If the economy, the infrastructure, the government is destroyed what good is a consensus going to do to fix things?
That has happened many times before; consider Germany and Great Britain and France and Italy and Japan and China and Poland and so many other nations after WWII.
That seems like a really risky, dangerous path. I don't think Trump or someone like him can provide leadership.
Perhaps, but maybe non-leadership really is needed.
Well, global wars and epidemics do briefly cut population, but the amount of suffering and destruction hardly seems an acceptable price. The worldwide economic depressions and recessions were bad but not complete collapses of society; money, food, and jobs were scarce but not completely gone. Agriculture still existed and was able to feed the survivors. We might not be so lucky without leadership who actually have knowledge beyond bluster.
We have never had a serious epidemic since our society became globally interconnected. We have not faced a disease with a long incubation period, that spreads from human contact and that has a high lethality.
I assume when you say "the world has survived" and "it will likely survive even this", you mean humanity, but what makes you think the biosphere, let alone humanity can survive climate change and an exploding human population? The threats to the whole planet have never been a part of a single thought in Trump's incredible brain.
I think humanity is likely to survive but you are right, we have never faced problems of this scale. And we need something that will get the majority of folks actively considering how to address such issues.
Unfortunately, it really does seem that a very high pain threshold is needed to get folks attention.
Also I am really not sure it is not time to seriously re draw the map of the US; maybe break it down into four or five smaller Nation States.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
™ Version 4.2
(1)
