1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

How long will China reign as the World's most powerful country? [SERIOUS AND SENSITIVE TOPIC]

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Mohamedou Ari, Jul 2, 2012.

  1. Mohamedou Ari

    Mohamedou Ari
    F1 Sim Racer & #1 St. Bernard Lover on RD Premium

    As the U.S. is well on it's way to being surpassed by China in, perhaps, 3-5 years and India, in likely, 7-9 years, I believe China's reign will last till the end of humanity.

    Here is what I project will happen next decade:

    China, India, Brasil, Russia, perhaps the Middle East - if they can have a real democracy and not have governments in the likeness of Saudi Arabia and Iran, and there is a likelihood Africa could rise from its tumult when the tribes stop fighting each other and African immigrants go back to make things better for their countries, will prosper

    The non-US Western nations will be in an up-and-down affair, but, they will stay the same in what they produce.

    Call me crazy for believing this, but, I think the demise of the U.S.A. was inevitable since the early 1900s and even more apparent since the end of WWII.

    I think when the U.S. dies, the Northern states may become part of Canada; the Southwestern U.S. will become part of Mexico, again, and, I don't really know about the Southeastern U.S.

    There are many theories about the future of the U.S., but, none of them clearly define the World 30-50 years from now.

    Whether some of you are religious or not, the religious text make a great point when they say this in my paraphrase: humanity will die when they live in total moral relativism; the developed world outside the U.S. has not reached that point, and, after visiting Canada, humans are not even close to it; my fellow countrymen are very close to living in total moral relativity.

    I hope I am not garnering too much heat from many of you; your thoughts?
  2. Mapu


    short rant, may need more elaboration:redface:

    It's a difficult question, but one can say that even China, while heavily exploiting their land, will reach its limits of prosperity soon, if they haven't reached it or have gone too far already. Capitalism is in a crisis and the trend isn't new, the financial world has become a virtual entity nobody can relate to, government debts raise, debts become debts of debts, large scale businesses and their stakeholders are on the loose, the stock market is under pressure by stockholders, mostly large interest groups who dictate the price (e.g. for rice) too.

    Growth is limited, but capitalism, moreover its apologists fail, or do not want to understand that and put the whole world and coming generations for "virtually growing" profits at risk. I don't believe that the developing world will ever see the day when capitalism is going to help them out of their misery. I mean, who in the so called developed world would give up his/her living standards freely? It's quite the opposite, developed countries "invade" developing countries in a way of neo-colonialism, taking land, natural resources, play their part in displacing minorities etc. only to enrich theirselfs.

    I truly believe that capitalism is from yesterday and that it's time for a new economic and social system, one that puts Human rights, humanity and sustainability before everything else. But it's not going to happen until a new level of people's perception and cognition has been reached and when this state (of mind) has been reached it still takes a long time for transforms, if necessary to overthrow (which could be problematic), the existing society.

    Edit: You make a good point Mohammed, I'm impressed! Moral relativity is a deadlock for humankind and self; no self determination, no self unfolding, no progression

  3. Mark Aalberts

    Mark Aalberts

    China will not reign, its depended from other countrys in the world as well. Many of the numbers they bring out is just arteficial, they suffer as much as other countries currently do with the economic situation.

    And Marcel actualy hits the nail perfectly

    I personaly forsee some other problems in the future for the next generations to come. Current people with power will try to keep the current system alive as long as possible, but in the future sustainability will get more important than the system and the question will then be how humanity will act on this change. I dont think this will be done democraticaly, so you know what that will mean.

    Good topic btw, im realy interested to see how others think about this subject i think its realy a valid subject in the current world we live in.
  4. Yoeri Gijsen

    Yoeri Gijsen

    I think it is pretty difficult to talk of reign. No country has ever reigned the world and I doubt any country will in the near future. The world has known its 'superpowers', Spain, France, Great-Britain, the US and perhaps Russia all having played that part somewhere in the last 500 years, but they never held a solid sway over other powerful countries. It's probably been more of a primus inter pares sort of relation than one of domination (though it's easy to argue that too).

    The funny thing about predicting the future is that people who engage in the practise are very often proven wrong in a terribly short time. Books have been filled with examples of serious predictions that now look laughable. Who knows what twists and turns the future holds.

    As for the system that we are apparantly enslaved to, don't forget that it's merely a system - a model to simplify the relations between men and institution on this planet - not machine with switches on it. People have never willingly or intentionally changed the 'system'. Systems changed because pragmatic shifts took place on micro level. Individuals changed something in their lives that affected the relation with other indviduals thus affected their lives. The butterfly effect changed systems, not men bound on creating a new system. New systems were created when relations were reviewed and a change of definition took place compared to a previous situation. It's artificial.

    Therefore saying that it is time for a new system is a bit moot. The 'system' will change (or is likely changing) when people alter their individual lives, responding to their acute needs, capabilities and options. It's not a lever that can be pulled.
  5. Mapu


    Of course I should have added that even more so in the globalised world, states are dependent on bilateral and multilateral agreements and therefore can never act on their own behalf.:)

    It's not easy for me to write this in english, but I will try.

    *I used collectives, although it is the wrong term, I meant communities!

    Basically I agree with you Yoeri, there are no "switches" in a economic and social system and this is why morality is so important. Roughly speaking, morality enables self determination, contemplation and therefore basic individual progression. The exchange of different moral opinions between individuals allows for new levels of perception and cognition to be created in communities which can become a major consent, a accepted rule within a community and further speaking, on the level of the state, a new law updating or creating new institutions. Finally if the discrepancy between the people and the state, the gap of acceptance, becomes too big, new, adequate laws and institutions need to be introduced and integrated to save the state from falling apart, through a revolution for example. That's the progression I was trying to talk about. Of course there'll always be discrepancies between the people and the state, but as long as the state reacts to these discrepancies in a healthy manner, through reforms for example, progress is happening and the principle of democracy, if it exists, can be preserved, even further developed. Revolutions however will overthrow the state and its system and causes chaos. They cause times of insecurity and unstable situations in which any kind of political idea can arise, even totalitarianism.

    The problem I see these days is, that modern democratic states; their representatives are fearful towards (important) reforms. They wish to preserve what they have achieved up to this point and don't want to take the next step. It's like a Mikado game, the one who moves first, is going to lose.
  6. Omer Said

    Omer Said
    Weresloth Staff

    I think making predictions about the Nations is nearly impossible. And most of the people who had made such predictions in the past proved wrong. Statistics or some other datum cannot be exact as there is human-factor, enviromental effects (Japan earthquake and tsunami for example) and sub-organizations involved.

    U.S.A is not a country which can be collapsed easily. There is a chain of benefits between the states. And the country constantly refreshes itself with the brain migration. Still, no one can deny the possibility of a dissolution of the union, even tough has a very little chance.

    U.S.S.R was also extremely powerful, but what happened to them you know. So same might happen with China aswell. There are many restless democrats in there. But anything may happen as also we don't know their internal politics greatly as they are not so transparent.