The Post-Globalization Order: The Views of Peter Zeihan

[swansont]

1 minute ago, exchemist said:

That's another matter, I agree. But even in places like China or Russia, the motive for wanting a rising population is not just so government can spend more. It's things like having a bigger army, having a bigger economy and thus more power in the world, being less reliant on other nations etc.

China has been pushing against a rising population for almost 50 years with its one child policy.

Russia I’d believe, wanting a bigger army, because of a long tradition of using their soldiers as cannon fodder. But you need a decent economy to outfit a modern army, and a bigger population doesn’t automatically mean a better economy. Look at India (to some extent) and its neighbors.

[studiot]

8 hours ago, TheVat said:

Economic systems that depend on endless growth must be reformed.  Endless growth is the doctrine of a cancer cell.

+1 particularly the last bit.

I really must remember that quote, priceless.

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

rather than being what people vote to get.

I didn't vote for them.

We have now has 3 prime ministers out of the last 4 that were not elected by the electorate.

10 hours ago, mistermack said:

Why does a country need a certain population level? It's governments that like a rising population, they like to have more money to spend. But the people are generally better off with a smaller population. A plot of land doesn't cost an arm and a leg, and you're not breathing in everyone else's farts. Defence and international influence are the main things that benefit from higher populations, that's why politicians like more people.

The main thing for the welfare of the people is to have stability, with slow population movements. And as the world is massively overpopulated by humans, I would aim at a slow decline, as a population policy.

Also excellent advice.  +1

Edited February 2, 2023 by studiot

[iNow]

12 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

there's the viewpoint that population collapse for the world is long overdue, thanks to the threat to biodiversity and collapsing ecosystems caused by globalization.

Globalization isn’t the root cause of collapsing ecosystems. Hydrocarbons as a power source lobbied for by the mega wealthy and well connected are.

Doing business with each other in other countries and looking for lower supply costs is also not the root cause of rapidly accelerating global drought, growing loss of arable lands for farming, and the involuntary migration in search of survival which inevitably follows. 

Arguments like these only make sense IMO when one looks passed the myriad nonsequiturs and logical leaps of faith. It’s like believing in the tooth fairy, and some people have thankfully matured beyond that. 

[exchemist]

9 hours ago, swansont said:

China has been pushing against a rising population for almost 50 years with its one child policy.

Russia I’d believe, wanting a bigger army, because of a long tradition of using their soldiers as cannon fodder. But you need a decent economy to outfit a modern army, and a bigger population doesn’t automatically mean a better economy. Look at India (to some extent) and its neighbors.

All good points. But the issue arises only in those countries whose populations are shrinking, or close to it. India has if anything the opposite problem.

[Alex_Krycek]

19 hours ago, MigL said:

Globalization is bad ??

It has improved the living conditions of countries like Japan, South Korea, China and Taiwan, Singapore, etc., that were considered 3rd world countries 70 years ago.
It is improving the living conditions ofEastern Europe after 50 years of oppressive dictatorial Communism.
It does this by industrialized countries becoming 'consumers' that outsource 'production' to lesser developed countries, until they too become consumers, and production shifts somewhere else, eventually bringing the playing field level for all.

You guys are speaking in terms of abstracts; let's look at real world situations.
The UK had a referendum against a form of globalization. BREXITwas a retreat from a more global organization; how did it work out for them ???
Instead of the 300 million savings per year, advertised on the sides of buses, they are losing Billions.
It is the only country in the Eurozone experiencing a large negative economin growth.
And it can't be attributed to bad governance, because there are many countries with incompetent governments.

Yes, and the point that many seem to be missing is that we take the myriad benefits of globalization for granted.  None of us have any first hand experience living in a non-globalized system.  As you point out, it's the interconnectedness of globalization, the ease with which goods flow between nations over long distances that affords us everything from sophisticated technology to food security to rising income levels and access to higher standards of living.

Regarding food security, it's scary to understand just how fragile many countries are in the world when it comes to basic nutrition and sustenance.  Vast swaths of Africa and middle east are net importers of food.  The slightest disruption to global supply chains or shortages in commodities like wheat or rice cause widespread famine in these regions.  Food insecurity was one of the trigger points of the Arab Spring uprising back in 2010.  Turns out when people can't eat, they get pretty angry. 

This report from UNICEF has some good data on the current state of food security: https://www.unicef.org/media/72676/file/SOFI-2020-full-report.pdf  What will happen to these countries when they get hit with the 1-2 knock out punch of climate change (which already exacerbates food security) and supply chain disruptions due to collapsing populations?  Unless countries that are net importers of food rapidly, rapidly undergo revolutions in sustainable food production, they're toast.  As a side note, most of the world's phosphorous for use in fertilizer comes from Russia and Ukraine, the flow of which has been severely disrupted due to the war.   

We've mentioned here how technology will come to the rescue in the form of robots, renewable energy, etc.  We should acknowledge that advanced technology is massively energy intensive to produce, and can only be done with relative ease in a globalized system.   If we want a global "green transition", this will require a globalized system to facilitate.   Zeihan points out here how much energy it takes to create a product such as a lithium battery, or solar panel, or electric vehicle.  Most of the world's steel for example comes from China and Russia, the two countries which are disintegrating fastest in terms of demography.  

Finally there is the argument that once the global system breaks in several key places it will be increasingly difficult to fight the avalanche of entropy that will follow.  When critical infrastructure goes offline and there's nobody there to fix it, it's gone for good.  Without an ability to produce advanced technology to save the day, the lights go out and stay out.  Without an ability to make enough food to feed everyone, people begin to starve and then fight for what's left.  Anarchy ensues.  Then we're back to the stone age rather quickly indeed.   

But that's the pessimistic view.  I'm sure we'll adapt, somehow.   Hopefully...

22 hours ago, Lorentz Jr said:

Wow. I'll put him on my "don't bother" list. 

His latest book is worthwhile even if just to understand how technology has lifted humanity out of pure misery and suffering, and just how excrutiatingly long that process took.  Most human decisions have been driven by pure practicality - how to move something in a way that doesn't use up too much energy (enter deep water navigation), how to stop the neighboring tribe from coming and killing everyone, how to get enough to eat, etc.  For practically all of human history, more people meant a better life.  More hands on the farm, more soldiers in your army, more workers in your factory, more consumers for your products.  Now we're diverging from that trend in unprecedented fashion with no real understanding of what will come next.  

Edited February 3, 2023 by Alex_Krycek

[Lorentz Jr]

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

More hands on the farm, more soldiers in your army, more workers in your factory, more consumers for your products.

You can't have it both ways economically. If workers are the limiting factor (scarcity), having more consumers is bad. If consumers are the limiting factor (unemployment), having more workers is bad. The real economic benefit of having more of both is specialization, which produces better products and services, as long as supply and demand are kept in balance. Politically, the benefit is external, i.e. being able to dominate other countries.

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

  Now we're diverging from that trend in unprecedented fashion with no real understanding of what will come next.  

There's plenty of understanding, and the trend has been pretty clear for at least a century or two. Conservative populism is how the business class reacts when unemployed workers realize technology and outsourcing are working against them. What comes next is warfare.

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

What will happen to these countries when they get hit with the 1-2 knock out punch of climate change (which already exacerbates food security) and supply chain disruptions due to collapsing populations? 

How do fewer mouths to feed exacerbate food shortage? I should think nations with greater producing capacity ( largely automated already, not dependent on many juvenile farm-hands) and decreasing population would be happy to find a market for their excess. 

 

2 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Unless countries that are net importers of food rapidly, rapidly undergo revolutions in sustainable food production, they're toast. 

With globalization, pretty much every country is an importer. Canada has vast farmlands, wheat, soy, sunflowers, canola; vast beef and dairy herds; orchards, chicken factories, fisheries. We're forever negotiating trade deals for our exports. Yet half the labels on our supermarket shelves are printed in other countries. We all need to get serious about self-sufficiency, in energy and food, or we're all toast. 

Of course, at the same time, we desperately need to cut down on waste and decrease our demand for frivolous manufactured goods. And - I'm aware that this is tantamount to blasphemy - we urgently need to stop investing so much of our resources in things that serve the sole purpose of killing, maiming and rendering homeless our fellow human beings.   

Edited February 3, 2023 by Peterkin

[TheVat]

17 hours ago, iNow said:

Globalization isn’t the root cause of collapsing ecosystems. Hydrocarbons as a power source lobbied for by the mega wealthy and well connected are.

Doing business with each other in other countries and looking for lower supply costs is also not the root cause of rapidly accelerating global drought, growing loss of arable lands for farming, and the involuntary migration in search of survival which inevitably follows. 

Arguments like these only make sense IMO when one looks passed the myriad nonsequiturs and logical leaps of faith. It’s like believing in the tooth fairy, and some people have thankfully matured beyond that. 

I don't see just one cause, but globalization is one factor when you have large corporations based in wealthy nations who buy up land in developing countries and then "strip mine" agriculturally speaking, for a quick burst of capital.  Faraway owners, hiring locals, are not always on top of stewardship as it works in that local bioregion.  (We actually have the Saudis doing that in Arizona now, where a good friend of mine lives, abusing fragile desert land and draining the aquifer there to grow cattle feed they ship back to their herds in SA.  I think some major paper did a big expose on this recently and now there are finally rumblings in DC and Phoenix, as it sinks in that scarce water is being siphoned off by foreigners who can't raise feed for their own beef herds.)  

A similar problem exists with rainforests in Indonesia.  Big U.S. corporation muscles in and levels rainforest for palm oil plantations.  

I am short of time, but there's a crap-ton of examples of globalization run amuck these days.  

[iNow]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

I am short of time, but there's a crap-ton of examples of globalization run amuck these days.  

Your point is fair. I'm also reminded of the over 5,000 Bangladeshi workers that recently died building the World Cup facilities in Qatar. 

Even so, the deeper cause here is greed, a desire for unlimited resources, and a lack of compassion, humanity, or empathy for our non-local brethren living across other borders, not "globalization." It's poor policies and lowest common denominator free market practices for infrastructure and power and other things, like you say. But digging one layer lower and we must remind ourselves... 

Shitty people with power and shitty families with enormous wealth ought not get a free pass from all of us as we distract ourselves with the Scooby-Doo villain of "globalization!!"

[iNow]

On 2/3/2023 at 8:51 AM, Alex_Krycek said:

Turns out when people can't eat, they get pretty angry. 

I think I may previously have misunderstood your position. That’s what I get for posting with kids running around. 

Another often forgotten impact of deglobalizing and splitting into little island blocs separate from each other is how poverty stricken nations… something like 60% or one out of every two out there is in a poverty trap right now after borrowing to survive Covid… and they can’t pay it back… deglobalizing makes that even worse bc it pulls $1.5 Trillion with a T dollars out of the system each and every year… $3T by year 2, $6T by year 4, $15 Trillion evaporated from the economy in just one decade… 

If you think people are mad and hungry now, just wait and watch how they react after another fifteen trillion dollars drops out from below them while they’re carrying an already too heavy burden of debt, dehydration, hunger, and suffering. 

My numbers are from the recent 2023 IMF report, but I may be misreading that too. The kids are kinda always being kids, after all. 

[Alex_Krycek]

On 2/4/2023 at 3:08 AM, iNow said:

Your point is fair. I'm also reminded of the over 5,000 Bangladeshi workers that recently died building the World Cup facilities in Qatar. 

Even so, the deeper cause here is greed, a desire for unlimited resources, and a lack of compassion, humanity, or empathy for our non-local brethren living across other borders, not "globalization." It's poor policies and lowest common denominator free market practices for infrastructure and power and other things, like you say. But digging one layer lower and we must remind ourselves... 

Shitty people with power and shitty families with enormous wealth ought not get a free pass from all of us as we distract ourselves with the Scooby-Doo villain of "globalization!!"

True, but greed and selfishness by violent groups of people are omnipresent anyway in human society. The early middle ages, which was without question one of the worst times to be alive on this planet, was governed by such a power structure.  I'm not entirely optimistic that such a tribalistic order wouldn't re-emerge should the world balkanize itself down into disparate, isolated societies again.  What factors would prevent a regression to the dark ages of petty tribalism?

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

What factors would prevent a regression to the dark ages of petty tribalism?

At least one is thoughtful exchanges of ideas together in good faith and without fear of retribution or retaliation… and doing that at scale. 

Integration, not isolation.

Ideas cannot be drowned out by fear and anger, and the best ones tend to rise to the top and win the day after sufficient time passes… regardless of how powerful or persistent are their enemies. 

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

I think I may previously have misunderstood your position. That’s what I get for posting with kids running around. 

Yep you really dropped the ball on helping us get population down to a nice couple billion.  😀

 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

If you think people are mad and hungry now, just wait and watch how they react after another fifteen trillion dollars drops out from below them while they’re carrying an already too heavy burden of debt, dehydration, hunger, and suffering. 

The economist David Graeber argued for debt forgiveness by wealthy nations towards poor ones - pretty convincing I thought.

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

Ideas cannot be drowned out by fear and anger, and the best ones tend to rise to the top and win the day after sufficient time passes… regardless of how powerful or persistent are their enemies. 

That was so wildly optimistic I need to lie down for a moment to recover.  I'm not sure that's right, but like Bearded Spock says to Good Kirk in the transporter room, I shall consider your words.

It is impressive how liberal democracy has last this long and seems to have generated a lot of viral memes on this planet.  There is a toughness under it's seeming fragility.

[iNow]

Sometimes sufficient time must be measured geologically

[MigL]

The quote from Mirror.Mirror was

Capt Kirk : "In every revolution there's one man with a vision"
Bearded Spock : "Captain Kirk. I shall consider it"

( sorry, I'm a Star Trek geek )

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Sometimes sufficient time must be measured geologically

We'll make a lot of crude oil for some future civilization.

On 2/3/2023 at 3:08 PM, iNow said:

Shitty people with power and shitty families with enormous wealth ought not get a free pass from all of us as we distract ourselves with the Scooby-Doo villain of "globalization!!"

Call it by its proper name: "imperialism", and drop its corpse on the doorstep of the shitty people with power and shitty families with enormous wealth.

3 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

What factors would prevent a regression to the dark ages of petty tribalism?

One is that the tribalism isn't petty and the 40,000+ years in which it flourished were not particularly dark. Another: what's referred to as 'the dark ages' were not tribal even in Europe, nor as dark as they've been painted https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/d/Dark_Ages.htm ; and of course neither dark nor tribal   https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/06/eac.html in Asia .  

It seems to me, there are a lot of late 20th century Euro-American assumptions about what's good for humanity, which may not be altogether accurate. Or sustainable. Is the problem of population collapse really not enough babies, or is it not enough white babies?

Edited February 6, 2023 by Peterkin

[Alex_Krycek]

Relevant article:

 

World ‘population bomb’ may never go off as feared, finds study

Population likely to peak sooner and lower than expected with beneficial results – but environment is priority

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/27/world-population-bomb-may-never-go-off-as-feared-finds-study