Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-12-2009, 02:41 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,711,094 times
Reputation: 14345

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper View Post
I don't see the future having room for super power states as much as cooperative unions of states. With the global economy shrinking the world faster than Willy Wonka's TV room, this interconnectedness seems more inclined to a balancing effect overall than a dominant/subservient model.

In any event, when consumption is larger than production, time will eventually exact its obolos for the ferryman. Perhaps those left to pick up the pieces will show a bit more wisdom and vision, since they will be left with a prime example of what not to do fresh in their minds?
I do agree with you, I think the next super powers will be cooperative unions. The world has been working toward interconnectivity for a long time, now. The network of treaties that cast Europe into World War I, step one-failed, League of Nations, step two-failed, Axis and Allied Powers, step three, United Nations, step four, NAFTA, European Union, the discussions in South America and Southeast Asia, there's a definite trend. I wonder if England is holding out for an Anglo-American Union with the US, Canada, and Australia?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-12-2009, 04:58 PM
 
11,135 posts, read 14,138,054 times
Reputation: 3696
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
I do agree with you, I think the next super powers will be cooperative unions. The world has been working toward interconnectivity for a long time, now. The network of treaties that cast Europe into World War I, step one-failed, League of Nations, step two-failed, Axis and Allied Powers, step three, United Nations, step four, NAFTA, European Union, the discussions in South America and Southeast Asia, there's a definite trend. I wonder if England is holding out for an Anglo-American Union with the US, Canada, and Australia?

To get all "Utopian", perhaps the logical end result, many generations in the future is that there will be a union of earthlings fighting bacteria that is throwing a wrench into a terraform project on Mars instead of each other... (chuckling)

In the meantime, back here on earth, I am curious as to how future unions will go. Will they be aligned along cultural lines or more so along geographical, maybe even both? I'm also curious as to see which is more important to people, meaning, will a country like Russia put its cultural differences aside and form a Sino-Russian union for economic benefit or will the divide in culture prevent such a thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2009, 09:34 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,711,094 times
Reputation: 14345
Russia's problem is that it had a union in the past, but most of the members weren't volunteers. Russia took the approach that might is right, and shoved its agenda down the throats of its fellow members, and its current aggressive actions seem to be indicating that it will resume that approach if not challenged. The Chinese are carefully observing. The cultural divide is profound. But I think the bigger problem is that unions are balancing acts. When the balance is between just two countries, it's not going to work unless one is clearly dominant. The Russians are not going to accept being dominated by the Chinese, and the Chinese are clearly going to want the upper hand. I think also, that Russia and China are competing in Africa right now, to build diplomatic and trade relations, but also to build influence.

The European Union has enough members that while it is never perfectly balanced, there are enough countries weighing in that it's never so off-balance that it will tip. I think a Southeast Asia Union could manage its affairs similarly. South America is, I think, a little more problematic. The political and economic systems are more volatile, there is an element of impulsiveness in that mix that makes finding a good balance more difficult. There may be a tendency to splinter off in a South American Union that will blunt its effectiveness. Africa needs to find ways to resolve the divisiveness. There is impressive progress being made in some areas, but not enough.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2009, 09:36 AM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,894,826 times
Reputation: 15037
"Russia's problem is that it had a union in the past, but most of the members weren't volunteers."

A Classic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2009, 08:28 PM
 
Location: Brooklyn
40,049 posts, read 34,466,471 times
Reputation: 10608
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
I wonder if England is holding out for an Anglo-American Union with the US, Canada, and Australia?
You mean like the superstate of Oceania, from George Orwell's 1984?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2009, 12:18 AM
 
11,135 posts, read 14,138,054 times
Reputation: 3696
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Russia's problem is that it had a union in the past, but most of the members weren't volunteers. Russia took the approach that might is right, and shoved its agenda down the throats of its fellow members, and its current aggressive actions seem to be indicating that it will resume that approach if not challenged. The Chinese are carefully observing. The cultural divide is profound. But I think the bigger problem is that unions are balancing acts. When the balance is between just two countries, it's not going to work unless one is clearly dominant. The Russians are not going to accept being dominated by the Chinese, and the Chinese are clearly going to want the upper hand. I think also, that Russia and China are competing in Africa right now, to build diplomatic and trade relations, but also to build influence.

The European Union has enough members that while it is never perfectly balanced, there are enough countries weighing in that it's never so off-balance that it will tip. I think a Southeast Asia Union could manage its affairs similarly. South America is, I think, a little more problematic. The political and economic systems are more volatile, there is an element of impulsiveness in that mix that makes finding a good balance more difficult. There may be a tendency to splinter off in a South American Union that will blunt its effectiveness. Africa needs to find ways to resolve the divisiveness. There is impressive progress being made in some areas, but not enough.
Think of what many of the powers above thought about our union of states 250-260 years ago. I'm sure they laughed at the possibility that we would ascend to be a global dominant power in a mere few generations. So when I look at places like South America and Asia in particular, I don't discount them in the long term and suspect one day they will be vibrant unionized states.

I again return to the power of global economics as being the most dominant factor in diminishing our cultural divisions. While in the next 50 years or two generations will be rough, it will be due to the struggle people have with the slow loss of their cultural and individual national identities being swallowed by global economic necessity.

I sometimes wonder if it isn't an inevitability that some day there will exist a Terran Union with which the states that comprise this union will be our current nations.

In the short term however, I suspect that the entire year of 2009 will be an eye opener and a realignment of our position globally as our dominance is so tied to the strength of our currency which is melting before our eyes. If it melts too much, I expect some rather quantitative change that is tangible to most average folks. If we can keep from falling too far down the oubliette, then perhaps we will retain more of our influence. It will also depend heavily upon where Obama focuses his efforts in the next four years as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top