2016: A Damnable Year

Really? They got crippling sanctions (from their own side, too) and inflation for a little swathe of land that barely produces anything so far this year. And most of their allies collaborate with them out of convenience not loyalty. I can't see them profiting.They're lucky if they at least break even.

Just to get us back on topic about how we're all doomed.

And as for who have gotten hit the hardest by the chaos and turmoil by this year, it is probably France, with all the terrorist attacks that have been happening there, the refugee crisis, the rise of right-wing psychopaths in Europe and the US, and the UK leaving the European Union and damaging the Euro.

edited 22nd Aug '16 9:31:47 PM by Bat178

Well, for situations that arose this year, that certainly seems to be the case.

I think Turkey earns that spot.

How about using the old way to finance building infrastructure for the new way?

edited 24th Aug '16 3:07:57 AM by amitakartok

In terms of terrorist attacks, I think 2015 was still the worst year regarding the matter (check wikipedia). There seems to be a little more political instability though, like Turkey or the U.S.A.

But call me an optimistic, I don't think a Trump presidency could cause a WW3 or anything in such proportions and, for me, I find it difficult to do worse than the Bush administration did. Stronger military action against ISIS and economical reforms would happen, but nowadays, I think human society has evolved to a point where any country is much more unlikely to start a war based on ultra-patriotism, although it can still be a dangerous movement.

Trump rolling over in the face of Russian and Chinese aggression is the biggest geopolitical threat he poses. Other than climate change.

Please also check out that Duterte fellow from the Philippines. He's been called a "Philippine Trump" and I wonder what that says.

Don't forget the increasingly loud voices from the Luddites. I simply can't believe that they are still exist, considering how much technology has help us so far.

Given that said technology is increasingly making it difficult to find work (a difficulty that will exponentially increase with advances in AI), it's not without reason. Its not hatred of technology so much as hatred of what its doing to prospects of living a happy life. No point in all those technological wonders if you can't make the money to afford and therefore enjoy them.

That's a good point. New technology also supposedly increase productivity and create new jobs. I guess in practice something wrong happens along the way. It's such a shame. Thanks, I still disagree with them, but their opinion is more reasonable to me than before.

I think the reverse has been happening in recent years.

No it's been happening, but the new jobs go to different people to thosue who worked the old jobs.

The dream has always been that technology would one day free humanity from the need for toil; no one ever seemed to consider that if people are freed from toil, they're going to have trouble earning the money to feed themselves.

Not to mention having nothing to do is boring.

Well, work isn't the only thing you can do. Most people do have the need to feel productive, though. Still, I'd say most people in the West have serious trouble figuring out what to do with themselves if they aren't working, as their work so defines and dominates their lives.

So, from what I read here, new technology is better directed towards making people able to do things that they normally can't do rather than helping them do things better?

How about using the old way to finance building infrastructure for the new way?

That'd work if our politicians weren't only interested on destroying any infraestructure not directly related to keeping them in power and leeching the finances for their personal profit instead of building the new way.

And before you ask why don't we boot them out then, what do you think we've been trying to do to no avail over the best part of the last decade?

edited 24th Aug '16 6:36:09 PM by NapoleonDeCheese

An group, regardless of the principles on which they were founded, if they come to power will tend to eventually abandon their principles in favor of keeping themselves in power. The primary goal of the status quo is to maintain the status quo.

edited 24th Aug '16 9:49:15 PM by Robbery

I wasn't going to ask that, seeing as I have experience what it's like to live under politicians of that kind.

So I came across an interesting and pertinent (academic) article in a political science journal The Danger of Deconsolidation: The Democratic Disconnect; it's a preliminary call for investigation into whether or not liberal democracies in the developed world are in the process of becoming deconsolidated; ie if we are, as many fear, on a road back towards absolutism.

This concern is based on a consistent rise in support for authoritarian positions among certain sectors of the youth population (namely among young economic elites, and there's a similar but less pronounced trend among elite demographics regardless of age) over the course of the post-war generations, combined with extreme detachment and apathy towards the political process among other sectors of the youth population.

@Advarielle: Loyalty (and other kinds of sentimentality) is more or less totally irrelevant when it comes to international relations. Nations can and will turn on even the most stalwart of allies if they no longer serve each others geopolitical interests.

edited 1st Sep '16 8:13:06 AM by CaptainCapsase

As someone who has long been suspicious of the "Step 1. Democracy, Step 2.?, Step 3. Profit!" mentality of the West in particular and the world in general, I do feel the realization that that is a faulty line of logic will play into the chaos that is imminent.

edited 1st Sep '16 9:54:39 AM by FFShinra

The main problem with that mentality is that the help from the west is for the lack of a better word, half-hearted. You can't just give them money or democracy and then leave. Helping others isn't easy and take a lot of time and effort. You must deal with the source of the problem, guide them slowly without being patronizing, spend a lot of money to support their transition, and so on. The west aren't doing that. They just come, kill some high-priority targets, blow stuff up, give democracy, and then leave. Of course, it's going to end up in disaster.

Heck, if we want to talk about the incompetence of the west at helping people, we should talk about Darfur first before these democracy stuff.

Oh I don't just mean outside the west. We are seeing the very tools of democracy devolving into mob rule mentality in Europe and elsewhere.