Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

thanks, PG. it was there, but now it's gone. if anyone can find it, please comment it or email me.

Here you go:

(Google Desktop cached the old version of this page for me, so I just went it there to find it.)

ahh, but did you click through, Dan? cuz when i do, it's empty of content...

Is there anything Google cache can't do?

way to go, Dan! thank you!

(i'd swear i tried that and couldn't find it, but i bow before your superior net skillz ;-)

I am sorry but I don't share in your optimism. You state that many countries are doing better despite all the recent problems in the Middle East with Iraq and Lebanon but pointing at China, India and the American economy does not do much to placate me. China is too dependent on the American markets for both investment and innovation. It has grown rapidly without planning for long term self sufficiency of its natural resources. It is not an independent engine of global economic growth and that is very dangerous. I think that globalization in China has given its people access but without its share of political and economic freedom. This means that once the American tap is turned off, the Chinese will be in an awkward position where they will have to deal with economic and social hardship of a modern populace with unparalleled acess with only authoritarian tools to reign them in. The resultant political upheaval will most likely create a problem that will define the next century.

You also stated that the march of progress has not slowed down and that the American economy keeps on chugging along. The American economy is supported by the Central banks of Asian countries. If the American economy slows down and the Asian bankers can no longer depend upon the future returns of the dollar, the price of commodities like oil and mineral resources will spike so high that it will make America look like a third world country.

Finally other third world countries like India and Brazil have the same problems as China but are bogged down by an ineffective democratic process that puts the power squarely in the hands of a poor and uneducated populace. These countries will take more than 50 years to gain the kind of middle class momentum to take them out of their political reins.

The world on the other hand is an increasingly mutlipolar place with emerging technologies meant to be consumed by a different more peaceful and stable populace. Nanotechnology, biotechnology and information technologies will provide so much power to the individual that governments will find themselves in an anarchic era.

Back in late 1850's and 1900's the biggest threat to nations were groups of anarchists. It was thought that the new industrial revolution was providing too much power to the individuals without the government being able to reign it in. World War I and II went on to almost destroy the human race from the face of the earth. Thankfully the technologies back then were not powerful enough to cause the awesome destruction needed to achieve that ignominious result. This is no longer true. The nuclear bomb, bio-tech weapons, the uncontrollable terrorist cell composed of volunteers trained in easy to use and fire weapons and tactics, as well as the availability of easy organization through the use of IT means really bad news for those of us that plan to live peaceful lives in the 21st Century.

Amit Uttam - I've been discussing the problem of backsliding countries including the PRC specifically with TPMB for some time so I understand your concern. I think that the PRC backsliding is not inevitable. Exogenous circumstances can improve things a great deal. We're undergoing several scientific/technological revolutions simultaneously and if things come fast enough, the gravy train may go fast enough to pull our bacon out of the fire.

A partial list of things to watch for:
a carbon nanotube composite fiber that can be spun to any length and has a tensile strength greater than 53Gpa. (this gets us a space elevator and reasonable access to space for orbital mining and power generation)

Hydrogen fuel cells that last 5k hours in durability, can start at -20C and get to 50% of power in 30 seconds, have a power density of 2000watts(net)/liter, all at a cost of $30/kilowatt. (DOE projections say we get this by 2010)

Hydrogen obtained via electrolysis for under $3/gge (gallon of gasoline equivalent). (DOE projections say we get this by 2010)