America Will Collapse in 75 Years.

[eyez0nme]

I have been saying this for a long time. If the end of the world doesn't come, The United States will not last another 75 years. I guarantee it.

Rome was doing the exact same things before it fell: It went around to other places, and enforced itself over others, getting in peoples buisness's, and then tried to instill the notion of equality, which is a farce. And then the it collapsed.

[Praetorian]

I doubt it will collapse, it just won't be the superpower it is today anymore.

[anver]

I think that America collapsing in less than a century is definitely possible.
It might become a corrupt nation, filled with lies and propaganda.
It might only loose power.

I'm not able to predict the future of the USA.

[delen]

the world today is too technologicly different to draw concrete conclusions based on rome IMO

[Kusoyaro]

But technology has very little to do with politics. Politics remains the same, essdentially, that's what it's for. America, within the next 75 years? I don't think it will fall, but it will certainly lose or slip in its super-power title. Most likely it will be China that takes it's place, and India also, which is why the US has been making trade embargoes to help out India now and has been exporting much of its services there. Favours are the lifeblood of jaded politicos. Even now, the United States is hardly the world leader in technology, as they claim to be, and in terms of politics, it is just the same, if not worse (election fiasco, no one did anything) than any other nation. The only thing that they have an abundance of is fat people. There is much more to this, but I can't think right now. I just woke up.
But doubtlessly there are going to be like a billion people arguing against this notion. They want reality to fit into their box.

[Tensei]

You seem to forget too, that rome lasted A SHIT load more than we have so far.

75 years? I seriously doubt it. China will be on the move for economic power, but, communism never wins.

[Cool Bones]

The only thing that they have an abundance of is fat people.

ROFL XD

I doubt they will collapse but they won't be number one soon.

[RDClip]

75 years, huh? Seems pretty realistic. Back in the old days, it took hundreds of years for empires to fall. Since things happen much faster nowadays, I suppose that 75 years is reasonable.

[paul]

The only thing that they have an abundance of is fat people.
Do not understimate the power of the fat people. :watson:

[Monkey]

Do not understimate the power of the fat people. :watson:
To break floorboards.

Now that's a kinda collapse I believe in...

[The Chuck Norris]

I have been saying this for a long time. If the end of the world doesn't come, The United States will not last another 75 years. I guarantee it.

Rome was doing the exact same things before it fell: It went around to other places, and enforced itself over others, getting in peoples buisness's, and then tried to instill the notion of equality, which is a farce. And then the it collapsed.

It's easier for The Chuck Norris to take people seriously when they spell-check before they post. :)

[Trump]

You talk about history but have you looked at the government of the US? How many times has it gone through a complete changes in philosphy? The beauty of this government is that it can change and adapt. From isolationism to interventionism is just one aspect. You talk about the election scandals and impeachments and all sorts of things that might tarnish the president, but has that irrevocably damaged the government? No, it has just ousted the culprits and let new people come in and try their way of doing things. So to say the US will fall in 75 years is to completely ignore history. Besides, who knows what the future will bring?

[raydude]

I have been saying this for a long time. If the end of the world doesn't come, The United States will not last another 75 years. I guarantee it.

Rome was doing the exact same things before it fell: It went around to other places, and enforced itself over others, getting in peoples buisness's, and then tried to instill the notion of equality, which is a farce. And then the it collapsed.

There is a fallacy in this analogy and that is equating Roman conquest with American intervention. When Rome sent troops to another region they went there to conquer. Roman troops and Roman rule never left until and unless they were forced to - usually by barbarians.

Contrast this with the US where the first question usually asked when troops are sent is "When are the troops coming home?". If we only go back 10 years we see that US troops and control has always been withdrawn as soon as possible, if not sooner. Somalia, Bosnia, Lebanon, Iraq (first war). Even now we are asking ourselves when total power and control can be ceded to Iraq and the troops come home.

Nor are we the first country to do this, and nor are we the worlds first superpower. I would argue in fact that the first "modern" superpower was Great Britain in the 18th and 19th century. And if you read up on your history you'll realize that Britain is one of the most meddlesome countries the world has ever seen. She's been involved in European politics, Asian, Middle-East, and African. Her attempts to achieve peace in the Middle East between Arabs and Jews predates ours by 50 years. If one were to apply your Roman analogy to Britain it would prove false, since obviously Britain is still standing.

Now, if you want to argue that the US in 75 years won't be a superpower, then yes I would agree with you. No country remains a superpower forever, and dominance of nations rise and fall. But I think the nation called the United States of America will still stand.

[delen]

But technology has very little to do with politics.

I believe this to be completely false but I do not feel like agruing the subject cause i am too lazy to type a lot.

[Scott]

I believe this to be completely false but I do not feel like agruing the subject cause i am too lazy to type a lot.

Then don't post.

Another reason the Roman empire fell that was related to its expansion was the loss of what made it Roman - whatever that was. Rome expanded too quickly, and though it maintained its policy of absorbing other cultures and indoctrinating them in the Roman way, for a while, it was expanding at such a rate that the cultures wouldn't have become fully Roman at the time that they would have been called on as Romans. For example, the Roman army had come to be comprised of mostly citizens from new provinces, with the officers being 'true' Romans.

A modern-day comparison here would be the huge influx of immigration from all places - some would argue that the 'American' culture is being lost because the influx is continuing at a rate greater than our ability to teach/indoctrinate. HOWEVER, the ruling class of America as well as the army are still thoroughly "American", in contrast to Rome.

Another flaw in the comparison between America and Rome is that America is not attempting to make Iraq a state or even a possession - Rome would move in with resources and army and attempt to make its territories Roman in every sense of the word - this is not what America is doing in Iraq. I'm not saying that what America's doing is good or bad, but simply that it is not Roman. Our resources are not being overextended, and we are not currently threatened by any other countries. Unlike the Roman period, politics have crystallized to some extent, with relationships stretching across the world, creating a system of checks in balances. In the Roman world, a tribe (for example, the Ostrogoths or the Visigoths, with whom Alaric eventually invaded the city proper) could attack Rome without fear of repercussions from other nations or even tribes. This is not possible today due to the balance created by treaties such as NATO.

I could go on and on... but America is not Rome.

[MoosecatcherPrime]

There was a lot of bumps in the road (costly wars, corrupt Emperors) during Rome's existance well before it fell that makes what we're going through look like nothing. I'll admit we're going through some tough times, and I'll admit the US government right now really sucks a peener, but these things have happened before (shitty economy, bad leadership etc.) on larger proportions (1970s, among others), and we'll probably pull ourselves out of the hole we've dug at least somewhat.

I'm not too worried about the rise of China or India or of any other emerging nation at the moment; China's banks are ill-equipped and run at the moment and there remains much corruption within it's inner circles; of anything, they're headed for major political turmoil as a middle and upper class is beginning to form and grow explosively there.

[Zslash]

fine, make any assertions you like. if america is still a superpower you will owe me a coke. no questions asked

[B RoCkS1010]

Yeah if anything itll lose a little power. You cant really compare this to Rome because back then their wasnt atomic bombs like their is now. You cant predict the future. For all we know Bush could just be like "fuck it lets just blow up everything else except the US". I could see this happening if the UN just stopped all together because without the UN the US wouldnt be as "great" as it is now.

[Scott]

Yeah if anything itll lose a little power. You cant really compare this to Rome because back then their wasnt atomic bombs like their is now. You cant predict the future. For all we know Bush could just be like "fuck it lets just blow up everything else except the US". I could see this happening if the UN just stopped all together because without the UN the US wouldnt be as "great" as it is now.

Umm... um.

I guess all I can really say to this is that there are three reasons Bush would never do that:

1. He would never be allowed to, President or not.

2. The US relies on the world for various goods and services.

3. Nuclear destruction on that scale would destroy the world's ecology, and thus the US.

[delen]

Then don't post.

I shouldn't share my opinions because I don't feel like writing a thesis on them? Um... no I think still will. Sorry if this disappoints you.

[macnadvatra]

I shouldn't share my opinions because I don't feel like writing a thesis on them? Um... no I think still will. Sorry if this disappoints you.
You shouldn't share your opinions if you don't have anything to back them up; otherwise, they're fairly meaningless to others in a topic such as this.

[Xephon]

I agree that the 21st century will see other countries (i.e India, China, maybe Russia once again, possibly the E.U. if they get their shit together) become more powerful, economically and militarily. But the U.S ceasing to be a nation? Unless there's a Civil War worse than the last one, I doubt it. I predict that the US will continue to be a World Power if not the superpower it still is today for another 50 years as other countries race to catch up to what we are NOW. Power wise, it'll probably be in this order as we head farther into this century.

1. United State
2. EU(if they really work it out)
3. India or China (Good=massive workpool, Bad=massive peasant population)

[Wiss]

I don't believe that we can make a flat statement regarding the fall of America in the next 75 years due to the sheer pace of the advancment of technology. As an example: Should we begin to develop expansion into space (our Moon, Mars and the Asteroid Belt) in the next 30 years I believe that the US would be on the forefront. This would put the US on an expansionist mode and allow for a huge presence in the industries that this would spawn, not to mention any further leaps in science that it would allow.

Of course this example is not likely due to the current government policies. the Christian theocracy or bread and circuses seems to be the trend nowadays.

I really see that whoever is the first to start utilizing the resources likely present in the asteroid belt and pioneers zero-g industry (currently done on a small scale on the ISS) will lead the way for rest of the century and probably the next. And yes I do read too much science fiction.

Another possibility would be the impact of Biotech and any practical life extensions that could occur in the next 20 years could greatly shift the present trends.

[Artful_Dodger]

That long?

It may not "collapse," but it will "fall."

America has developed fundamental opposition to technologies necessary to forge ahead into the future. In addition to that, corporations in America lack the reason, or forced initiative, to drive forward and be innovative.

[Quartermaster]

Haven't people been saying this for a very long time?

[Angelyne]

Ok Chicken Littles, for reasons already discussed, comparing Rome to America is just a bad, bad example. Did the OP conveniently forget that the Eastern Roman Empire lasted another 900 years after Rome itself fell? :whoops:

And am I the only one who remembers the '80s? The big fear back then was that Japan was supposed to surpass us economically, and become the world's biggest financial superpower. That worked out real well, didn't it? :duh:

[Scott]

And am I the only one who remembers the '80s?

I'm not that old, sorry. I was born in the 80s. :P

[Matt W]

I don't think the U.S. will collapse, but it is definitely on the decline. Bush has taken America on such the wrong track, ignoring problems, wasting resources, hurting prestige, that it will take a serious effort to right the country.
Also, I think in 75 years the concept of nations will not be anywhere near as important due to the increasingly global and interconnected economy.

I think China and India are the rising powers. NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman described China and India's futures something like this, and I think it is a good way to look at it:
China is like a 6 lane highway, where the roads are well paved, streetlights lighting the way, everyone going 100 mph. But in the distance, there is a speed bump called political reform, and either the cars will jump up in the air and land on its wheels without lasting damage, or it will crash hard.
India is like a 6 lane highway with potholes everywhere, no streetlights, lots of traffic, but in the distance the road appears to smooth out. But it could just be a mirage.

[jetsetter]

Not so much on the decline as others countries are catching up. You can't really predict the future. There will be new leaders and new challenges. Rome is very different than the United States. If you would bother to read up a bit you would see that.

[raydude]

America...has already collapsed. Moral destruction. Not just this country, but the world.

Nope, you can't base that just from looking around California. The other states are doing a lot better :).

[FireWolf238]

first off i did not read all the posts because i'm lazy.
with that said, my claim:
rome fell because it's citizens got too lazy to work and the emprie rott to death, the fact that rome controled most of the human world has bsolutely nothing to do with romes collapse; the fact that barbarians burned rome is correct only because romans became too lazy to run their own goverment and the barbarians themselves took control over it, so the barbians burned an empty shell that was once rome.
now this process took about 300 years or so(not sure of numbers), and roman empire itself exsisted for 1000 years(again numbers). USA only exsisted for 230 years, making any predictions based on previous models(rome in this case) is absurd because US did not exsist long enough. If US is collapsing now than we will know about it in maybe 500 years when it has defenitly collapsed and its memory is forgotten. any paterns we can detect in any one lifetime, is nothing more than minor noise in a much bigger picture than we cannot yet even draw.

[Druid]

My goodman, you are describing things we've had for thousands of years. What REALLY matters is influence. Never forget that as it goes. Influence is everything. It has attributed to the rise and fall of every nation, every CIVILIZATION, to date. Vry important thing she is...

[Kusoyaro]

Only for the past decade (that in a century the US will no longer be the super-power).
Most of the views presented here are based on fact, but the truth of the matter, which we can all concede, is that the US as a nation is undergoing some pretty intensive changes. There is no more freedom (please don't argue merely for arguments sake), especially after 9/11, and that rend will progress thanks to a number of ratifications made in the last few years. This WILL affect a lot of theworld because as of right now the US is THE superpower. However, as it becomes more insular and utalitarian (it won't become utalitarian, i hope, but it will -and is- borrow some traits), it will inevitably fall behind in the economic sector as more and more of industry (not a typo or grammatical error) begins outsourcing, which as you may have noticed, has already begun (primairly to India and China). Other nations have been doing this for a number of years, but it shouldn't be neccesary for a nation with the US's population and shit.
Blah, i don't even care. If it will fall, then i'll watch it fall, if not, then whatever.

[raydude]

Yes, but they are increasing rapidly.

One of the important things that one can learn from studying history is that our problems are not new. The many ills cited by jethrokun were being touted way way back in US history in the 1800s, as the US experienced a large influx of immigrants and the nation entered the industrial age.

The Temperance Movement of the time saw alcohol abuse as the problem. Abuse of alchohol led to domestic violence, i.e. spousal and child abuse, and an increase in violent crime and poverty. This led to the Prohibition, the 18th ammendment to the US consitution and the ban on alchohol consumption. Ironically this led to an even greater rise in crime and helped in the creation of the mob. Corruption, bribery, and a collapse of moral fiber were all too common in the period known as the Roaring Twenties.

Still, enough people cared that we were able to get through all that. Long story short, the Roaring Twenties ended, the 18th amendment was repealed, and now the mob is now a shell of its once great empire of crime.

This is not to say that everything is peachy keen in our current affairs. We now have a rising deficit, our economy is fueled by consumers spending money they don't have (i.e. on credit), and we have increasingly become the society of 'the next best thing'. However, it is not on a downward spiral toward destruction any more so than the 1920's were. We only need enough people to care.

[Collapse]

Okay. And Rome had Byzantine and it adopted Greek culture along the way. Macedon?

Personally, the U.S government may start something and may end up in an all-out war. Might be. I mean, take a look right now.

If people are saying that America went down deeply wayward, damn man, they should take a look at Asia!

[Anubis Nine]

The US isn't going to have a lot of natural resources I think in 75 years,

With hurricanes destroying the south eastern coasts more frequently, desertification, and pollution, America might become a very dirty civilization,

But then again, even if California runs out of water. Apparently BC is supposed to sell it to them.

[Kusoyaro]

LOL, if BC and CAli don't both sink. The fault-line is getting more active, I hear.

[Dead Sexy Vocab]

America could end up like Rome, but not as broke down as it was back then.

It might just get ghetto, and that's it.

And Bush's head will be contained in an aquatic container that'll keep him alive for centuries to come.

He'll be der fuhrer.

HEIL DOOBYAH!!

[Dennis nist]

With globalization on the rampage, nationstates will become obsolete. In the future you will be judged by who you work for.

To be honest it was a miracle that rome held itself together for so long that it did. All large empires are vulnerbale because of their size and unflexibility. USA is the same. If the economy collapses USA is gone.

I hate capitalism

[raydude]

With globalization on the rampage, nationstates will become obsolete. In the future you will be judged by who you work for.

To be honest it was a miracle that rome held itself together for so long that it did. All large empires are vulnerbale because of their size and unflexibility. USA is the same. If the economy collapses USA is gone.

I hate capitalism

One must remember the side effect of globalization means that EVERY country's economy is affected by the economies of other countries. And no country affects the world economy like the United States. Pretty much every country in the world either sells to the US, buys from the US, or receives monetary aid from the US. So, if the US economy collapes, the world economy collapses with it. Given that, the world isn't going to stand idly by if the US decides to self-implode.

[Praetorian]

One must remember the side effect of globalization means that EVERY country's economy is affected by the economies of other countries. And no country affects the world economy like the United States. Pretty much every country in the world either sells to the US, buys from the US, or receives monetary aid from the US. So, if the US economy collapes, the world economy collapses with it. Given that, the world isn't going to stand idly by if the US decides to self-implode.


How about the European Union? It pretty much accuratelly fits your description too. Except that it technically isn't a country. Yet.

[ApathyEcstasy]

I don't think the U.S. will collapse, but it is definitely on the decline. Bush has taken America on such the wrong track, ignoring problems, wasting resources, hurting prestige, that it will take a serious effort to right the country.
Also, I think in 75 years the concept of nations will not be anywhere near as important due to the increasingly global and interconnected economy.

I think China and India are the rising powers. NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman described China and India's futures something like this, and I think it is a good way to look at it:
China is like a 6 lane highway, where the roads are well paved, streetlights lighting the way, everyone going 100 mph. But in the distance, there is a speed bump called political reform, and either the cars will jump up in the air and land on its wheels without lasting damage, or it will crash hard.
India is like a 6 lane highway with potholes everywhere, no streetlights, lots of traffic, but in the distance the road appears to smooth out. But it could just be a mirage.


those are good metaphors...but what i'm curious what the equivalent of a metaphor for america would be like

also..i think if the concept of nations were to ever fade in significance..it would only be replaced by the concept of corporations being the REAL big players behind the scenes pulling all the strings..okay so it's pretty much like that these days (LOL LOBBYISTS) but not to as great of an extent as i'm thinking it potentially would be in the future..

[ApathyEcstasy]

One must remember the side effect of globalization means that EVERY country's economy is affected by the economies of other countries. And no country affects the world economy like the United States. Pretty much every country in the world either sells to the US, buys from the US, or receives monetary aid from the US. So, if the US economy collapes, the world economy collapses with it. Given that, the world isn't going to stand idly by if the US decides to self-implode.

if the US decides to self-implode...there's nothing any other countries can do about it..even if they wanted to..so that's a moot point

[raydude]

How about the European Union? It pretty much accuratelly fits your description too. Except that it technically isn't a country. Yet.

The economy of the EU definitely affects the world economy, no question. However, the annual trade flow into and out of the EU does not yet compare to the current trade flow of the US. It will someday, but not currently. In addition, the EU is only basically a trade conglomerate. The EU doesn't decide who gets foreign aid, for example. That's left to the individual member countries. The combination of trade + loans + financial aid from the US is what drives the economy of many countries.


if the US decides to self-implode...there's nothing any other countries can do about it..even if they wanted to..so that's a moot point

Actually there's a lot of things other countries can do. They can influence American media, which in turn influences US popular opinion, which inevitably influences US politics. The Vietnam war is a perfect example of how a foreign country used the media to help expel US intervention.

The US economy is an open economy. The public companies, which sell stock on the stock market, can be controlled by owning the majority of the stock. Should the US economy start spiraling downward you'd see a lot of companies being bought. Private property can be bought. The 80's saw a period where many hotels and retail properties were being bought by Japanese companies.

And then finally, nothing galvanizes a nation quite like the threat of invasion or war. If the US starts deteriorating then you can count on beligerent nations to start "rattling the saber" or mobilizing for war with their neighbors. Some of those neighbors will be of vital interest to the United States.

[Megaman]

I have been saying this for a long time. If the end of the world doesn't come, The United States will not last another 75 years. I guarantee it.

Rome was doing the exact same things before it fell: It went around to other places, and enforced itself over others, getting in peoples buisness's, and then tried to instill the notion of equality, which is a farce. And then the it collapsed.

Wow, I was just thinking about this in our History class two days ago! (What makes you think it'll last 75 whole years?

Don't forget the increasingly widening gap between classes (not that big of a deal right now...), lazy/fat people who don't care about the country's affairs, corrupt political officers, and increased stress from military issues?

[RDClip]

I'm quite curious, with how much I know of teh fall of superpowers, I'm not very knowledgable on the events that caused the fall on the British Empire. Was it just because WW2 just wore the crap out of their military and power? Was it because their empire was too widespread? Can someone give me a detailed explination?

perhaps we can see a relation there.

[Druid]

Because the flavor of the week was freedom. It would make Britain look very bad to keep conquored countries for themselves like the Germans did.

[raydude]

Don't forget the increasingly widening gap between classes (not that big of a deal right now...), lazy/fat people who don't care about the country's affairs, corrupt political officers, and increased stress from military issues?

You mean like in the early 1800's when rail barons were profitting off cheap labor and corrupt politicians looked the other way? Or the 1860's when we had a civil war and increased stress from military issues? Or the 1920's when the US Marines were sent to different countries in Latin America to represent US interests? Or the 1930's with the Great Depression? Or the race riots of the 1960's? Or the gas scare of the 1970's? Or the internet bubble in the 1990's?

Yep, according to you guys America should have died somewhere between 1830 and 2006.

[Druid]

If the internet was right about anything, the world would have ended upwards of 50 times by now.

[raydude]

I'm quite curious, with how much I know of teh fall of superpowers, I'm not very knowledgable on the events that caused the fall on the British Empire. Was it just because WW2 just wore the crap out of their military and power? Was it because their empire was too widespread? Can someone give me a detailed explination?

perhaps we can see a relation there.

The events leading up to and after World Wars I and II saw the rise of US dominance in world affairs as Britain's dominance declined. Also too, many of the European colonies, which includes those held by Britain, were calling for independence.

World War 2 saw the loss of British posessions in Singapore, Malaysia and Borneo, among others. Following WW2 it was easier to grant them independence from Britain than spend the money and resources it would take to keep them under British rule. Britain tried to hold on to India but finally relented in 1947, granting India full independence.

In addition, many realms of the British empire just simply evolved into their own countries, peacefully, and without protest from England. Canada, New Zealand, and Australia achieved independence from England in 1926 - although they still perceived themselves as part of the British Commonwealth. Hence their participation in World War 2 under British command.

The other factor in Britain deciding to let go of these colonies was that the greater threat was thought to be Communist Russia. Thus, Britain's military forces were oriented towards keeping Russia from overwhelming the rest of western Europe during the Cold War. In addition, WW2 forged a strong alliance between the US and UK which has lasted until now. With this alliance Britain no longer needs to keep up with the US in terms of a military fleet and does not have to worry about controlling the shipping lanes, since the US has since taken over that job to preserve her own interests.

[Anubis Nine]

LOL, if BC and CAli don't both sink. The fault-line is getting more active, I hear.

We're not going to sink, the fault line doesn't really work that way.

California is on a transform fault which just means it's moving to the side, as my geography teacher first explained it to another kid "The sidey sidey ones"

Costal BC is screwed nine ways from sunday because the juan de fuca plate isn't doing what it's supposed to do. Which is subducting under the North American plate. I think it's either 45 or 90 meters behind schedual. A quick look at last year's notes would tell me, but hey, I'm lazy.

When the plates finally release, the north american plate is going to move up and down as the juan de fuca plate shoots underneath. Nothing will sink.

But it's going to suck.

And as for fault lines being more active... that's a *GOOD* thing, good good good, little earthquakes a lot is good. When you get no earthquakes... that means the plates are locked, and that's *bad*.

[Druid]

I do believe that is called Continental drift. Part of Plate tectonics and what not,

[Anubis Nine]

It still doesn't mean that California and BC will sink in the near future.

[Megaman]

You mean like in the early 1800's when rail barons were profitting off cheap labor and corrupt politicians looked the other way? Or the 1860's when we had a civil war and increased stress from military issues? Or the 1920's when the US Marines were sent to different countries in Latin America to represent US interests? Or the 1930's with the Great Depression? Or the race riots of the 1960's? Or the gas scare of the 1970's? Or the internet bubble in the 1990's?

Yep, according to you guys America should have died somewhere between 1830 and 2006.

:clap: Now put them all together and see what happens.

[Praetorian]

The economy of the EU definitely affects the world economy, no question. However, the annual trade flow into and out of the EU does not yet compare to the current trade flow of the US. It will someday, but not currently. In addition, the EU is only basically a trade conglomerate. The EU doesn't decide who gets foreign aid, for example. That's left to the individual member countries. The combination of trade + loans + financial aid from the US is what drives the economy of many countries.


About half the money spent to help poor countries comes from the European Union or its individual member states, making the EU the world’s biggest aid donor. But development assistance is not just about providing clean water and surfaced roads, important though those are. It is also about helping the developing countries improve their trade performance by giving them better access to the EU market. This should enable them to develop and strengthen their external trade and so take advantage of globalisation.

Sorry, just wanted to get a misconception out of the way.

http://www.eurunion.org/globalplayer/worldplayer4.htm

Also...


The European Union is now:

1. the world's leading exporter of goods: over €985 billion in 2001, almost a fifth of the world total;
2. the world's leading exporter of services: €307 billion in 2001, nearly a quarter of the world total. Services include things like tourism, banking, insurance and transport.

http://www.eu.int/abc/keyfigures/economy/trading/index_animated_en.htm

[drdan]

I don't beleive America will ever fall but if we preteneded that America was to fall in 75 years the entire world would suffer.

[raydude]

:clap: Now put them all together and see what happens.

If the brevity of my argument has misled you then let me be clear. At each crisis period in the short history of the US there has always existed each and every one of the factors that you state. Thus, at every period in history which I mentioned there has been:

1. lazy or fat people who don't care about the country's affairs
2. corrupt political officers
3. increased stress from military issues.

Thus,

After the early 1800's when they all came together came...
the 1860s. After the 1860's when they all came together came...
the 1920s. After the 1920's when they all came together came...
the 1930's and the Great Depression. After that, when all the points above together came...
the 1960's.
And so on.

[Angelyne]

California and earthquakes is old school.

The New Madrid fault line (http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/prepare/factsheets/NewMadrid/) is what you all should be crapping your pants about. If anything is going to start the collapse of the US, it's not going to be politics or economics, it's going to be giant earthquake along this line (which is coincidentally predicted to happen within the next 50 years).

[koku]

Everyone keeps saying China and India but no one ever realizes how poor these countries are. A person in Japan makes about 25 times the wage of someone in China. Sure, the cost of living is higher in Japan, but 25 TIMES. And the Indian comparison goes to 50 and above. Not saying it can't happen but there's a lot of catching up and most people write off China especially just becaue of their population and assumed military aggression.

[Megaman]

Perhaps it is because I'm am just starting to notice these things, but I think circumstances are different now...

I don't know if we've ever had a president as dumb as Bush... (I don't mean to start a current events debate, but)
On top of arbitarily starting a war in Iraq, the deficit is the highest ever. (8.1 Trillion) This deficit, plus many policies that Bush has enforced will probably increase a gap in social statuses.... Aw damn. People seem happy with Bush as president. Never mind, I screwed up. x.x

[ams]

China will become powerful even though their people are poor, its just pure man power. At 1.3 billion a lot could be done if they found the right leadership. Hell, if China wanted too (in 10 or so years) they could give the US a run for its money, militarily. - the nukes

[Dead Sexy Vocab]

Its not that China will not become powerful because their people are poor, its just pure man power. At 1.3 billion a lot could be done if they found the right leadership. Hell, if China wanted too (in10 or so years) they could give the US a run for its money militarily. - the nukes

Nukes brought over from NORTH KOREAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[ams]

Nukes brought over from NORTH KOREAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

No, I meant excluding the use of nuclear weaponry, hell throw biological in there too.

[Ichisan]

You seem to forget too, that rome lasted A SHIT load more than we have so far.

Yes indeed. Why shouldn't American hegemony last as long as Rome's? It won't last forever but it could still last a long long time.

Will people in the future watch historical dramas of America the way we watch dramas set in Rome nowadays?

[Ichisan]

There is a fallacy in this analogy and that is equating Roman conquest with American intervention. When Rome sent troops to another region they went there to conquer. Roman troops and Roman rule never left until and unless they were forced to - usually by barbarians.

Contrast this with the US where the first question usually asked when troops are sent is "When are the troops coming home?". If we only go back 10 years we see that US troops and control has always been withdrawn as soon as possible, if not sooner. Somalia, Bosnia, Lebanon, Iraq (first war). Even now we are asking ourselves when total power and control can be ceded to Iraq and the troops come home.

Nor are we the first country to do this, and nor are we the worlds first superpower. I would argue in fact that the first "modern" superpower was Great Britain in the 18th and 19th century. And if you read up on your history you'll realize that Britain is one of the most meddlesome countries the world has ever seen. She's been involved in European politics, Asian, Middle-East, and African. Her attempts to achieve peace in the Middle East between Arabs and Jews predates ours by 50 years. If one were to apply your Roman analogy to Britain it would prove false, since obviously Britain is still standing.

Now, if you want to argue that the US in 75 years won't be a superpower, then yes I would agree with you. No country remains a superpower forever, and dominance of nations rise and fall. But I think the nation called the United States of America will still stand.

Britain is still standing but is not ruling the world. Rome still stood after the fall of the Roman empire too and in fact still stands so I think the point is how long your imperium lasts rather than your existence.

I think there's an analogy between America and the Athenian empire. Athens had radical democracy at home but went around sacking other cities, not allowing them to leave the Athenian league, and forcing democracies on them on the theory that other democracies would be pro-Athenian. In complete contrast to Rome they never granted citizenship to people in other cities.

America nowadays has a high-handed foreign policy and is forcing democracy on Iraq (let's leave aside for the moment the highly successful propagation of democracy in Western Europe after WW2). Just about every country in the world has a real stake in who gets elected to the presidency but no say because they aren't citizens.

[Ichisan]

Then don't post.

Another reason the Roman empire fell that was related to its expansion was the loss of what made it Roman - whatever that was. Rome expanded too quickly, and though it maintained its policy of absorbing other cultures and indoctrinating them in the Roman way, for a while, it was expanding at such a rate that the cultures wouldn't have become fully Roman at the time that they would have been called on as Romans. For example, the Roman army had come to be comprised of mostly citizens from new provinces, with the officers being 'true' Romans.

You are quite wrong. Rome expanded dramatically during the republican era and had acquired most of its empire by the time of Augustus, just before the beginning of the Christian era. However, Roman culture became more and more strongly ingrained in the provinces and at the same time numbers of Roman citizens increased, whether those were colonies of citizens from Rome, locals granted citizenship, or colonies of ex-soldiers who would invariably be from other provinces.

You are right that the Romans made full use of 'auxiliaries' recruited from the provinces to fight their battles for them but this saved their own citizenry from too much attrition and meant that by the time said auxiliaries retired they were fully Romanized and contributed significantly to the Romanization of the provinces they retired in.

Towards the end of the (Western) Roman empire you could argue that dilution of the Roman spirit was to blame for its decline but if so this happened throughout the empire, in Rome itself as well as the provinces. The Romans relied far too heavily on barbarian - *not* provincial - soldiers although in fairness for its last 100 years these barbarian soldiers defended the empire's borders ably. Gibbon of course blamed Christianity for the loss of martial spirit. Others have pointed to the decline of Roman freeholders, from whose ranks the soldiery had always come, and the ossification of Roman society - towards its end no one was allowed to change occupation or even location.

Another huge problem was of course that of civil war and rebellion: all those legions remained all too warlike, even as the average citizen became more and more passive, and they fought but the prize they fought for was Rome rather than a worthless remote uncivilized province.

Anyway don't try to use history to push your present day political agenda, namely your dislike of immigration, at least until you know what you're talking about. I hear people drawing 'lessons' from history over and over to make some cheap political point and 99 times out of a 100 they haven't a clue. We should all just shut up about history when discussing present day politics IMHO.

[Ichisan]

The events leading up to and after World Wars I and II saw the rise of US dominance in world affairs as Britain's dominance declined. Also too, many of the European colonies, which includes those held by Britain, were calling for independence.

World War 2 saw the loss of British posessions in Singapore, Malaysia and Borneo, among others. Following WW2 it was easier to grant them independence from Britain than spend the money and resources it would take to keep them under British rule. Britain tried to hold on to India but finally relented in 1947, granting India full independence.

In addition, many realms of the British empire just simply evolved into their own countries, peacefully, and without protest from England. Canada, New Zealand, and Australia achieved independence from England in 1926 - although they still perceived themselves as part of the British Commonwealth. Hence their participation in World War 2 under British command.

The other factor in Britain deciding to let go of these colonies was that the greater threat was thought to be Communist Russia. Thus, Britain's military forces were oriented towards keeping Russia from overwhelming the rest of western Europe during the Cold War. In addition, WW2 forged a strong alliance between the US and UK which has lasted until now. With this alliance Britain no longer needs to keep up with the US in terms of a military fleet and does not have to worry about controlling the shipping lanes, since the US has since taken over that job to preserve her own interests.

There's also the fact that the world changed ever so slightly in the 300 years before 1945. Britain's colonies now had educated middle classes who were collectively conscious of their national identity, who could communicate, and were influenced by relatively new ideas such as nationalism, communism, and democracy. The other foundations of these colonies as independent states had also been put in place under British rule, namely basic infrastructure, the administrative machine, and let's not forget armies with modern weaponry, even if the officers were British. IMHO it comes down to Britain being too small. Once these countries had started to catch up it became impossible for Britain to rule them and I believe independence would have arrived even without the earth-shaking upsets of WW2 and the spread of American influence.

Of course WW2 dealt a huge blow to British prestige. The British navy looked like an unstoppable force even in WW1, but it was stretched to breaking point up against the U boats and then when the Japanese came along too the forces left in the Far East were too few and too complacent.

Oh by the way India was promised independence before WW2 but this was postponed for the duration of the conflict and eventually granted in 1948 I think.

[Ichisan]

Moral destruction is everywhere, not just California, but Califnia has a lot. I think that the porn industry is one of the many things that is making the world collapse. Also, animal abusers, child abusers, violence, racism, and all those.

Christians like you have been lamenting the moral destruction of the current generation and predicting the end of the world for a good thousand years now. This is one case where I think there really is a lesson from history and the lesson is "Shut up! We've heard that one too many times already!".

[Ichisan]

Actually there's a lot of things other countries can do. They can influence American media, which in turn influences US popular opinion, which inevitably influences US politics. The Vietnam war is a perfect example of how a foreign country used the media to help expel US intervention.

The American media is very firmly controlled by its owners who are American (aren't they? well except Rupert Murdoch). Are you seriously suggesting that North Vietnam used the media to engender a US pull-out?!! You're deluded.

[Scott]

You are right that the Romans made full use of 'auxiliaries' recruited from the provinces to fight their battles for them but this saved their own citizenry from too much attrition and meant that by the time said auxiliaries retired they were fully Romanized and contributed significantly to the Romanization of the provinces they retired in.


You forget that there is still some debate even today about exactly HOW Romanized the provincial citizens were. There is much evidence that they were superficially Roman but at the core, still 'barbarian'. More evidence abounds that the Romans from the heart of the Empire thought of them as such, especially in the class structure and even the etymology of the language as spoken in the period.

Don't forget as well that as Rome's hold weakened, many of these provincial 'Romans' went back to their tribes, defecting or retiring to teach Rome's military ways to those tribes in order to fight back against Rome herself.

Anyway don't try to use history to push your present day political agenda, namely your dislike of immigration, at least until you know what you're talking about. I hear people drawing 'lessons' from history over and over to make some cheap political point and 99 times out of a 100 they haven't a clue. We should all just shut up about history when discussing present day politics IMHO.

Whoa, whoa. Take a look at this.

A modern-day comparison here would be the huge influx of immigration from all places - some would argue that the 'American' culture is being lost because the influx is continuing at a rate greater than our ability to teach/indoctrinate.

It's not MY agenda, and I don't approve of it, and I really do resent you foisting it off on me. If anything, I was saying the same thing that you are - that comparisons to past incidents - especially this particular incident - are moot points. For god's sake, read a little more carefully before you start spewing vitriol at someone for an idea that they don't even espouse.

Christians like you have been lamenting the moral destruction of the current generation and predicting the end of the world for a good thousand years now. This is one case where I think there really is a lesson from history and the lesson is "Shut up! We've heard that one too many times already!".

Jesus Christ, we have a little flamer out today.

[Ichisan]

You mean like in the early 1800's when rail barons were profitting off cheap labor and corrupt politicians looked the other way? Or the 1860's when we had a civil war and increased stress from military issues? Or the 1920's when the US Marines were sent to different countries in Latin America to represent US interests? Or the 1930's with the Great Depression? Or the race riots of the 1960's? Or the gas scare of the 1970's? Or the internet bubble in the 1990's?

Yep, according to you guys America should have died somewhere between 1830 and 2006.

I agree. There is no sign of America dying any time soon.

[yogi]

I cant see anyone filling americas Big F'ing Shoes. China and India to me are just Shithouse.. Maybe they can do it but it seems as likely as 50 cent being the next president. EU union needs a puppet master or something otherwise I doubt they could do it. So then your left with some economically strong nations making jockeying for position.

Summary if america falls on its ass finiancially.. No one will be capable to step up in the same capacity. Which ever nation does would would have less much Super about them.

[Ichisan]

Another reason the Roman empire fell that was related to its expansion was the loss of what made it Roman - whatever that was. Rome expanded too quickly, and though it maintained its policy of absorbing other cultures and indoctrinating them in the Roman way, for a while, it was expanding at such a rate that the cultures wouldn't have become fully Roman at the time that they would have been called on as Romans. For example, the Roman army had come to be comprised of mostly citizens from new provinces, with the officers being 'true' Romans.

You're saying Rome fell partly because of a loss of 'Roman-ness' and that this was because it expanded too quickly. Like I already said the main phase of expansion was complete by Augustus' time and the Roman empire lasted another 400 years or so. An extraordinarily delayed effect wouldn't you say?

A modern-day comparison here would be the huge influx of immigration from all places - some would argue that the 'American' culture is being lost because the influx is continuing at a rate greater than our ability to teach/indoctrinate. HOWEVER, the ruling class of America as well as the army are still thoroughly "American", in contrast to Rome.

Ok I'm reading this carefully again and I'm sorry if I was too hasty but it certainly isn't clear that you take the opposite view to the 'some' who argue for a reduced rate of immigration. I disagree that the Roman ruling class were not truly Roman, and I've already argued that the Roman army was a significant force for assimilation into Roman culture. Interestingly, the US army also takes on recruits from other countries and grants them citizenship after their term of service is up - a parallel with the Romans.

[raydude]

The American media is very firmly controlled by its owners who are American (aren't they? well except Rupert Murdoch). Are you seriously suggesting that North Vietnam used the media to engender a US pull-out?!! You're deluded.

Then I'm not the only one who's deluded. Many historians and americans in the US must also be deluded. Here is a link to back up my delusion:

http://www.iwm.org.uk/upload/package/29/mediawar/technolviet.htm

If you are American then you must also know that prior to Desert Storm and the second Iraq War there were numerous articles and TV news debates on the role of media in covering the war. Notably there was the question of how the US military would avoid "another Vietnam", not only in terms of fighting, but in how the fighting was portrayed. The US military, after Vietnam, realized that winning the war on the ground would lose meaning if they lost the media war.

Many americans as well also share the belief that the Vietnam War was lost in the living rooms of America. As an example of how skewed the media presentation of the Vietnam war was, consider this broadcast from Walter Cronkite after the conclusion of the Tet Offensive. In pure numbers the Tet Offensive was a catastrophic failure for the North Vietnamese. However, as a propaganda tool, it worked wonders to turn American public opinion against further involvement in Vietnam. But don't take my word for it. Take a look at what Walter Cronkite had to say about Tet:

http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/Cronkite_1968.html

If you are american and studied your history then you'd know Walter Cronkite was as american as apple pie in TV news. And if he said we were "mired in stalemate" in Vietnam, then by god the American people believed him. And the rest is history.

[raydude]

Everyone keeps saying China and India but no one ever realizes how poor these countries are. A person in Japan makes about 25 times the wage of someone in China. Sure, the cost of living is higher in Japan, but 25 TIMES. And the Indian comparison goes to 50 and above. Not saying it can't happen but there's a lot of catching up and most people write off China especially just becaue of their population and assumed military aggression.

The reason why people are saying China is because of a growing new trend among China's young people. It used to be that native Chinese would go to the US for their college education and then stay in the US to make a career. More and more Chinese are going to the US and then going BACK to China to make their career. And who can blame them? If your potential market share is even 1% of 1.2 billion people you're still dealing with a potential customer base of 10 million people!

Hong Kong is, in my opinion, a glimpse into what a future China will be like. In Hong Kong entrepenurship is encouraged and people are coming up with new ideas for products, companies, etc. Imagine then, when the model of Hong Kong is replicated in cities across mainland China. That's why China is a candidate for future world power.

Also, I think the proper way to look at China is as an agrarian society. In that respect it is no different from where the United States was during the 1900's. During that time the US was still primarily an agrarian society. Sure, the cities on the coasts were industrializing but the majority of the Midwest, South, and West were still farms and small towns.

[raydude]

Perhaps it is because I'm am just starting to notice these things, but I think circumstances are different now...

I don't know if we've ever had a president as dumb as Bush... (I don't mean to start a current events debate, but)
On top of arbitarily starting a war in Iraq, the deficit is the highest ever. (8.1 Trillion) This deficit, plus many policies that Bush has enforced will probably increase a gap in social statuses.... Aw damn. People seem happy with Bush as president. Never mind, I screwed up. x.x

Now, on this I agree with you. Bush is dumb. He's made a mockery of what the Republican Party had traditionally stood for (smaller government, responsible spending). The war in Iraq should have never been started. Many people I know who are staunch Republicans think Bush is an idiot and can't wait till his term is up.

Where we disagree is thinking that this one president will be an indicator for the next 75 years. He's only got 3 more years left and he's out. And I think if he continues to screw up this badly then there will be a reckoning at the next Presidential and senatorial elections.

[Ichisan]

raydude: I thought you said the Vietnam pull-out was engendered by a *foreign country*? There's no dispute that the media in America played a big part in the withdrawal but I doubt that was due to any foreign control.

[Lambda]

The definining difference between the USA and Rome is simple: Democracy. Rome could have corrupted leaders in power for 30 or more years, but the maximum in the US is 8. The checks and balances system allows infinite possibilities to save the US if it was in trouble.

[Dennis nist]

The definining difference between the USA and Rome is simple: Democracy. Rome could have corrupted leaders in power for 30 or more years, but the maximum in the US is 8. The checks and balances system allows infinite possibilities to save the US if it was in trouble.

Sure, the leaders are replaced. But the lobbyist wont be replaced.

[Anubis Nine]

Lobbyists age and die. In 75 years there will be new ones. Lobbying for new things. Thus, change. America won't collapse I figure, but it might fade into mediocrity.

[paul]

Obviously Canada is the next superpower.
What you don't know is we have hidden genetically engineered eskimo-polar bear hyrbids hidden in the frozen north, in great numbers. Did I mention their fur is infused with kevlar?

Ha.

[Megaman]

Yeah, Bush has about 50% more support from the population of American than he should have...

I take it back, America who collapse. Why? Because the Patriots are in charge.

[Lambda]

I seriously wonder why people consider it 'Cool' to insult Bush and America these days... Contrary to what you belive, nobody cares about what you say or think. And today's 'actors' who have no buisiness telling people their political views, but do, arent helping either...

[Anubis Nine]

Obviously Canada is the next superpower.
What you don't know is we have hidden genetically engineered eskimo-polar bear hyrbids hidden in the frozen north, in great numbers. Did I mention their fur is infused with kevlar?

Ha.

You forgot the moose with guns for every prong of their antlers.

And hoardes of beavers to dam rivers and get rid of teh worlds water supply rivers. XD

[Megaman]

I don't think it's 'cool' in insult Bush. I insult Bush because he is stupid and he is blatenly misusing the power of the United States.

[Lambda]

How have YOU suffered since Bush took power? America, If anything, has gotten stronger thanks to the feeling of National Pride after 9/11.

[paul]

I seriously wonder why people consider it 'Cool' to insult Bush and America these days...

Hm I guess you['re right, no one thinks you're cool/funny when you insult retarded kids either.
Hehe, I'm sorry, that was wrong of me.

Anyway, I hear he's pretty smart.

You forgot the moose with guns for every prong of their antlers.

And hoardes of beavers to dam rivers and get rid of teh worlds water supply rivers. XD

Damn it! How many times must I say, we beavers CAN'T DAM that fast!

[Lambda]

Hm I guess you['re right, no one thinks you're cool/funny when you insult retarded kids either.



Damn it! How many times must I say, we beavers CAN'T DAM that fast!
I'm confused, are you insulting, or agreeing with me?

[Dead Sexy Vocab]

The beavers don't give a damn about Canada, either.

[Anubis Nine]

Damn it! How many times must I say, we beavers CAN'T DAM that fast!

If Polar bears can be laced with kevlar I'm sure we can do something for the productivity of beavers.

I don't have a lot to say on Bush, because I'm not American. I will say that the softwood lumber business is hurting my province, but we're getting by.

Now with Canadian politics, I have a lot to say. I'm being hurt by their policies directly, and I didn't vote for them. Peh, election coming up anyway.

[Megaman]

Eh, you know the small stuff. Like $3 gallons per gasoline and A 8.1 TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT. Just to say the least. I mean, nothing's coming out of my pockets yet...

[Anubis Nine]

Bite the bullet. You have some of the lowest prices for gas.

We pay double what you do nearly. Live with it... are you even driving?

[Megaman]

I don't think I'd want to anymore...
Well, a $3 gas price isn't so bad, but it was one of the first things that came to mind.

[raydude]

I don't think I'd want to anymore...
Well, a $3 gas price isn't so bad, but it was one of the first things that came to mind.

I don't know what else to tell you except to revisit this issue when you've lived longer. Today's gas prices are nothing compared to what they were during the oil embargo in the 1970's. I didn't live through that but my parents did. The US actually implemented gasoline rationing. Imagine long lines of cars waiting to fill up at a gas station.

The miniskirt and short shorts fashions of the 60's and 70's predate today's skimpy fashion lines. Back then we had people clamoring about the decline in morality also. Dungeons and Dragons were the gaming equivalent of Grand Theft Auto, corrupting the youth and leading the country into the destruction.

When I was growing up I considered Reagan an idiot. There was the bombing of the Marine base in Lebanon, Quaddafi was the Middle East bad guy and the Iran Contra scandal rocked the country.

HIV and AIDS cases were breaking out in the 80's. There was talk of an AIDS epidemic and yet the administration swept AIDS concerns under the carpet.

Yet here we are, and despite the bumbling of our president I think I'm better off now than I was 20 years ago.

[Kuhool]

I seriously wonder why people consider it 'Cool' to insult Bush and America these days... Contrary to what you belive, nobody cares about what you say or think. And today's 'actors' who have no buisiness telling people their political views, but do, arent helping either...
you just made yourself that much more cool by saying that, you're cool.

the whole world is going down to shit, the next 75 years, if things last that long, aren't going to be good it seems.

[Lambda]

By saying "Hey, I support Bush and what he does!"?

[Trump]

It bothers me that the original poster hasn't responded to this thread once.

[Ardo Zubairu]

if America collapse the next superpower will come from Africa and i anticipated Nigeria lead Africa then...Up Nigeria for Super power

[c-rex]

if America collapse the next superpower will come from Africa and i anticipated Nigeria lead Africa then...Up Nigeria for Super power

Africa lacks the technological base to amount to anything in the forseeable future. While Africa is resource rich, most of those resources are controlled by economically dominant Western companies, so Africa has very little domestic economic infrastructure. Plus Africa has too many issues with AIDs and other diseases to currently allow them to invest the resources in future development afraid.

China and India of course are poised to be superpowers, once they get their domestic infrastructure cleaned up. If Australia gets its birthrate up I'm calling them as the next big power though since they already have the tech base in place.

America isn't going anywhere though. We might have some ups and downs but the American people are too unified to ever fall apart. We have our domestic bickering but the minute you mess with our turf we unite and run a train on your ass.

[Pfalzer]

Yeah ...Ardo.... no ...im goign to have to say no.... besides northern Africa(menaing the Arab nations) the rest is shit no offense. Africa and the word super power is a great example of oxymoron. If China gets the oil it needs then probaly them. Africa lmao wow africa. no.... be ashamed for even saying those words together...Africa and superpower lol wow.

[Cool Bones]

he wasn't serious, he said that because he comes from nigeria lol >.>

[paul]

If Australia gets its birthrate up I'm calling them as the next big power though since they already have the tech base in place.

hehe, rumor has it, that the australian government pays the indonesians every year, so they won't invade. Then again, they already have :P

(Its a joke)

[Sedated]

I just wanted to say that I started reading this thread expecting a simple "America bash" because on this forum in the past, that's what I saw a lot of. I'm happy to see that it isn't, and also that people are sharing some very intelligent ideas. Too bad this forum doesn't have a script to give everyone a pat on the back. I also believe that things of that nature are way to hard to predict accurately. I don't think that 75 years ago people living here in America really thought we would be doing the things we do now, or that the condition of the world would be as it is. 75 years in to the future will probably bring about as much change to us as the last.

[RDClip]

You know, it's pretty much impossible to predict what will happen in 75 years. 75 years before the USSR fizzled... (wait, they where just getting started then) Well then, 75 years before Britain lost it's place, I doubt anyone thought Great Britain would become 2nd teir to America.

Though I don't think there is any obvious trend pointing to America losing it's place, I guess it is somewhat possible. Seems that there will have to be something really big happen to have that (big ass depression, World War, super big viral epidemic) It is possible that any one of these things happen. I very much fear that day because my homeland, Canada, will be screwed too (unless we become the next big thing).

Comparing Rome's 1000 year run to America isn't really apt. As in the fact that things happen much faster these days and superpowers fall much quicker. Take the Soviet Union for example (though also not comperable to USA) they didn't even last 100 years.

Anyway, what I would like to see in the future is no superpower, but most countries existing in relative equality.

[JustTooCrazy]

Yeah, just look at our debt ( http://www.toptips.com/debtclock.html ). Only a mere 8 trillion dollars and rising very quickly. If we don't pay it off soon it think we will be in trouble.

[Pfalzer]

Not really we would just start calling in our foreign loans lol which about half the nations of the world probaly have dabbled :P

[Jon885]

Maybe. I'm more concerned about the world in general in 75 years though with so many countries having nuclear weapons, and global warming. I don't know if global warming is real or not, but I don't now if it isn't either.

[RDClip]

Maybe. I'm more concerned about the world in general in 75 years though with so many countries having nuclear weapons, and global warming. I don't know if global warming is real or not, but I don't now if it isn't either.
I believe I read somewhere that, as far as we know, only 9 countries have the bomb(not including nuclear hopefuls like Iran or North Korea)

[Jon885]

That's too many for my liking. But I guess if there wasn't a nuclear bomb there would be something else to worry about anyway.