What will happen after the population collapse?

[Old Rocks]

I'm not sure that there will be a population collapse anytime in the near future.

But if there is a massive population collapse, then, if history be our guide, a study of the 14th century Europe might be a useful endeavor.

The last massive population collapse we had resulted from the waves of Bubonic plague that swept across the world.

The outcome was the end of feudalism in Europe, the rise of the nation state, the eventual development of modern capitalism, the laboring class working for money, the merchant class creating wealth in conjunction with that laboring class, and eventually representational forms of government as that laboring class demanded a share of the wealth.

But the path to that world did not happen quickly.

It took nearly 400 years before what we think of as the modern world evolved into what we have today, really.

It was a tumultuous 400 years, too.

S now, I suspect we're headed toward a one world government, with or without a population collapse.

And, as much as I am fearful that a one world goveenment will be oppressive for most of us, I think that sooner or later a one world government is needed.

Why?

Because now, thanks to our own technologies, and perhaps also to the effects we might be having on the climate, we NEED a world-wide solutions for many of the problems facing mankind.

Let's recap:

1. Regardless whether the population collapses or not, we will need to be able to act as a species if we hope to survive as a species.

2. A one world government is the only way to take on problems that effect the entire world.

3. That one world government might be good or bad for most of us, That's probably up to us to decide.

4. But if we cannot form a viable world government to monitor and cope with world problems, then mankind itself will fail the Darwinist test for social creatures and nature will solve the problem of mankind once and for all.

There...

For those of you seeking a rationalization for FREE TRADE, that's about the best I can offer.

Not that FREE TRADE is making all of us wealthier, that's obvisouly not even remotely true.

But because FREE TRADE is changing the dynamic of who actually has power and because FREE TRADE is eroding the entire idea of a nation state.

And, if history be our guide, nation states are NOT suited to deciding how to use the advances that tecnology is giving us.

Nation states are amoral entities acting in the selfish interests of the nation or at least acting in the interests of those who control them,

That's just NOT going to be a good enough system of power and control for mankind in the next 100 years.

Very well said. What we are facing is the problem of the commons. We all share the same atmosphere and oceans. The degradation of the environment affects all on earth, not just those in the immediate vicinity. It has been pointed out, that because of their diet, the mothers milk of the Innuit in north Greenland would be rated a hazardous substance. The PCBs and other contaminants that are concentrated up the food chain result in extreme concentration in a people that have absolutely nothing to do with the original pollution.

Fishing treaties, pollution agreements, ect. are routinely thrown overboard by any and all nations that see that violating those treaties are to their short term interests. Nation states cannot stop this kind chicanery, even though it is against their long term interests. So, eventually, when a great enough disaster strikes, we will move toward a one world government. What form that will take will be the question.

 

[loosecannon]

I'm not sure that there will be a population collapse anytime in the near future.

But if there is a massive population collapse, then, if history be our guide, a study of the 14th century Europe might be a useful endeavor.

The last massive population collapse we had resulted from the waves of Bubonic plague that swept across the world.

The outcome was the end of feudalism in Europe, the rise of the nation state, the eventual development of modern capitalism, the laboring class working for money, the merchant class creating wealth in conjunction with that laboring class, and eventually representational forms of government as that laboring class demanded a share of the wealth.

But the path to that world did not happen quickly.

It took nearly 400 years before what we think of as the modern world evolved into what we have today, really.

It was a tumultuous 400 years, too.

S now, I suspect we're headed toward a one world government, with or without a population collapse.

And, as much as I am fearful that a one world goveenment will be oppressive for most of us, I think that sooner or later a one world government is needed.

Why?

Because now, thanks to our own technologies, and perhaps also to the effects we might be having on the climate, we NEED a world-wide solutions for many of the problems facing mankind.

Let's recap:

1. Regardless whether the population collapses or not, we will need to be able to act as a species if we hope to survive as a species.

2. A one world government is the only way to take on problems that effect the entire world.

3. That one world government might be good or bad for most of us, That's probably up to us to decide.

4. But if we cannot form a viable world government to monitor and cope with world problems, then mankind itself will fail the Darwinist test for social creatures and nature will solve the problem of mankind once and for all.

There...

For those of you seeking a rationalization for FREE TRADE, that's about the best I can offer.

Not that FREE TRADE is making all of us wealthier, that's obvisouly not even remotely true.

But because FREE TRADE is changing the dynamic of who actually has power and because FREE TRADE is eroding the entire idea of a nation state.

And, if history be our guide, nation states are NOT suited to deciding how to use the advances that tecnology is giving us.

Nation states are amoral entities acting in the selfish interests of the nation or at least acting in the interests of those who control them,

That's just NOT going to be a good enough system of power and control for mankind in the next 100 years.

That was an outstanding post. I still don't like the middle ground between a one world government and the nation state, I don't trust the vision of those who are pulling us in that direction without any public dialogue about where we are going.

And I have expected since the mid 90's that what will actually happen instead is a polarized world in which poorer nations are quarantined from the developed nations for a variety of reasons both real and manufactured.

Just to name one of those reasons: the population explosions of the poorest nations are a burden that developed nations would be fools to assume.

The road toward a one world government may be as dangerous as the world of rival nation states and that road may be as likely to erupt in world war.

 

[william the wie]

I don't buy the one world solution. Scandinavia is seeing the rise of explicitly racist parties. ASEAN, the EU and NAFTA are all hitting various speed bumps. Linguistic nationalism is not strong enough to unify the almost 20 Spanish speaking nations of this hemisphere. Nor is there any real prospect of English speaking union. Kiwis and Aussies or Canadians and Americans may be joined at the hip but there is no real desire for union. World government is not going to happen.

 

[loosecannon]

more immediately Korea, Japan, Germany, PIIGS and Russia are imploding now. And some nations are exporting brides as their main industry: N Korea, Burma, Russia and Iran most noticeably. While others are so far down that they don't have enough young women left after trophy wives to do any bride exporting most noticeably PIIGS.

But they still have a gold mine in vital organs to exploit.

Globalization considers all trade from a purely rational perspective. That said it is only a matter of time before the WTO enforces all the same rules to the international organ market that it does to wheat, tires and rare earth chicken feet.

It should be, and will be, a violation of treaty to impose tariffs on the sale of organs, subsidize their harvest or production with government tax breaks or direct subsidies. Of course a race toward the bottom will prevail. Developing nations have a leg up because they are well positioned to produce organs via their population explosions and of course their lives are cheap.

This presents unique and potent opportunities for export dependent developing nations to cash in on some of their most precious resources that are currently banned from trade because of antiquated taboos.

It is surely insane (and likely immoral) to allow the selling of whole brides while denying a global marketplace for replacement parts!

 

[loosecannon]

I don't buy the one world solution. Scandinavia is seeing the rise of explicitly racist parties. ASEAN, the EU and NAFTA are all hitting various speed bumps. Linguistic nationalism is not strong enough to unify the almost 20 Spanish speaking nations of this hemisphere. Nor is there any real prospect of English speaking union. Kiwis and Aussies or Canadians and Americans may be joined at the hip but there is no real desire for union. World government is not going to happen.

And yet we are clearly headed in that direction and for exactly the reasons Editec mentioned. Many of the world population shares problems that can only be solved in concert. Avoiding WW being one of them. Fighting terror another.

The nation state is eroding, that's a fact, demographics do threaten the core identity (cultural, ethnic, language and heritage) binding many nations together into states, esp the EU nations and the US.

WE are plunging headlong toward a one world government with very little public discussion of the goals and the path to reach it.

It is very unnerving and is beginning to trigger backlash in places like Germany and the US. Esp as fortunes decline and immigrants only exacerbate those problems.

This recession is probably our last chance to change momentum peacefully. If the world doesn't deal with this nation state creep issue now it will probably be decided when crisis is reached due to the population bomb, and very likely via world war.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Fewer people will live better.

I'm not sure how you mean that could you expand the thought a bit?

It wasn't a thought. It was a heartfelt belief from a typical eugenicist. You'll find alot of those on the fer-left.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

S now, I suspect we're headed toward a one world government, with or without a population collapse.

And, as much as I am fearful that a one world government will be oppressive for most of us, I think that sooner or later a one world government is needed.

Why?

Because now, thanks to our own technologies, and perhaps also to the effects we might be having on the climate, we NEED a world-wide solutions for many of the problems facing mankind.

Let's recap:

1. Regardless whether the population collapses or not, we will need to be able to act as a species if we hope to survive as a species.

2. A one world government is the only way to take on problems that effect the entire world.

3. That one world government might be good or bad for most of us, That's probably up to us to decide.

4. But if we cannot form a viable world government to monitor and cope with world problems, then mankind itself will fail the Darwinist test for social creatures and nature will solve the problem of mankind once and for all.

You probably aren't aware of this, but this is almost verbatim Gene Roddenberry's explanation for Earth having a one-world government in the original writer's guide for the original Star Trek. This was pretty much canon until later folks such as Berman got hold of Star Trek, then it became a massive world war 3 killing 6 billion, and a drunk scientist somehow inventing warp drive out of that chaos and somehow finding Vulcans, who for absolutely zero logical reason, befriended us.

 

[william the wie]

more immediately Korea, Japan, Germany, PIIGS and Russia are imploding now. And some nations are exporting brides as their main industry: N Korea, Burma, Russia and Iran most noticeably. While others are so far down that they don't have enough young women left after trophy wives to do any bride exporting most noticeably PIIGS.

But they still have a gold mine in vital organs to exploit.

Globalization considers all trade from a purely rational perspective. That said it is only a matter of time before the WTO enforces all the same rules to the international organ market that it does to wheat, tires and rare earth chicken feet.

It should be, and will be, a violation of treaty to impose tariffs on the sale of organs, subsidize their harvest or production with government tax breaks or direct subsidies. Of course a race toward the bottom will prevail. Developing nations have a leg up because they are well positioned to produce organs via their population explosions and of course their lives are cheap.

This presents unique and potent opportunities for export dependent developing nations to cash in on some of their most precious resources that are currently banned from trade because of antiquated taboos.

It is surely insane (and likely immoral) to allow the selling of whole brides while denying a global marketplace for replacement parts!

Iran and China do have markets for replacement parts but I don't know enough about how it works in either country to voice an intelligent opinion on the subject.