New World Order 2030-50

[Spockydog]

4 hours ago, Heartofice said:

What makes you think the EU is responsible for that? Would you concede there might be a number of other reasons at play? 
 

Because that was a stated objective at the time. Try comparing the number of inter-European conflicts prior to the Treaty of Rome, with the number of wars after.

And yes, of course there are other factors. Primarily, the horrors of WW1 and WW2 remaining seared in the memory of those who fought in those conflicts. Unfortunately, most of those people are dead now, and many of their children and grandchildren are pissing all over their ancestors' legacy with the rise of fascism all over Europe.

But the overarching reason for Pax Europaea was increased trade and co-operation. Now, it seems we're just one Boris Johnson gaffe away from some kind of conflict, economic or otherwise.

[The Anti-Targ]

14 hours ago, Maltaran said:

 

If you look at history, it’s actually children (smallpox) or cows (rinderpest)

That is true. Some people theorise that rinderpest was one of the 10 plagues in Egypt mentioned in the Old Testament, so it was a pretty big deal to rid ourselves of a virus that's been periodically devastating cattle (buffalo etc) populations for 5000 years or so.

[DMC]

This thread is strikingly western-centric.  With aging populations, the EU, or the countries that comprise it (plus the UK), and Japan are plainly going to have decreased influence in the immediate future.  The concerning thing is the situations in "emerging" powers, starting with the "BRIC" countries.  Russia and China obviously have almost always been authoritarian (at least long enough to matter), but they're both hardening in that way.  Most concerning, both India and Brazil are also trending less democratic when a decade or two ago the hope was just the opposite.  

Really, looking at all non-western G-20 nations, the trends don't look too good in almost all of them - Argentina, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey.  South Korea is really the only one holding on.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not a believer in democratic peace theory.  And globalization can't be stopped, that's like pushing against the ocean.  But, generally speaking, history and logic tells us the more authoritarian world powers are the more likely they are to engage in conflict.  And that's what we're looking at - even in Europe where the rise of the far right has been simmering for decades.  This is before even considering the increased competition of resources climate change will spawn.

So, yeah, I'd say in terms of the NWO come 2030-50 says "outlook not so good," at the least.  But that has little to do with the EU.  Plus Hogan/Nash/Hall won't be able to save us, they'll probably be dead by then.

[DireWolfSpirit]

The population projections are quite interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

The population projections are quite interesting.

 

[Darzin]

I don't think China will ever be able to take on a role like the US or Soviet Union. They just won't be able to have the international influence there is no ideology which binds nations to China and China's soft power is abismal. I also think the current tensions might fade. They've been emboldened by the Xi Jinping and the wolf warrior diplomats and Xinjiang and Hong Kong. China has had periods of rising and falling tensions with the US and Russia. It also has a very stable system which I feel is pretty secure. I live in China and there is a lot less of the underlying cynicism you get with uauthoritarian governments. It honestly reminds me a bit of the 1950s in the US, people are content with the prosperity and not willing to look at underlying problems. 

With Russia I do wonder what will happend after Putin's death. I do think there is a chance  Russia liberalizes. It's common enough in authoritarian countries that are centered aound one person to liberalize after that person's death. But there are of course no guarantees, but whoever takes over after Putin will have a lot of flexibility to take Russia in many directions.

Overall though I think the global retreat of democracy is highly overated as a threat. Bolsanaro and Mhodi are objectionable but elected leaders and the former at least looks likely to lose the next election. Just compare democracies now to 1980. 

Looking at those population figures I wonder how the world will react to a more powerful and wealthy Africa? Nigeria could become a rising power in 30 years and I'm not sure what that would mean for global politics.

[Winterfell is Burning]

China will in the next decades feel even more the devastating effects of the one-child policy and the demographic atomic bomb it created, any prediction that doesn't take that into account (and seems all of them here, though I might be wrong) is faded to be very off.

Also, this idea that Russia and China will remain allied forever it's also not based on reality. Not only Russia will struggle to accept being the Robin to China's Batman, the Russian far east is an historic Chinese area and has nearly more ethnically Chinese people than Russian, and that number is rising. Tensions (whether it rises to war or not it's unclear ) will be inevitable.

[maarsen]

2 hours ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

China will in the next decades feel even more the devastating effects of the one-child policy and the demographic atomic bomb it created, any prediction that doesn't take that into account (and seems all of them here, though I might be wrong) is faded to be very off.

Also, this idea that Russia and China will remain allied forever it's also not based on reality. Not only Russia will struggle to accept being the Robin to China's Batman, the Russian far east is an historic Chinese area and has nearly more ethnically Chinese people than Russian, and that number is rising. Tensions (whether it rises to war or not it's unclear ) will be inevitable.

I agree with you. China and Russia share a long common border but not a culture or any history such as between Canada and the USA. There is every incentive to for each to go their own way. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

On 3/26/2021 at 1:06 AM, Arakan said:

That would leave us with 3 major global power blocs (US, EU, China) and a group of secondary players (e.g. UK, India, Russia, Brazil, Japan) who will align themselves to one of those 3, depending on who makes the best offer. 

The pandemic has provided a window into seeing how well global cooperation works in the short term. There are reasons to optimistic and pessimistic about global coordination on climate change, but that will be the elephant in the room and will govern how the world changes. I quoted this section because of two countries you mentioned, but I haven't seen discussed as much as others: Brazil and India. I disagree with the assertion that Brazil will be a secondary player. I think they will have a sharp decline over time, and their deforestation efforts may reach a point where the rest of the world turns on them. The Lungs of the Earth and all of that. Brazil will still have some things to lean on, but I worry a lot about South America and Brazil in particular. India remains a wild card in my mind. They could very well become a major power bloc. But with everything happening there right now between them and Pakistan and a heighted sense of nationalism, Idk.

[DireWolfSpirit]

I believe the population projections for the combined states of Pakistan and India alone, are set to explode to nearly 2 billion people by 2050. If we include Bangladesh in the total it's well over 2 billion for just those 3 states.

Things will have to give as it's unlikely the planet can continue to yield sustainable resources for an ever increasing population.

 

[polishgenius]

10 hours ago, Darzin said:

They just won't be able to have the international influence there is no ideology which binds nations to China and China's soft power is abismal.

China's ideology is, in theory, the same as the Soviet Union's was. In practice it's not really true of course but then the same was true of the Soviet Union. 

In terms of soft power I can only go by what I've read over the years but my understanding is they're building soft power intensely in developing nations by funding building projects and stuff, both by getting goodwill and by tangling themselves in the infrastructure. They won't




What Russia does is impossible to predict because what it's currently based, as an international power and in domestic terms, based so hard around Putin that what happens when he steps down or dies is next to impossible to predict. It could fall apart entirely- it's a pretty empty shell of what it's pretending to be as it is. It could go wild trying not to fall. Hell, depending on the next leader it could soften, though I can't really see that happening. But there isn't an overrarching ideology here either, barely even a system anymore, it's just Putinism, so there's no real reason to expect continuity of policy. 


In terms of them both together I have no evidence for it but I feel like China see Russia as a useful distraction. Like it's not quite that simple they obviously still would be a genuine economic and military threat to China and the nukes make them a problem anyway, but I get the impression China like having Russia starting shit and causing havoc because it means there's less focus on China's own atrocities and their own much more organised progression of influence.

[karaddin]

@Tywin et al. Agreed on the Brazil situation. The good way to tackle that problem would be to recognize the role of the Amazon as an externality in our everything and for the world to start paying Brazil to preserve it. That's probably got a negative chance of happening though.

Western nations allowing our corporations to fuck the world by playing profit with vaccine patents was an incredible bad move for mid to long term attitudes towards us. There was a couple of months at the start of the pandemic where it felt like people were actually going to pick a better way, then Capital recognized the threat if Socialist policies were to rescue people in a crisis then they might realise they could help with other problems too and successfully sabotaged any good policies and good will.

A decade ago I thought globalization/the interconnected economy had defused the risk of a WW3. The last 5 years and it becoming clear that climate change denial is going to smoothly pivot into eco fascism with likely genocides against asylum seekers makes me feel like that safeguard isn't anywhere near as effective as I thought.

[The Marquis de Leech]

I envisage an increasing international slide towards authoritarianism.

[The Marquis de Leech]

On 3/27/2021 at 9:50 AM, Arakan said:

American and UK rightwingers are hating everything the EU stands for, hoping for its implosion. But guess what, we are here to stay. Cooperation and solidarity instead of selfishness and egotism. Sounds quite sexy to me. 

Plenty on the Left hate the EU too, of course. As does anyone who cares about helping Third World farmers.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

40 minutes ago, karaddin said:

@Tywin et al. Agreed on the Brazil situation. The good way to tackle that problem would be to recognize the role of the Amazon as an externality in our everything and for the world to start paying Brazil to preserve it. That's probably got a negative chance of happening though.

Yep. I'd absolutely support paying Brazil to reverse their current actions and make an effort to rebuild the Amazon, but you're right in that it will probably never happen on the scale necessary. Global cooperation is always tricky anyways, and with many democracies beginning to buckle while authoritarianism is on the rise, good luck with us doing the smart thing. But hey, per a few posts in the Small Things thread, we get to avoid an asteroid* for another 100 years, so yay? 

*Why do I always misspell that damn word.....

[Arakan]

5 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Plenty on the Left hate the EU too, of course. As does anyone who cares about helping Third World farmers.

The EU is not perfect of course, especially agricultural subsidies are a problem. Though this is more of a national issue projected onto the EU (France is the biggest driver). But more often than not, the EU at least tries to do the good thing. 
We shouldn’t forget the massive investments and objective betterment of living conditions in the Former East Bloc. 

Anyway, the thing is: the EU will change quite significantly over the next decades, much less laisser-faire neoliberal policies (which mostly always were a concession towards the UK) and a stronger macro-economic outlook especially on the financing sector. And this can only be a net positive for the world. 

[Zorral]

Nobody cares about helping developing countries' rural populations who have always made their living from the land, whether on Madagascar, Malaysia, across Africa, the Amazon and Latin America, or in the US.  China owns a whole lot of it, you know, and so does Saudi, here in the US, extracting like mad, every resource from wood to water to rare minerals. This has been going on for decades but few people seemed to even want to notice, even US security forces, so focused on  all 10 year-old-kids and their mothers terrorists shooting up our schools and other public places, getting in from Mexico . 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/29/world/asia/china-us-russia.html?

Quote

 

The threat of a United States-led coalition challenging China’s authoritarian policies has only bolstered Beijing’s ambition to be a global leader of nations that oppose Washington and its allies. It shows an increasingly confident and unapologetic China, one that not only refutes American criticism of its internal affairs but that presents its own values as a model for others.

“They’re actually trying to build an argument like, ‘We’re the more responsible power. We’re not the spoilers or an axis of evil,’” John Delury, a professor of Chinese studies at Yonsei University in Seoul, said of China’s strategy.

As result, the world is increasingly dividing into distinct if not purely ideological camps, with both China and the United States hoping to lure supporters.

 

 

[Winterfell is Burning]

On 3/28/2021 at 7:20 PM, Tywin et al. said:

The pandemic has provided a window into seeing how well global cooperation works in the short term. There are reasons to optimistic and pessimistic about global coordination on climate change, but that will be the elephant in the room and will govern how the world changes. I quoted this section because of two countries you mentioned, but I haven't seen discussed as much as others: Brazil and India. I disagree with the assertion that Brazil will be a secondary player. I think they will have a sharp decline over time, and their deforestation efforts may reach a point where the rest of the world turns on them. The Lungs of the Earth and all of that. Brazil will still have some things to lean on, but I worry a lot about South America and Brazil in particular. India remains a wild card in my mind. They could very well become a major power bloc. But with everything happening there right now between them and Pakistan and a heighted sense of nationalism, Idk.

You're right about Brazil, but this decline isn't so much about deforestation (the next government will certainly adopt pro-environment policies, at least in comparison to Bolsonaro's), but rather, as always has been, corruption and lack of stability (economic, judicial, etc). Right now, it's doing once again the dance of getting any corrupt politician, from all ends of political spectrum, a free pass and attempting to persecute anyone that sent one of those to jail. The OCDE already said they won't allow Brazil in if that continues and instituted a group to monitor it, and if they really do it, they won't like what they see.  There's also the matter of a massive bureaucracy it can't afford, laws and jurisprudence changing far too often and more often than not without any logic, etc.  And of course the chaos in it's neighbors Argentina and Venezuela doesn't help any.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

29 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

You're right about Brazil, but this decline isn't so much about deforestation (the next government will certainly adopt pro-environment policies, at least in comparison to Bolsonaro's), but rather, as always has been, corruption and lack of stability (economic, judicial, etc). Right now, it's doing once again the dance of getting any corrupt politician, from all ends of political spectrum, a free pass and attempting to persecute anyone that sent one of those to jail. The OCDE already said they won't allow Brazil in if that continues and instituted a group to monitor it, and if they really do it, they won't like what they see.  There's also the matter of a massive bureaucracy it can't afford, laws and jurisprudence changing far too often and more often than not without any logic, etc.  And of course the chaos in it's neighbors Argentina and Venezuela doesn't help any.

I'll defer to you on the deforestation issue, but I do think that may be a real problem for your country's international perception if there isn't a significant reversal. Corruption is also a major issue and I can't see it changing soon. Granted the last I looked into it was a good while ago, but I listened to a great NPR podcast and basically I was left feeling like everything about your government, both on the federal and state level, is completely corrupt, regardless of party. The entire country sounded largely ungovernable absent serious change (and this isn't unique to Brazil of course, but they were making it seem like there was no obvious course correction for the country's issues). I also think there's been so much economic mismanagement that the dream of an internationally power Brazil is probably gone. Obviously things can change with time, but I can't see Brazil being a real player outside of South America for a long time. 

Argentina, which is near and dear to my heart, is to put it bluntly, a fucking mess. I lived there a decade ago and the economic issues were obvious to me then as a young college student. But even I never expected to see a headline reading their stock market dropped by nearly 50% in a single day. I can't really see them being a significant player on the international stage at all going forward, though symbolically the nation still will still get shown respect that exceeds its actual value. 

I'm curious why you bring up Venezuela though? Sure it doesn't help as a neighbor, but does it really matter? Seems like they're just an annoying state that gets a lot of attention without any bite at all though.

Sadly I hate to say it, and if my U.S. centric perspective is over-stepping I'm sorry, but I fear South America in general is in for a rough period of time. The optimistic outlooks from a decade or more ago seem to have fizzled, it's two most prominent countries are fading and I can't see what will change its trajectory. I hope I'm wrong, but I struggle to see a reason to think otherwise.

[Winterfell is Burning]

Don't get me wrong, deforestation is still likely to be a major issue. It's just that Bolsonaro has been so radical and incompetent on it that anyone that replaces him will likely cause a drastic reversal in policies, the question is if it will be enough.  And, barring some major surprises, he'll lose in 2022- he pretty much lost all support apart from radicals, particularly in the big cities and with people with higher education levels and who voted on him wanting someone that was outsider that was going to fight the system (basically, the same phenomenon that happened with Lula in 13 years happened with him in 2). It's purely anecdotal, but I know a lot of people that voted on him and are sorry, but no one that didn't vote for him in 2018, but intends to do so next time.

Venezuela causes problems for all of South America because: a) It ends up being the focus of all attention for any outside player in South America; b) It makes hard to get any sort of agreement in the continent on anything because Maduro will never be a part of it, and the more left leaning (or far left leaning) governments like Argentina and Bolivia tend to support him automatically, making hard to reach any consensus even if Venezuela isn't directly involved; c) The refugee influx, particularly in Colombia; d) Who can really trust them regarding how they are treating COVID? Even if the other countries manage to get the disease under control (and that likely won't happen for most this year), there's always the risk of new outbreaks from there because no one can trust they did the same.

Also, if Maduro feels his position is really at risk, I wouldn't put him past start a war with someone (likely Guiana, the weakest neighbor and with whom there were some past border issues)  as a distraction and a way to keep the military under him.

Anyway, the picture for South America is really bleak in the next decades; even Africa is likely to grow more due to population expansion and more industrialization, and it's likely to be a footnote for the superpowers.