I think they see that, but are trying to point out to you why they don’t agree with your use of “end.” You WOULD sound like some kind of young earth creationist if you were to assert that France has only existed for fifty years, and England for less than a hundred. Wouldn’t some sort of more radical change be demanded?
Actually, to the extent that’s true, in the long term that’s not likely to help unify America much. On the one hand, the end of oil as a cheap fuel source will increase travel/shipping costs. On the other, the various technologies for flexible automatic factories and “desktop manufacturing” will mean that more and more trade will be in the form of pure data & design, which means that economic ties and geographic location won’t necessarily have any connection. And global warming and resource overuse will mean a great deal of competition over things like water. The latter, especially, could contribute towards some future breakup.
As for me, I think the most likely way that America in it’s present form could end would be a fascist and/or theocratic dictatorship. If you have something like another major terrorist attack or another Great Depression, it’s quite possible the President or the President and Congress both could take dictatorial powers “for the duration of the emergency”. Meaning indefinitely, of course.
I think the US will give up its territories, including Puerto Rico, in the next 50 years.
Right now they are kept for their landing strips and that’s about the only reason.
Once better long range planes, or rockets or carriers or subs are available, they will not
be needed by the military, and nobody else cares about them.
I think within 50 years the US will also combine with English speaking Canada in some form.
Perhaps this will be out of simple common interests, or perhaps triggered by the separation of French Canada.
I like the completely shaved look myself.
Wait, are you saying some state will make a robot army and forge a metal empire? I see several major problems with this, but I guess anything can happen given sufficient technological improvements. I mean, what if you went back fifty years and told people a world wide computer network would be built with one of its primary uses being to share lesbian pornography?
Personally, I don’t see the U.S. ever turning into a totalitarian state. It’s not the '30s anymore when captains of industries will hatch a conspiracy to seize the country. The establishment understands that the current polyarchy with a ritualistic democratic shell and various national myths is far superior in controlling people than any two bit dictator could ever accomplish.
I think this setup will prove remarkably stable unless there is a catastrophic event (nuclear war, Yellowstone, or resource scarcity). My vote goes to either being subsumed into some larger political entity OR switching the dyamic to where public opinion influences public policy. Either would take another generation or two, I would think, although the latter would certainly be easier if America loses power on the world stage like Britain or France did.
There are many dialects of American English. As for France, for better or worse it has achieved linguistic unity, and as far as I know, most of the regional dialects are now almost only spoken by older people. (I think they are still largely in use in Italy though.)
This said, I agree with your general point, namely that an American nation really does exist, but I’m not sure it is stronger than the French or Italian nation.
Fifty years is of course a long time, but right now no part of Canada wants to combine with the US. This is especially true of the English-speaking parts who see their culture potentially submerged by the US’s. Of course, it depends on what we mean by “combine”: greater economic links between Canada and the US are possible, if not likely, and if this happens it will be in less than 50 years.
My point wasn’t that it was stronger, only trying to provide counter-examples to what I saw as a flawed notion. Americans are highly likely to live all over the country from their family. This brings us closer together as a nation even if we are not as close with our families. My family lives in New York, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, West Virginia, Texas, Colorado, Tennessee and more. I have friends all over the country, people with whom I share a common culture. I do not feel like I cannot go to most places in the country, whether it’s Bowie Maryland or Harlem New York.
All that really needs to happen is for the oil to run out, and then everything changes. The end of the American Empire could happen in 50-60 years.
As far as the end of the United States of America itself… maybe not so soon, but likewise, when the oil runs out, suddenly central federalized control and benefits are going to become a lot harder to dole out. I imagine Texas and Southern California reverting to a de facto province of Mexico, the South going its own way, unopposed this time, and the entire west coast of North America, BC included, taking their ball and going home (surely you don’t seriously think Canada is going to stay intact if the US goes in the toilet). South Florida and Cuba form the Republic of Booty Bass and Salsa with the capital in Miami.
I am absolutely certain that the northeast and midwest will keep clutching the Constitution for dear life and thus maintain continuity with the titular USA for the forseeable future, steadfastly refusing to take any stars off the flag, and whining endlessly about illegal secession. And this could indeed go on for centuries.
People make a much bigger deal about the end of oil than is warranted. As soon as it becomes economical to get it out of shale and sand there is a plethora of it. You can also convert coal to oil, or depolymerize plastics into oil. Also, HUGE advances in solar have just happened, and people are capitalizing in a big way off of wind in the badlands of Texas. Mid-East oil is important right now. In 50 years, not so much.
Fair enough; I’m just not convinced the American nation is so different from the French or Italian nations (as an example) in that regard.
That won’t make it cheap - oil becoming more expensive is what’ll make it economical. Quite possibly, too expensive to burn much or any of it for energy.
Both of which will never amount to much compared to what oil is now.
Oil everywhere is running out. Not just in the ME.
To a certain extent, yes. Actually, the US is well on its way to doing just that. We are using higher and higher tech weapons. We currently occupy Japan; Germany; Iraq; South Korea; Afghanistan; Puerto Rico; and probably other places I can’t think of. Not to mention bases in other parts of Europe; the Middle East; and elsewhere.
I think you are probably right, although my expectation is that advances in technology will necessarily require a rebalancing of citizens’ rights.
You won’t get any argument from me. We have some 1000 or so military bases spread over all continents except Antarctica. In fact, this would fix a major problem of a voluntary army: if people know they might get blown up in the sands of some hell hole they might not sign up and you’ll have less soldiers which means less power to your occupation force. These are real, pressing problems right now and internal planners have to keep this in mind.
I just think if we poured such a huge amount of resources into making a conquering robot army and we became even more aggressive then we already are it would accelerate the end of America as a global power unless these are like, super robots or something. As the world becomes even more intertwined I just don’t think people anywhere would stand for this sort of thing. Struggles will be decided by economic and soft power, IMO.
Here’s another fun (although unlikely idea): water wars! What if State A doesn’t want to give State B the water it needs because, well, State A needs it? Or if State C wants to skim some off the top when it’s transported through its territory? Are we looking at a civil war? Mass migrations? Political upheaval?
Economical doesn’t mean “cheap” in this sense. It means when oil is $300 a barrel, suddenly the $200 a barrel sources don’t look so bad anymore. And when you factor in the increased appetite of China, India and the developing nations, it doesn’t look good.
There will always be some oil available to someone at some price, but it’s going to get pretty scarce pretty soon, and it is going to change geopolitics in a serious way.
Ahh, a man after my own heart. Seriously, I today’s day and age, I almost think that The West coast from San Fran up and the East coast from DC up with maybe the great lakes region thrown in should join Canada because we are the only rational people in this country. Honestly, would you rather live in a place Washington or Mass. with their well-educated, healthy, affluent populations with slightly higher taxes, or some poor, ignorant hell-hole that is constantly trying to legislate its morality on the rest of the country?
I agree completely. I amazed at the number of so called experts that comment on the end of traditional oil production. Middle Eastern and maybe even Gulf of Mexico crude oil is becoming more expensive but that isn’t the only source of petroleum. The Alberta Tar sands alone have at least as much oil as Saudi Arabia and maybe as much as the entire Middle East. The infrastructure is being built now to tap it at full production levels. We know that it won’t cost a prohibitive amount and that may even be less than we are paying for crude oil right now. I for one welcome our new Canuck overloads.
The U.S. has so much coal that it might as well be considered infinite for our purposes. Known coal reserves on the U.S. mainland are projected to last anywhere from 250 to over 1000 years even with increasing demand. You can make any petroleum product out of coal as well including gasoline with well known technology although it can be dirty.
I don’t know why people microfocus on crude oil in the Middle East. That is only one source for the end products. Even if coal is deemed too messy to make vast quantities of gasoline, that could work fine too. We can use it to make all the electricity we could ever hope for anyway. We are emphatically not running out of energy overall.
It would probably take a lot less resources than you might think. Once you build the first robot (or whatever), you tell it to build more and better robots (or whatever). The only limits are raw materials and energy, both of which are plentiful at the moment.
'Cuz ya know progressives never, ever try to impose* their* values on anybody else, no sirree. :rolleyes:
Well maybe they aren’t. shrugs My point wasn’t to say that we are more cohesive than France or Italy, but that we are every bit as cohesive as they are. Your point about France may have some merit, but I have heard modern Italians say that there are areas that in Italy where they cannot speak the language.
Cheap is a relative term. If it’s economical, then it’s worth it. Maybe we’ll have to buy fewer plastic baubles and drive less, maybe we’ll have to upgrade public transportation, but I don’t think it’s eschatonian.
I disagree. We didn’t have widespread oil use 100 years ago, we’ll adapt rather quickly and easily. The Sun’s rays provide more power in a single minute than all the oil that has ever been could provide.
Yes, and that’s why we are in the mess in the ME that we are in. However, the people talking about peak oil I think are speaking more from wishful thinking than anything else. We’ll adapt ultimately. We already are. When people talk about these catastrophic changes they don’t really take a historical view. The sky is not falling. Within the fifty years between 1900 and 1950 we went from having no cars or flight at all to Transoceanic commercial air travel, Highways and fully mechanized modern warfare. With the current rate of advancement I am confident that we can adapt again.