Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes. In his book, The Accidental Superpower, written in 2013 and published in 2014, he accurately forecast the Russian/Ukrainian war and pointed out the various reasons Russia would find conflict necessary.
His books contain a plethora of information that cannot be refuted, such as the miles of navigable waterways in various countries and discusses reasons for past wars based on geopolitics.
Oh, yeah. There is plenty that Peter Ziehan gets right.
Your article, written in 2018, asks rhetorical questions about the future and tries to pass the questions off as answers. Here is an example:
Zeihan's prediction of Chinese population decline and ultimate collapse is shared by a great many demographers. The only question is, how fast will it happen, because it will happen. Whether Chinese population halves in 50 years or 80 is not very important.
If he gets credit, then I want some to. I called this war before it happened. I'm by no means an expert but who couldn't see that further NATO expansion and attempts to contain Russia, combined with a dogmatic Russian leader wouldn't lead to conflicts. You don't get a cookie for that. It’s like those people who want credit for calling a recession. The problem with Ziehan and other like him is they are incredibility American centric. Japan will be the most powerful Asian nation? Aren't they undergoing a population decline along with a host of other issues? Let me guess because they align with the U.S. interest, they are going to be okay. He states the U.S. will voluntarily retreat from world leadership (guaranteeing freedom of trade). Not with the narcist we elect every year in Washington. I'm not going to discredit him because a broke clock can be right twice a day, I just wouldn't rely solely off his works or other like him. He has been wrong and will be wrong in the future. You don't get to throw out bad predictions with a good one. Demographics are not destiny. They merely give us a snap shot of the present.
If he gets credit, then I want some to. I called this war before it happened. I'm by no means an expert but who couldn't see that further NATO expansion and attempts to contain Russia, combined with a dogmatic Russian leader wouldn't lead to conflicts. You don't get a cookie for that. It’s like those people who want credit for calling a recession. The problem with Ziehan and other like him is they are incredibility American centric. Japan will be the most powerful Asian nation? Aren't they undergoing a population decline along with a host of other issues? Let me guess because they align with the U.S. interest, they are going to be okay. He states the U.S. will voluntarily retreat from world leadership (guaranteeing freedom of trade). Not with the narcist we elect every year in Washington. I'm not going to discredit him because a broke clock can be right twice a day, I just wouldn't rely solely off his works or other like him. He has been wrong and will be wrong in the future. You don't get to throw out bad predictions with a good one. Demographics are not destiny. They merely give us a snap shot of the present.
It is true people are speculating based on a present trend and trends can change.
Tomorrow people may wake up and want a two-parent home again. They may want a one spouse income and a one-car garage. Women may decide their place in the workforce is not at the top above the men in that roll. Women may decide they want a dozen children. They may elect to throw off their BC, as they did their bras way back when ...
People may change their minds about a lot of things --- but what is the likelihood of that happening?
The idea that Russia would one-day be extinct, was put out there many years ago. Since hearing that broadcast, I began paying attention to other rumblings that point to that as a fact ... No Country For Old Men Or New Mothers Putin is doing whatever he can think of to turn that fact into fiction. He doesn't want an immigrant --- he wants Russians; those that know what it means to be Russian.
"For centuries Russia (rebranded as the Soviet Union in the early 1920s) was considered a threat to its neighbors by virtue of its larger population. But since the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991 (and half the population broke away to form 14 new nations) the remaining Russian population has been in decline. Twenty years after the Soviet Union collapsed, the Russian population implosion was getting worse. While in the 1990s the population was shrinking at a rate of .1 percent a year, in the first decade of the 21st century that increased to .2 percent a year. This was because the non-Slav Russians are having fewer children, just as the Slavs have been doing (or, rather, not doing) for decades. The Russian population has declined three percent since 1989, from 147 to 142.9 million. The proportion of the population that is ethnic Russian (Slav) has declined from 81.5 percent to 77 percent in that same period. The Russian slide could have been worse had it not been for the fact that millions of ethnic Russians in the 14 new states felt unwelcome with government controlled by the locals, not Russians in far-off Moscow. Often the locals wanted the ethnic locals in their midst gone and Russia made it easy for ethnic Russians to return to the motherland. This prevented the Russian population decline from being closer to ten percent. Until the recent invasion of Ukraine, sanctions and lower oil prices, the Russian birth rate was growing. That has stopped."
It was because of a 'present' trend people can often predict with accuracy where that trend leads ... the rise and fall of every ancient culture and civilization, the fall came from the trend. Since Biblical history was written, societies have been doing the same thing over and over again, as if this time, they will get it right.
It is true people are speculating based on a present trend and trends can change.
Tomorrow people may wake up and want a two-parent home again. They may want a one spouse income and a one-car garage. Women may decide their place in the workforce is not at the top above the men in that roll. Women may decide they want a dozen children. They may elect to throw off their BC, as they did their bras way back when ...
People may change their minds about a lot of things --- but what is the likelihood of that happening?
The idea that Russia would one-day be extinct, was put out there many years ago. Since hearing that broadcast, I began paying attention to other rumblings that point to that as a fact ... No Country For Old Men Or New Mothers Putin is doing whatever he can think of to turn that fact into fiction. He doesn't want an immigrant --- he wants Russians; those that know what it means to be Russian.
"For centuries Russia (rebranded as the Soviet Union in the early 1920s) was considered a threat to its neighbors by virtue of its larger population. But since the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991 (and half the population broke away to form 14 new nations) the remaining Russian population has been in decline. Twenty years after the Soviet Union collapsed, the Russian population implosion was getting worse. While in the 1990s the population was shrinking at a rate of .1 percent a year, in the first decade of the 21st century that increased to .2 percent a year. This was because the non-Slav Russians are having fewer children, just as the Slavs have been doing (or, rather, not doing) for decades. The Russian population has declined three percent since 1989, from 147 to 142.9 million. The proportion of the population that is ethnic Russian (Slav) has declined from 81.5 percent to 77 percent in that same period. The Russian slide could have been worse had it not been for the fact that millions of ethnic Russians in the 14 new states felt unwelcome with government controlled by the locals, not Russians in far-off Moscow. Often the locals wanted the ethnic locals in their midst gone and Russia made it easy for ethnic Russians to return to the motherland. This prevented the Russian population decline from being closer to ten percent. Until the recent invasion of Ukraine, sanctions and lower oil prices, the Russian birth rate was growing. That has stopped."
It was because of a 'present' trend people can often predict with accuracy where that trend leads ... the rise and fall of every ancient culture and civilization, the fall came from the trend. Since Biblical history was written, societies have been doing the same thing over and over again, as if this time, they will get it right.
This is true, yet we are keeping making the same mistakes as our ancestors. Sort of like it's engraved in our DNA. It's basic inductive reasoning. Using trends or patterns to make predictions on the future. The problem is inductive reasoning is not science and as you pointed out, situations can and often change. A disadvantage today can become an advantage tomorrow and vice versa. Innovation can drastically change the landscape. Peter in his American- Centric analysis seems to always come to the conclusions that regardless of what happens America will always be in great or at the very least in a good condition. At the same time all American chief rivals will succumb to their issues. It amounts to wishful thinking mixed in with demographic stats to portray factuality. This is dangerous as it can lead to a complacent population whom merely feel they need only exist and the world will take care of itself to their benefit. They ignore their own shortcoming never seeing them as a big deal only to succumb later on these issues.
......... Demographics are not destiny. They merely give us a snap shot of the present.
That's just wrong. It takes 20 years to make a 20 year old human. All the 20 year old people in 2042 will have been born in 2022 and none of them will have been born in any other year. There is no way around it.
In 80 years, the children born today - the ones still alive - will be 80 years old and no other age. There is no way around that, either.
Demographers are not guessing. They know how many child bearing women there are and how many babies of what sex are born each year, and have known that in almost every country for many years. They know death rates, birth rates and they know very little can be done to influence either one.
Demographics point to destiny. Some countries will do a lot better than others.
This is true, yet we are keeping making the same mistakes as our ancestors. Sort of like it's engraved in our DNA. It's basic inductive reasoning. Using trends or patterns to make predictions on the future. The problem is inductive reasoning is not science and as you pointed out, situations can and often change. A disadvantage today can become an advantage tomorrow and vice versa. Innovation can drastically change the landscape. Peter in his American- Centric analysis seems to always come to the conclusions that regardless of what happens America will always be in great or at the very least in a good condition. At the same time all American chief rivals will succumb to their issues. It amounts to wishful thinking mixed in with demographic stats to portray factuality. This is dangerous as it can lead to a complacent population whom merely feel they need only exist and the world will take care of itself to their benefit. They ignore their own shortcoming never seeing them as a big deal only to succumb later on these issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice_Major
Using trends or patterns to make predictions on the future. The problem is inductive reasoning is not science and as you pointed out, situations can and often change.
That's what they say ... however, when was the last time you met a Roman or an Aztec?
Some of the ancients are still here, where as, many are not. Their non existence in the form of a societal group, pretty much all followed the same pattern, economically, militarily, religiously, and population shrank and so did their existence as a group. Their rivals came in and took over. If one understands the past, they can pretty much predict their futures.
Since Biblical history was written, societies have been doing the same thing over and over again, as if this time, they will get it right. It won't matter the era that that book is read, it will always ring true, because it's human nature. (not science)
People will ask, where did Russia go ... where do who go? (they may even call it, the land of fairy tales)
Yes. In his book, The Accidental Superpower, written in 2013 and published in 2014, he accurately forecast the Russian/Ukrainian war and pointed out the various reasons Russia would find conflict necessary.
His books contain a plethora of information that cannot be refuted, such as the miles of navigable waterways in various countries and discusses reasons for past wars based on geopolitics.
Oh, yeah. There is plenty that Peter Ziehan gets right.
Your article, written in 2018, asks rhetorical questions about the future and tries to pass the questions off as answers. Here is an example:
Zeihan's prediction of Chinese population decline and ultimate collapse is shared by a great many demographers. The only question is, how fast will it happen, because it will happen. Whether Chinese population halves in 50 years or 80 is not very important.
I read The End of the World Is Just the Beginning: Mapping the Collapse of Globalization not long after it came out, and then bought his earlier books. It helps if you read The Accidental Superpower first, and then The Absent Superpower.
I find his books very interesting, but I'm always skeptical of political predications. I agree that his books provide "a plethora of information that cannot be refuted."
I read The End of the World Is Just the Beginning: Mapping the Collapse of Globalization not long after it came out, and then bought his earlier books. It helps if you read The Accidental Superpower first, and then The Absent Superpower.
I find his books very interesting, but I'm always skeptical of political predications. I agree that his books provide "a plethora of information that cannot be refuted."
I am reading "End of The World" now. Finished "Accidental" and began this thread after reading "Empty Planet", which was written by someone else. All interesting and informative.
Predictions are hard to get right since there are always about a million variables. Zeihan's understanding of geopolitics certainly helps him explain to us why the Russians are the way they are, what has happened in China, the fragility of our supply chain. He is good at walking through history the way he does and that helps me an awful lot.
Going back a few posts. there was a reference to somebody named Wang who - surprise! - took issue with Zeihan's view of China, which is to basically dismiss China as a future world leader. It is unwise to dismiss someone like Zeihan who goes out on a limb and predicts significant changes to world politics. He could be right as in the case of Ukraine.
I have been following China closely for about 10 - 12 years after I read an article called "China Demographic Time Bomb" in the now defunct Weekly Standard. Some of these writers know what they are talking about and make a very strong case for their prognostications. China is a time bomb and a fraud. They are not who they pretend to be and Peter Zeihan knows it.
I am reading "End of The World" now. Finished "Accidental" and began this thread after reading "Empty Planet", which was written by someone else. All interesting and informative.
Predictions are hard to get right since there are always about a million variables. Zeihan's understanding of geopolitics certainly helps him explain to us why the Russians are the way they are, what has happened in China, the fragility of our supply chain. He is good at walking through history the way he does and that helps me an awful lot.
Going back a few posts. there was a reference to somebody named Wang who - surprise! - took issue with Zeihan's view of China, which is to basically dismiss China as a future world leader. It is unwise to dismiss someone like Zeihan who goes out on a limb and predicts significant changes to world politics. He could be right as in the case of Ukraine.
I have been following China closely for about 10 - 12 years after I read an article called "China Demographic Time Bomb" in the now defunct Weekly Standard. Some of these writers know what they are talking about and make a very strong case for their prognostications. China is a time bomb and a fraud. They are not who they pretend to be and Peter Zeihan knows it.
The one issue where I do not agree with Zeihan is climate change. This could end up being the biggest issue the world will face in the future. Droughts, wildfires, famines, and human migration could be major disruptions to the world economy
That's just wrong. It takes 20 years to make a 20 year old human. All the 20 year old people in 2042 will have been born in 2022 and none of them will have been born in any other year. There is no way around it.
In 80 years, the children born today - the ones still alive - will be 80 years old and no other age. There is no way around that, either.
Demographers are not guessing. They know how many child bearing women there are and how many babies of what sex are born each year, and have known that in almost every country for many years. They know death rates, birth rates and they know very little can be done to influence either one.
Demographics point to destiny. Some countries will do a lot better than others.
Believe what you want to believe, but I will repeat demographics are not destiny. I'm very fascinated in the subject and do believe they offer some insights. I however stop short when they start making political predictions. It's educated guesses based upon observed trends in the present. No one has a crystal ball and there is nothing impressive about looking at an event after it occurred and going see "our data showed this would happen." The problem is there are always additional variables that will come into play. Therefore, when many of the predictions turn out to be false, you get the "could of would of should" word play excuses. Take China, I recall reading numerous articles pre-2000 about how they had too many people. This huge population was keeping them along with other highly populated areas poor. It would be their downfall. Now the problem is they don't have enough people. I'm not jumping on the collapse due to aging population theories. They have been predicting the collapse for decades now and I keep waiting. Every few years a new Peter arises claiming he is the new Nostradamus and China’s days are numbered. Once again, your good friend Peter shows a clear bias which should make anyone seeking a full picture thread lightly with his readings. Personally, I follow business leaders (Ray Dalio for example) more on the subject, since if they are wrong, they literally lose billions. A person with actual skin in the game tend to make better analysis then the guys who just like to here themselves speak and sale books.
May I ask what is wrong with less people? It has been done in the past, and do we really need all the buildings that we have right now to house all those people, to build another new building...for our wants?
I would never try to talk someone out of having a family - an actual family, which is better for society than single parent households by the millions.
I don't advocate for what Klaus Shwab's little bald headed minion is pushing - that guy is pure evil and wants to destroy humans.
If we don't have as much stuff, I don't have an issue with that. We might have to plant our own gardens? That sounds like a better way to live than the garbage we get at the store. We might have to raise our own animals - or, maybe we could become tighter knit communities because we learn to get along with each other, barter with each other, and look out for each other.
In smaller countries, (not all of them), you can find a lot of harmony. When you get to huge countries - eh, not so much.
People have made it fine without every last thing being handed to them, easily. I would love to see nature being returned to a lot of places, and a lot less McMansions and huge stores.
Do we really need to work all day to make someone else money? Or, can we learn to work for ourselves, to maintain ourselves? Do we really need an overreaching and overbearing government to take care of us, or can we learn to do it ourselves, learning to work with our neighbors instead of relying on a government filled with people who do not care about us?
Sure, a/c is awesome, driving is fun, communicating on the internet can be fun a lot of times...but overall, do we really 'need' all of this stuff, or do we just 'want' all of this stuff? I think we have become soft because we have everything in abundance.
Some areas of the world - no, they don't have an abundance, but who runs that place? What are those who run that place doing for 'their people'? There was a leader who did a LOT of very good things for his people, things that would help them prosper and have a great chance at a stable life, but a government in another country decided to take him out. Is government always the best answer when it decides it can control those not in their own country?
What we need: Shelter, food, clean water to drink, clothing. In the summer, we need a way to stay cool, and in the winter we need a way to stay warm. As people are social animals, they will need social ties, and when you have a smaller community, and you work to maintain yourself instead of working to maintain some wealthy person who already has everything, it's a lot easier getting to know your neighbors.
In one state, I knew my neighbors. I traded with people. I had way more tomatoes than I knew what to do with after planting my very first tomato plant on my own. They had eggs, or fruit, or whatever. We traded. No need for someone else to be involved in that deciding that we needed to exchange money for the items so that the third unwanted person involved could take some of that money that they did nothing to earn in order to "take care of us".
People were way more laid back there. If you needed help, and you had tried to do things first, but just couldn't seem to get there, other people would help. Gladly.
Other places I've lived: I don't even know my next door neighbors.
Bigger populations make you anonymous. When you don't 'need' anyone, you don't get to know anyone, and there's less harmony which causes problems.
When you do 'need' someone, even if it's only to barter, or trade work or whatever, you get to know people very well.
We have somewhere over 7 billion people in this world. People have been able to do well without that many people, in the past.
Again, I would never advocate what some evil scum out there want to do, but I don't see a problem with eventually having far less people than we have now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
