Pretty sure climate change is the answer.

  • @FeloniousPunk@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    142 months ago

    The answer is ‘whatever you feel concerned about’ and multiply that by 300 million. Charles Bukowski said (paraphrasing) that it’s not the big things that will break a man, its the little things that drive men mad - like a broken shoelace.

    It’s not just going to be one big issue but an aggregation of all little issues. And boy, do we have issues.

  • @CrazyLikeGollum@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    192 months ago

    I doubt it will be climate change specifically. I think it will be the increasing political divisiveness. It’ll be a whole bunch of different issues, climate change included, that neither political party can agree on the reality of, much less how to address them that will continue to escalate tensions between the two major political parties until we reach the point of a second civil war.

    I think America is less than 50 years away from that point. The path we’re on ends in war. Who knows if our country will survive.

    • @bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      32 months ago

      50 years is generous, I could realistically see widespread civil disorder by the end of the decade. People are pissed and verging on desperate, and I don’t blame them. It’s finally becoming blatant to the common person just how rigged the system is against the masses, and the social contract is rapidly crumbling.

  • HobbitFoot
    link
    fedilink
    English
    342 months ago

    I feel like a Elon Musk backed Trump administration might do it.

    Musk has already stepped in a lot of shit saying that Americans don’t want to work any more as a reason for increasing H1B visas. Trump has also said that inflation isn’t going to be something his administration is going to fix; a lot of his policies will make it worse.

    Combine that with conservative media having a hard time demonizing Luigi is beginning to create a crack between the Republican leadership and its MAGA base.

    • @NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      52 months ago

      “There seems to be a lot of confusion about this interaction. I personally am the biggest fan of Elon on the planet and I always will be. I’m also capable of disagreeing with people I deeply respect and admire," the user wrote

      Said the conservative who was just told by Elon to go fuck his face. I hope you’re right but they seem pretty easily manipulated still.

    • @Schmoo@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      102 months ago

      I think the right-wing made a mistake engaging in populism. They’ve politically activated millions of people and are starting to lose control of the narrative. I might be mistaken, but I’ve been getting the feeling that the MAGA folks are becoming increasingly receptive to left-wing populist arguments.

      Even Steve Bannon of all people responded to the H-1B visa drama with a left-wing populist argument, where he said foreign workers who came here on H-1B visas were treated like indentured servants.

      • HobbitFoot
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22 months ago

        The right wing had to engage in right wing populism to retain its base. Mitt Romney wouldn’t have won 2016 or 2024.

        • @Schmoo@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          32 months ago

          Meanwhile the Democratic Party refuses to change and is losing its base, allowing the right wing to dominate the narrative. I don’t know what’s going to happen, but the optimistic side of me hopes there will finally be a left populist resurgence, just as the right wing is losing its grip.

  • @not_that_guy05@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    9
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Not climate change.

    There’s a reason there’s American companies buying up fresh water and aquifers all over the world. When it comes to pushing and shoving, the US would have the upper hand.

    • @bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      42 months ago

      That’s a blood statement to assume they’d be able to keep guard on it from people that would be literally dying of thirst.

      • @not_that_guy05@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        12 months ago

        Do you think they won’t protect something that will become a national security? Look at what they do with oil and “national security”.

        • @bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          32 months ago

          There’s a huge difference between oil and water when water reserves need defense, the latter of which rendering the former a non-issue.

          Water wars will make oil wars look like kindergarteners playing in a sandbox.

  • Call me Lenny/LeniM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    22 months ago

    Political breaking point or physical breaking point?

    Politically, I’d say the whole national debt thing is going to take a toll and we’re going to see internationally backed revolutions in the US, in every part that wasn’t one of the thirteen colonies.

    Physically though? If anything, it would be something like damage to the ecosystem.

      • @xmunk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        52 months ago

        So there’s this thing called MMT which essentially (vast oversimplification incoming) opines that the national debt is meaningless as long as we’re the dominant military power and everyone uses our currency (most large multinational trade deals are balanced with USD and most currencies derive a portion of their value from the country’s stockpile of USD). That theory has so far not been proven correct nor incorrect but we might be both 1) coming up on the first real test of MMT and 2) seriously breaking assumptions of MMT (BRICS has been investigating an alternative trade currency and Russia has a lot of oil and gas it wants to sell but USD sanctions have prevented).

        Is MMT correct or fantasy? Well, a lot of MMT supporters are highly paid government employees whose employer really wants them to say it’s correct but we haven’t really been able to run an experiment on it or anything.

  • @djsoren19@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    102 months ago

    I mean, the fundamental breakdown of civility is going to be the answer, because widespread politically-motivated violence cannot happen without it. How long it will take for the country that keeps threatening to devolve into a civil war to actually do so is anyone’s guess.

  • palordrolap
    link
    fedilink
    42 months ago

    My prediction: There will be riots and looting, which will be squashed by police and/or military. The riots will increase until martial law is declared.

    The US will become an effective dictatorship, but no-one there will call it that and that word will be conspicuously absent from other English media elsewhere in the world, despite that being precisely the right word.

    Eventually, the leadership’s grip will weaken as the old guard dies off and people with marginally less extreme views take up positions of power. In time, things will loosen up and regular, genuine elections might start happening. First at a local level and then eventually spreading country-wide.

    This will, of course, take the rest of the 21st century to play out.

    Just in time for the next pandemic, and the next round of riots because the biosphere’s wrecked.

    Yay, humanity!

    (I’d like to be wrong about this, but it’s been seen enough times before.)

    • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12 months ago

      The US will become an effective dictatorship

      Nah, I think would be more like a Syria situation, a de facto split of the country for an extended perid of time.

  • @WoodScientist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    292 months ago

    Historically, in the US at least, violent movements are a precursor to peaceful social change. People protest and protest peaceful for decades, and little to nothing actually changes.

    I mean think about it, do you think for example that an insurance company that is run by people freely willing to kill tens of thousands of people have any problem just ignoring any number of protesters? No one ever got any rights by asking nicely. Every social change we’ve experienced has had both peaceful and violent components.

    This doesn’t morally justify violence, but it does show that violence doesn’t just keep escalating until we go full on civil war. Whenever inequality or injustice gets to critical levels, some desperate people decide that nonviolence doesn’t work and that more extreme actions are needed. Suffragettes were involved in many arson campaigns. Slavery didn’t end until the Union army forced it to end. Unions got their rights to organize through armed battles and by torching factories with their bosses locked inside. The black civil rights movement required both non-violent resistance, but also violent groups like the Black Panthers waiting in the wings, offering a more violent solution if a peaceful one wasn’t found. Stonewall was a riot.

    America tends to go through periods of increasing wealth and social inequality. Things build up until some people feel so pressured, either by personal circumstance or ideology, that they believe violence is the only option. This doesn’t make this violence right or just, but it is simply part of human nature. It happens again and again and again. When the elite push the masses far enough, eventually they start killing elites and setting their property on fire. And there’s not a whole lot that can be done to prevent it, as these tend to be random crimes by detached individuals acting on their own. The elites will always overreach and respond with harsher criminal penalties. But when someone is willing to throw their life away for something, there’s really no penalties that will make a difference.

    And ultimately, that kind of violence, or threat of it, is usually what breaks the dam that previously prevented peaceful social change. Elites rarely give a single iota about the common man. In order to acquire that level of wealth and power, you pretty much have to be a sociopath in some form or another. That is as true now as it was in the age of hereditary nobility. But eventually the elite learn that something they actually care about - their own wealth or their own lives, are at risk. And even if the elite can hide themselves behind private armies, they inevitably find that their vast holdings of property aren’t so easily protected. Arson has historically played a huge role in these types of social inflection points.

    So pressure will continue to build, but society isn’t going to break. Rather, crimes against life and, especially property, will continue. I sadly expect to see a lot of arson carried out by incendiary drones in the near future. And these acts of violence will continue to grow ever more common until the sociopaths at the top realize, “wait, it’s actually costing me more money NOT to improve things for the common man, let’s throw the people some bones.”

    That’s pretty much how every right or liberty you enjoy today was achieved. Rarely does outright revolution completely overthrow the old order and bring out the literal guillotines. The French Revolution was the exception, not the rule. What we are seeing now is just the normal and inevitable course of history, that has happened time and time again. The people get pushed and exploited past a critical level, and the more unhinged among the population start taking violent action. This violence builds and builds, and eventually the elite realize it’s more profitable to accept some of those quite reasonable reforms that the non-violent folks have been politely asking for for decades.

    Take heart. This has all happened before. It is happening now. And in the future, it will happen again.