If I had the power to construct national boundaries I would see that the catchment areas of all important river systems were coincident with national boundaries. This would make a river, instead of something to fight over, something to care for. That would be much more ecologically sound. It would also be militarily sound since the edges of catchment areas are high ground making natural defensive borders. The earliest civilisations were hydraulic based on dealing with a water resource. That would be their area to care for. Those nations not based on a river would then be on the littoral areas of seas or oceans or island nations like the UK and Japan.

Brazil and Egypt approach that ideal already. One could go through the historical account of wars and see the influence of riverine resources on conflict. The Rhine and Danube are cases in point.

Interesting thought but national boundaries are based more on cultural identities, economies and power bases. Civilisations expand and no one is going to sit around in their border happily. And in the modern world technology has conquered significant difficulties of nature. Maybe im not getting the point of your post so please steer it to your point.

Goku wrote:

Maybe im not getting the point of your post so please steer it to your point.

Dear Goku,

I have seen it put as a cause for conflict that the national boundaries of states emerging from the former imperialist empires follow the boundaries of the former colonies. I don’t see that as a defect as the new nations develop a national consciousness. However, I wondered what would be a better way to determine national boundaries. I thought of the Middle East where the national boundaries were decided mainly by the victors of WW1. After WW2Churchill created Jordan by a stroke of his pen lopping it off from the British mandate. Merging three former provinces of the Turkish Empire created Iraq.

Turkey is considering damming the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates. That would affect the water supply of both Syria and Iraq which are downstream. As long as the victors of WW1 were deciding boundaries they could have created a country whose boundaries would be the catchment area of the Tigris and Euphrates thus averting a cause for conflict. It seems reasonable where nations are being formed to apply this idea wherever possible.

David f ,
An interesting proposition, but I am not sure it attacks the root of the problem:Egypt controls much of the trunk and head of the Nile. And though narrow is potentially an agricultural rich country. So, it would seem to satisfy your criteria for an politically sound & ecological responsible entity.

But, Egypt has let its population grow from 20 MILLION just after ww1, to OVER 80 MILLION today ! And Egypt is increasingly having to resort foreign aid to feed itself.

With that type of-responsible governance - there is no hope, even with the greatest river system, at your DISPOSAL

Dear Horus,

Of course, it doesn't attack the root of the problem. I don't think the problem has a root as there are many things wrong. Lack of population control and poor distribution of resources are two of the many things wrong. Catholicism and Islam are two factors making it difficult to deal with population control as is poverty. However, poverty is also a cause for an increasing population as insecure, poor people (are there secure poor people?) will have many children hoping some will survive to help them later in life.

However, Egyptians are not fighting each other over control of the Nile, and there is a brewing conflict of Syria and Iraq with Turkey over the river system that they share.

BTW does your designation of Horus relate to the Egyptian Horus?