Comments on: How we got to the archipelago world

By: Pinch

Pinch — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 16:36:45 +0000

I enjoyed reading this – enjoyed seeing the changes from this perspective. Maybe you should have written Obama’s speach yesterday, this sounds more reassuring and points to a goal, a transition that does not necessarily have to end in a horrible state.

By: Fern

Fern — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 05:19:18 +0000

NukerDoggie-I also see this confluence of China, Russia and their followers as more significant than the individual sovereign nations. There will always be some nation striving to be the big dog, usually more than one, and if it is not the U.S. it will just be somebody else.

Also, Nader, I admire your optimism but please get some help with editing.

By: Ralphooo

Ralphooo — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 19:39:18 +0000

“If, as the author states, “negotiating this new mosaic of power will require a mix of pragmatism, modesty, innovation, and strategic patience,” then the US is truly doomed.”

Medusa, that is pithy. Succinct. And who could argue?

Oh well, technological civilization was great while it lasted!

By: BowMtnSpirit

BowMtnSpirit — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:58:24 +0000

@ NukerDoggie: Your Nixonian slip is showing, and your paranoia is palpable. That’s alright. It’ll all be over soon.

What amazes me is the continuing stream of media discussion about the coming world-shift, which uniformly ignores entirely the most fundamental factor that will re-order everything. This factor does not care about power dynamics, or honesty and legitimacy, or bribery, or leverage. Before this one force, all economic and political concerns will be swept aside as houses before a tsunami.

I agree with your assessment, and your description, Nader. I appreciate its hopefulness, its positive tone. I love your conceptualization of the world’s interests as an archipelago.

But you, too, are ignoring the elephant in the room. Your conceptualization of the world’s interests as an archipelago is more right than you know, but does not go far enough. For it is our fate to witness, in the very near future, the devolution of a world civilization built upon cheap, abundant and highly efficient fuel. A fuel that is being produced at lower EROI’s annually, and accelerating in its descent. A fuel that has not been replaced by any alternative, and we have run out of time on developing any replacement.

Instead, we artificially damp the price by releasing reserves, we encourage the continued production of autos, planes and trains. We (at least the U.S. and certain other powers) continue to profligately throw this resource away in militaristic paroxysms, some of which are patently for the very purpose of obtaining control over the last dregs of this fuel. We kill, and we are killed, and those in power know it is of small consequence, because when the extraction of the fuel goes negative ROI, we’re done. The civilization cannot be supported upon what is left.

In a few thousand years, if anything of our words survives, the people who puzzle over our civilization will wonder, “What the hell were they thinking?” It certainly wasn’t about our future.

By: Nesty44

Nesty44 — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:29:56 +0000

Great Concept which could be translated into “The Age of Networks” but Archipelago is more romantic and carries stronger social connotation- Sure enough the Archipelago has always existed just like the US melting pot was nothing more than a nice transitory dream. – If we have our eyes open it is clear that we are existing the age of Industrial globalization and standardization to enter a world of overlapping networks and customization in all realms of human activity even the art of warfare is changing – Now is the time for our Corporate elite to prepare to the new world with new paradigms our fall into the dump of history – Are we prepared to think out of the Box ?

By: Medusa

Medusa — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:20:15 +0000

From this description, it seems that the US is wholly unprepared to live in an archipelago world. Having thrown in the diplomatic card years ago in favor of achieving–or attempting to achieve–profits and power by bombing “friends” and enemies alike, we have missed the fact that the “my way or the highway” strategy is no longer tenable. If, as the author states, “negotiating this new mosaic of power will require a mix of pragmatism, modesty, innovation, and strategic patience,” then the US is truly doomed.

By: NoBorder

NoBorder — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 07:12:52 +0000

Hope we find the right formula by mistake. It is one world one nation.

By: Janaiy

Janaiy — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 03:47:17 +0000

Let me say it in simple words: POWER WAR ECONOMY = MONEY. The trouble in our world is that all of this started with money and that’s what all this is about. We all must admit that money owns us and not viceversa. Everything is about money. The whole world is addicted to it, can’t do without, while our planet is fighting against us, us, who destroys instead to preserve our biggest treasure on this earth WATER, AIR, NATURE = OUR REAL POWER. That’s the sadness of the human being.
Only throughout our children we can still change the world teaching them what is crucial to continue living on this earth, otherwise there won’t be a future for them.

By: tk2

tk2 — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 00:09:43 +0000

The world, as far as I remember, has always been an Archipelago World. Those who used to live on the biggest island, probably did not notice. I am afraid, though, that in the end, this “multidimensionalily” might manifest itself in just two dimensions, just exactly how the previous “multidimensionality” in the 19th century did… The usual game of declining powers and rising powers with inevitable war at the end, nothing new. But there is one good idea in the article one does not hear so often from such kind of people, which is: power is always a zero sum game!

By: NukerDoggie

NukerDoggie — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 22:15:10 +0000

An article loaded with UN-style international-speak (babble) and far too heavily slanted toward an effort to come up with something really new and innovative on geopolitics. The author makes too much effort – more than facts allow – to divorce himself from traditional thinking.

While there are certainly present some of the ‘non-zero-sum’ developments and trends he notes, they aren’t dominant forces in today’s geopolitical developments, but rather are subjugated to more traditional geopolitical movements. The “East” is rising to take global dominance away from the West.

“East” includes most of the emerging economies, not merely those powers like China that are geographically located in the East. And their integration and cooperation with each other and increasingly following the lead of the Russia-China strategic axis is much more important and mature a geopolitical development than the author wants to see or admit.

Bottom line: this is a power play, with the emerging economies working hard to take away U.S. dominance. The author makes too much of the uniqueness of the individual emerging economy players, and not enough of the ever-closer-knit coalition-like relations among them.