Random Shoutbox Salvage

[The Beatles]

I wrote this for the shoutbox, then I thought I actually had an idea (good or bad), so I decided to request comments. The "BTW" refers to China selling weapons to Iran.

BTW, this is a perfect illustration of why America isn't an "Empire". I will measure an Empire by how much it can impose its will on the rest of the world*. Ancient Rome could, in a very real military sense. Soviet Russia could, again in a military sense. The British Empire could, but militarily only within narrow bounds (partly as it was liberal and democratic, partly as the world was larger); economically very much. America could, but had the military capacity to do so for only a very short time and now can only do so economically (because it also is liberal and democratic, and because the world is much larger). The trouble is, it is also rapidly losing the capacity to economically influence world affairs.

As history progresses, the world increases and communications improve. This has the natural effect of reducing the importance of the military, increasing the importance of economy, promoting democracy, and reducing the power of individual states. What is the next step in the trend? At a hazardous guess, population will eventually take the role of economics in political power (as economics displaced politics). I would guess that this could happen in as little as 200-300 years. In fact, I think we are already seeing it happen, especially as we transition to service economies, energy costs decrease with renewable energy, and manufacturing becomes cheaper (and hence industry decreases).

In more immediate terms, North America (for Canada is a huge economy too) will lose its pre-eminence to Asia. At least by the middle of this century.

The key statement is obviously the one about population; please comment on everything but especially that.


* Examples from each entity discussed: pacification of Mediterranea, abolition of slavery, collapse of the Soviet Union.

[Gen. Volkov]

deja vu. I've seen this before.

The trouble is, it is also rapidly losing the capacity to economically influence world affairs.

I wouldn't say rapidly, we have at least another 3 decades before China pulls even with us. In fact, excepting China, we still have a huge economic influence over the world.

It is true that we are finding it increasingly difficult to influence the world militarily. Mainly it's because we can't ever use our most powerful weapons, and everyone knows it. Our conventional military can defeat anyone one on one, but we'd be hard pressed to defeat several enemies at once, with just our current military. Institute the draft and really go to war, and it might be different, but we've no reason to do so, and the internal backlash would be too great to allow it.

Population taking the place of economics? I don't quite see how. A large population is more of a burden than a blessing, especially in service economies with little industry.

[Kraken]

Although i think that this conversation is moot, i found a link that will bolster Beatles argument somewhat: http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribun ... _06_15.asp

i will add one booger, a military, wither it be great or small will always need to be around and ready. you want to know why? because you got (Profanity is a sign of Maturity)s out there with guns, bombs and idiots who will strap god knows what to em and until every rouge can be brought to heel....well, do i need to be any more in depth with it?

do read the link though and i do agree with it.
i am torn from time to time with a strong feeling of Isolationism and how i think that would be best and a strong urge to have one world ruled by brotherly love.
but just be sure to get all the (Profanity is a sign of Maturity)s out there to agree with it first eh?

now! where did i put my bagel?!!/?

[The Beatles]

You didn't really pay much attention, did you? I said the U.S. hasn't been able to influence the world military for a long time. Specifically, it lost that ability by after WWII as the Soviet Union rose. The reasons are the same as they were for the British Empire. Lack of political will and an increasingly well-armed world.

What else would you see as replacing the economy then? Once economies reach a reasonable level of parity and energy costs dwindle, the only thing that sets countries' productivities apart is either raw food production capacity or population. It could be either; I gambled on the latter, I could of course be wrong. But not today's artificial system of economy.

[edit] Kraken posted, but this post was directed at Volkov.


Kraken -- yes, states will always need a military (if only as a deterrent), just as they will always need an economy. But when everyone has one, it's harder to use.

[edit2] To Kraken's link -- I'm far from happy about China's increasing role in world affairs, given its record. But I am sure it is destined for eventual liberalization from within.

[Gen. Volkov]

You didn't really pay much attention, did you? I said the U.S. hasn't been able to influence the world military for a long time. Specifically, it lost that ability by after WWII as the Soviet Union rose. The reasons are the same as they were for the British Empire. Lack of political will and an increasingly well-armed world.

Hey Beatles, I was AGREEING WITH YOU. Maybe you should pay more attention to what I'm saying. I payed perfect attention, I just wanted to add my own perspective on the matter. Is that such a freaking crime?

What else would you see as replacing the economy then? Once economies reach a reasonable level of parity and energy costs dwindle, the only thing that sets countries' productivities apart is either raw food production capacity or population. It could be either; I gambled on the latter, I could of course be wrong. But not today's artificial system of economy.

Food production, far more than population. Once the world population begins to approach unsustainable levels, (and with current growth rates it will by 2050 or so) food production is going to be the most important thing in the world. Wars will probably be fought over cropland. In fact, this will happen well before the economies of the world reach parity, but after energy costs start to dwindle.

I am hoping that China has it's long overdue revolution before they surpass us as the world's largest economy. But there is no guarantee that will happen.

[The Beatles]

1. OK, you said "increasingly difficult", and I said "long gone" for the U.S.'s capacity for military influence. Matter of perspective really. I would say it ended after WWII. Let's not get touchy, we've known each other long.

2. Food production or population. Long-term, if nations survive, the latter. Short-term (few 100 years), you may be right, the former.

[Gen. Volkov]

1. OK, you said "increasingly difficult", and I said "long gone" for the U.S.'s capacity for military influence. Matter of perspective really. I would say it ended after WWII. Let's not get touchy, we've known each other long.

Sorry, I just don't like being accused of not paying attention. Our ability to directly influence through military did end after WW2, but our ability to indirectly influence the world through military still exists. We also regained a little direct influence after the Soviet Union collapsed. Our ability to influence through military is mostly gone, but I wouldn't say completely gone yet. Look no further than Russia's reaction to our plan to place an anti-missile system in Poland and other countries to see that we do still have military influence. It's indirect to be sure, but it is still there to a small extent.

2. Food production or population. Long-term, if nations survive, the latter. Short-term (few 100 years), you may be right, the former.

Matter of perspective, I don't see long term survival in the cards for the human race, you do.

[Ruddertail]

There's a real optimistic outlook on the future...

Sorry, just had to add that. Continue on...

[Gen. Volkov]

I'm talking in terms of past the next couple hundred years Rudder. I'm sure we'll make to to 2200 or so, past that I can't say. If current growth rates continue, we are going to be in serious trouble by 2050 or so.

[Nuclear Raunch]

WW3 will likely temporarily ease the population burden. China will eventually have a revolution and probably fragment as well. Well, unless WW3 goes so badly that there are no more Chinese.

[Kraken]

*laughs*, were already in WW3 didnt you know?
or is it the 99% of conflicts out there that are Muslims v/s (fill in the blank) count for nothing?
oh, i get it...it has to be different....

anyways: what a pointless conversation.

[The Beatles]

Yes, there is a crucial difference: it affects the lives of 0.001% (at a high estimate) of the population in a direct and tangible way. As opposed to the last two, where that figure was at least 10% unless I've lost all capacity for estimation.

[Nuclear Raunch]

By that logic WW1 actually happened hundreds of years before Germany became a nation

[The Beatles]

Whose logic are you ridiculing here?

[Nuclear Raunch]

*laughs*, were already in WW3 didnt you know?
or is it the 99% of conflicts out there that are Muslims v/s (fill in the blank) count for nothing?
oh, i get it...it has to be different....

This logic

Come on seriously, do you have to ask? Whose logic do we all ridicule?