The USA is in rapid decline? Let me guess, because teenagers use Facebook, spell "you" as "u" and house prices are not increasing as quickly as 5 years ago?
Well, the OP said "rapid decline". This is a gradual non-improvement, which is not the same thing.
Also, does going to school 7 days a week increase learning? I can sit in front of my computer and type stuff for 24 hours straight. Doesn't mean the result is any good.
Also what I have noticed with myself ( I had a decadent phase in life, moved on and now look on "friends" who stayed where they were) - decadent consumerism might not look as bad when you start doing it. But it erodes your soul it makes you weak and timid. Arm the lumpenproletariat with high tech - and you won't get "a little bit weaker" society - you get idiocracy.
A human to be happy must play hard, work hard and love hard. This is a virtue that most everybody is abandoning these days. I'm not advocating for repression (like China, India or western world of old), I'm advocating that we don't forget a passion in our lives and that we do not fail to show it to our children. Else everything is in vain.
When do you think that each of those became true?
Or is it that they've finally crossed a tipping point?
I agree that they're all true, but they've been true since before 1776. And, as bad as the US is on an absolute scale, I'm having trouble finding some place better. Suggestions?
http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=Freedom,+freedom,...
In the 50s, 60s, 70s children have dreamed of becoming astronauts, programmers, engineers, scientists. But nowadays the cool jobs are in sports, TV, finance.
I'd bet around 1776 the majority of ppl in the colonies were willing to take care of themselves. Today the power of federal government cannot be ignored by anyone, so it's part of every big problem/solution.
IMHO we'll see some global changes in the next years. The best place to live would be the one, where your chances of survival are the highest.
More dreamed of becoming cowboys, police, and firemen.
Also, kids during the 50s dreamed of becoming professional athletes. The only that has changed in that respect is which sports.
In any event, that doesn't have anything to do with "How about because ppl prefer religion over science. And security over freedom. Federal government getting more corrupt and more powerful with each year."
Then you're either putting impossible requirements on the new place (e.g. "and my friends have to all live there") or you're simply not looking. Throw a dart at western Europe. Any of those places will provide a better quality of living for most people.
Which direction is the immigration pressure?
I also think you'll find that migration pressure to the US has started to slow. You may still have a large amount from Mexico but that is about opportunity, not a testament of the US being the place to be.
Hmm. You don't think that people's preferences tell us anything?
> They'll all have most of western Europe above the US for the average person.
American poor people are stereotypically obese and have multiple cars and big screen TVs. While those things are bad for them....
Oh, and they have free healthcare too. (Never confuse insurance with healthcare.)
It is true that the gap between the poor and the rich is greater in the US, but by that measure, hunter-gatherers were better off than modern europeans.
> Most western European countries have more incoming migration than they are comfortable with.
As does the US. However, immigration pressure comes from everywhere.
Why is comparing the pressure between {your favorite western European country} and the US irrelevant?
> I also think you'll find that migration pressure to the US has started to slow. You may still have a large amount from Mexico but that is about opportunity, not a testament of the US being the place to be.
Huh? Opportunity is surely one factor in "place to be".
That said, I agree Mexico vs the US doesn't tell us anything about US vs western Europe, just as Turkey vs Germany doesn't tell us anything about US vs Germany.
It's irrelevant because it's an incredibly over-simplistic metric and it's subject to manipulation (i.e. everyone hearing 2nd and 3rd hand the US is the greatest country in the world, which in some ways it was some decades back and deciding to go there).
>American poor people are stereotypically obese and have multiple cars and big screen TVs.
Done with credit. You could have the same thing in Romania if they let everyone had 5 credit cards, different credit for their house, difference credit for their car and different credit for the place where they buy their TV.
Being fat doesn't mean they're getting more food, it means they're getting more bad food. A better thing to look for would be a place where the poor are not hungry and not malnourished.
>Oh, and they have free healthcare too.
What are you talking about here, ER care? Can they get a hip replacement for "free" like they could in e.g. Sweden? Why are cancer patients divorcing their spouses to ensure said spouse wont end up losing his/her retirement money paying medical costs of a dead person?
>Why is comparing the pressure between {your favorite western European country} and the US irrelevant?
Because it's impossible to quantify why this pressure is happening. Is it because of coincidence? Misinformation? Informed choice? Opportunity (e.g. "we can walk to the US but can't afford to get to where we really want, and anywhere seems like it would be better than here")? Given that we can't say with even the slightest amount of confidence, this number is almost completely meaningless.
A number that would have more meaning would be if some place had no or negative immigration but that's not the case in any first world country as far as I'm aware.
>Huh? Opportunity is surely one factor in "place to be".
But it speaks to the location of the actor, not how good the country he's going to since he is choosing the new country over less than the whole set (i.e. if someone leaves mexico to go to the US that is more likely to mean that he/she chose to go the US over staying in mexico or going somewhere else in middle america than to mean that he chose it over France).
The problem is people prefer sitcoms over both religion and science.
No their function is not to divine when did Noah leave the ark and how did all those animals and humans repopulate the earth in 4k and something years.
Their job is to ask "stupid" questions. Their job is to analyse the results of science through spiritual and theological lens. In short role of religion in society is same as role of CEO in a company - to provide strategy, vision and guidance. Sadly both are increasingly failing us.
True problem of religions nowadays is not that there is no place for them - but that they outright refuse to re evaluate their positions, instead demanding their rights of old. Just like RIAA, MPAA, etc..,
But indeed that would mean they had to work and be creative - maybe even expose themselves to some risk, but that would be too hard. Better to cling to old birthrights and refuse to cooperate.
I guess " religious folk think they have a seat at the intellectual table as well" is mocking, but I still stand by it. It's a succinct indictment of people who by definition don't adhere to reason having way too much power over those of us with the intelligence and ideas to do REAL GOOD in politics and science and society.
Now my moaning reply was just silly, but I was annoyed. Probably because I spent a lot of yesterday arguing with a Baptist.