Are we in the opening scenes of a post-apocalyptic movie?

[Admiral Yi]

Since the Greeks  defeated Persia at Salamis. That's a 2,600 year run. Or so.

[HVC]

Until the age of sail everyone* was at most a local power. Some with greater power than others, but local just the same. Weird to see it as a swing back to china being the centre when China wasn't ever the centre, no more then Rome was.But we all know sheilbh's proclivities


*except the mongols, I guess. But they're the exception to every rule

[Zoupa]

Since the Greeks  defeated Persia at Salamis. That's a 2,600 year run. Or so.

He said Atlantic, not European.

[Josquius]

Not something where there's one correct answer. As how do you define it. But in my boom world leader was
???  till mid first millennium BC -  Middle East.
Mid first millennium BC till mid first millennium AD - Europe.
600ish  to 1700ish - China
1700ish till WW2- Europe
WW2 till???? - America

I would say though that even from an Indian or Chinese perspective things are looking very dodgy indeed.
India is really being destroyed by homegrown fascists and China has been backsliding for some time.
Oh sure, when you remember actual food shortages and other such mega poverty then you can forgive a bit of fascism if it gives you an ok quality of life.
But that's not a good thing. Not a sustainable thing.

When we were born there were almost two billion people in extreme poverty. It's now below a billion. That was driven overwhelmingly by China and India. China alone has gone from 90% of people on less than $3 a day when we were born to eliminating extreme poverty, India's less extreme but gone from about 50% to 5%.

I think that is the sort of world historical event of my lifetime - the rest is noise. It's a profound transformation of the lives of hundreds of millions of people and driven by development that is more explosive than the industrial revolution - and, in China, driving the energy transition globally (the number one question on energy is whether India is able to skip the carbon intensive energy stage China had or not - if they can't, then we're all fucked).

And in terms of how that matters in Europe, I've mentioned it before because I find it so interesting. Italy's the most extreme example but it's true across Europe (and I suspect the wider "West"). I can't find the exact stat but when we were born the poorest quintile of Italians were around the 75th percentile globally. At the point covid hit they were about 50th percentile. They're now probably in the bottom half. That's not because they've got poorer in real terms as they haven't. It's the emergence of a new global middle class driven by the rise of Asia - and in part a lot of the disruption we face is the shift in the global middle class and who is in/out of it and subsequntly what people can afford. I think a lot of what we're seeing and interpretingas a local phenomenon is ultimately just a consequence flowing from the end of the Atlantic-centred world, which I think was a temporary aberration in any event.

I don't doubt qualify of life has improved a lot in those countries and that is a good thing.
What concerns me about them is their slide into fascism.
This happening in one country is bad enough.
But happening everywhere.... Real 1984 level potential.

[Admiral Yi]

He said Atlantic, not European.

And Europe is part of the Atlantic ascendancy.

[Zoupa]

He said Atlantic, not European.

And Europe is part of the Atlantic ascendancy.

You can't say it's been 2600 years of Atlantic ascendancy because some Greeks beat some Persians all those years ago. Europe was a backwater until the Renaissance.

[Zoupa]

I mean the whole reason for this forum's existence is because of Europa Universalis. The game starts in the 15th century.

[Admiral Yi]

You can't say it's been 2600 years of Atlantic ascendancy because some Greeks beat some Persians all those years ago. Europe was a backwater until the Renaissance.

Sure I can. Macedonia dominated Asia all the way to India. Rome dominated about the same exent. Then it ebbed with the Arabs and Ottomans, then nothing but from there.

[Josquius]

That was a thousand+ years where Europe ebbed whilst China was really on the rise.
And it was less than a thousand years from Alexander through to the fall of Rome.

[Tonitrus]

The real question is: are we in a comedy, or a tragedy?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

The real question is: are we in a comedy, or a tragedy?

A farce

[Zoupa]

You can't say it's been 2600 years of Atlantic ascendancy because some Greeks beat some Persians all those years ago. Europe was a backwater until the Renaissance.

Sure I can. Macedonia dominated Asia all the way to India. Rome dominated about the same exent. Then it ebbed with the Arabs and Ottomans, then nothing but from there.

While I disagree with your characterization, my main quibble is about geography. The age of discovery is what started the Atlantic era, which implies both sides of the ocean being involved.

[Darth Wagtaros]

I think we need a comet to just end the misery.  Save global warming; mega plagues; and political unrest the trouble.

[Sheilbh]

Temporary is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. It's been 5 centuries.

Fair

But I think in part I'd put it like that because I think that is an/the epochal shift that's happening right now and is driving a lot of the other disruption as change. The post Cold War settlement was always likely to be temporary and it has lasted about 20-30 years depending on your view. Its ending is being experienced I think in some areas (I think particularly for the leadership class) as quite a wrenching shift and almost a trauma. I think part of that is possibly because it hints at this wider, far bigger shift. I think there's a degree of averting our eyes from that big change to focus on, to nick MacMillan's phrase, "little local difficulties".

FWIW I wasn't really thinking of "world leader" stuff but the orientation of Europe so I totally agree wiht you. Power is absolutely part of that. But I'd argue that basically until the 18th century Europe was Eurasian. It was oriented to the Medterranean and the Near East with an Atlantic fringe. From the 18th century to the current point I think we've been primarily oriented to the Atlantic with an accompanying marginalisation/peripherisation of the Med and South East Europe. I think that era is over. I don't think we'll all suddenly ping back, it'll be a process - and my suspicion is Europe may actually end up splitting between those still oriented around the Atlantic and those looking more to Eurasia. I also slightly suspect that the states that basically arbitrage/connect Europe with those wider networks may be ones that do quite well. For example, like Hungary and Turkiye.

On the "world leader" point thought it's not totally what I meant I do think there'll be a jarring experience for Europe as we are peripherised. In my view we've already been since 1990 a priileged periphery of American power, but as I say I suspect we'll divide but I think in both cases Europe will become more and more clearly the periphery (as it historically was - to the "world leader" thing - for much of its history) rather than the core. With all the symptoms that produces and that we've anatomised in other societies. I suspect we are at the start of a period that will de-centre Europe quite radically.

I don't doubt qualify of life has improved a lot in those countries and that is a good thing.
What concerns me about them is their slide into fascism.
This happening in one country is bad enough.
But happening everywhere.... Real 1984 level potential.

Sure - that concerns you.

My point was that it's a question of perspective. I ultimately think the perspective that we're in the intro of a post-apocalyptic movie is one that's basically quite limited. I suspect from Africa it looks very much like BAU, from India and China and Asia more generally I think there are reasons for optimism for many.

I think this is even the case on climate. The signs are thre that China's fossil fuel use has peaked (it fell this year). Over three quarters of the world's clean energy patent applications are from China. 25% of emerging markets are now ahead of the US on electrification (end use) and solar generation - overwhelmingly driven by cheap "overproduced" Chinese poducts. And China's solar manufacturing capacity in 2025 was 65% ahead of where it needed to be by 2030 to meet the IEA's Net Zero Roadmap. As I say the key question is whether India grows as China did with a heavy, dirty phase (in which case we're all screwed) or if they can jump straight to where China are now (possibly using their tech) and grow through renewables. The linking of climate and the lifting of hundreds of millions out of poverty is the great challenge we have.

If your frame is Europe unwinding climate commitments or Trump then things look bad. I think if you look more widely then the picture's actually better than anticipated at this stage (the biggest polluter peaking earlier, manufacturing more than expected for less and being able to export that tech and knowledge). Of course the state doing that is one that is revisionist, aggressive, oppressive and damanging to Western interests. But I think we have to kind of hold both of those ideas together or at least in tension.

[crazy canuck]

Too bad we can't ignore the US impact on climate change.