There may be saddle points ('horseshoe nails'), in history - in which case there is no forever trendline.

200 years is not a trivial interval of time, especially when taking into account the large numbers of Americans who lived between then and now.

Yes. In terms of recent history, 200 years is a very long time. Lots of stuff happened, most people who have ever lived were born during that time, many inventions happened, and so on.

But from an imagined perspective 1000 years in the future, say when the universe population is 1 trillion people, I could imagine people binning the US together with other countries in this kind of manner.

Specifically, I think that future historians will bracket the collapse of the USSR and USA as twin events occurring say 25-40 years apart (1989 and 2014-2029). Once hyperinflation destroys the US economy, we'll look back and say that both were consumed by egalitarianist viruses similar to those that devoured Weimar and Rhodesia.

Needless to say, this is very different from the near-term End Of History view in the early 90s.

But from an imagined perspective 1000 years in the future, say when the universe population is 1 trillion people, I could imagine people binning the US together with other countries in this kind of manner.

if there are 1 trillion people in 1,000 years, i think it is going to be impossible for us to imagine how such people will think (since it implies that humanity as a whole has continued to expand out of the malthusian trap and like reengineered themselves in myriad ways). as a point of contrast, there were ~300 million people alive in the year 1000 AD, 1/23rd of today, but imagine them trying to conceive what it would be like in the year 2000 AD. and arguably the rate of change is *increasing*, not *decreasing.* the counterargument is that our analytical framework is so qualitatively so superior now as opposed to then that we can make thousand-year projections. though this is true, i believe, for physical sciences (of appropriate scale), i don't believe it is so for social sciences. though *some* of the science fiction of 1900 seems to have an idea of what will be going on in 2000, it seems most of it was wrong.

though *some* of the science fiction of 1900 seems to have an idea of what will be going on in 2000, it seems most of it was wrong.

Interesting. So where was this fiction wrong the most and where was it most right?

I'd guess it was most inaccurate at predicting the pace of technological advance, and most right at guessing the political-social aspects of the human condition. (Not having read a lot of sci-fi I have no idea whether this is true).

Is the science fiction of today still like this (as I imagined it to be) or does it conform to politically correct forms of social behaviour?

I mean, you can't get much more acceptance of diversity than in the universe of Star Wars.

The postulates of Hassett's argument are probably wrong to begin with. The timescale of merit isn't 230 years, it's 60 years - the very rough length of time the post-WWII European economic system has existed. It's not at all a sure thing that such a system is sustainable, especially in the face of demographic collapse.

To the extent that the US and UK styles converge, it's going to be in a heap at the bottom of a fiscal cliff once the US can no longer find buyers for its debt.

Edward, H.G. Wells wasn't very accurate on the social side - The Time Machine went with a crude sort of Marxism (the future races are an atrophied "functionless investor" class and a cannibalistic proletariat, with the Time Traveller explaining that you can see the beginnings of that future even now). His Martians in War of the Worlds were supposed to be a later-evolved humanoid type (their limbs were atrophied because they were more tech-dependent), so he was right on the scientific side in the sense that he didn't think evolution stops cold when you get intelligence and culture. You might give him trivially more credit on the scientific than the social side, but he was telling stories (and telling them well) more than predicting the future. He's the only 1900's (decade) sci-fi I know.

It is also worth pointing out that the American Revolution changed the rest of the world. Would the GDP of Britain be the same if America hadn't set an example of how to run a free prosperous republic? Britain has managed to almost keep pace with the equilibrium, but the Revolution shifted the equilibrium itself.

It is also worth pointing out that America absorbed a lot of the population that would have otherwise stayed European. If America had remained a colony of Britain, I would guess that a lot of the potential immigrants would have stayed home. Eisenhower would have been a German general instead of an American one.

So where was this fiction wrong the most and where was it most right?

Albert Robida

The American Revolution had a massive effect on the subsequent development of the British Empire's other settler colonies. Britain assumed they needed to be made self-governing as soon as they were practically ready. It also assumed they needed US-style federal structures.

Had the 13 colonies continued to be governed from across the Atlantic, they might not have expanded so dramatically into the continental space to their west, purchased land from France and Russia, gone to war with Mexico and Spain, etc.

It is also worth pointing out that America absorbed a lot of the population that would have otherwise stayed European. If America had remained a colony of Britain, I would guess that a lot of the potential immigrants would have stayed home. Eisenhower would have been a German general instead of an American one.

i think the balance would probably have skewed more toward british origin immigrants, but i wouldn't overstate this as there was already a lot of ethnic diversity in the "middle colonies." and since the irish were within the british empire, they probably would have come 19th century, just as they went to australia or canada. also, on a minor note, eisenhower's paternal lineage arrived in america in 1741, along with the large number of german immigrants to pennsylvania (though the "big wave" of germans didn't show up until the 19th century).

re: early science fiction. jules verene explicitly tried to be a predictor, wells was more an entertainer. most modern science fiction writers will admit that their fiction is a reflection of the current age, and not a real prediction of the future. this is obvious now because science fiction culture has been around for nearly a century, and 'golden age' 1930s science fiction obviously reflects the mores of that period, while science fiction in the 1960s to some extent reflected cultural changes then.

Had the 13 colonies continued to be governed from across the Atlantic, they might not have expanded so dramatically into the continental space to their west, purchased land from France and Russia, gone to war with Mexico and Spain, etc.

don't want to go too far into soc.history.what-if territory, but i think in hindsight a milder version of the brazil-portugal relationship might have been inevitable for the american colonies & england. the temperate eastern seaboard of north america was going to "fill up" with people in the 19th century no matter what, and surpass the england. this is where an analogy with the white dominions is weak because none of them have surpassed britain in population even today. canada is too cold. new zealand is too small. australia is too dry.

"H.G. Wells wasn't very accurate on the social side"

H.G. Wells wrote a neat little book called "Anticipations" where he predicted what things would be like in the year 2000. He got a lot right, but obviously not everything.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/788666...sts-of-HG- Wells

"also, on a minor note..."

Interesting, Razib

I thought of Verne as pre-1900, but yes; going back a little further, you might know that Poe tried his hand at some predictive sci-fi. In "Hans Pfaal" he tried to imagine, in detail, what a trip to the moon would be like (the trip itself, not the arrival). The trip is made in a balloon, so he can't get much credit for accuracy. Two of his stories ("The Conversation of Eidos and Charmion," and a superseding article I forget the name of) were efforts at scientific eschatology (in the latter, he predicts the earth will eventually burn from accumulated caloric, which I believe was an out of date concept by then, so he doesn't get overmuch credit there either).

Kevem - I'd never heard of him; fascinating; thanks!

Chemdude - I found "Anticipations"
(nonfiction, I see) at Gutenberg - no time to read it now, but thanks.