Good article Peter,

Just a couple of points;

i. I think the most likely flashpoints will either be moves from players like to China to secure reserves like the Spratley islands, or ethnic based conflicts, most likely a general conflagration streching from Iran through to China.

ii. Agree the world has no interest in solving global warming. Without being pessimistic I think the outlook is utterly hopeless without significantly better leadership than we have now.

iii. Think you have a typo - surely you mean Iran as an target of Israeli nuclear planning, not Iraq?

cheers,

gw

With greatest respect gw, the article does read "Iran" and not "Iraq."

Dr.McMahon, you state..."Nobody seriously doubts that Peak Oil is at hand..." I beg to differ. Until recently, I was a great proponent of the theory of peak oil, but have now completely stopped talking about it to people I communicate with on a day to day basis. I found a small percentage of people becoming quite angry at the prospect their lives might be turned upside down as a result of peak oil but by far, the majority of people simply thought I was crazy and began to sprout off all manner of ideas from bio-diesel, tar sands and hydrogen and all without the faintest knowledge of just how ridiculous and unworkable such notions are. In fact, the general population seems to have no conceivable idea of just how short on vital resources Earth really is. They're all too busy consuming everything they can buy or rack up on plastic. It's not unlike the greedfest of a crow eating from a carcass in the middle of the road. It can see a vehicle approaching, but won't let up on the feasting until it's too late.
Very good article Dr. McMahon

Spot on, Peter McMahon.

I would like to emphasize your nomination of economic fairness to neutralize violence as part of your global governance solution.

In the SMH today, Steve Burrell comments on a recent study by the World Institute for Development Economic Research into personal wealth around the world.

The findings underpin most perceptions that economic fairness in the stuff of fairytales.
The top 1% owns 40% of the world’s assets while the bottom 50% own 1%.
With N.America, Europe and the rich Asian countries owning 90%, similar inequality exists between countries. The same holds true within countries with S. American countries as standouts.

With the internet increasing the awareness of the poor as to their lack of economic fairness, with the continuing failure of political systems to improve their lot and with the increasing availability of weapons, I think you can add to your troubling summary of the world today.

I think the first cab off the rank will be the unrest and open revolt by these people who do not see any economic fairness in their world.

Geoff said:

"economic fairness to neutralize violence"

Geoff, that is based on an assumption that all violence is based on a sense of 'economic' unfairness. Don't you think its possible that there is another dimension ? Such as 'Perceived Religious unfairness' ?

The classic example is the Israel/Palestinian struggle. I believe that even if the Palestinians were offered land of equal or greater value to that which they lost, but with the condition that they relinquish all claims to East Jerusalem,- well... I am quite confident that most of them would not want it. HAMAS would never, till hell freezes over accept that.

The analysis that all these problems are purely economic fails to recognize the deep connection people of faith have to spiritual issues.

China and its overtures to Africa ? hmmm the most important part of that section of the article was that China is willing to deal with “anyone” to ensure its supply of resources.
I smiled as the author described Mugabe as a ‘Pariah’... I have a tiny feeling that back in the days when the whites were stealing 90% of the land from them, they belted out a drum beat to neighbouring tribes about ‘White Pariahs’ ! Isn’t it amazing how our past territorial sins are ‘history’ and their current restoration of stolen property are ‘actions of a pariah’. Just a hint of bias there.

Excellent appraisal of the present global position and its dangers, Peter. It is interesting that it was Adam Smith, father of Laissez-faire, who pointed out the dangers of the new style of liberty first expressed by John Locke.

It was Adam Smith who also gave notice that though this new-found liberty from too much government interference in trade and marketing was based on the greed that goes with competition, governments still had an even stromger role to play in caring for the workers as well as the losers.

Now we might say that during the bi-polar political system we had soon after the end of WW2 with the Soviets trying to equal the US in power, we were still able to develop the so necessary and successful Marshall Plan. The United Nations was also acting reasonably responsible despite the ridiculous vetoes allowed for the big powers.

Furthermore, with the formation of the WTO, and the end of the Cold War we all had hopes of at last creating the global utopia that many had been praying for.

Even during the Cold War there were social science discussions about whether a unipolar system as now exists with America as global top dogs would be any better than a bi-polar system with two nations of equal power. There was also talk about a multi-polar system, first expressed by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant.

Certainly Adam Smith was right about the danger of greed setting in - especially as regards today's Middle East, which is mostly about Western intrusion and injustice brought on by the marketing greed that Adam Smith warned so much about.

Also the lack of insight which allowed Western powers, chiefly America to shut their eyes while allowing
Israel to become dangerously atomic, causing Iran who has never attacked another country to have changed her mind about Israel.

Much more can be said about power imbalance and political and economic greed, as certainly as well as political and economic fair play.

Peter writes a good general overview. I think there are certain points to consider economics are often touted as a panacea for every problem from social ills to famine. This has been an effect of several global political organisations since the Second world war. Not exclusively the U.N , the World Bank as examples. We take it for granted that economics is a cure all but neglect the fundamental nature of economics is that economics is politics. To be resource rich is hold power over others wether its an employer forcing already exploited workers onto AWA's or an incompetant political party sitting in government for many terms while a poor small more capable party languish. Economic activity creates externalities and power is reshuffled. The virginian farmer works his slave to death and his farm collapses. We over exploit resources (please see updated vegetation maps of the Amazon, Borneo and Sumatra)and pollute the earth and our "farm" collapses. Our "farm" is already collapsing (one symptom is climate change) and thats why there is increasing political and social entropy in the world today.

I would certainly agree that we will experience a most interesting time over the next few decades, but was disappointed that the most important world problem was not mentioned.

That is, of course, the problem of growing world population.

Unless that is addressed, it will be corrected by the four horsemen of the Apocalyse, (War, Famine, Pestilence and Death). Many would say that they are at work already.

I wouldn't worry too much about global warming. When the oil runs out emissions of warming gases will decline sharply.

With the distinct prospect of nuclear war in the middle east in the next few years, the oil supply shouldn't last too long, as it will be stopped by the first nuclear bomb.

Wars over resources are nothing new. When countries are faced with a shortage, they have a little war to see who will get the resource, and who will get nothing. It has been that way since before we became human.

Any of the above events will certainly cause economic collapse, as the only way we know how to run an economy is with constant growth. The last time we had a sustained period without growth, it was called the Great Depression.

In case any posters think I am being pessimistic, I suggest you think about the fact that Australia is the only country in the world with the four vital things. These are:

1. A surplus of food.

2. A surplus of energy.

3. A surplus of minerals.

and lastly, most important of all

4. A sea boundary.

Probably what we do need right now is reasoning backed by commonsense, which according to some philosophers, can only come in isolation for some gifted personage such as the young Jesus, Buddha, Mahommed, and so on, also doubtless including Confucius.

In the same vein we have the lower ranks, including Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Maxim Gorbachev, and as some would say, the previous Roman Catholic leader, Pope John.

However, we leave the more consecrated, and influential, to deal with the most miraculous of modern times. Both Gandhi and Nelson Mandela, each one originally just an ordinary individual.

First Gandhi, who while the angry colonial Brits had rebellious bodies swinging from trees and lamp-posts throughout India just after WW2, Gandhi was able to perform one of history's greatest victories.

Gandhi was able to mindfully get-together not only all the Indian castes from Brahmins to Untouchables, but also the more troublous, such as the Islamics and Sikhs, who had previously been inciting most of the killings between the religions.

Surely as a peace-maker Nelson Mandela must come second,
even though Mandela having been incarcerated by the white South Africans for well over twenty years for his fight against the evils of arparthaid, was still able during his lonely confinement to think about forgiveness even for his torturers as a way to be rid of the cruelties as experienced from white humanity over black.

Looking at the above historical experiences, we could say that in some ways, the experiences of Gandhi and Mandela are somewhat similar. Furthermore, in today's troubled world, are their lessons to be learnt from the influences of two ordinary humans, both non-white, who virtually achieved great political victories without hardly firing a shot.

Please take a lesson - for there is little doubt that with the abolishment of human greed, backed by deep wisdom and understanding, the victories of both Gandhi and Mandela could be achieved in today's Middle East

I believe globalisation is one of the few positives in this world today. To suggest we are sliding back into the age of geo-politics is completely wrong. The American policy of unilateralism will soon be considered a tragic mistake. Perhaps it already is. If it continues beyond Bush's term, then it will be the US finding itself falling behind. In the 21st century, economic integration is king.

Economics is about the distribution if limited resources. Peak oil makes economics more relevant. It will allow the world to adjust in the most effective way.

The solution to global warming is in the field of economics, and providing a global solution is possible thanks to globalisation. The Koyoto protocol would be an impossibility in any other age.

In this century, globalisation will remove extreme poverty from Asia and South America, and reduce poverty in Africa more than any other measure. Fortunately, nothing exists to interfer with such progress.

I used to think a growing population was the greatest threat to mankind, but now I tend to think it's poverty (how naughtily marxist of me).

For the chief reason that the population of the most affluent nations isn't increasing save for migration. (I'm not sure of the US, but it's certainly the case for Europe and Australia).

So therefore, poverty = population growth.

It isn't really fair to ask an impoverished woman not to have children - with no social security, it is the children who look after you in your old age.

As for Australia's resources and isolation... it sounds promising, but by the same token, it's awfully worrying. The powerful tend to take things from the less powerful, when they need them.

David Latimer.

Mostly agree with you, mate, except that the greed and selfishness of human beings on their way up is forever hard to control, just as Turn Right-Turn Left just mentioned.

Over here in WA we have orange growers having a battle.Also our dairy farmers being forced to sell out. Lucky they are close to the city where land prices are so high. Seems the middle men or the corporates are still holding the Ace Cards. Also grain prices have hardly risen since globalisation came into being. Probably why the US and the EU have had to keep on subsidising their farmers. No chance of any subsidies in little Aussie land however.

Also bi-lateralism has disgraced our bio-security laws by allowing suspected foot and mouth infected Brazilian carcase meat to be landed in Australia, the shipment not dissolved chemically but just hastily buried in a NSW rubbish dump. No news in the media about it all neither.

Wonder how our Federal Government can turn a blind eye to such tings.

Yes, David, still agree that marketing liberality is what we need, but as with our Middle East problems, reckon the whole shebang might prove a failure through bureaucratic incompetence, and as Adam Smith said so many eons ago, though freedom for the market is beneficial, laws concerning market duplicity must be stronger than ever.

I think there is two merging events taking place. Two by name but, one in fact. Globalization or business with out borders. And Internationalisation or Nations with out borders. Each of these ideas lead to what many would consider a "world government" while leaving Nations or emerging Nation as "Governor" of their particular slice of earth.
Geo-politics hasn't returned. It's never left us. It has mutated and probably will continue to readjust while the World sorts itself out for the next millennium.
Observe what is taking place with in Europe. Nations coming to terms with giving up States Rights in favour of a more cohesive unified Europe sharing mutual governmental responsibility. Which is why Turkey wants to become part of that world and not be left out in the cold so to speak. It is also why Turkey is having such a problem meeting the new demands of democracy and human rights to be included in the new Europe. There are internal pressures that fear change. Fear that they will not be able to be Turkey.
The defining element in globalization is mutual open trade benefits. The defining element in Internationalisation is cross border democracy and human rights.
The future problem elements will be with those countries that refuse to adopt a democratic form of government and institute policies based around human rights.
The eventuality being that the "world" comes to understand that it is just this one world and it has become a very small place. Where what may have leaked out in years or took weeks by travel now takes place in minutes or hours.

Globalisation troubles me we are told its new but is not colonialism globalisation? Were there not pan oceanic flights making news one year and a passenger service a few years later? Did not The Americas and Australia and Southern Africa recieve in total millions of immigrants over the last 4 centuries? How fast did we in Australia get the telegram ? This country was built during the Industrial revolution with foreign technology. Our lives are not so different from the 19th Century. Howard has forced 19th century working conditions on us, most Australians live in suburbs as they did when Darwin visited Australia. We commute to work as we did in the 19th century its only the car replacing the tram. There was no major change in between. Granted there was more regional infrastructure in the 19th Century and we have improved toys but from a global standpoint there has been no major shift in our culture or the way we live except where regional towns are slowly becoming ghost towns.

If TurnRightThenLeft thinks we have to eliminate poverty to solve the various threats to our existence then we really are doomed. Environmental footprints are a way of converting average consumption levels into notional hectares of land so that comparisons can be made. Visit the Redefining Progress website and you will find that the sustainable global capacity per person would involve an environmental footprint of about 1.8 hectares. (By their calculations, Australia has a footprint of around 7 hectares per person and the US 9.5.)

El Salvador has an average footprint of about 1.7 hectares, and Iran 1.85. El Salvador is so poor that it is giving Mexico an illegal immigrant problem, and not just to get through to the US. If we divided the resources equally, that is how we would all be living. None of this allows for climate change, peak oil, further environmental deterioration, or the expected global population of 9 billion.

In pre-industrial societies population growth normally stops when not even child slave labour can raise production enough to pay for itself. If opportunities allow, ethnic cleansing may seem a more attractive alternative, as Plerdsus suggested.

Divergence: you speak of the problems that would still exist if we divested resources equally - I don't doubt that you are correct in your suppositions that this would not be a solution to the world's problems.

My point is that over population does not occur as rampantly in first world countries as it does in impoverished ones.

The problem you allude to is overconsumption, not necessarily over-population but the two obviously have a relationship.

Now if population's weren't spiralling out of control, we would be halfway to solving the problem.
The population of first world nations aren't increasing in the same way those of the third world are... theoretically then, if the third world was affluent like the first, they wouldn't be increasing so rampantly.

The problem is, if we were to bring the third world up to the level of the first, we would run into the problems you describe via the environmental footprint.

The question then becomes... if the first world can reduce consumption, does that mean that birth rates would increase?.. to me this is an important question, though I doubt it's one that has been considered at length...

I suppose what I'm saying is that you're right in that the problem isn't just about poverty... when I say I believe it is the world's largest problem, I do believe that is the case, though this is after considering other factors such as conflict, which consumes vast resources in itself.

Though it is not the only problem, I grant you.

TurnRightThenLeft,

Virginia Abernethy's 'Population Politics' is good on this. Family planning isn't something that was just discovered by the rich countries in the 20th century. Human societies have always had the problem of keeping the population big enough to keep the society running and deter the neighbours from invading, but not so big that after a below average harvest or two they ended up with huge numbers of hungry, desperate people who would degrade the environment in the interests of immediate survival and possibly revolt against the elite. They also needed to rebuild their numbers quickly after a disaster (or the neighbours would invade). Since parents could benefit from child labour and growing their own pension plan, population would normally grow until the labour market collapsed. There were different solutions to the problem of what to do then, most of them pretty brutal.

The population size that was in the interests of the elite and maybe defence was much greater than optimum for the welfare of the people. On the ABC's Thousand Years in a Day series (2000) it was explained that the high living standards enjoyed by survivors of the Black Death weren't matched until the late 19th century, despite all the intervening technological progress. Aristocrats of the time complained that common ploughmen were demanding to be paid in silver.

Rich countries can't allow child labour and are defended by technology, not masses of cannon fodder, so birth rates fall, even while people are well off. However, with their policies of baby bribes to the underclass and mass migration, our elites are effectively trying to revert to the natural state of mankind since the early Bronze Age: a tiny, bloated upper class sits perched atop a vast pyramid of human misery and maintains its position with State terror.