For about 240 years, America has been more or less held together by economics. You could write a history of American unity solely in economic terms, without once mentioning any other thing uniting Americans, such as the "pursuit of happiness" and other noble values, and your history would be far more accurate than any other history of American unity that you could possibly write, but which cut out all reference to economics.
Economics has never been an entire success at holding America together, but it has never been an entire failure either.
To illustrate, American unity was predominantly forged at first in a nearly rapacious, head-long rush to steal land and resources from Native Americans that lasted up until the late 1800s, and that both produced the myth anyone can succeed in America through sheer pluck and hard work, and that also quite arguably liberalized American republicanism into a species of representative democracy -- especially at the state and local levels. In short, not only American unity, but even American democracy has crucially depended on economics.
If and when America becomes a failed state, its failure will be due to economics. Mostly, that is.
A few other factors are destined to play supporting roles in that tale. Of those factors, one -- the rise of intellectual dishonesty -- is probably the "wallflower at the party factor" -- the factor whose importance will be most overlooked. Few people think of intellectual dishonesty when they think of the collapse of nations or civilizations, but it is arguable that it does play a role, albeit a modestly important one.
One way to readily see that importance is to first take a look at the role that beliefs about the nature of reality -- as distinct from values -- play in determining our actions. Chiefly, they serve as guides or maps to reality. They are useful in helping us get from where we are to where we want to go, although they do not tell us what destination we should seek. That is left to our values.
Suppose I am anti-abortion and I also believe that teenagers getting pregnant might have something to do with the demand for abortions in my community. It is easy to see how my values might be informed by my beliefs to lead me to explore ways of reducing teenage pregnancies.
Now suppose you are pro-choice, but even though you are pro-choice, you don't want there to be any more abortions than there must be for any reason. You and I thus have somewhat similar values, but it's possible we could have even identical beliefs.
For instance, maybe we both think teenagers getting pregnant contributes to the demand for abortions, and -- after exploring ways to reduce that demand -- we both come to believe that placing large, cardboard cut-outs of @SalixIncendium dressed in his appalling favorite go-to-temple outfit (red socks, paisley knee-britches, blindingly yellow shirt, and black cravat) in every teen's bedroom will reduce teen pregnancies by making the kids far too nauseous to desire sex. It's easy to see how we would now be poised to agree upon a course of action, even despite slightly different values.
Even if we have very different values, we might still be able to agree up the same course of action if we have the same take on reality. You might be pro-Civil Rights, I might be opposed to Civil Rights, but if we both thought giving people a few more rights would reduce the chances of a bloody revolution, we might agree on doing so.
But suppose we have different beliefs though we have the very same values. That can at times lead to an impasse about what to do. You and I are both anti-abortion, but you think sex ed will reduce teen pregnancy and thus the demand for abortion, while I just don't see what sex ed has to do with it, thus we vote opposite ways on a bill to fund teaching it.
So, I think shared beliefs about reality have some power to unite people in a common belief about what needs to be done. If that's true, then intellectual dishonesty can be seen as something which kicks the legs out from under the best ways of reaching shared beliefs.
Humans are in so many ways disposed to being irrational, it is easy to forget they can at times be quite rational, that not every decision they make is actually doomed to being made irrationally. Moreover, it is scientifically demonstrable that rationality is both separate from intelligence, and capable of being taught. But for it to be used to arrive at anything that might be called "truth", rather than merely used as a clever means of rationalizing falsehoods. people also need training and encouragement in such things intellectual discipline and intellectual honesty.
Economics has never been an entire success at holding America together, but it has never been an entire failure either.
To illustrate, American unity was predominantly forged at first in a nearly rapacious, head-long rush to steal land and resources from Native Americans that lasted up until the late 1800s, and that both produced the myth anyone can succeed in America through sheer pluck and hard work, and that also quite arguably liberalized American republicanism into a species of representative democracy -- especially at the state and local levels. In short, not only American unity, but even American democracy has crucially depended on economics.
If and when America becomes a failed state, its failure will be due to economics. Mostly, that is.
A few other factors are destined to play supporting roles in that tale. Of those factors, one -- the rise of intellectual dishonesty -- is probably the "wallflower at the party factor" -- the factor whose importance will be most overlooked. Few people think of intellectual dishonesty when they think of the collapse of nations or civilizations, but it is arguable that it does play a role, albeit a modestly important one.
One way to readily see that importance is to first take a look at the role that beliefs about the nature of reality -- as distinct from values -- play in determining our actions. Chiefly, they serve as guides or maps to reality. They are useful in helping us get from where we are to where we want to go, although they do not tell us what destination we should seek. That is left to our values.
Suppose I am anti-abortion and I also believe that teenagers getting pregnant might have something to do with the demand for abortions in my community. It is easy to see how my values might be informed by my beliefs to lead me to explore ways of reducing teenage pregnancies.
Now suppose you are pro-choice, but even though you are pro-choice, you don't want there to be any more abortions than there must be for any reason. You and I thus have somewhat similar values, but it's possible we could have even identical beliefs.
For instance, maybe we both think teenagers getting pregnant contributes to the demand for abortions, and -- after exploring ways to reduce that demand -- we both come to believe that placing large, cardboard cut-outs of @SalixIncendium dressed in his appalling favorite go-to-temple outfit (red socks, paisley knee-britches, blindingly yellow shirt, and black cravat) in every teen's bedroom will reduce teen pregnancies by making the kids far too nauseous to desire sex. It's easy to see how we would now be poised to agree upon a course of action, even despite slightly different values.
Even if we have very different values, we might still be able to agree up the same course of action if we have the same take on reality. You might be pro-Civil Rights, I might be opposed to Civil Rights, but if we both thought giving people a few more rights would reduce the chances of a bloody revolution, we might agree on doing so.
But suppose we have different beliefs though we have the very same values. That can at times lead to an impasse about what to do. You and I are both anti-abortion, but you think sex ed will reduce teen pregnancy and thus the demand for abortion, while I just don't see what sex ed has to do with it, thus we vote opposite ways on a bill to fund teaching it.
So, I think shared beliefs about reality have some power to unite people in a common belief about what needs to be done. If that's true, then intellectual dishonesty can be seen as something which kicks the legs out from under the best ways of reaching shared beliefs.
Humans are in so many ways disposed to being irrational, it is easy to forget they can at times be quite rational, that not every decision they make is actually doomed to being made irrationally. Moreover, it is scientifically demonstrable that rationality is both separate from intelligence, and capable of being taught. But for it to be used to arrive at anything that might be called "truth", rather than merely used as a clever means of rationalizing falsehoods. people also need training and encouragement in such things intellectual discipline and intellectual honesty.
