The pessimistic vision of future world developments:
As no one saw the economic advatages to reversing the emissions of climate gasses, global warming was never prevented or diminished in strength. Because of this, the melting of the ice caps continued its slow progress, and sea levels rose. Also, the deforesting of the world continued, due to the absolute lack of effective international agreements to stop the exploitation of the world’s forests. The Amazon Rainforest is turned into a desert, and many of the world’s other large forests are on their way there. Furthermore, as a result of growing populations, the Sahara and Godi deserts spread, causing massive migrations away from these areas. As a result of this, conflicts erupted in China, the Middle East and Southern and Northern Africa, as the migrating peoples came to areas already populated. These areas were then increasingly depleted of their resources, such as water, fertile land and similar. This development was a global trend, with plagues and other diseases following in its wake.
Meanwhile, the political situations has changed. In the Middle East, a strong Islamic Califate has gained power, ousting the old, corrupt and secular despots of the region. However, as their resources disappear, they wage war on their neighbours in order to secure the welfare of their citizens. Russia, by now well back into Stalinist Communism, is their first and primary enemy, and the Caucasus and Central Asia are ravaged by war, and made almost impossible to live in, ridden with the resluts of biological warfare. This threatens China, who constantly keeps her northern armies alert and ready to strike if either the Russians or the Islamists ally with her great southern enemy, India.
India, however, is a constant scene for civil war, genocides and ethnic cleansing. The central government, consisting of an alliance of Hindu and Buddhist nationalist fundamentalists, has litte authority or power, and India’s capacity for waging war against stronger, more uniform Islamists and Chinese, decreases year by year. However, they are being propped up by the European Union, who sees the strategic value of supporting India economically, using her as a proxy in their own wars against the Califate. Europe, consisting of everything south of Denmark, north of the Gibraltar, west of Belarus and the Bousporous, and everything east of Bretagne, has regressed into a fascist union, where economic power is seen as a safeguard for military power. Thus, civil rights are practically non-existant, secret police forces keep a strict eye on suspicious individuals, and the peoples of Europe live stricktly segregated; all ethinc minorities have been either deposed or destroyed. The European Union has withdrawn back behind the continent’s rivers, mountains and other easily defended natural obstacles, and mainly does its warring either through proxies or through the use of atrocities against especially the Califate’s civil population. An uneasy truce exists between the European Union and the Russian Federation, but none of them really trust each other.
On the other side of the Atlantic, South America is a continent of chaotic anarchy, where leftist extremist governments of minuscule states wage wars against rightist extremist governments of minuscule states. The entire continent is becoming a desert, population is dropping like a rock, and no one really cares what happens there any more, seeing as the Latin Americans are mainly occupied with fighting each other. Further north the United States had at some point expanded to extend all the way to the Panama Channel, but because of financial and military failure in the mid-21st century, the great Union collapsed into a loose confederation of states. Sonn, however, these states started fighting amongst themselves, turning the entire continent into a mass of small, fascist states, fighting against their neighbours. However, because of their common history, they still unify to repulse attacks on one of their number, or to punish any international actor they may feel like deserve some punishing. These cooperative military expeditions are the basis of peace talks, with the goal of reestablishing the Union.
So. There we have it. And what if I was a Norwegian politician today, with complete control of our economy and general political development? (I.e., a dictator.)
First of all, I’d prepare for a massive rearranging of the Norwegian settlement patterns. Everything below 20 meters above sealevel would be demolished and moved, while replacements would be contructed further inland. Then, I’d make sure that we could feed ourselves in the event of a collapse in world trade. This implies preparing for an agricultural expansion; the global warming would enhance the potential of Norwegian agriculture, easing the growing of foodstuffs. As a part in this strategy, I’d also assure Norwegian control of the North Atlantic fisheries, possibly creating an alliance with Scotland and Iceland in order to keep the seas from turning black. Another measure in this regard would be the buying of Sweden’s interior. Some 80 % of Sweden is unused, with the only major population centers being along the coastline. (Eventually, we could offer them to join the Kingdom of Norway.)
THen, I’d resupply Norwegian industry. With the expected collapse of international trade, we would no longer be able to import foreign industrial products, having instead to rely on what we can produce domestically. There’s a small problem of supply of raw materials, but that could be overcome through agreements with Sweden and/or Russia.
Finally, we’d have to expand our army. We wouldn’t take any chances of joining the European Union, and since the new world order would be a complete lack of order, we’d need all the military might we can get. Primarily, this military force would be defensive, with a deterring purpose: To convince any hostile faction that an attack on Norway would cost them dearly. In this respect our northeastern defenses would be the most problematic. To the west and south we could easily use our navy, coastal fortresses and ai force to repel most any attack, effectively turning our coast into a graveyard for enemy ships. (As we could have done to the German navy in 1940, hadn’t our government in the 1930s been a bunch of pacifist wankers.) For the interior, however, the task would be much graver. In Finnmark, we’d have to control settlements, moving them to more strategic points, and building forts and anti-tank defenses all across the region. Forts, however, are most dysfunctional in an era of mobile warfare, and so we’d also be dependant upon an effective infantery, possibly a mechanised infantery. These troops should be stationed all across the country, and be well trained in the art of guerrila warfare. It shouldn’t be impossible to invade Norway, but it should be costly and thus virtually impossible to occupy us.
Diplomatically, we’d depend upon good relations with Russia and Europe, with possible strong ties to Scotland, Iceland and Sweden; in particular it’d be necessary to coordinate our defenses with Sweden, so that the Russians wouldn’t be able to drive their tanks straight through Sweden and into Norway further south. Ideally, these three countries would be integrated into the Kingdom of Norway, but more pragmatic arrangements could also be made.

“Some 80 % of Sweden is unused, with the only major population centers being along the coastline. (Eventually, we could offer them to join the Kingdom of Norway.)”
I think you’re confusing English “eventually” with Norwegian “eventuelt” here… but I obviously can’t be sure.
24. October 2006 @ 02:03 ( Permalink )
Of course I do. How very silly of me. I do that all the time in my head, but usually I manage to avoid putting it on paper.
24. October 2006 @ 09:44 ( Permalink )
Is this a wet-dream-review?
No, seriosly, I dont look forward to this. Other than the fact (fact and fact mrs. Plum (had to try)) that I would become a servant (or minister for those who don’t speek latin) for the agriculture.
Oh, wet dream
24. October 2006 @ 21:04 ( Permalink )
Actually, you wouldn’t want to be minister of agriculture. (Actually, that can mean “priest of agriculture”. Funny little theocratic detail, there.) Those guys are way to busy, and they’re way to powerless. What you want to be if you want power, is head of one of them special bureaus, which basically does all the deciding. After all, this is a technocracy. Politicians don’t rule, they just pass laws that the bureaucrats (i.e. experts) makes for them. And personally, I wouldn’t have it any other way. Yay for elitism. And meritocratic elitism, at that. Not often one sees such awesomity.
24. October 2006 @ 21:45 ( Permalink )
I don’t want to rule at all. I just said so. What I want, is a stage, good actors, great audience, good books at home, lots of good food and drinks, and perhaps a family.
But a priest of agriculture would be cool anyway:P
“Go on, pray to that cow! NOW!”
24. October 2006 @ 22:28 ( Permalink )
High Priest of Ceres, how’s that sounds for ya?
24. October 2006 @ 22:43 ( Permalink )
“Those guys are way to busy, and they’re way to powerless”
Tell that to the Romans. Tiberius Gracchi, Gaius Gracchi, Marius, Caesar, Pompey…
24. October 2006 @ 22:47 ( Permalink )
Why should I do that? I was speaking of ministers (or sectretaries, if you prefer the American — both of the titles sound ridiculous, anyway) in a completely different political system.
24. October 2006 @ 22:51 ( Permalink )
You’re speaking of those who have responsibility of agriculture. What you call them is irrelevant, and I see little in your post narrowing the context to any single system.
24. October 2006 @ 23:13 ( Permalink )
It was kinda implied in the post; I thought it unecessary to state that I was speaking if the current political system, or one resembling it rather closely.
But then again, I should have remembered that you post here too, from time to time.
24. October 2006 @ 23:31 ( Permalink )
Could’ve, should’ve, would’ve.
25. October 2006 @ 00:13 ( Permalink )
Quite.
25. October 2006 @ 03:04 ( Permalink )
Bow to me, the allmighty Shepherd, High Priest of Ceres.
Now, I am hungry.
25. October 2006 @ 15:32 ( Permalink )
Hmm. I saw what the title of this post was. A pessimist’s View.
I ain’t pessimistic.
25. October 2006 @ 15:34 ( Permalink )
No, but this is what I see the world as becoming whenever I’m struck by the realities of world politics. Because you know, in the end, no one really cares about saving the world or improving the conditions of the poor, or the relations between cultures, or, well, anything, really. It’s all about power, and you don’t get power by actually doing what’s needed.
25. October 2006 @ 16:11 ( Permalink )
Oh, and this is by the way how Socialists turn into Fascists.
(Today’s disillusionment was brought to you by Dagbladet, Klassekampen, NRK and the moderate Left: Your suppliers of hopelessness and despair.)
25. October 2006 @ 16:13 ( Permalink )
“It’s all about power,”
I disagree. Not power over other people anyway. Perhaps the power to do what I want, the power to… to have a nice time, but that ain’t power. Anyways, it is not.
25. October 2006 @ 16:16 ( Permalink )
He wasn’t talking about individuals like yourself, he was talking about international relations and politics.
25. October 2006 @ 19:30 ( Permalink )
Thank you, Loki.
25. October 2006 @ 23:18 ( Permalink )
You’re welcome, Iscariot.
26. October 2006 @ 01:05 ( Permalink )
Fuck you, Loki.
You are not welcome, Iscariot.
But anyways, it is not about power in the world generally either. It is food, emotions, drinks and water. Elementary, my undear Iscariot.
26. October 2006 @ 16:24 ( Permalink )
You’re still talking about individuals, not international bodies.
26. October 2006 @ 18:49 ( Permalink )
General individuals, not single individuals.
Bah, I had some good explanation to this earlier today.
26. October 2006 @ 20:28 ( Permalink )
Too bad you forgot it.
26. October 2006 @ 20:29 ( Permalink )
Like Loki said, you’re talking individual level. And individuals, by themselves or with people they trust and love, can be most philantropic and self-less. But throw a couple of people who don’t know each other into a situation where they have to compete for some resource or other (national or international politcs, social life, or any other place where people meet — and I define “resource” most broadly; it even includes food, emotions and drink, because such concepts as “power” or “resource” aren’t limited just to “political power” or “iron”), and you have a struggle for power, a small-scale war, or whatever you choose to call it.
Abd emotions? Always there, because people are motivated by fear, and fear is an emotion. (Gods, I sound like a Hobbesian conservative…)
27. October 2006 @ 00:45 ( Permalink )
Having no clue what a “Hobbesian conservative” is, far less what one sounds like, I’ll have to take your word for it.
27. October 2006 @ 02:03 ( Permalink )
Technically, I don’t even know how YOU sound. So, it’d be much like comparing the taste of a food I’ve never eaten to the taste of a food I’ve never heard of.
27. October 2006 @ 02:04 ( Permalink )
Graut smaker dritt.
27. October 2006 @ 15:34 ( Permalink )
My only reaction to this statement is “Gods, you’re a disgusting person to know that for a fact”.
27. October 2006 @ 19:13 ( Permalink )
That was a way to proof that people says things they have no idea about.
And I quoted Akira on tidshjulet.net…
28. October 2006 @ 09:48 ( Permalink )
No, you didn’t. Quotes have quotation-marks. What you did is stealing.
28. October 2006 @ 12:56 ( Permalink )
It was the idea to quote him, at least.
29. October 2006 @ 10:06 ( Permalink )
There’s no way for us to know that when you don’t state it or make use of the quotation-marks.
29. October 2006 @ 19:27 ( Permalink )
I have said it now. Is that enough? Not then, sure enough, but now?
30. October 2006 @ 12:02 ( Permalink )
Of course it’s enough now. o.o How could it not be?
30. October 2006 @ 12:58 ( Permalink )
Loki said:
“My only reaction to this statement is “Gods, you’re a disgusting person to know that for a fact”. ”
This was posted: oktober 27, 2006 at 19:13
Lotta said this at the Pattern:
Akira skrev:
Grøt smaker dritt.
“I stede for å si meg uenig, så lar jeg heller mitt sinn være åpent, og spør derfor:
Har du noe virkelig sammenlikningsgrunnlag for en slik uttalelse, Akira?
Da jeg aldri har smakt dritt, og kommer mest sannsynlig til aldri å gjøre det (hvis ikke fordøyelsen går i revers og… Ja, dere forstår )”
This was posted: Ons Okt 25, 2006 23:40
So, one could claim that you stole my witty reply to this idiotic statement.
30. October 2006 @ 16:26 ( Permalink )
Sure, claim away. I’ll claim I didn’t, and then what? Ask any of my siblings if I’ve not said similar stuff to them in similar situations for years and years, if it’s important to you.
30. October 2006 @ 17:28 ( Permalink )
It aint important, it’s just that I felt like making it clear that it might be possible that the great thinker Loki Aesir was infact a bloody copycat ;p
30. October 2006 @ 17:42 ( Permalink )
Now, now, children. Play nice.
30. October 2006 @ 21:12 ( Permalink )
Great thinker? Me?
Come ON. I’m a pedantic, cynical, annoying quarreling elitist snob who likes playing semantics. I’m about as far from being a “great thinker” as Kjell Magne Bondevik is from being God.
30. October 2006 @ 21:53 ( Permalink )
*Sigh* This was blocked as spam the last time. If it happens again I will castrate this web-page with a spoon. Consider yourselves warned.
Terje, Terje, Terje… I will allow myself to take the position of a hopelessly arrogant mentor, because that is the position I feel I belong most in now. First of all: Major political instability in the Middle East, enough so that it becomes openly hostile against the West, and nobody cares about the oil and gas. I’m quite sure you’re one of those who thinks the Americans already have gone to war for oil once, and they’ll probably do it again. However, if it’s NATO, Russia or China who intervenes (it would probably be China, in your worst case scenario, the US simply don’t have enough strength and the EU have too much bureaucracy to get anything done, and Russia wouldn’t risk the relatively stable relationship it’s got to the west) doesn’t matter that much. Somebody would intervene, The Middle East would become a war-zone, yes, but it wouldn’t become a threat to anyone else than itself. Too much ressourses there.
The same with Russia. Good old Mother Russia have the largest gas-reserves in the world, and it wouldn’t risk it’s economy by estranging it’s customers. It’s the same for all the big powers, really. China trade with the US, the US trades with EU, and EU trades with Russia. The global economy has become just that, global, and it won’t be risked by full scale wars.
And “full scale wars” have hopefully stopped to exist. Either you have a nuclear Armageddon, or you have strained relationships for forty years before the wish to have a conflict dissappears. The atomic bomb changed EVERYTHING when it comes to full scale warfare.
And if your scenario against all odds and logic happens, Norway would either be a puppet for Russia (after a border-conflict in the Barents-region) or for the EU (they would force us to join to maintain their own energy-interests). We wouldn’t had much to say, unfortunately….
No, if you want to be pessimistic, say that a solar flare hits the Earth in fifty or so years, knocks all satelittes out of orbit and destroys the electricity for half the globe. Say that the enviroment will be utterly butfucked.Say that we will run empty of oil without finding any viable alternatives. Say that all three happens in the same decade. Then, my friend, then we will be truly and utterly buttfucked.
30. October 2006 @ 22:18 ( Permalink )
Wow. How incredibly dense I feel right now. You’re obviously absolutely correct, on just about everything you said (with the partial exception being your assumptions about my view on the American intervention in Iraq), and I can’t fucking believe that my so-called “analysis” missed all those factors. Anyway, I’ll take this thing paragraph by paragraph (possibly even sentence by sentence), just to apologize for my stupidity and to see if I can possibly come up with something to add, not that my mind have been opened to some important issues.
*Sigh* This was blocked as spam the last time. If it happens again I will castrate this web-page with a spoon. Consider yourselves warned.
Sorry about that; I’ll run and tell the webmaster right away. And kudos on the reference; it’s an awesome quote.
“Terje, Terje, Terje… I will allow myself to take the position of a hopelessly arrogant mentor, because that is the position I feel I belong most in now.”
Be my guess; I feel like playing the part of the idiot student right now.
“I’m quite sure you’re one of those who thinks the Americans already have gone to war for oil once, and they’ll probably do it again.”
First thing’s first. I only partially agree with this; I also think that there was a sincere wish to establish democracy in the region, and possibly also some issues of American national security that were involved in the decicion to intervene in Iraq. The latter I’m somewhat unsure of, though, seeing as the American administration had to invent proof of Saddam’s ability to threat the US. I’m also open for other explanations, of course. It’s not like I’m an expert or anything.
“First of all: Major political instability in the Middle East, enough so that it becomes openly hostile against the West, and nobody cares about the oil and gas. I’m quite sure you’re one of those who thinks the Americans already have gone to war for oil once, and they’ll probably do it again. However, if it’s NATO, Russia or China who intervenes (it would probably be China, in your worst case scenario, the US simply don’t have enough strength and the EU have too much bureaucracy to get anything done, and Russia wouldn’t risk the relatively stable relationship it’s got to the west) doesn’t matter that much. Somebody would intervene, The Middle East would become a war-zone, yes, but it wouldn’t become a threat to anyone else than itself. Too much ressourses there.”
Well, you quite obviously have a point; any serious Arab/Middle Eastern political opposition to the West would be stamped down immediately. However, I’m not on par with your analysis, either. I agree that the US probably doesn’t have the manpower, at least that’s what the current situation in Iraq indicates. In this semi-liberal day and time, they’d have serious problems with taking the kind if steps that would be necessary to really quell all opposition in Iraq, not to mention the entire Middle East. Because I see this (ie. the occupation of the entire Middel East against the will of the majority of the population) as being a problem solvable only by extreme violence. And if you take into account that the methods of the Americans are being refered to as “brutal” today, one can only imagine what one would call methods were they stop pretending to care about Iraqi (or more generally Middle Eastern) civilians, and just does whatever they think necessary to eliminate the threat. And even this isn’t a guaranteed road to supression of the “insurgents”, seeing as the brutality could backfire something fierce. As for Russia, they’ve also tried to occupy Muslim lands, and they failed, even when they were much more militarily superior than they are today and when they had no real limitations on the measures they could take to stomp out any resistance. And China? Well, they may be well positioned for an attack into the central and west Asian lands, they may have more manpower (and potential manpower) than any other state on Earth, and they may be ruthless, but that’s no guarantee for success, either. Sure, both the Americans, the Russians and the Chinese could utilize Churchill’s old strategic bombings (Churchill was one of the masterminds behind Great Britain’s policy against rebellious indegenous populations in their colonies: Threaten to bomb them to smithereens if they didn’t do as they were told) to get what they wanted from any Middle Eastern governments, but beyond that, I doubt they could do much. Not that it probably wouldn’t be enough, but if the Islamists seized power in Pakistan (not an unlikely scenario) and decided to share their atomic technology with other Islamic states (relatively uncertain; Pakistan in a predominantly Sunni country, meaning that they probably wouldn’t be too eager to share their information with e.g. Iran, and it could be that they would hesitate to share information with fellow Sunnis as well), or if the Iranians developed nuclear capabilities of their own, this whole intervention scenario would be less realistic. Also, I forgot to mention that the Islamists, in this unrealistic scenario of mine, had overrun Israel, and seized the nuclear weapons of the Israelis. But even if I have some objections, I acknowledge the importance of the factors you brought up.
“The same with Russia. Good old Mother Russia have the largest gas-reserves in the world, and it wouldn’t risk it’s economy by estranging it’s customers. It’s the same for all the big powers, really. China trade with the US, the US trades with EU, and EU trades with Russia. The global economy has become just that, global, and it won’t be risked by full scale wars.”
While you undoubtedly have a point, it’s also a fact that the world economy has been global in the past, and that a slide back into protectionism always consitutes a risk for the international economic system. So, Mother Russia would perhaps not want to estrange her customers, but it’s also possible that they decided they wanted their gas for themselves. It’s a question of whether you believe in the Liberal or the Realist schools of international relations theory, really. (Or almost, at least.)
“And “full scale wars” have hopefully stopped to exist. Either you have a nuclear Armageddon, or you have strained relationships for forty years before the wish to have a conflict dissappears. The atomic bomb changed EVERYTHING when it comes to full scale warfare.”
Good point. However, the use of the atomic bomb is still something of an unknown in current international relations, and it is believed that the threshold for their use is rather high, at least in Western countries. However, it is uncertain how much it would take before Pakistan or even India used them, so it is nevertheless a very good point. However, one of the basic assumptions I made above (even though I didn’t mention them; my bad, that) was that all of the “regions” had nuclear weapons, and that they didn’t use them aganist each other because they feared retribution. A classic balance of terror and power, in other words. One funny thing that suddenly struck me, though, is that the regions I’ve sketched here closely resembles Huntington’s famous seven “civilizations”, which is kinda funny, seeing as I dislike Huntington’s clash of civilizations theory intensively. But I guess that’s how things go when I try to think as a Conservative.
“And if your scenario against all odds and logic happens, Norway would either be a puppet for Russia (after a border-conflict in the Barents-region) or for the EU (they would force us to join to maintain their own energy-interests). We wouldn’t had much to say, unfortunately….”
Yeah, but that’s why we’ve gotta start taking measures as fast as possible. We must in the very least begin to prepare our water resources, seeing as global warming will make freshwater even more of a rarity than it is today. But in order to protect these resources, we need manpower, and we need more natural resources, and the only way we can get those are to take them (or by them, or whatever) from Sweden. Not that Sweden couldn’t crush us beneath their thumb in they also armed themselves, but hey. At least we’ve (aka. the Norwegian state) got money.
“No, if you want to be pessimistic, say that a solar flare hits the Earth in fifty or so years, knocks all satelittes out of orbit and destroys the electricity for half the globe. Say that the enviroment will be utterly butfucked.Say that we will run empty of oil without finding any viable alternatives. Say that all three happens in the same decade. Then, my friend, then we will be truly and utterly buttfucked.”
That, we would be.
Awesome, comment, Ole. A splendid read.
31. October 2006 @ 01:08 ( Permalink )
Yeah, the guy has, like, sixty IQ points more than what’s reasonable. (Read: “fair”)
31. October 2006 @ 03:44 ( Permalink )
GODS, how I hate that “+)=”)-thing.
31. October 2006 @ 03:44 ( Permalink )
Heh, Terje, I felt dense because I used “buttfucked” twice in the same paragraph. It all comes down to perspective.
And for the Middle East, if you want to win a war there, you uses one of the tribes against the others. The British did it with the Commonwealth, and again in Afghanistan (The Taliban comes from the Pushtun tribe, the largest in the country, so the coalition have allied themselves with two other big tribes who they use to control the country). The Russians in Afghanistan tried to supress all the tribes, and the Americans in Iraq have to some degree done the same. They have at least not allied themselves with either the Sunnis, the Shias or the Kurds. But after Iraq, I think a foreign power trying to control Arbia would be stupid to repeat the American’s mistake.
And the global economy now isn’t global because of exports or imports, but because of investment. Chinese investors controls 5% of the American economy, I think, and while the Russian economy is mainly ruled by Olligarchs (sp?), and would be even more so in your scenario, the Olligarchs have become rich through investment in the West and vice verca. If all foreign investors leave a country, I’d say that there’s a big chance that the economy goes into a depression worse than the thirties in US.
And if we tried to invade Sweden/pressure them, we would get either NATO or the EU on our ass. The time for expansionism is over until the big Unions dissolve.
31. October 2006 @ 17:27 ( Permalink )
And thanks for the flattery, it’s appreciated.
31. October 2006 @ 17:27 ( Permalink )