just to be my simplistic self again,
I cannot see how such a desirable outcome
could preserve such outmoded concepts as
national states. To maintain the global
standard of living sustainably,
we would need international integration
on a yet unimaginable extent.
UK has had to come to term with not being
an empire, in fact being one of the weaker
economies of a progressively integrated
Europe even in the present non-cooperative epoch.
Japan was excepted as the second largest economy
for decades now.
Eva
>
> Castoriadis asks the following question about
> "development": Assuming that development really did
> work, and that all the backward countries caught
> up with the West, how would "we" (The USA, Britain,
> France, Germany...) respond to becoming minority
> figures in a world dominated by Asian, African
> and Latin American countries? Such a situation
> would likely mean that "our" influence in the world
> would be drastically reduced: The United States
> would, vis-a-vis a China and India, Indonesia, Egypt,
> Brazil, Mexico, etc. that were as
> technologically advanced as but much more populous than
> us, become at best
> like Sweden or Portugal or something (well, not quite --
> we have less social welfare...). Would "we" stand
> for that, and for the way we'd then be really pushed
> around by the forces of a global economy?
>
> I found this a very interesting question, which
> I don't think I've heard posed before.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> \brad mccormick
>
> --
> Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but
> Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world.
>
> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA
> -------------------------------------------------------
> <![%THINK;[SGML]]> Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
>
