[Steve_American]

The title says it all.
The EU holds together because many there fear European wars.
If it falls apart, will there be wars?

In America we fear a civil war.

Which is more likely?
Edit to add --- I mean soon, like in less than 30 years.

[annatar1914]

The title says it all.
The EU holds together because many there fear European wars.
If it falls apart, will there be wars?

In America we fear a civil war.

Which is more likely?

Both will happen, another American civil war, and another Franco-German war. It's as sure as death and taxes.

[Steve_American]

@annatar1914,
Sorry, I forgot to limit it to just 30 years.
Are they both still IYHO going to happen for sure?

[annatar1914]

@annatar1914,
Sorry, I forgot to limit it to just 30 years.
Are they both still IYHO going to happen for sure?

Yes, ''IMHO'', they will both happen, and they'll happen within the next 30 years. Both will be part of a larger cluster of conflict worldwide, which will culminate in the most terrible war in human history, in which indirectly and directly due to these wars will result in the deaths of the greater part of mankind.

Everything going on now from 2020 to 2024 on, again in my opinion, is a preparation on the part of the Elites and their different factions to settle which nation will be on which side, and preparing the future battle zones for the coming strikes.

[quetzalcoatl]

Yes, so far as I can see, a major human die-off is inevitable in the mid-century time frame. The full scope of "major human die-off" is uncertain, but it will certainly reduce human population by half by the century's end (if my predictions hold). It will partially take the form of war. It will also see the dissolution of global order and many of the cobbled-together nation states (US, EU, China, Russia). Water wars, exhaustion of arable land, climate change, ocean death, mass starvation, food hoarding by nations states, and the ultimate failure of capitalism will all intersect within that approximate time frame. The capacity of technology to arrest the negative consequences isn't able to (and can't) keep up with the enormous scope of the forces at work.

This projection from the 70s seems to be holding up remarkably well, and appears to be continuing on track:

[Rich]

Remember to win an election you want the support of the old. To win a civil war you want the support of the youth.

[One Degree]

No. There will be no conventional wars in either. Large scale rioting/conflict resulting in disruption of normal services. Will return to bread lines of the Great Depression and perhaps worse before solutions are worked out. Two possible results, either military dictatorships or small autonomous regions as countries lose control.

[Negotiator]

Wtf why would germany attack France ? France is a nuclear power, for heavens sake. Germany isnt.

And a civil war in USA, well thats already going on, since a many years now. Its just not happening in the news because its poor people vs the police.

[Rancid]

You could argue that what's happening in the US is a mostly non-violent civil war of sorts.

[Negotiator]

Its pretty violent actually, like any war, but the victims of the violence arent really organized, end up in prison and nobody talks with them.

There have been the occasional killing of a policeman, which gets in the news, but thats the exception. How many poor people have been killed by the police, who knows. Its not talked about.

All we really get to see from the outside is that the USA has 5 times the prison population of the worlds average.

[One Degree]

All we really get to see from the outside is that the USA has 5 times the prison population of the worlds average.

So what? This proves nothing. The same people want to argue the ‘uniqueness’ of America while claiming we should not be unique. Since when is having an average prison population some universal test of morality? It’s just some dumb statistic someone thought was important.

[Potemkin]

So what? This proves nothing. The same people want to argue the ‘uniqueness’ of America while claiming we should not be unique. Since when is having an average prison population some universal test of morality? It’s just some dumb statistic someone thought was important.

In exactly the same way that infant mortality rates or literacy rates are just some dumb statistics someone thought were important.

[SolarCross]

Yes, so far as I can see, a major human die-off is inevitable in the mid-century time frame. The full scope of "major human die-off" is uncertain, but it will certainly reduce human population by half by the century's end (if my predictions hold). It will partially take the form of war. It will also see the dissolution of global order and many of the cobbled-together nation states (US, EU, China, Russia). Water wars, exhaustion of arable land, climate change, ocean death, mass starvation, food hoarding by nations states, and the ultimate failure of capitalism will all intersect within that approximate time frame. The capacity of technology to arrest the negative consequences isn't able to (and can't) keep up with the enormous scope of the forces at work.

This projection from the 70s seems to be holding up remarkably well, and appears to be continuing on track:

Going by that infographic..

Notice that the part of the study that is "holding up well" is the part that predicts current trends continuing. Predicting a trend continuing is easy because that is what usually happens, it is basically a status quo prediction. Trend reversals are hard to predict. The study hasn't really held up well at all yet because the trend reversals haven't happened yet.

------

Another thing is war doesn't usually have a big impact on reducing populations because they are usually temporary and mostly it is expendable people dying (men) who often make extra efforts to sow a new generation at the same time (boomers). Only a full scale nuclear war in which civilians (therefore women) are the majority of casualties and which significantly damaged the environments capacity to support life would have a big impact on reducing population.

The only really significant large scale population growth reversal that humanity ever experienced was the Black Death but population bounced back afterwards. Likewise for the Spanish Flu.

However a population is reduced if the carrying capacity of the environment is not then the population will bounce back to fill it. Only an incoming ice age (or nuclear winter) could have the scale to reduce that carrying capacity.

[One Degree]

In exactly the same way that infant mortality rates or literacy rates are just some dumb statistics someone thought were important.

Yep, their relevance is dependent upon the different societies. You may have the lowest literacy rate in the world, but is it important to you? If it is important, is it an improvement over last year?

[Potemkin]

Yep, their relevance is dependent upon the different societies. You may have the lowest literacy rate in the world, but is it important to you? If it is important, is it an improvement over last year?

Indeed, and American society has clearly made a collective decision that it's willing to accept the huge incarceration rates it currently has, just as Soviet society had made a collective decision that it was willing to accept Stalin's purges, and German society had made a collective decision that it was willing to accept Hitler's brutal warmongering. I think it's the wrong decision, but barring invasion and occupation of the USA by a foreign power, only the American people themselves can choose to change that decision.

[SolarCross]

Indeed, and American society has clearly made a collective decision that it's willing to accept the huge incarceration rates it currently has, just as Soviet society had made a collective decision that it was willing to accept Stalin's purges, and German society had made a collective decision that it was willing to accept Hitler's brutal warmongering. I think it's the wrong decision, but barring invasion and occupation of the USA by a foreign power, only the American people themselves can choose to change that decision.

I don't think that collective decision was ever made (in any of those cases).

There are such a large number of factors that could contribute to the large incarceration rates it isn't a trivial task to unravel why. It may be a perfect storm of a variety of different factors:
- an unusually efficient police service (maybe the low incarcentration rates in other countries is due to criminals going uncaught).
- too many laws and regulations making too many things criminal (we already talk about the war on drugs here)
- high multi-culturalism inducing an excess of criminal behavior not found in more ethnically homogenous populations
- some administrative quirk that sees people being held temporarily where in other countries they wouldn't be. Eg, bail, parole procedures. In the US some local offences can be dodged by moving to another state consequently law enforcement officials may be more willing to imprison awaiting trial to prevent that. In another less federal nation that doesn't' happen so much.

[One Degree]

Indeed, and American society has clearly made a collective decision that it's willing to accept the huge incarceration rates it currently has, just as Soviet society had made a collective decision that it was willing to accept Stalin's purges, and German society had made a collective decision that it was willing to accept Hitler's brutal warmongering. I think it's the wrong decision, but barring invasion and occupation of the USA by a foreign power, only the American people themselves can choose to change that decision.

Granted this is one way to see it. Another might be “with great freedom, comes great responsibility”. If you have a country where they want the freedom without the responsibility, then you end up with high prison rates. This is the problem I see in the US and it is getting worse because we are teaching you don’t have personal responsibility for your actions.

[Citizen J]

I hate to say this because of the outlandish source, but I see a 'Titor's war' scenario is more and more likely in America. Whoever 'Titor' was, his predictions seem uncanny. Dare I say, "prescient"?

[Citizen J]

This is the problem I see in the US and it is getting worse because we are teaching you don’t have personal responsibility for your actions.

Isn't incarceration, itself, a lesson in personal responsibility?

[One Degree]

Isn't incarceration, itself, a lesson in personal responsibility?

Only in theory. Few come out of prison better than they went in.

We give our young unlimited chances. We are not suppose to punish them. We are suppose to use positive reinforcement. Then when they turn 21, we put them in prison because we never taught them to take responsibility.
This is some of the stuff our ‘liberal society’ buries. It is no secret that law abiding citizens were taught responsibility at home. Telling schools detentions are unfair, failing is unfair, suspension is unfair, etc. Where do they learn ‘actions have consequences’?