Future world situation - Page 4

View Poll Results :Who would rule the world in the future years say 200 years later:
Iraq 0 0%
China 12 30.77%
Japan 0 0%
U.S.A. 14 35.90%
Canada 1 2.56%
Germany 1 2.56%
Russia 0 0%
Taiwan 0 0%
India 4 10.26%
North Korea 0 0%
Or?? urs truely, ME ME!!! 7 17.95%
Voters: 39. You may not vote on this poll

November 22nd, 2004  
nah, my face spells out success and trust.

Um... dollar bills with my face on it,. nice!!!
November 22nd, 2004  
It's all a game
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
The future is incredibly difficult to predict. Honestly, if we go back 200 years ago, who in their right mind would have predicted that the USA would one day be the most powerful nation in the world?? They'd have told you that you're crazy to suggest such a thing.

That being said, who is the most dominant nation on Earth 200 years from now? I have to base it on current trends (historically, that's a lousy way to predict ANYTHING). Because nobody can pose an immediate threat to the USA, that means that they will remain relatively dominant for a long time. Under current trends of immigration into the United States, most anything can happen. Personally, I think that the United States remains a major player, but that their dominance will gradually diminish. Their fortuitous location becomes the secret of their success.

China can surpass the USA in economic and military strength. Perhaps surpass the USA and Europe in technology. But they are surrounded by counter-balance. For every bit of progress made my China, India will do its utmost to match it purely for their own self preservation. I think that India and China will become the two most powerful nations in the world and that their proximity to one another will be their greatest limitation. Also, as China increases in strength, Japan, the Philipines, Vietnam, Thailand ... everybody else in the region forges alliances and plans for every contingency of China turning conquerer. The more powerful China becomes as a singular entity, the more driven those who have reason to fear them are to keep up.

The European Union looks good on paper, but seems to be plagued with problems. They could be the biggest, baddest thing in the World pretty easily if they can figure out how to unite themselves in an effective manner, especially if the EU can expand.
Hehe, I agree to almost every word you said above. Therefore, I know that it's likely none of them will turn out to be true. Using history to predict the future really is a lousy way to predict the future, yet it is probably the best way we know of. What 13th said may turn out to be true: A yet non-existent country will rule the world by then. It could be some form of a NWO, with a mixed population of humans and non-humans. I still hope for 2012 to bring me something fresh and very different from the boring, seemingly endless human affair... of endless stupidity.
November 22nd, 2004  
Italian Guy
It's just too far away. 200 yrs is unpredictable. What was predictable, say, in 1910 compared to nowaday's world?
November 22nd, 2004  
Someone did a study on something like this. It was study life cycle of empires and the the like. ( I read it before but can't seem to find it anymore).

This study showed how the empires rose and declined, it reviewed the cycle of the human condition, and such ect. What it showed was something like the time it took for an empire to rise to its zenith is almost equal to the length of its decline.

For example: It took the Roman empire a few hundred years to rise to it zenith. At its zenith it lasted at least a few hundred years. When it was time for its decline to take place, this again took a few hundred years, a period roughly equal to it ascent.

Other empires also seem to follow this pattern, quick ascension as in the case of ALexander and the Third Riech, led to a quick descent.

Barring somekind of cataclysmic event, or possible conquest, this is most likely the pattern of things.

His end statement was about the USA, he was comparing it to these empires.

He stated that right now the USA is most likely at its zenith, but it could still climb higher. It took roughly 200 years to get here. He didn't know how long this zenith would last, perhaps 20, 50 or maybe 200 years or more. At the end of this zenith it will take roughly another 200 years for the USA to decline.

So it is very possible that 200 years from now the USA will still be a power. Providing it continious on the path that its on. The sooner it deviates from this path, the sooner we will have an upheaval, which most likely will cause a decline.

I find myself agreeing with what this guy said. Since I am a big believer in the endless cycle of things and how history repeats itself.
November 22nd, 2004  
You'll have to wait for two centuries for things like this to happen. And I am positive no one here alive right now will be able to see it.
December 14th, 2004  
Well me, of course.

Seriously though, I think it's too soon to tell. Lots of things could happen between now and 2204...
December 14th, 2004  
Originally Posted by Kane
You'll have to wait for two centuries for things like this to happen. And I am positive no one here alive right now will be able to see it.
well there is a new theory that the human life expectancy is closer to 150 years or more, but that's a whole 'nother thread.

like godofthunder said, no one would have predicted the US becoming the super power it is today if you were to ask the same question 200 years ago. i don't think any of the european powers realized the amazing land the US is sitting on at the time either. if they did there is no way any of them would have given it up. we are lucky to be surrounded by two oceans that act as a layer of defense against enemy of attack. we're also lucky that canada is to our north and we have such great relations with them. but i think those factors alone contribute to an extended empirical cycle over our predecessors. the only thing stopping us is trying to keep the citizens happy.
December 14th, 2004  
Well.. In the early decades of the nineteenth centuary Historians predicted that a centuary hence the continenetal scale of the USA and Russia would make them super powers.
List put it in 1828 'Russia and the United State in one hundred years will be the two most populous empires on earth' and would uphold sharply antagonistic imperial ideologies.

So its not quite 200 years, but its getting there.

The US will almost certainly lose its hegemonic position as time goes on. The most obvious way this could happen would be due to either civil war (unlikely) or some form of second wall street crash. The US maintains its dominance by the fact that it possesses something like 60% of the worlds wealth. If that wealth is cut down, then the US's position as global leader is alot more debatable compared to the physical power of the other nations. If this were to occur, then the entire world would suffer. You may ask why not put Japan or Australia as a possible leader for world power but they are tied to the US. If the US went under, these area's economic existance would crumble, unless a new power existed to buy their products. (This is certainly the case with Japan)

If the EU could really work, then it would likely match the US. This is however unlikely. If it eventually included Turkey (and if turkey, why not Russia?) Then it would likely become a world power and eventually surpass the US.

As for China? The problem with China is, atleast at the moment, its economy is tied to the US. Claims that China's rate of growth is significantly larger than most other countries ignore the fact that you cannot continue to grow at such a rate unless the global economy can sustain you. As such, barring a slow transition of US wealth to China, it is doubtful that China will ever surpass the US, merely become more and more equal.

Then ofcourse there is India, who could certainly match China, if they could reorganise and possibly end the wasteful "conflict" with Pakistan. Unfortunately, it is doubtful this will happen without war, and war is bad for the economy and as such India is unlikely to match China who is largely unopposed in their region.

This does ofcourse depend on the world maintaining a largely capitalistic outlook, which may change, but I think its doubtful. Under a capitalistic system, your economy determines your power, if this changes most of the assumptions above are flawed.
December 14th, 2004  

Topic: hell no

thats taking the mick init? No one rules the world................as they say each to their own and all that.

I go with the britney spears theory!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
December 15th, 2004  
Japan will control the world's economy, if not, she will still control asia