by rerere » Thu 11 Nov 2004, 21:15:35
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Anonymous', 'I')t seems to me that forces are beginning to align themselves over energy. .... Does anyone else see this scenario shaping up?
4 things for 'production':
People to do the production via workers or thinkers.
Raw Materials
Energy
and after the above 3 meet - a non-toxic environment so the people can actually live.
With enough energy, one can pull what raw materials "are needed" from the crust of the earth or the sea..if the material exists in seawater.
For all 4, you need landmass. Landmass to provide 'earth crust' to process for raw materials, a place to put your people, a place to put the really toxic wastes, and the land is a way to harness the solar energy.
Countries that lack landmass, lack water, lack people, have a poor environmental outlook will not fair as well as the ones that have.
The US may not be at the top. China may not be at the top. Russia may not be at the top. Brazil may not be the top. But with good management they should do fine LONG TERM - assuming no NCB (Nuclear/Chemical/Biological) warfare.
In the short term:
"No one likes a bully"
"No one likes a liar"
"No one likes someone who takes more than their fair share"
And, like it or not, the US of A over oil looks like a bully/liar. There isn't alot of "looks like" WRT 'fair share' of energy consumption.
So yea, the US of A is going to have more parties lined up against 'em than for 'em. It is an far eaiser sell than, say, Micronesia.