Not signed in (Sign In)
Categories
Welcome, Guest
Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one belowVanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
-
Beware: the new goths are coming:
Wow. Talk about fodder for another 200 Hollywood Disaster Movies...
ONE of Britain's most senior military strategists has warned that western civilisation faces a threat on a par with the barbarian invasions that destroyed the Roman empire.
In an apocalyptic vision of security dangers, Rear Admiral Chris Parry said future migrations would be comparable to the Goths and Vandals while north African "barbary" pirates could be attacking yachts and beaches in the Mediterranean within 10 years....
...Parry pointed to the mass migration which disaster in the Third World could unleash. "The diaspora issue is one of my biggest current concerns," he said. "Globalisation makes assimilation seem redundant and old-fashioned . . . [the process] acts as a sort of reverse colonisation, where groups of people are self-contained, going back and forth between their countries, exploiting sophisticated networks and using instant communication on phones and the internet."...
...He pinpoints 2012 to 2018 as the time when the current global power structure is likely to crumble. Rising nations such as China, India, Brazil and Iran will challenge America’s sole superpower status.
This will come as "irregular activity" such as terrorism, organised crime and "white companies" of mercenaries burgeon in lawless areas.
The effects will be magnified as borders become more porous and some areas sink beyond effective government control.
Parry expects the world population to grow to about 8.4 billion in 2035, compared with 6.4 billion today. By then some 68% of the population will be urban, with some giant metropolises becoming ungovernable. He warns that Mexico City could be an example.
In an effort to control population growth, some countries may be tempted to copy China’s "one child" policy. This, with the widespread preference for male children, could lead to a ratio of boys to girls of as much as 150 to 100 in some countries. This will produce dangerous surpluses of young men with few economic prospects and no female company.
"When you combine the lower prospects for communal life with macho youth and economic deprivation you tend to get trouble, typified by gangs and organised criminal activity," said Parry. "When one thinks of 20,000 so-called jihadists currently fly-papered in Iraq, one shudders to think where they might go next."
The competition for resources, Parry argues, may lead to a return to "industrial warfare" as countries with large and growing male populations mobilise armies, even including cavalry, while acquiring high-technology weaponry from the West....
...Some of the consequences would be beyond human imagination to tackle. The examples he gave, tongue-in-cheek, include: "No wind on land and sea; third of population dies instantly; perpetual darkness; sores; Euphrates dries up ‘to clear way for kings from the east’; earth's core opens."
- from The Times Online
I like worst case scenarios (some more fodder here), they make ignoring the impending realistic dangers all the more easy. What over the top, but still believable, 'worst case scenarios' can you come up with? Pictures outlining the destruction would be lovely... -
Everyone needs a back-up plan...
-
Coincidentally, computer security adept Bruce Schneier recently held a contest with a similar theme: cook up the most outrageous (yet, at first glance, somewhat plausible) movie script style terrorist plot.
You can review the results here
I'll try to dream up a super disaster scenario later but first...
Am I the only one to notice how these doomsday speeches seem to come mostly from American and British military types? I think what we're seeing – much more than a sober assessment of future prospects – is an Anglo fear of the loss of hegemony. Intriguingly, Rome's descent - really more from over-extension, exhaustion and the decrepitude of old age than any “barbarian hordes” - always factors in as a glamorous, movie script ready historical reference point. Immigrants are re-cast as 'raiders' instead of say, people looking for a job.
“Without American power providing stability” The story goes “our planetary hand basket quickly tumbles on down to Hell.”
Question is, have the Americans really been a stabilizing force? Sure, they say so and their UK helpers agree but others (for example, oh, the Iraqis) surely have different views. -
Empire from the Latin "imperium", denoting military command within the ancient Roman government
I like to think of Empire as an ever evolving entity. There has only ever been 1 Empire, it is the position from which the heart of Empire beats which has changed.
(The following idea is SUPER vague. Please forgive my gross generalisations)
For instance:- Rome ruled with cultural homogeny and the building of a superbly executed infrastructure (roads, sanitation etc)
- As the Roman empire's power shifted the ROMAN Catholic Church was formed - the next empire was not one of armies of fighters and government rule, it was one of armies of Priests and theological hegemony. The empire had changed.
- The British empire arose from a post Catholic society (Church of England) and its power shifted back towards the traditional methods of rule - armies, culture and technology. The British empire also introduced a new tool into the arsenal of empire: the English language. The Industrial revolution sits at the peak of this empire's prosperity
America - once independance from Britain had been acheived it was only natural that America would strive towards its 'own' empire. Wealth, succeeded poverty and religious dogma - the Americans also had a whole wilderness, somewhat tamed by the Native Americans, within which to forge an empire. The english language, technology and the global reach of the British Empire have all be used by America to wield its greatest weapon : mass produced culture - to appease more masses than any era of THE empire before it.- And next? Who knows, but China seems set to take the mantle. The aspects of American Empire which China has used to craft their future building super power are wide and varied - notice the biggest change since Roman times - the Chinese empire will not be one based on Christianity, and so too with their breadth of numbers the English language has little role in their world.
The European Union also appears to have the makings of an Empire like no other before it. I suspect that (my worst case scenario) if America were to have a massive disaster land in its lap (let's say a nuclear attack by N Korea [unlikely] or a biological infestation released by terrorist networks) then Europe would be the world power most able to mop up in the aftermath. Such an occurence, or even something like a sustained war on American soil (unthinkable, but we are talking worst case here) would lead America to withdraw most of its troops from elsewhere in the world - the basis of its hegemony. As the vestiges of Hollywood culture fell away with the economy and the troops stationed to allow quick control in foreign lands returned, Europe would soon rise to meglomaniacal status (no dollar, what comes next = euro). Anyway. Just a worst case thought...
Empire is as volatile as it is stabilising. I cannot see this being any other way. Perhaps the 'Worst Case Scenarios' outlined above are a reflection of the Western subconsious fear that their Empire has begun to finally crumble - after at least 3000 years at the helm of world politics mind you. I also reckon 3000 years is an under estimation - if I knew more about pre-roman history I would attempt to link Rome to the Greeks, the Egyptians, Mesopotamia... and so on.
Empire empire empire...
Wow, that went on far too long. What do you reckon? -
Perhaps the 'Worst Case Scenarios' outlined above are a reflection of the Western subconscious fear that their Empire has begun to finally crumble - after at least 3000 years at the helm of world politics mind you. I also reckon 3000 years is an under estimation - if I knew more about pre-roman history I would attempt to link Rome to the Greeks, the Egyptians, Mesopotamia... and so on."
.....
Well I would modify this a bit.
The West has not been at the helm of world politics (unless you narrowly define "world politics" as being whatever happens in Europe) for 3 millenia. Yes, Imperial Rome was quite extensive but could lay no claim to Imperial China let alone the Americas and central and southern Africa.
Really, it has been the past 500 years that have witnessed the creation of globe straddling Western (and most recently, in the past 60 years, less generally "Western" and more specifically American) power over world events.
This period's start can be dated from the Columbian expedition to the New World.
It's the Columbian era of dominance that appears to be fraying, perhaps to make room for Beijing. And, to be even more precise, it's the post World War Two established order that is experiencing weakness and flux. It's this flux that so disturbs our fretful socio-political prophets in Washington and London.
The collapse of the USSR, hailed as a victory in Western capitals, should, I think, be re-thought of as the first sign the post-war system was beginning to crack. Moscow and Washington formed an informal co-dominion. Rivals? Of course, but both using the game (that is, the very fact there was a game) to their competitive advantage.
Now, bereft of its dance partner, Washington is adrift and compelled to turn terrorist free-booters into a threat of Hollywood action film super villain proportions to justify the national security state. Needless to say, there are actual terrorists and true, 3-dimensional security worries but terrorists in the American mind are an all-powerful (yet, paradoxically, quite vulnerable) simulacrum of the real.
Finding a post Cold War reason to be has been difficult. What to do with all those multi-billion dollar stealth bombers when the available targets aren't high tech Russian bases (equipped with their own science fiction worthy aircraft) but dusty Afghani villages and shattered neighborhoods in Ramadi?
The post war American imperial problem is as much existential as material.
And what happens to empires that lose their purpose (not to mention being champion debtors)?
Ah, we will see. -
-
CommentAuthoralexanderj
- CommentTimeJun 19th 2006
On the subject of empires, could we find some fictional empires as examples?
(reminded by C&C GDI as a longtimed UN) -
-
Fictional Empires? How about the USSR?
I always thought the Klingon Empire sucked super amounts of galactic ass. Their culture was so homogenous it bored even the pants of Jean Luc Picard. The Klingons ran an exceedingly self obsessed Empire - a sure sign of style over utility...
...
I do agree that Empire, in general, has been a Western manifestation. One thinks though of the Mongolians brushing up to the edge of Japan and Greece or the Vikings butting horns with the most Northerly Native Americans when that part of the world was still not even a scribble in the cartographer's notebook.
When we look back at history we see over-arching trends occuring in blinks of a 5 decade eye; a century stands as a political era; an ideal stretched over the terror of three kings, queens and their sons sons daughters. Could the 20th century be the first century in history where almost every 4/5 years saw a major upheaval in the global power structure (it was, in a sense, the first truly global century anyway)?
I wish I had a computer model of the entire breadth of human history. I'd go about re-running some historically inaccurate simulations, plotting the cross points of events the textbooks claim were crucial, and many others that never even made it into our simulacrum of history.
What ever so nearly-existant Empire would you liked to have lived in the shadow of? The Vikings still live on through the success of the English language. Who else lingers in our heritage, largely forgotten remnants of an Empire never quite allowed to reach its potential?
...
And as for perpetual wars orchestrated for the good of otherwise unviable killing technologies, Orwell said it best:In past ages, a war, almost by definition, was something that sooner or later came to an end, usually in unmistakable victory or defeat. In the past, also, war was one of the main instruments by which human societies were kept in touch with physical reality. All rulers in all ages have tried to impose a false view of the world upon their followers, but they could not afford to encourage any illusion that tended to impair military efficiency. So long as defeat meant the loss of independence, or some other result generally held to be undesirable, the precautions against defeat had to be serious. Physical facts could not be ignored. In philosophy, or religion, or ethics, or politics, two and two might make five, but when one was designing a gun or an aeroplane they had to make four. Inefficient nations were always conquered sooner or later, and the struggle for efficiency was inimical to illusions. Moreover, to be efficient it was necessary to be able to learn from the past, which meant having a fairly accurate idea of what had happened in the past. Newspapers and history books were, of course, always coloured and biased, but falsification of the kind that is practised today would have been impossible. War was a sure safeguard of sanity, and so far as the ruling classes were concerned it was probably the most important of all safeguards. While wars could be won or lost, no ruling class could be completely irresponsible.
Let's be glad some Empires are merely fictional.
- From Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell -
But dear Eric Arthur Blair originally called the book 1948, for the year it was written, he was in his subtle way, disguising journalism as SF. We've come along way since then. These days we hope to be livestock, rather than vermin.
1 to 8 of 8