• Adderbox76@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    Economic chaos for a little while, and then everyone would just go on with their lives. Economically it would matter of course; America became the richest power after the first world war when all of Europe needed loans to fight their “great war”, causing the greatest transfer of wealth the world had ever seen.

    But culturally, I’m betting the number of people who would give a shit if the United States stopped bossing everybody around is far less than they think it is.

    The american sense of importance is strongest mostly in their own heads.

  • loomi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    America gets a cold, the world gets the flu.

    And that is just the economic impact.

    • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      That’s already happening, specifically because the US exists. De-escalation is more likely, when the US is no longer funding and training terrorists.

  • Crackhappy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    Don. I’ve put up with your shenanigans for months. Enough. Stop asking stupid vitriolic questions.

  • blackris@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    That would be pretty nice to see functioning anarchic societies. You are using the wrong term, you mean anomy.

    I think we will get a bit of a taste of that in the next years.

      • blackris@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        Because most people use the word anarchy for a society without rules and without order. Right of the strongest, 365 days The Purge or something like that. But anarchism isn’t about that, but about a peaceful way of living without hierarchies and rulers. I was sure, that is not, what OP meant.

        • stinky@redlemmy.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 days ago

          My question was about OP’s use of the term. Why do you think he misused it? “What do we do if X happens” —> “anomie is different from anarchy” seems like a non sequitur.

          • blackris@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 days ago

            As I wrote before, I think OP meant to ask what happens if the US falls into a state of anomy. Nearly everybody who talks about that, uses the word anarchy instead, which is wrong.

            Should be clear enough now, I hope.

            • stinky@redlemmy.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 days ago

              Why do you think he was wrong? He didn’t say anything that suggested he didn’t know the definition of anarchy.

    • Don_Dickle@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      OK I read the article two things I have to say. WTF. And how absolutely we have a term for it. But after that it was a great read. But comparing it its still fucked up

  • magnetosphere@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    At first, LOTS of “I told you so” comments on social media. These would quickly disappear as the shit really hit the fan.

      • Apepollo11@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days ago

        You do realise that other countries have internet servers too?

        Americans might lose access to social media, and the internet in general, but much of the world will still be online.

      • Kalladblog@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days ago

        You think there would be no social media left if Twitter, Reddit, Facebook & Co. went down? Using Lemmy?

          • IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 days ago

            Until the bills for running those servers start piling up. Most/all those companies are headquartered in the US, and it likely wouldn’t be trivial for employees in other countries to suddenly start accessing finances etc. if the US offices are unexpectedly shuttered.

            There’s also a huge knowledge drain that could impact the operation of those servers. I work on a devops team that manages web services serving around 15 countries. All but one of my teammates are in the US. We occasionally have to deal with hardware failures in our AWS cloud environments that requires manual intervention to recover from, for example. If that sort of knowledge is lost, or even severely limited, then it can easily lead to cascading failures that makes a site completely inaccessible.

  • pagenotfound@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    Countries with mutual treaties are going to get attacked. China would definitely take Taiwan and maybe the Philippines.

  • Chainweasel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    The next biggest economy would likely fill the power vacuum, which at the moment would be China.
    European countries would likely band together but still align their policies closer to Russian polices because they’re a more imminent threat than China.
    There would probably be several small brush wars as countries try to to consolidate power amongst regional areas like North America and the Middle East.
    Fragile ceasefires backed by American influence would pretty quickly dissolve like between North and South Korea.
    And in a few decades everything will settle into a new “normal” just like it did when other great empires have lost their influence.