Welcome to the 21st Century: How to Plan for the Post-Covid Future
oreilly.com
oreilly.com
Wall street, shady billionaires pulling strings, governments and normal everyday people have a massive economic interest in things becoming as normal as they possibly can post-covid and they are all going to work toward furthering that goal in their own ways. Sure some of the things that were trialed during COVID (work from home, mask wearing, etc) may stick around but they are going to go away and if they come back it will be slowly over years/decades and on their own merits.
We have only experienced a few of the pandemic's direct effects a few months in, and in many parts of the globe the first wave is still in full swing. The second- and higher-order effects are largely unknown at this point, and many will only be fully understood by future historians.
While the direct comparison to WWI/II may be hyperbolic, I think it's a fair assessment to say that COVID is the biggest, truly global event since. During each war there were many turning points that may have ended them early, turning them into smaller, regional conflicts. The people who experienced the first six months of them weren't to know they would leave tens of millions dead and society changed forever after. Now I'm not suggesting that COVID will be on remotely this scale, however I believe the author's argument that it will likely trigger large societal change, and to try and prepare accordingly, is a good one.
Travel is the big unraveling. Tourism has ballooned since 2000 but it was no longer tourism: how many tourists even talk to locals anymore? Look at Youtube travelogues - how often do you see locals? Tourism degenerated to fodder for the social media/instagram economy and every holiday is the same packaged experience , just different background. That makes it easy to virtualize. It's also fueled by high density urbanization, tiny living spaces in insufferable cities (urbanites travel more). There are entire countries and world regions that rely on tourism, and for them this is going to be the most consequential long-lasting change (also for environmental reasons).
In person entertainment, privacy, work from home, remote schooling, all these have been slowly eating the world.
There s another one: Biotech. We are now testing things like mRNA drugs and antibody therapies at an unprecedented pace. If one of them proves safe, biomedicine will be next to eat the world.
This is not happening at the national level, it's happening at the individual / company level and people are noticing. The overfunded US and China army can't do nothing for the pandemic or the climate, and govt agencies across the world have proven unreliable. The pandemic has been a shitshow for politics / governments and a boon for private initiative, and people are noticing.
Whether urban living is preferable is subjective, but urbanites also tend to be richer and have easier access to airports (and trains and buses).
I don't see how people stop traveling once Covid is gone (or at least reduced to a regular flu level of danger). Why would people ever prefer not to travel? I agree that some paranoid people won't travel until 5 years after the pandemic, but the vast majority of people will do.
I've never understood this one. Do people really think that work is the only big reason people flock to cities?
Where is this coming from? It may be just anecdotal, but "availability of relevant work" is only one of many reasons the people I know choose to live in cities.
Some of the stuff just makes no sense, for example; "There's already talk of a race to produce vaccines, where a country that has the vaccine will use the vaccine for itself in order to gain advantage rather than spreading it around the world."
I could imagine the country that discovers it giving priority to their citizens when there is, at first, limited supply but withholding it indefinitely for advantage seems like it would not happen because of the incredible profit motive.
Turns out that those doing vaccine trials have actually thought of that, and most of them are making partnerships in different countries to prevent "bad side effects" from this (such as forced seizure).
I agree in part, but I am not sure if we can compare COVID-19 against the horrors of two world wars where tens of millions died (15-22,000,000 deaths in WW1 and 70-85,000,000 deaths in WW2 according to wikipedia) and entire cities were literally flattened and millions more left homeless and jobless?
The strange thing about COVID-19 is that it is largely invisible (unless you happen to work in a hospital or morgue or something). Apart from people wearing masks and Starbucks only doing takeaway and those unlucky enough to have lost a loved one/friend/colleague (my condolences if so) it is hard for people to actually "see" the impact. For me, the largest impact is I have to plan my grocery deliveries a bit more carefully (since I can't do a top-up shop easily) and I work from home more than I usually did - nothing else has changed in my life really.
Will Starbucks re-open their doors and be selling double-tall skinny frap extra-cold within a few days of getting the say-so? You bet - and who can blame them? Nothing will have changed for them - people will still buy the coffee just like they are buying them right now during the pandemic.
Did Hiroshima/Dresden/Hamburg/Berlin/Tokyo/Stalingrad/others re-open after VE/VJ day? No - because they were absolutely physically obliterated with the population killed, maimed or displaced (...and even if they weren't, physiologically it must have been absolutely crippling to be a survivor).
Were I alive in WW2, would my life only be mildly inconvenienced like it is today with COVID-19? No way - if I had even survived at all, I'd be happy to have a home to live in (and no doubt without reliable electricity, gas or sewage), even luckier to have a job to work at, and even luckier still to have shops to visit with stock to allow me to even purchase any food. And I'd no doubt have known friends family and colleagues who died in unspeakably horrible ways. Whatever happened I'd be psychologically scarred for life.
It just doesn't feel like COVID-19 is in the same league... And this is before we even mention genocide from WW2.
That said though I am all for fiscal stimulus only going to green companies though! No government hand-outs to the cruiseline, airline, oil, or shipping industries please! :)
.
.
.
.
.
Aside: ... I note that COVID-19 is now "worse" than the WW2 Blitz in London in that it has killed more people (1). I sincerely hope now that the rose-tinted nostalgia for people citing the "Blitz Spirit" etc in the context of Brexit can go away. London has now faced worse than the Blitz - and when it did it was immigrant nurses (one from the EU, one from the Commonwealth) that literally nursed even our Prime Minister back to health. We are stronger together.</politics>
1 - https://www.economist.com/britain/2020/04/30/covid-19-is-kil...
People compare COVID-19 with the 1918 epidemic all the time, and that epidemic has killed more people than WW1. COVID-19 is currently off by a factor of 100, but it's not over yet. We don't know what the final death count will be, but it'll likely be (much) smaller.
Couldn't one argue 9/11 was the 'start' of the 21st century? And all the effects and tone it caused that last to this day?
9/11 was a spectacular event but did not change anything fundamental and was neither the first nor the last Islamic terrorist attack in the West or on the West/US. In fact, the lid had been removed on Islamic extremism in the 90s, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, even if it had been brewing for quite some time before that: Soviet withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989 (leading to the Talibans seizing power), Algerian Civil War started in 1991, highjacking of Air France flight by Algerian terrorists in 1994 (said to be the blueprint for 9/11), attack on US Embassy in Nairobi in 1998, attack on USS Cole in 2000, etc. I think what 9/11 did is to make the American public catch up with the world they were living in because many of them had not realised yet.
I'm not sure whether Covid-19 will change anything in the long term. It's too early to say. At the moment the main effect seems to be a significant economic downturn, which could have long term consequences, or not.
Soldiers sent to war and suffering happen. In itself it is not historically significant, neither is an invasion in itself. You could argue that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was more significant because it fueled islamist extremism and the US backing of Al Qeada... While the US's invasion of Iraq has its root in the 80s and 90s, with 9/11 being only a convenient pretext, and does not seem to be hugely significant historically.
Everything changed when the Berlin Wall fell/the Soviet Union collapsed. The reality is that nothing really changed on 9/11. An emotional perspective is not a historical perspective.
Edit: Arguing that the 21st century started with 9/11 seems both superficial and American-centric to me, like your reply to this comment below. It misses the big picture, the global context.
It's not like it was an automatic consequence. It was a choice.
Does it really matter in the end though? I would just take these statements with a grain of salt. It's symbolism to create a feeling of urgency, a common spirit to take action or just a way to form identity.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_nineteenth_century [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_twentieth_century
I think 2001-2019 will be like 1900-1914, a prelude to the real story. 9/11 represented the first challenge to America’s post Cold War dominance and leadership. IMO, 2020 marks the beginning of the end of US leadership and a new path.
There was one major US political event in the 21st Century before 9/11 and arguably even lead to 9/11.
People tend to forget the 2000 Presidential Election between Gore/Bush. It seems common place for a candidate to lose the popular vote but win the Election, which was the case between Gore/Bush, but we hadn't seen that prior to Gore/Bush since 1888. Not to mention the shenanigans (electronic votes in swing states like FL going to the opposite candidate, entire truck loads of missing ballots)...it ended in a lawsuit and the SCOTUS deciding the election.
Politics/news coverage was set down a path of partisanship we have never recovered from and has only gotten worse. But to your point there is a chance 9/11 is stopped or never happens under Gore, and if 9/11 happened anyway, the response for sure would have been different and Iraq/Afghanistan wars likely never happen (perhaps an entire generation doesn't go off to the longest war in American history).
I know the education of the average HNer is a bit higher than the average person off of the street. How is the electoral college perceived here? I've heard a great argument from a conservative friend: it prevents densely populated cities like LA + NY for speaking on the needs/wants of the entire country.
Think of it kind of like an organism. Only those that can survive can evolve and pass on their genes.
That isn't to say that fairness is a bad goal, because it's a good goal. But the system needs to remain stable.
Which means their own voices are effectively not equals.
If you're fine with it, fine for you.
Every parliamentary system with barrier clauses are out. Every district-based election is out, etc, etc. Swiss' cantons, maybe?
You just described most parliamentary systems. There is still one PM that concentrates the executive power.
Also, most parliamentary elections (that I know of) have some form of barrier clause. This is explicitly done to avoid pulverization of power. In Germany, your vote needs to be along with a minimum of 5% of the population to actually count. There is no "one vote, one share of power" as well.
So what gives? You asked me if I was "fine with it". I am saying that I am fine with it because I don't know of any alternative that has implemented anything better. If you know of any place with a functional government, as big as the USA and with a "one vote, one share of power", by all means do share.
I'm fine with a low barrier clause for keeping unorganized/low stakes ones out; that does not prevent proportionality in the final representation distribution though.
My point is that a system where a representative college does not reflect the full vote across the country has a deep design issue. See an earlier comment from someone: "it's a different kind of equality".
I wouldn't say that 5% is a "low barrier clause", actually quite the opposite. That means, e.g, in a room of 20 people, every lone/dissenting voice gets completely shut out of the conversation.
> My point is that a system where a representative college does not reflect the full vote across the country has a deep design issue.
For you, it's an issue. For me it is a feature. The USA is too big, too diverse and too uneven of a country to try to apply universal policies and expect good results everywhere. It makes sense to balance this by bringing more power to the states and not push it away to the federal level.
The USA didn't look so... indeed, uneven or fractured, before Trump's appearance in politics. I guess I should have travelled across there several years ago. I sincerely hope you can collectively get out well of this mess.
Also, hopefully not the point here, but the "this country is too big/different to try..." reminds me of several conversations I've had with people from certain countries, justifying their authoritarian regime.
Also, in a room of 20, if one person cannot bring and share into their voice at least a second person among the 19 other ones, they won't get any result either by being part of the assembly. That's were you build friends and teams before elections to propose your platform. Alone, you can't act much.
> authoritarian regime
There is nothing authoritarian about the system. It is just different in the sense that it was designed to put more weight to the states instead of the union in the balance of power.
In my view, much more authoritarian/totalitarian was Napoleon's obsession with centralization and uniformity, to which I guess you take no issue? ;)
> Alone, you can't act much
You are moving the goal posts. We were talking about representation according to one's votes, not about the efficiency of its parliament.
Lots of inequalities in our system when you think about it---
- 12 jurors get to decide guilt, no matter the will of the people
- you can publish whatever you want, even if all of Congress would rather you not
Equality and inequality don't exist in vacuums. It's more art than science to know which to strive for, and when.
And representation in both the House of Representatives and the Senate (moreso in the latter case) is not equal by population, so that just explains one of the way the voices are unequal rather than contradicting that claim.
"One person, one vote" never meant "one vote, one equal share of representation" would be a better way of saying it perhaps.
That's exactly what “one person, one vote” means, but the only place in the US system that “one person, one vote” is applied is to the states as a consequence of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, on which basis state level structures very similar to the way the two Houses of Congress are set up under the federal Constitution have been struck down as violations of the principle, and, thereby, the Constitution.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/one-person_one-vote_rule
The US federal system of representation is a conscious denial of equal protection.
Maybe there is a dark history that has been avoided by the EC, but it seems incomplete to just just allude to it with a vague David and Goliath analogy.
The EC and 2 senators per state system that the US uses seems to lead to a tyranny of the minority, especially if you consider that senate “rules” regarding filibustering, simple, absolute majorities are almost all conventions rather than laws or immutable procedures.
However, I do agree with your line of argument as it relates to constitutional amendments.
Edit: I said the executive could create law, when I meant to say they can direct action.
We're holding a knife by the blade and trying to cut with the handle and complaining it hurts. Of course it does. We're not using the tool properly.
We could also massively increase the number of states which would make the two points that all states get just for existing much less relevant (and have other benefits). Even if you just look at the house the number of people represented by any given person is massive compared to what it was 100yr ago let alone when the system was designed.
Either I am failing to parse your sentence or you missed some words.
The southern, richest states complain about the federal government taking out more than what is put in - which is not always true: a lot of the problems from southern states is that they can't manage their finances and are constantly asking the federal government to bail them out. The people in the poorer northern states complain about not getting money and help even though the they are the biggest beneficiaries from the Union - the problem ends up being that most of these resources are diverted and go to the pockets of the powerful families in those states.
And still, every election cycle everyone gets riled up over who is running for president when it would be better for everyone to look first to their cities and states. And while it certainly would be better for everyone if we could just reduce the power concentrated in the federal level, we have no single practical provision to do that. All that people can do is to root for their dog and realize that nothing ever really changes in a positive way.
Aside: Lula is no saint. Worse than that, he is the devil that fools you into believing his kind soul and uses it to rob you blind. He is the one that brought this polarization to 11 with the goal of consolidating more power. He is the one that was making the state ever bigger during a few good boom years. He talked loudly about "working for the poor" but his (and Dilma's) economic policies were favoring always a few exclusive group of an elite that was interested in keeping him in power. Cronyism was rampant. It was under his tenure that the endemic corruption became systemic: every government contract job had a kickback scheme which would fuel his party and his allies.
It was no conspiracy that put Lula in jail. He was the leader of what was essentially a kleptocracy who subverted all institutions to work in his favor. And none of that would be so easy to do if the people in the states had more control over what happens in Brasilia.
I believe that the less populated states would not have joined the union without the electoral college.
They may justifiably feel that it's still not in their interests to give it up.
EDIT: Fun fact: technically the states elect the president, the constitution does not specify a popular vote for that office, and there doesn't need to be one.
To compare with the EU, imagine if elections for the EU parliament were proportional to the populations of the member countries and how much that would favor the larger ones
> The allocation of seats to each member state is based on the principle of degressive proportionality, so that, while the size of the population of each country is taken into account, smaller states elect more MEPs than is proportional to their populations.
Anyway, it's not a direct comparison; MEP elections correspond to the House of Representatives, and there's no figure with the same centrality as the US President.
Most importantly, parties in the EU are primarily local and campaign on a local basis. There are trans-party coalitions like the EPP, but identification with them is weak. Whereas you can sample random Americans from across the country and find they identify as (and even are publicly registered as??) Democrat and Republican, and with a strong consistency across the country as to what those stand for.
Personally, I wish we could do two things:
1. Remove electoral college. 1 vote = 1 say no matter where you live. The fact the the senate is 2-per-state already gives plenty of weight to lower-pop states. 2. De-emphasize the role of the president. In particular, curtail the power of executive orders and the unfettered ability to use the military. It's 2020, the age of kings is over, and we don't need anyone trying to act like one.
I think this would not have, for instance, curtailed a lot of the positive things Obama had done, but would have definitely stopped Trump from doing a lot of the bad stuff.
Incidentally, I think over the next 50 years we're going to see the huge cities spread out a bit. Cities will still be where most people live, but I think we'll see more mid-sized cities (more places in the 250k-500k-ish pop range) having attractive employment options and good amenities.
Yes, the increase reliance on federal government and increasing grab of power from any president is a problem. But if you remove the EC you'll get the bigger states pushing for their interests and use the federal government even more as a proxy, consequently giving even more power and responsibilities to it.
I hadn't head that one, but it makes some sense; analogous to the house/senate difference.
I don't know about perception, but in practice the electoral college has decided 2 elections in the past 20 years in favor of the Republican candidate when the Democratic candidate won the popular vote.
I think generally people want to do away with it (my guess is the would be reflected slightly higher in HN than the general population).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degressive_proportionality
Do they actually have that much in common or is it out-group homogeneity?[1]. They would probably say all city dwellers are the same but obviously people from NYC don't have that much in common with people from SF beside some lifestyle commonality.
It actually does the opposite. If you split up California into a bunch of smaller states, then some of those would vote one way, and others would vote the other way meaning they would effectively be cancelling each other out. This would weaken its power.
I am not pro abolishment of the EC, I think the system has some merit but that we could tweak it in any number of ways to let urban states have a bit more say. I'm a bit sick of feeling unheard by politicians 30 odd years into my life.
The US has changed a lot since its inception and has structurally changed in profound ways. The 12th and 17th amendments, the civil war, and the rise of federal power. I think it's important to contextualize what the electoral college originally was versus what it current is. I think it's also very important to note that no method of self-government can accommodate every citizens's preferences in unison. So whether it's direct democracy or not some portion of the US voters will 'lose'.
Personally I think we're running head long into the consequences of a very strong federal government where the people desire a say in which (singular) person gets to 'run' the country. When a single person represents 50% (+/- a few % depending on EC or popular vote) of a nation of over 300 million I think we have deep systemic issues that neither the electoral college can stem nor can the popular vote fix.
Are you trying to say you wish you saw less political division in America (left vs right)?