It is already 18yrs after this talk, the world is emerging into at least a bipolar world(US and China) and possibly moving towards a multipolar world and the US refuses to give UP its hegemonic status. As you can see it is very difficult to predict the direction in which the history of the world is moving.
There can never be a world without superpowers. Since the beginning of time, large nations have ruled over small nations. All that would happen in a world with no ruling global superpower is a vacuum: a vacuum in which another big nation would fill the gap.
All this assumes that there is no hegemonic oligarchy and no elitism on part of global banking system. Globalism also assumes that no entity will seek dominance over another entity. How has history treated nation states?
Barry needs to read Black Swans. Anything can happen in economics. And the lesson we can take from that is that anything can happen in international relations. One thing we can almost be certain of is that the future is unlikely to be a kinda middle of the road journey, without shockingly calamitous events. Barry presents the "meh" theory of international relations. "Not much gonna happen. Superpowers gonna wither. Don't worry about it." For some reason, this really makes me worry. Having said all this, Barry Buzan is my favorite IR theorist, and I'm pretty sure he's read Black Swans.
Shift from hunters and gatherers. Shift from feudalism to capitalism. Industrial revolution. We have already undergone another revolution with computer technology. And AI may create an even more rapid revolution just around the corner. Barry is right that these things have not happened very often in the past. But the shift from H and G to agrarian took tens of thousands of years. Later shifts seem to have occurred faster and faster.
in America, almost everyone would say "im american" instead of "im new mexican" or "im californian", try to ask people in China or Russia about their nationality.
When I think of "ethnic" background, I think of genetic and cultural variances between groups of people, not what nation they claim allegiance to - not "nationality" (why would we have two terms to refer to the same thing?)
I dont really like hearing about China, Russia, Brazil and India as being anti any superpowers, as wanting to cooperate in these mild checks'n'balances. There is going to be a competiotion between those, it has always been that way and it's in human nature. Whether some of these countries are going to "win" (become the ONE superpower), is a question of far future.
No globalism...too much power in too few hands, always leads to totalitarianism! People are numbers to be counted, provided for...or eliminated! Nationalism..in the USA at least...is a good thing. We've decided to keep it...bye bye! We have poverty...but at no level is it as extreme as India, for instance!
The main reason that the USA is a superpower, is that there's no one else that can compete them. Europe and India are ethnically divided, China is economically unstable and Russia is healing its wounds from the fall of the Soviet Union (not only the fall, but the wounds that Soviets caused themsleves). The world has had PLENTY of time to "catch" up with the west since the 19th century, but they did not manage to do so (except that for a while Russia LOOKED as if it did).
Professor Pangloss couldn't be more wrong that "advance of material capability, technolcogy and suchlike" is seen as a universal benefit. Permanent economic growth is impossible on a finite planet already running out of resources. Fresh water is first, of course, and water or the lack of it, is likely to be the factor shaping the world order more than any other over the next 50 years. Neither do territorial states look so clever or so relevant any more. Yes, they retain widespread popularity, but that perception is increasingly ill-founded and atavistic, offering no useful model for the future. Chinese economic imperialism in Africa and elsewhere was missing from the analysis that "China has no friends". It's BUYING them -or attempting to do so. Whether that will work remains to be seen. Lastly, the rising power of religion has been overlooked. I don't refer only to Islam, but to Hinduism and to two radically different versions of Christianity centred on (but not wholly exclusive to) the USA and Russia..
British Commonwealth is a legacy of the fading organisation where by at the end of British Empire they just wanted the future generations to remember them to feel good about themselves. It is only a talk shop that doesn't have any significant impact on the world...let be realistic. British important in the world is long gone that one read in history book...that will never again come. It will sound unpalatable to British but that is reality.
Well off course they will.Its moronic not to say that(despite it won't be so hard to belive,as most of them can't indicate US on a map).About Russia,i almost bet they think alike.China is a weird country,nothings sure there ...
USA have the benefit of being relatively ethnic homogenous. The only other examples I can think of are Asian Arabs (meaning Northern Africa is too nationalist & old) and POSSIBLY Subsaharan Africa (as to their language family, relatively similar history & religion). South America is more difficult, regarding Argentina's hostility to the UK, Paraguay's hostility to Arg. and Venezuela as such.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
I would have dated this lecture as 2016-18, but NOPE. This is 2011, and we're seeing the beginning of what he's talking about today.
It's now 2021 and WE ARE NOW THERE!!!!
It is already 18yrs after this talk, the world is emerging into at least a bipolar world(US and China) and possibly moving towards a multipolar world and the US refuses to give UP its hegemonic status. As you can see it is very difficult to predict the direction in which the history of the world is moving.
There can never be a world without superpowers. Since the beginning of time, large nations have ruled over small nations. All that would happen in a world with no ruling global superpower is a vacuum: a vacuum in which another big nation would fill the gap.
I like to think that there are doctors and professors who are far more intelligent than me.
All this assumes that there is no hegemonic oligarchy and no elitism on part of global banking system. Globalism also assumes that no entity will seek dominance over another entity. How has history treated nation states?
Man, that jab at China didn’t age well…
Barry needs to read Black Swans. Anything can happen in economics. And the lesson we can take from that is that anything can happen in international relations. One thing we can almost be certain of is that the future is unlikely to be a kinda middle of the road journey, without shockingly calamitous events. Barry presents the "meh" theory of international relations. "Not much gonna happen. Superpowers gonna wither. Don't worry about it." For some reason, this really makes me worry. Having said all this, Barry Buzan is my favorite IR theorist, and I'm pretty sure he's read Black Swans.
Man, I hope he's right.
What is the name of that awesome fellow who introduces Barry. Sounded like, "My name is Mick Hubs." He was priceless.
michael (mick) cox
Shift from hunters and gatherers. Shift from feudalism to capitalism. Industrial revolution. We have already undergone another revolution with computer technology. And AI may create an even more rapid revolution just around the corner. Barry is right that these things have not happened very often in the past. But the shift from H and G to agrarian took tens of thousands of years. Later shifts seem to have occurred faster and faster.
Well said 😊
in America, almost everyone would say "im american" instead of "im new mexican" or "im californian", try to ask people in China or Russia about their nationality.
And what would they say ?
Why don't you specify it
When I think of "ethnic" background, I think of genetic and cultural variances between groups of people, not what nation they claim allegiance to - not "nationality" (why would we have two terms to refer to the same thing?)
Why would he have two expressions to reference the identical concept?
I could hold a speach about a world without superpowerds and de-centered globalism,and eradication of globalisation.
I dont really like hearing about China, Russia, Brazil and India as being anti any superpowers, as wanting to cooperate in these mild checks'n'balances. There is going to be a competiotion between those, it has always been that way and it's in human nature. Whether some of these countries are going to "win" (become the ONE superpower), is a question of far future.
No globalism...too much power in too few hands, always leads to totalitarianism! People are numbers to be counted, provided for...or eliminated! Nationalism..in the USA at least...is a good thing.
We've decided to keep it...bye bye! We have poverty...but at no level is it as extreme as India, for instance!
I don't get the point you're trying to make (haven't watched the lecture yet), but how could you say the USA is homogenous?
The main reason that the USA is a superpower, is that there's no one else that can compete them. Europe and India are ethnically divided, China is economically unstable and Russia is healing its wounds from the fall of the Soviet Union (not only the fall, but the wounds that Soviets caused themsleves). The world has had PLENTY of time to "catch" up with the west since the 19th century, but they did not manage to do so (except that for a while Russia LOOKED as if it did).
Right...
Professor Pangloss couldn't be more wrong that "advance of material capability, technolcogy and suchlike" is seen as a universal benefit. Permanent economic growth is impossible on a finite planet already running out of resources. Fresh water is first, of course, and water or the lack of it, is likely to be the factor shaping the world order more than any other over the next 50 years.
Neither do territorial states look so clever or so relevant any more. Yes, they retain widespread popularity, but that perception is increasingly ill-founded and atavistic, offering no useful model for the future.
Chinese economic imperialism in Africa and elsewhere was missing from the analysis that "China has no friends". It's BUYING them -or attempting to do so. Whether that will work remains to be seen.
Lastly, the rising power of religion has been overlooked. I don't refer only to Islam, but to Hinduism and to two radically different versions of Christianity centred on (but not wholly exclusive to) the USA and Russia..
Yes it has any significance.Search on google for British Commonwealth and you shall see.
British Commonwealth is a legacy of the fading organisation where by at the end of British Empire they just wanted the future generations to remember them to feel good about themselves. It is only a talk shop that doesn't have any significant impact on the world...let be realistic. British important in the world is long gone that one read in history book...that will never again come. It will sound unpalatable to British but that is reality.
The Arabs are good candidates but you would never mention them as a candidate
Well off course they will.Its moronic not to say that(despite it won't be so hard to belive,as most of them can't indicate US on a map).About Russia,i almost bet they think alike.China is a weird country,nothings sure there ...
Yeah,thats right,but still,Globalisation and Corporation are the 2 words i hate the most.
Joker disease, that changes the game. Nice forecast.
USA have the benefit of being relatively ethnic homogenous. The only other examples I can think of are Asian Arabs (meaning Northern Africa is too nationalist & old) and POSSIBLY Subsaharan Africa (as to their language family, relatively similar history & religion). South America is more difficult, regarding Argentina's hostility to the UK, Paraguay's hostility to Arg. and Venezuela as such.
Wz😂🤟🎼🤟
Apropo,sunt roman ...