

> China's economy is "on the decline" to any great extent is quite false https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crr54x00857o https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/09/20/chinese-econ... https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/china-deflation/ https://www.aei.org/economics/chinas-economy-is-in-deep-trou... https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/06/03/xi-china-economic-decli... https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/14/business/chinas-gdp-q…

These quotes do not support the claim of "on the decline", they show the rate at which the economy is growing is not as fast as before, but still at perfectly respectable rates:

> https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crr54x00857o

"China's economy expanded in the third quarter at the slowest pace since early last year, as the country struggles to boost flagging growth."

> https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/09/20/chinese-econ...

"It has been a grim month for the Chinese economy: A slew of recent data has revealed the world’s second-largest economy is slowing faster than expected, causing analysts to predict it will miss its relatively modest 5 percent growth target this year."

> https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/china-deflation/

*Chart showing growth in all but one quarter since the start of 2019, and good growth in all but one of the growing quarters*

> https://www.aei.org/economics/chinas-economy-is-in-deep-trou...

"This week’s disappointing Chinese GDP (gross domestic product) numbers showed that Chinese economic growth has slowed to 4.75 percent from the very rapid annual economic growth rate of seven to eight percent during the 2010s"

> https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/06/03/xi-china-economic-decli...

"China’s economy is performing dreadfully. The post-pandemic bounce was far smaller and briefer than the Chinese government had anticipated. Despite recording a respectable, if diminished, official growth rate of 5.2 percent in 2023, the reality may have been much slower, with some analysts estimating growth was no more than 1-2 percent."

> https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/14/business/chinas-gdp-q2.ht...

"China’s economy grew 0.7 percent in the second quarter over the previous three months, below the expectations of most economists. When projected out for the entire year, the economy grew at an annual rate of about 2.8 percent — a little less than half the rate in the first three months of this year."

The USA, by comparison, was 2.5% in 2023.

If China is "in decline" from these numbers, so is the USA.

Re: Carl Sagan Predicts the Decline of America (1995)

#116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is going to replace US? China? Its economy is on the decline with deflation, debts, real estates problem...etc. Europe? Japan?

The problem is that China is still self sufficient. Huge country with a single timezone and great infrastructure and now has the expertise to produce for itself and enough people to buy its own products. Sure there's going to be some instability but even then the dictatorship is helping in preventing people to go too crazy. There's a reason musk is pushing for babies: the US is mostly empty land with a few large citi…

Fascist movements usually crusade for more babies and venture into (futile) nationalistic pro-natalist policies to try and drive up birth rates. Sometimes they fully commit to eugenics programs. It's a thing. But there's a catch.

Some kinds of babies are good and other babies are bad (in their view). They only want "good" babies.

Trump's unconstitutional executive order targeting birthright citizenship tells you all you need to know about who they think the bad ones are.

And though many have tried, no country has figured out how to meaningfully drive up birth rates with pro-natalist policies.

There's only one proven way to get more babies and sustain economic growth when native birthrates decline: MORE IMMIGRATION.

If immigration to the US continues apace, we surpass China's total population within decades and continue strong economic growth comfortably. If TrumpElon really manage to kill the golden goose, welp... it's been real.

Re: Carl Sagan Predicts the Decline of America (1995)

#117
post #109
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a vague slogan, not a meaningful strategy to accomplish anything of consequence. Money is just a tool. The resources and incentives that the money is being spent on already exist, and it's being used to further ambitions and goals that were always present. Getting "money out of politics" in a formalistic way will just lead to corrupt ambitions being facilitated via some other means. Bernie's ideas are very dan…

>That's a vague slogan, not a meaningful strategy to accomplish anything of consequence. Of course. The vast majority of America needs "sound bites" of info. Wish this wasn't the case. But it's worked for decades. >Money is just a tool. The resources and incentives that the money is being spent on already exist, and it's being used to further ambitions and goals that were always present. Getting "money out of politic…

> Super PACs/Citizens United....this is what he's targeting.

And this is part of the problem. Citizens United was a bog standard first amendment ruling that has been targeted by an aggressive misinformation campaign by a faction that wants the unprecedented power to censor political discourse, and people are eating up the misinformation.

> While his policies are a big part of his platform, what really resonates with a lot of people is his unwavering commitment to first principles values like fairness, equality, social justice, and democracy.

But again, his "commitment" is in the form of talk. The reality of the policy positions he does advance is to set us up for the exact opposite of all of those things. I don't know whether he's a well-intentioned fool or a deceptive manipulator, but either way, the consequences are the same. He's just a mirror image of Trump, using vague emotional appeals to win power, then horribly misusing that power.

> Provide just enough support for folks that they still hold agency in their life. As Fred Rogers put it, "There's a world of difference between insisting on someone's doing something and establishing an atmosphere in which that person can grow into wanting to do it."

Absolutely correct. And the problem here is that "insisting on someone's doing something" is the fundamental nature of the political state, while "establishing an atmosphere in which that person can grow into wanting to do it" is the task of a dynamic and pluralistic civil society, in all its forms.

The more we allow the assertion of political power to solve problems that ought rightly be solved by bottom-up activity in civil society, the more we set ourselves up to be the victims of abuse (especially as the well-intentioned people who created the system of political dependence are superseded first by indifferent functionaries, and then by corrupt powermongers).

Re: Carl Sagan Predicts the Decline of America (1995)

#118
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulation doesn't work. It's usually co-opted by the very parties it's intended to regulate, and used as a means to entrench rather than limit their power. In the worst case, it actually makes things far worse by allowing established interests to manipulate regulation to create barriers to entry for competition, produce collusive outcomes that would otherwise be illegal, and replace common-law liability for the actu…

Regulation works fine - you can observe it working fine in every other first world country directly mitigating and resolving many of the problems still present in the US.

I'm afraid I can't observe any of that. All I can see is superficial appearances -- I can't see behind-the-scenes corruption or measure superior alternatives that were suppressed in favor of locking in a marginally mitigated version of the status quo ante.

I can, however, see the some of the unintended consequences of regulatory interventions in other countries. For example, Germany's ban on nuclear power made them dependent on Russian oil imports, inadvertently propping up Putin's regime.

Re: Carl Sagan Predicts the Decline of America (1995)

#119
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let them deliberate without us watching over their shoulders That’s a recipe for disaster. The Founders came up with a Constitution for a reason. Public debate is not our problem. Any more than freedom of speech is our problem.

Please check the link and read some of the articles. They have many many quotes from the founders on voting and deliberating in secrecy, even for the creation of the Constitution itself.

So they considered it, and then left it out of the Constitution.

I wonder why?

/s

I'll concede, in the US, just as in everyplace else, we have a long list of issues with which we need to deal. However, things like public debate and freedom of speech are not present on that list. I, personally, would go one step further, and caution everyone to carefully consider the possible motives of anyone calling for the elimination of public debate and discourse in government.

Re: Carl Sagan Predicts the Decline of America (1995)

#120
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the kind of dishonest motte-and-bailey framing that is all too common in academia, that my post was trying to highlight. There are many aspects and fields of academia that are very obviously ideologically captured, whether that's "studies" in economics and sociology that are obvious attempts to reify the modern consensus of human beings as identical, fungible, latently-liberal economic units. Or it could be w…

I just think “elite” has no meaning if you’re just using it as a synonym for “people I don’t like”. “Elite” is traditionally a synonym for rich white men educated at Ivy League universities working comfortable, high-earning jobs. Those people still exist! Trump is one of them, as is George W Bush, and his father before him.

The contradictions in that definition and its examples indicates to me how outdated it is. Connecting "white men" and Ivy League universities, despite those institutions adopting an ideology explicitly designed to dispossess white men from institutional power. Connecting universities and Trump, despite the Trump administration occupying an opposing faction of power to academia (hence the articles bemoaning this being posted on HN). Connecting Trump to Bush despite Trump existing outside and against the Bush dynasty (to the point that the Democrats took Liz Cheney onboard in their campaign against Trump).

The better definition is simply that the elites of a nation are the ones that hold the most outsized political power, often the kind of intangible power that they are loathe to admit having. Trump is more or less attempting a small-scale revolution in America, being the replacement of one class of elites with another. What the prospective replacement class of elites looks like is harder to say than who they're attempting to replace.

Post reply on HN