banned for I never predicted America's doom or not. But the truth is that some countries disappear, some find a way out of demise, and others suffer mass disruption while some part or another survives the change. At the end of the 20th century, again before the Great Depression, and yet again during the 80's, people felt that America was run by a megacorporation. Of course, the same has been true in some form of fashion of every other country, even if it's a theocracy, aristocracy, or dictatorship.

Point is that America will fall from power. No argument. America may not necessarily disappear, although it may take a blow or two to its core values. Then again, you could be right.

Banned because I'm 99% certain America, with a democratic republic system of government, will not exist by 2100 AD.

Banned because I can only hope. Unfortunately, I think 2100 is a bit early. That said, with the rise of the Internet and worldwide business interests, I could very easily see the world starting to homogenize culturally in fairly short order. Whether that means people will stop seeing any need for nation-states or not? I don't know.

Banned because "nations" will probably never go away. It's an integral part of the "us vs. them" mentality. Which in itself is rather strongly situated in the human psyche.

Banned because I will never stop being British!

banned for not only do I think Whiskey has a point with nations, but I think we would never become culturally homogenized. Not only will people cling onto big and small differences, but even cultures that are close together fight it out. Semitic cultures, despite many common traits and existing in a small area, have always been broken due to small differences. In America, I have known many who are half black and half white, but cling to one of the two cultures, being violently against the other with deep seeded resentment.

Banned because I never said you would.

Banned for agreeing with me.

TO ANY WHO POST AFTER I DO:

Megabanned for posting after me.

Banned because I want to challenge you.

banned for being challenged

banned for such a short post after all that.

Well, since none of us are likely to find out, I will suspend saying 'never', BUT I do not think it is assured either. Keep in mind that it's a matter of communication vs exploration. If we travel to other planets without having a readily available means of instantaneous communication, we may fracture yet again.

banned for not liking it short

once read a series of books (cant remember the author or the names of the books) that used that concept to a degree. Humanity found away to develop instantaneous communication/transportation and developed a massive empire with it. Then it was cut off (the humans were using some sort of alien meta-environment) and the empire crumbled. It was a rather interesting read.

Banned because that sort of sounds like Larry Niven's Flatworlders. But there are enough differences that I doubt they are the same thing.

banned for no, its not Larry Niven

Banned because it sounds suspiciously like Warhammer 40,000. FOR THE EMPEROR!!

Banned because I dont think Ryat is talking about WH40K here.

1. There's no such thing as "human nature" and/or "human psyche". It all depends on how and where a human being is raised. In short, our society forms our character.

2. If that is never going to happen (nations become obsolete), then we are pretty much oh-so screwed.

Same thing I said to Whiskey applies here.

All in all, once we manage to get unattached to certain beliefs and ideas, on an individual level, then maybe we can manage to change our whole way of thinking, and perform what someone would call "a transformation of the mind" on a species level.

If every human being on earth started thinking of the big picture, that we are all living off of this planet, and that we must somehow co-exist without harming the environment, then maybe, just maybe we can prolong the inevitable doomsday, for a long period of time.

And before Oatesy says anything, YES I do believe the "crap" of the VP philosophy If you disagree, thats fine.

Duh, every nation in the world is being run by megacorporations, isnt that obvious?

International Banks control the entire world.

"We were inhuman beings....butchers on a field of corpses....corrupt and depraved....only a sum of viscera, blood, and bone - Creatures without soul."

banned for assuming that banks control the world

they are merely puppets for the something much worse

Banned for, where are you going with this? Please do tell more.

"We were inhuman beings....butchers on a field of corpses....corrupt and depraved....only a sum of viscera, blood, and bone - Creatures without soul."

banned for you believe in nurture over nature. I do believe both are very influential factors that weave together tightly. Of course, no one has yet to resolve the details to the satisfaction of anyone.

As for the world being run by banks, I agree with Ryat in that they are not in charge. I do not believe that the powers over them are 'worse' necessarily. I also believe that 'control' is always more limited in scope than many think and that very few factors can change the totality of the status quo.

Not quite. And its not just something I believe, its only the truth.

Let me be more specific. People arent being born evil, or competitive, or this or that. Nobody is born, and from the moment they are able to walk and speak, they think, "how am I gonna take off my sister's eye?". They pick all behaviour-related things along the way.

In short, everything is dependent on nurture, except for basic instincts.

Basic instincts, meaning the needs for food, water, shelter, sleep, etc (you get the point)

If you dont believe that, then search on Google for cases of children who were abandoned in the jungle by their parents. See how they turned up. You'd be very surprised trust me.

Btw, if you were gonna mention that all humans are competitive with each other, then think again. Why are we so competitive? Because there is a lot of forced scarcity of goods around the world. If you had all the material stuff you need in life, then would you go and steal your neighbor's car? You wouldnt.

And scarcity is really being forced by our whole system, in this world. If someone could calculate all the money (digital and material/actual money) that exist on earth at the moment, and also calculate all the world's debt together (money owed to someone, by someone), the result would be that the debt is much bigger than the money in existence.

So, 90% of the people on earth almost always need more money to acquire goods and services, while the other 10% either have enough goods as it is, or they have so much money that they cant spend it all even if they lived 2 lives.

Putting most of the world's population into perpetual debt, keeps the slaves working quite nicely, I may say.

Combustible fuels, like petrol and gas are the most inefficient non-renewable resources we have. But why do we use them? Because big companies make a lot of profit from it.

Profit, its all about it.

We have more than enough resources to feed and house all people on earth multiplied by 3 times. But we dont do that. Why? Its quite obvious.

I could go on, but I dont want to waste any more time.

Banned because, Banks control the world's money supply = control the world, basically.

"We were inhuman beings....butchers on a field of corpses....corrupt and depraved....only a sum of viscera, blood, and bone - Creatures without soul."

banned for assuming that money controls the world

Oh yes. Yes it does. At least most of it.

Banned for not knowing that it doesnt matter which government you vote for, or what president gets elected. Politicians are all there to keep things are they are, not to change them.

"We were inhuman beings....butchers on a field of corpses....corrupt and depraved....only a sum of viscera, blood, and bone - Creatures without soul."

Banned because you seem to overestimate the intelligence of the financial sector. In order for them to truly control the world, they would have to be able to predict the consequences of actions in the long term. The recent meltdown makes that seem rather implausible.

banned for bringing logical into a political economical discussion

banned for talking about irelevant themes

myself is banned for stopping an intresting discusion