h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

So, looking at the current world order as opposed to how it was, say, 5 or 10 yrs ago, who's making the most out the conflicts that have developed over that time?

China was on the up anyway, and so was India. So I think their increased power (economic and politicaly) is a given due to internal development. I.e. I don't think world events have caused it.

Russia is increasing with economic power due to their resources but they still have massive problems at home that takes a lot of effort from their govt to keep on top of. Plus they had their natural resources anyway. Their increased political power is at the cost of decreased political power of various western countries.

Western europe seems to be pretty much on an even keel. They've had their ups and downs but nothing major seems to be changing their political or economic might.

Eastern europe is still developing. Places like Croatia and Lithuania have the potential to do well but its early days yet and I think both russia and the EU have a few power games to play out before they have any real impact on their own.

African nations are still being largly forgotten and consequently are pretty much stuffed as various powermongers do as they will.

The US is suffering politically as its actions are seen as unilateral and its economy suffers due to the amount it is borrowing for the war. Plus they, like the UK, are in uncharted economic territory.

The middle east is stuffed pretty much. Things are worse but along the same lines, nothing new really. Iraw is a mess.

So the only country I can see that has had a major gain, especially politically, is Iran.

I realise this is just one persons view and I ain't up on everything. Plus there's a lot of countries I've missed out.

But it does seem to me that the recent (5yrs) world power sharing changes have been to decrease the power of the western countries of the US/UK/France/Spain/Germany etc and increase the power of Iran to the stage where it can pretty much do as it wills.

Pretty fair assessment IMO.

Getting into the "What If?" game is setting yourself up for a fall though. Iran has played the power game adroitly in recent years, but there is a fierce schism within. Rather like a bloated Pakistan in many respects, it is currently walking a tightrope between theocracy and western-style capitalism. Their universities are churning out thousands of urbane, highly-educated young people whilst the rural areas are gripped with religious fundamentalism. The rise of Islamic Fundamentalism has served a longer-term purpose in loosening the grip of the West on the country. Left under the Shah, it would in all likelihood have continued as a Western client-state. The educated Iranians by and large reject Islam as a controlling influence and are far more secular in outlook. If this growing core can ease out the religious leaders we could be looking at a country with the potential to be a real powerhouse economy.

Nobody is winning. People are dying, hatred is growing and meanwhile, the levels of greenhouse gases are rising, the sea is rising, and soon all the political power playing in the world will not save us from the upcoming environmental disaster.

Hatred isn't growing. It's always been there. The hope was that global shifts of population through increased cheap transport links would help to dissipate this through interaction and diffusion, but that hasn't happened.

Hugo Chavez seems to be on a bit of a roll at the moment. Venezuelan oil is mostly quite expensive to extract and refine, but there's an awful lot of it, and with prices on the up its fast becoming an attractive prospect.

ah yes, I'd missed out Venezuela. And Ecuador I think, they've had a few changes.

They seem to be making a lot of noise although I'd argue that their winning. Their home situation is far from stable and they could revert to their previous situations.

I think you have to separate governments & general populace when looking at success & prosperity. Who's actually in the ascendant - the country as a whole or just the government?

"Nobody is winning. People are dying, hatred is growing and meanwhile, the levels of greenhouse gases are rising, the sea is rising, and soon all the political power playing in the world will not save us from the upcoming environmental disaster."

Tomorrow's Independent front-page headline, there.

"Getting into the "What If?" game is setting yourself up for a fall though. Iran has played the power game adroitly in recent years, but there is a fierce schism within. Rather like a bloated Pakistan in many respects, it is currently walking a tightrope between theocracy and western-style capitalism. Their universities are churning out thousands of urbane, highly-educated young people whilst the rural areas are gripped with religious fundamentalism. The rise of Islamic Fundamentalism has served a longer-term purpose in loosening the grip of the West on the country. Left under the Shah, it would in all likelihood have continued as a Western client-state. The educated Iranians by and large reject Islam as a controlling influence and are far more secular in outlook. If this growing core can ease out the religious leaders we could be looking at a country with the potential to be a real powerhouse economy."

I think the religious-right will cling on to power by any means necessary in Iran. They're slowly being outflanked by a younger, more secular generation but they've shown their teeth already by crippling the liberal parties and having the current hard-right president elected to power. I think that possibly, like China, the Iranian theocratic regime will be the one that surprises everyone with its ability to hold power.

"Hugo Chavez seems to be on a bit of a roll at the moment. Venezuelan oil is mostly quite expensive to extract and refine, but there's an awful lot of it, and with prices on the up its fast becoming an attractive prospect."

South America is interesting at the moment. The decline of US influence in the region has allowed the left to re-surface but they're hardly all the same. Chavez is a classic far-left authoritarian whilst Lula of Brazil is a more centrist leftist. Even Daniel Ortega has embraced market-socialism.

There was also an interesting letter in the Guardian yesterday arguing that the leftist ideology on the rise in South America is "liberation theology" and thus fuses leftist economic ideas with conservative social ones.

I think politically Iran has played a blinder, taken on pretty much all comers and won. The problem with Iran is Israel, Israel tends not to play by international rules and they've taken it upon themselves before to strike at enemies they feel are getting too powerful. Iran has invested a lot to look like they will get nuclear weapons, they've played quite a dangerous game and come off better for it. Israel can change this though.

The Central Asian 'Stans have also done pretty well, especially Kazakhstan (Borat excepted), their natural oil and gas reserves have brought interest and investment to the region when it had previously been ignored and their locations have become strategic thanks to the wars in Afghanistan and the Middle East. The region also hasn't become involved too heavily in the struggles spats between the great powers.

"South America is interesting at the moment. The decline of US influence in the region has allowed the left to re-surface but they're hardly all the same. Chavez is a classic far-left authoritarian whilst Lula of Brazil is a more centrist leftist."

There was an interesting piece on CNN last night. Unfortunately I didn't see all of it, but one of the points in it was that in many ways, Chavez's far-left bark is worse than his bite. He hasn't really made serious inroads on the private sector, he's still keeping up with World Bank repayments, he's still trading happily with Exxon and Texaco. A lot of the things he *has* done seem to be pretty healthy and sensible reforms.

Malaysia.

It sets a fantasic example. Western companies clamouring to invest. The government with it's Malasianiation/Petronas approach showing Mr Chavez how it should be done with regard to oil/gas. Successfull approach to multiculturalism. Gradually adressing it's issues with the poorer and rural sections of society. It has a long way to go, but the signs are good and I think it could be one to watch in the next 10 years.

Obviously Protons are stil crap, but hey.

Quote: "Nobody is winning. People are dying, hatred is growing and meanwhile, the levels of greenhouse gases are rising, the sea is rising, and soon all the political power playing in the world will not save us from the upcoming environmental disaster"

Thats it then. I am just off to put some Leonard Cohen on and slash my wrists in a nice warm bath...............

I dunno, I've heard a lot of complaints from Chinese Malaysians that they're treated as second class citizens.

"Quote: "Nobody is winning. People are dying, hatred is growing and meanwhile, the levels of greenhouse gases are rising, the sea is rising, and soon all the political power playing in the world will not save us from the upcoming environmental disaster"

Thats it then. I am just off to put some Leonard Cohen on and slash my wrists in a nice warm bath..............."

Yeah much more important that you get to dive your car as much as you like eh Doc?

"I dunno, I've heard a lot of complaints from Chinese Malaysians that they're treated as second class citizens."

You personally?

"Successfull approach to multiculturalism."

Isn't Malaysia officially racialist, though?

That's how to make multiculturalism work then

racialist? Is that like racist but different?

Doesn't malaysia have a lot of problems with various groups still struggling for power?
Sure I heard something recently about internal inequalities.