Is Professor Mearsheimer saying that the end of the world is coming soon?

[Hardkill]

He says that he essentially has nothing positive to say about the future of our whole world, because how much trouble all of the most powerful countries are in, including America.

[Leo Gura]

Meh...

The world is still more peaceful and civilized than ever.

Pundits gotta invent problems otherwise they'd be out of a job.

Be careful with this doomerism porn.

Edited April 26 by Leo Gura

[Bobby_2021]

The world isn't coming to an end.

But people live as if they have no freking clue of how bad things are. We are closer to a nuclear war than we have ever been. It makes me depressed how bad things are. So it makes sense how most people don't care to enlighten themselves on what's going on.

The problem we face now is of our own ignorance and arrogance, and not the one from a formidable enemy.

The delusional attitude of western leaders is beyond insanity. There is no way out for the moment. 

[Princess Arabia]

Geesh, haven't heard this fable in a while. I guess it's that time for the circle to jerk back around and cook up some jerk chicken and rice and peas., with some Y2k syrup on top.

Edited April 26 by Princess Arabia

[Jayson G]

@Leo Gura I dont know about the escalation of these wars, or other doomsday stuff, but I do think nuclear war is a very serious concern. If you watch this, she's pretty credible, a journalist focused on documenting the truth, spoken to a lot of credible people around the world and stuff .. after I listened to this, Im sure that nuclear was is like very serious 

she also has a nice voice

 

[Bobby_2021]

@Leo Gura The world was far more peaceful during 2009-19 than during the last 4 years. 

Africa is in a crisis. There are missiles facing Europe and Russia. China might invade Taiwan, Iran might block the shipping in red sea.

Defence spending is on rise all across the world. I bet they are not buying weapons en mass for "peaceful purposes".

It's usually calm before a storm. 

[Jodistrict]

 

The threat of nuclear war is real.  The notion that the systems controlling the nuclear weapons will always be under control of rational forces and mistakes will never be made is a fiction that helps some people cope.    In my opinion, the Western leadership is more at fault.  Their instance of maintaining a hegemony is driving China and Russia into forming a separate economic union (i.e, BRICS).     We are spending resources on weapons rather than making a world that works.  Robert Kennedy is the only American politician that has clearly articulated this and has a plan to change US foreign policy.

[Bobby_2021]

During the cuban missile crisis of the 60s the entire world knew that we were in the brink of a nuclear war.

So both sides US and USSR acknowledged the serious to the matter, sat down and talked it out.

Right now we are again close to a similar situation but our leaders are delusional and not even willing to sit down for talks, and even worse keep blocking peace deals.

If they recognised the problem, then they could rectify it. That's what makes it so dangerous in my opinion, is that not enough people know how bad it is. The leaders right now are among the most idiotic and arrogant. They don't even acknowledge a problem. 

They still think Ukraine is still winning since they haven't gotten over the propaganda fed to them from early 2022.

[Girzo]

1 hour ago, Jodistrict said:

Their instance of maintaining a hegemony is driving China and Russia into forming a separate economic union (i.e, BRICS).  

Yet, the reality shows that things like BRICS never rise up to their promise. Maybe there's an inherent structural issue to the authoritarian countries that make them unable to cooperate at that level. Or maybe it's just the current setup of the world divided in a center, semi-perriferies, and perrifferies, that make such cooperation a net-negative for all the parties involved no matter what.

[BlueOak]

33 minutes ago, Girzo said:

Yet, the reality shows that things like BRICS never rise up to their promise. Maybe there's an inherent structural issue to the authoritarian countries that make them unable to cooperate at that level. Or maybe it's just the current setup of the world divided in a center, semi-perriferies, and perrifferies, that make such cooperation a net-negative for all the parties involved no matter what.

They cannot recreate the benefits of globalism with half the globe.

[Raze]

 

[Danioover9000]

@Jayson G

11 hours ago, Jayson G said:

@Leo Gura I dont know about the escalation of these wars, or other doomsday stuff, but I do think nuclear war is a very serious concern. If you watch this, she's pretty credible, a journalist focused on documenting the truth, spoken to a lot of credible people around the world and stuff .. after I listened to this, Im sure that nuclear was is like very serious 

she also has a nice voice

 

   Just because she's credible, a journalist, and is in Lex Fridman's podcast that it persuaded you into thinking that nuclear wars is a serious threat? Really? Maybe for the current ecosystem, humans and information age we live in I'd mostly agree, but for mother earth? An existential threat for future lifeforms? for other planets? Meh.

[Danioover9000]

@Hardkill

11 hours ago, Hardkill said:

He says that he essentially has nothing positive to say about the future of our whole world, because how much trouble all of the most powerful countries are in, including America.

   OF COURSE! It's predictable that John Mearsheimer, proclaimed realist pessimist would sya there's no future and do this doomer and apocalypse narrative. I do think he gets some points right, but for this specifically he's a bit inaccurate.

   For example, we're and he are so worried about nuclear warfare, yet wolves of Chernobyl are doing fine, and the general wildlife and even plant flora are for some reason fine and have recovered from that nuclear disaster. Yes in terms of evidence and proof to counter how deadly nuclear fallouts and outcomes are is limited, I mean we only have the pacific war and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, numbers of nuclear tests, and a few nuclear plant failures, and yes I only have Chernobyl as one example, but so far wildlife there were speculated to not be able to recover and exist yet wildlife has adapted to radiation levels. Obviously there are zones and too close to nuclear reactor is a bit dangerous, but farther away it seems the wildlife and plants are resilient and have adapted. 

Edited April 26 by Danioover9000

[Jodistrict]

Mearsheimer is being misquoted.  He never gave a doomsday narrative.   Referring to the global situation with all the conflicts, he said things are going to get worse.   I think that is accurate unless the West gets better leadership.  

[nerdspeak]

Mearsheimer has an academic position but he's considered to be a kind of crazy laughing-stock. To give one anecdote, in the 90s he went around telling European countries to start nuclear weapons programs to counter the threat of a reunified Germany.

[Danioover9000]

@Jodistrict

20 minutes ago, Jodistrict said:

Mearsheimer is being misquoted.  He never gave a doomsday narrative.   Referring to the global situation with all the conflicts, he said things are going to get worse.   I think that is accurate unless the West gets better leadership.  

   It's not that John Mearsheimer is being misquoted, it's that we're seeing a pattern and implying from it that it's this doomer mentality and apocalypse story. I technically agree here that Mearsheimer is also inferring just like us, and is commenting that things will get worse.

[Bobby_2021]

Starting a nuclear program in the 90s would have been the best decision any country could have taken. You never know where the threat comes from. So taking a defensive position and preparing for it is pretty sensible.

[nerdspeak]

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Starting a nuclear program in the 90s would have been the best decision any country could have taken. You never know where the threat comes from. So taking a defensive position and preparing for it is pretty sensible.

I disagree, because risk of armageddon goes up exponentially with each additional actor who gets nukes. Long-term this poses greater threat. 

You could say, an individual state shouldn’t care about that because it still helps their chances of survival. But it doesn’t actually, long term. 

Let’s say Poland builds nukes to deter Russia. Smart right? Except, then Sweden, Germany, Lithuania, Ukraine will build them too, to counter Poland. That world is a lot more dangerous than the imperfect NATO deterrent.

[Leo Gura]

Mearsheimer is a reasonable guy. I was speaking not against him per se, but about the trap of turning his perspective into a kind of doomerism within your own mind.

Your mind is cherrypicking all these political videos you watch to form its own worldview, and if you do this carelessly then you might end up in hell, even though the world at large is doing fine.

Edited April 26 by Leo Gura

[Nemra]

@Leo Gura 

Oh, my. The fans of Mearsheimer really misrepresent him. I have seen people using his name to fuel their agenda.

(I'm watching him for the first time)