[flagged]
They haven't? Both of those have been trending down with no sign of stopping
I recall an episode from a fictional crime show where the obligatory twist behind a horrically toxic water pollution blaming a new industrial operation. It had killed three people and sickened more was a radical environmentalist who wanted to frame a factory they believed would pollute more long term. Ironically one of the give aways to investigators was something the industry no longer used.
Which... no. What people want first and foremost is safety and stability, and after everything burns down, the easiest way to get that is by putting an authoritarian strongman into power. Which, historically, has been the outcome of almost every large-scale revolution except the American one.
(As an aside, I don't know if you're American, but if you are, I will note that an unfortunate effect of the American Revolution is that it tends to give Americans a very optimistic view of how well revolutions work out. They don't really realize that theirs is a miraculous outlier; it's almost the only revolution which didn't put an authoritarian government into power for years or decades)
For instance, I am starting to think it was a mistake to 'solve' the ozone hole problem in the 1980s so quickly and decisively. I've heard some people try to dismiss climate change with remember all those other things that were going to kill us but didn't like nuclear war and the ozone hole. Maybe if it had gotten bad enough that the effects were obviously terrible and it left a generational scar on humanity, then we'd have an easier time negotiating bigger problems, like climate change mitigation.
If the atomic bombs hadn't been dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1945, then it seems likely to me that an even greater tragedy would have been struck later. Maybe it was the only thing that kept us from an actual nuclear war.
It's not exactly a pleasant thing to contemplate, because it basically means the American Revolution was a fluke, but none of the other explanations I've seen are more compelling.
The war itself went well due to the huge geographic separation and the support from countries that wanted to end British dominance. Local governments were already in place, nothing local was "burnt down" except the British tax assayers office, roughly speaking.
And the obvious corollary that motivates the question: if one wanted to maximize the odds of a positive outcome to the next revolution (independently of whether one thinks that's a good thing), what ideas/technologies/institutions/etc would we want to promote or enact now, either from within the revolution itself, or in the surrounding cultural ecosystem?
Plenty of countries that used to have dictators (absolute monarchs) were able to limit them to merely symbolic figures, and bring in constitutions and strong parliaments. Some of these were also revolutions. See most of Europe and their colonies. Yes some have since regressed, but there's nothing particularly special about the USA besides the fact that it didn't have quite as much entrenched power, at first, and virtually unlimited ability to expand. So it was special in terms of it's early flexibility, but ever since it expanded to fill all its available space, seems to be pretty non-special.
Over the long term, capitalism has been increasingly restrained since the early 20th Century (since the mid-20thC, the modern mixed economy has displaced the original system named “capitalism” as the dominant system in the developed world, almost all current “capitalism” is really mixed economies); there have been short-term and local regression, sure, but overall capitalism doesn't accelerate.