> but the world as a whole is not a better place because Facebook and Lockheed and the US CIA exist.

You've cherry-picked a few bogeymen.

What about Norman Borlaug, Bell Laboratories, the Gates Foundation, Margaret Sanger and the Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology?

I’d have picked the Manhattan Project, ARPANET/Wikipedia, and aerospace development in the wake of the Wright brothers.

Many of the ones you’ve listed would likely have happened whether or not the USA-qua-USA existed. The Manhattan project and the current internet and the rush to build airplanes (first as weapons of war, of course) would probably not have happened the way they did without the USA.

You’re probably wrong about this but will never admit it.

This is because you have an ideological commitment and are backing into the answer that is orthodox to this commitment, rather than any real rationale or spirit of inquiry.

> What comes after will be more transparent, more fair, and more integrated with society.

Can you walk me through how you see this playing out, step-by-step?

I want to believe!

Revolutionaries tend to suffer from extreme naivete or arrogance. They don't understand that idealists like them usually get pushed aside or killed by the real crazies during the power vacuum stage, then the country becomes significantly worse. It's happened so many times in history. Until the US starts killing half of its population like Pol Pot did it can always get worse.

Over the last thousand years, humans have become more educated and more connected. Violent deaths have been steadily falling.

Over the last hundred years, American military and paramilitary forces, and their vendors, have subverted transparency and democracy to turn America into a military dictatorship.

There is nothing to suggest that the fall of the United States and subsequent replacement (with whatever may come) will reverse the thousand year trend of increased education and decreased violence.

The culture of the 3.6% of people who live in the current territory of the USA will be irreparably damaged, however. This may not be entirely a bad thing, given how significant an outlier the US lifestyle is compared to the rest of the world.

> There is nothing to suggest that the fall of the United States and subsequent replacement (with whatever may come) will reverse the thousand year trend of increased education and decreased violence.

We're talking about long-term cycles of change here so it is difficult to opine with certainty leaving a lot of room for differing opinions. Unfortunately, however, I think the end of Pax Americana will usher in increased conflict and violence, particularly in the West which has experienced a long period of peace due to American dominance.

> There is nothing to suggest that the fall of the United States and subsequent replacement (with whatever may come) will reverse the thousand year trend of increased education and decreased violence.

The US recently put the world on notice that everyone needs a larger military and should develop their own nukes if they can. I fail to see how that will continue to decrease violence.

There have been no large scale wars since the development of nuclear weapons. The data available thus far suggests that mutually assured destruction prevents total war.

I live in a county in which most people are armed. There are very few attempts at carjacking.

I’m not sure talking about guns in the US is proving what you want. The US has a much higher gun murder rate per capita than most other high income countries. It’s in fact near the top with active war zones.

When everyone has weapons, more people get shot. That’s a fact. When countries arm up there is a much higher chance of a conflict happening that can’t be rolled back.

> The US has a much higher gun murder rate per capita than most other high income countries. It’s in fact near the top with active war zones.

This is markedly untrue in most parts of the USA, including the most heavily armed ones. Almost all of the gun murders in the USA are in 3 or 4 extremely high crime (and high poverty) counties.

Dozens of other counties that have gun ownership rates 2-10x higher per capita have much much much less violence. It isn’t the guns unless you generalize entire USA to a single socioeconomic bucket.

The “more guns = more violence” narrative is simple and easy to understand. It’s also false. “more poverty = more violence” is actually correlated. Guns and violence are, if anything, loosely inversely correlated.

More people shoot themselves willingly and deliberately each year in the USA than are murdered by guns, to put it in perspective.

Not every phenomenon is only cause on one side and only consequence on the other side, multiplexed feedback loops are often more appropriate models.

More poverty, more fears, more will to be perceived as an unbeatable threat no one dare to attack, more actual aggression fueled by us vs them mentality, more tragedies. Rinse and repeat.

Also having bad outcomes of a social structure being geographically condensed doesn’t mean they are decoupled from causal inter-dependencies with the places where all the happy shiny outcomes is jealously isolated.

> What comes after will be more transparent, more fair, and more integrated with society.

No one is claiming that US been or will ever be perfect, but what are you smoking? Everything that's happened in the current administration has gone the opposite direction of transparent, fair, and integrated.

There is this mental creed that to reach something really better, a phase of total purge is an absolute requirement, and the resulting gap between the situation once everything was "completely cleaned" and the wonderful world of "everything is fabulous for everyone now" will spontaneously happen out of the sheer expression of the virtuous dynamics then put as new foundations.

Possibly in such a mindset it’s impossible to envision that destroying everything indiscriminately will generate a more challenging situation. One from which it will be far harder to build anything. And which will be far from leaving the world with more pure innocent souls willing to construct a better place for everyone. It won’t percolate into their conscientiousness that the process is just most likely going to create more traumatized people full of fear on the one hand, and people accustomed to impose unilaterally their cruel point of view with violent means on the other hands. And that none of this will be a fertile soil to foster cooperation and trust, things without which humans are unable to create anything worth lauding.

Regardless of all the nasty things US has done, if it goes down, it will get much worse for everyone else as well. Quite possibly worse than it will for Americans themselves. For one thing, it's such a big actor economically that its downfall will hurt everyone a great deal just from that alone. But secondly, when empires go down, they usually do so flailing at any real or perceived enemies around them - and given the sheer military strength of this country, it's not going to be pretty.