I read today with great interest the following article. The Maya and us

Now as stated in the article we are not talking about Tigers on Oxford Street, but do we think the comparison is a fair one? Does anybody feel that life as we know it may change forever?

I think it's a bit far-fetched to think that we're at the end of civilisation now; but equally it's naive to think the world in five hundred years time will be recognisable to us.

eventually it must.
if we look at it from perspective - we can see that the destabilization has started - so the only question is how we handle the ripples.

- first as the west enjoyed wealth on the expense of technology and outside resources, meaning the west was constantly at the edge of "maya style" collapse - as strong countries can't force others to provide them resources.

- then colonialism ended, and the technological edge and productivity was keeping the west rich - stably rich (as long as it had enough edge to buy the needed resources).

- now, with globalization, the west don't monopolize technology, and production is increasingly done elsewhere - so the only reason the west stay rich - is because it used to be rich - which is unstable, but not flammable. which spell "china style" decline - the start of a long decline in lifestyle, as technological advances don't come fast enough, but resources dwindle.

- in the mean time, we see some rising poor countries getting rich from production and technologies, while other poor nations rely more and more on limited resources whose price fluctuate, and on international support that may vanish on a rainy day - both unstable and very flammable.
they don't have the technology production or wealth to deal with decline, and as disaster comes, they will provide the flames.


meaning - the management of poor countries is essential to preventing global collapse.
and for now - I don't think we do nearly enough.

Its just systems, systems come and go. I'm not to sure of the meaning of 'civilisation', it makes no sence to me. We've got the human race. If the human race is civilisation, why not just call it the human race? So systems come and go and change and evolve but provided the human race, and other races of animals, birds and so on, continues, the rise and fall of various systems is not really important. Indeed with regard to polution and Global Warming, the fall, or at least decline, of the current system may be nescessary in order for life to continue.

I read somewhere that by 2030 - if current consumption of natural resources continued we would need "two planets" (earth plus another earth) in effect to sustain current trends and lifestyles across the globe. Surely it is not a question of if we survuve as a civilisation or a race more of how we react to the obstacles and problems that stop us from continuing down this road? To date our response overall has been muted and evidently ineffective. In a sense like the Maya, we are our own worst enemy.

However this pans out, it’s going to be an incredibly interesting century.

For civilisation you could substitute the word empire. Many empires have risen & fallen, & seem to rise & fall with increasing rapidity.
The Greeks ruled their world for 450 years; the Romans ruled an even bigger chunk of the world for more than 500 years. The British empire - the first on which the sun never set - stretched gloriously from the mid-1600s to just after World War II.
Somehow I don't think the American Empire will last as long as these former ones. The rise of countries in the far east are staggeringly fast & will probably fall just as quickly to be overtaken by the next empire. The American Empire is different from most in that it doesn't involve the occupation of vast tracts of land (although the US does have a military presence in a lot of countries), it's more an economic & influence control of a large part of the world.

When an empire falls, it's not a disaster for the population ( the descendants of the Incas are still around) it's mostly a loss of economic control & influence.

in that respect the US is very similar to the Chinese empire - which also didn't expand it's territory, but influenced all the far east into being more "Chinese".


Maya decline was bad for the population - just like the fall of USSR was bad for it's citizens.
if a civilization is established by taking resources from other countries(surrounding Indians, east Europe), then when these resources stop coming, people get fast and drastic lifestyle reduction - in Maya fall people starved, and in the USSR, they found they can't buy simple necessities.

in Chinese decline, it meant economy simply slowed - and the ordinary folk probably didn't notice it happening.

Bad, uncomfortable, maybe. Disastrous, no.

If America sinks, the rest of the world will sink even deeper.

With globalization, the fates of all developed (and even developing) countries are intertwined.

Witness how the financial crisis in the United States has had greater disastrous consequences abroad (e.g., Britain faces imminent recession, whereas the United States currently does not).

America sneezes, and the UK and Western Europe (and all other industrialized countries, including China) catch cold.

Like it or not, it is a matter of fact.

Very true, at the moment. All empires eventually fall, but they do so gradually. It must also have seemed to the Romans that they would be top dogs forever & i'm sure they were equally as arrogant as the British were & the Americans are now.

Americans think that they're at the centre of the world & in most respects, they are. But history shows that it doesn't forever & I believe that the pace of change is accelerating.




Very true, at the moment. All empires eventually fall, but they do so gradually. It must also have seemed to the Romans that they would be top dogs forever & i'm sure they were equally as arrogant as the British were & the Americans are now.

Americans think that they're at the centre of the world & in most respects, they are. But history shows that it doesn't last forever & I believe that the pace of change is accelerating.

Which country do you believe will "dethrone" and replace America as the world's only superpower (militarily and economically) in the next one or two generations or even in the next century?

It will not be China or India because both are overpopulated and the vast majority of their populations are and will continue to be dirt poor for a long time to come.

China's population exceeds 1.3 billion people; per capita GDP measured under Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) is $5,400 (2007 est.).

India's population exceeds 1.1 billion people; per capita GDP measured under Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) is $2,600 (2007 est.).

America's population is a little over 300 million; per capita GDP measured under Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) is $45,800 (2007 est.).

Neither China nor India can attain the degree or breadth of America's economic prosperity in the foreseeable future or under their current respective political systems (i.e., social upheaval is inevitable at some point in future, with uncertain consequences).

It will not be Russia, which has a systemic bottleneck in the form endemic corruption at all levels of society.

And it definitely will not be the EU (per capita GDP (PPP) is $32,700 (2007 est.)) or any of its major individual members, which face economic bottlenecks consequent to inevitable demographic contraction.

So which country will it be?

obviously it will be China.
the EU is in deeper problems then the US. one of which is that the population shrink, so unless trend change - the economy is more likely to deflate in the next two decades then replace the US.

India has enjoyed economic development, but due to the cast system, only 200 million may enjoy it. it may be high number, but it means they will find it hard to pass the US.

Russia is smaller then all we mentioned, and their centralized economy will probably hurt growth. they also have only half the population of the US.


let's return to china:
- they already have half the PPP GDP of the US
- they had more then 10% growth per year, and stable one - based mostly on increased production and export, but also by raising the internal consumption.
- China plans to double the amount of effective workers in the next 20 years, so even if they won't increase effectiveness (not likely), they will double their economy by sheer numbers. this rate means increase of 4% in the GDP per year alone.
- if the US will continue to expand at 6% less then china, as it did for many years, china will pass it in only 13 years.
- china has much in common with the US - their past empire was also based on exporting culture, and buying resources, they also tend to see themselves as the whole world. they also see themselves as the natural leaders of the world. now they enjoy the free market and globalization a lot more then the US - and serve as an example how capitalism is the best way to reduce poverty.

it means that if the US won't recover fast, it may find itself in a bipolar world in a decade or two from now - even if it's economy will not slow even a little - not to mention collapse (which is very unlikely - as the US GDP won't vanish for no real reason).

Yeh...............what he said!

China's population exceeds 1.3 billion people; per capita GDP measured under Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) is $5,400 (2007 est.).

America's population is a little over 300 million; per capita GDP measured under Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) is $45,800 (2007 est.).

The key is per capita.

no - the US don't have the largest per capita, you have the largest GDP, the largest production, export ext.
this means you can support the strongest army with 4% of your GDP.

china's army also use 4% of it's GDP, and what will happens when china's GDP will be higher then the USA for several years?
that's right - US army will no longer be the strongest,
and US may be forced to fold in front of Chinese pressure, and not the other way around.
Chinese will be able to invest more in new weapons just like the US army, ext, ext.
all that - from similar percentage of tax.

As of 2007, the US debt was the 23rd highest in the world as a percentage of GDP. On the other hand, most of that debt is owed to China.

Saying America has such a much larger GDP that China is a type of illusion, like where a bank hands out massive bank charges, says, "We have done well, look at this profit we have made", dishes out the paper profit as bonuses as the Heroes have done so well, hands the bonuses to Peru and Columbia, finds the profit is not forthcoming, as most people are not interested in paying them, and the bank has a black hole.