After posting the population of Indonesia next to Australia's, I noticed Indonesia's poulation by 2050 would push over the 300 million mark, while Australia's would only grow to around 25 million.

So I went and checked Europe, and all pretty much all populations are projecting a decline.

Now, is this a good thing or a bad thing.

If populations are in decline, doesn't that mean an aging population, and thus a greater percentage ending up as pensioners etc? What does this mean against the rampant growth in places like Brazil, India and China? Plus the aforementioned Indonesia of course.

Also, at what point will Europes voice in the United nations end up being one vote, one voice? If Europe are a united nation with a combined foreign policy, combined economy and all the other benefits of being a single nation, why should they keep the many votes that belong to a seperate nations? Why does China and India, both mini continents in their own right, complete with dialects and divisions not dissimilar from Europe, only get one vote a piece?

Now, if the population sizes proportionally change, what will this mean? As Asia ends up vastly outnumbering Europe, will geopolitical power shift to recognise these changes, or will Europe hold onto world power, like an aging Emperor.

Take for example the G8. Russia, Germany, Italy, Britain, France. All European.

What do you think?

About Europe being one nation, one people, etc..., you can forget about that. That will NEVER happen. I think the EU would fall apart first. One vote for Europe is not negotiable.

That's indeed the case.
http://www.brown.edu/Administration/.../27GSJ23d.html

One thing it means is that we should allow more immigration. Let people come here, work, pay taxes, contribute, etc. Instead of treating them like criminals and not allowing those who are allowed in to get work while they jump through hoops trying to be allowed to stay.

"Now, is this a good thing or a bad thing."
There have to be a certain population increase if the pension system should work but, of course, a population explosion is not good either. Countries with a population growth like that will have problems supporting it´s citizens. More people being born will eventually lead to more elderly which will require more people to be born to support them.

"Also, at what point will Europes voice in the United nations end up being one vote, one voice? If Europe are a united nation with a combined foreign policy, combined economy and all the other benefits of being a single nation, why should they keep the many votes that belong to a seperate nations?..."
Parts of Europe already has a somewhat combined economy in shape of the Euro but a common foreign policy might prove to be more difficult to achive, the War on Iraq thing shows that well. I don't see Europe as one single nation for a long time, but a federation of states isn't impossible. There are after all a federalist movement in Europe. On the other hand we Europeans are a diverse lot who have waged war against each other since the beginning of time and have different cultures and languages so a single nation will be difficult to create. European countries will probably want to stick with their votes in the UN, they are after all not that united.

"Now, if the population sizes proportionally change, what will this mean? As Asia ends up vastly outnumbering Europe, will geopolitical power shift to recognise these changes, or will Europe hold onto world power, like an aging Emperor."
Perhaps, but that would require them to be more modern and efficient. Europe, USA, Australia, New Zeeland, and Japan makes up less than 1/6 of Mankind yet we have a more or less complete economic dominance. And these countries are not likely to let go of their power that easy. Most of the population explosion takes place in more or less poor countries that have little power themselves. But China have a great potential to become very powerful.

as i see it.. it will be the asian nations that will help boost the much needed population in europe. heck in the philippines, we actually outnumber australians since our tiny country host around 75 million people and australians 25 million only.. maybe we should switch countries :D

What do you mean "that will never happen? It is happeneing. You now have one currency, open borders not requiring passport checks (unlike 10 years ago) or even WORK VISAS for Euro citizens within Europe!! You have a European government and a close to having a single foreign policy if Chirac and Schroeder have their way. You also have the Euopean court that supercedes national high courts.

So which of these are not indicative of the move towards one country?

Are you a student of history Johnny? Have you perhaps heard of a thing called the GERMAN UNIFICATION? Saxony, Prussia, Bavaria, Silesia, Pommerania and Austria etc. all were pretty much totally independent states, albeit loosely tied under the political entity "Holy Roman Empire" (Hapsburg Empire) for a time. There were similar discussions about federational unity that have striking similarity to the European federation discussion. Austria continued to be a naysayer and ended up being left out. A situation Britain could end up facing. And/or Norway.

So when you say "that will never happen" make sure there are no precedents to contradict you.

I think it's a fair question to ask, "Why should one country have 12-16 votes in the United nations?"

[ 06-03-2003, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

The irony is, if the "experts" (whoever they are) are to be believed, Australia, though the size of America, is at is maximum population threshhold. Given the desert etc.

Which opens up other interesting issues.

Indian immigrants outnumbered native Fijians before the military coup years ago, that put Fijians back in power.

Chinese immigrants vastly outnumbered indigenous Malay peoples, and British in Singapore, which led to Singapores failed union with, and unlimate expulsion from the Federation of Malaysia.

European immigrants vastly outnumbered indigenous Australian and American peoples. We all know the results of that. ;)

So. What would become of Europe. Fatherland of colonialism, if the colonials end up outnumbering the colonists? ;) 2050 = 1.5 billion Indians. 1.5 billion Chinese, yet 56 million British. The immigration issue reflects the global issue. Would a wealthy minority try to cling to economic and political power? Either within their own nations or globally?

The situation in Mexico that I posted in the American constitution thread would idncicate yes. As would the South African apartheid scenario.

Is part of the answer to remove racial definitions themselves? Get rid of judgement from appearances altogether? But then doesn't that start us down the road of "thoughtcrime??"

Yeesh.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
good points....I think I may have mentioned the population thing a time or two in response to Timbers "too many people on the planet" posts.</font>

[ 06-03-2003, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]