eli_sennesh comments on On saving the world - Less Wrong

101 Post author: So8res 30 January 2014 08:00PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (166)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: fezziwig 31 January 2014 03:47:06PM 10 points [-]

Lots of people say that, but how would say America's troubles rate next Syria's, say? Or those of post-Soviet Russia?

I think many Americans have a hard time distinguishing "genuine catastrophes" from "the worst things ever to happen in America that I noticed in my lifetime".

Comment author: [deleted] 31 January 2014 06:08:19PM 0 points [-]

Nobody said that it was a quick death. In fact, I would have called a quick death beneficial. Most countries throughout history have a crisis, crash, and then get back on their feet after a few years. It's the ones who are brittle and unable to change that end up with long-term problems.

If we want to talk about Western countries, for instance, compare the USA with, say, Germany. Germany has had far more successions of government than the United States, but currently functions better because they change when a crisis hits.

Or compare Syria with Tunisia -- like with like. Protests in Syria led the government to use violent force over a period of years, leading to absolute disaster (by the way, you will notice on my profile that I don't even that far from Syria). In Tunisia, the government actually stepped down, and things have improved. Egypt is a borderline case.