NationStates Jolt Archive

I have a feeling it is. It may not seem like it, as human migration, the root cause of barbarian hordes, is easier than ever, thanks to global communications and liberal immigration policies of many nations.But there is still reason to worry. I have a theory about it which, while I may be wrong, it's interesting to note, nevertheless.

Before I launch into my theory, let me explain a bit about barbarism, so if you don't feel like you need to listen to one of my boring paragraphs, don't.
The last great barbarian wave was about 2,000 years ago. You may know it as mostly causing the collapse of the Roman Empire, but they had much broader ramifications. They began as tribes in Central Asia, and due to overpopulation, they spread out in all directions. Some ended up in the Middle East, antagonizing the Persians. Some made it to China, and when the Han fell, invasions became commonplace. The Roman Empire, however, was the most dramatic. In both the Eastern and Western halves, Germanic tribes were pushed out by the Vandals and Huns. The Germans, crowded in with the Romans, also took up in arms. Even the Eastern half, while it survived, it lost the Balkans and most of Eastern Europe. It's effects reached even into Africa, where the empire of Axum fell because they lost their trading partners. In short, the barbarians helped destroy the great powers of the time, and changed the balance of power on earth.

Okay, back to my theory. And I believe that it partially centers around our favorite nation to talk about: Iraq. Many on here have speculated that the US invaded so it could secure oil, as it is running out. Well, I was thinking, what if the opposite was true? What if, as the omniscient oil executives knew, that oil was about to be obselete? Alternative energy research and construction has reached its heydey,even more so than the 1970s. And most interesting of all, some researchers claim that they can build an inexpensive table-top fusion generator by decade's end (and it doesn't use cold fusion). As I'll explain later, invading Iraq may have stemmed from fears on this.
So, what does this have to do with barbarism? Everything. If alternative energy resources like these replace fossil fuels, oil will be reduced to lubricants, perhaps >$1/barrel. Many nations, especially in the Middle East, have their economies built off oil. If their economies collapsed, that in itself wouldn't harm the planet. But here's what would.
If one understands anything about Islamic Fundementalism, it is far more than the "death to America" slogans. It's mainly found in the Wahabi sect of Islam, but it has morphed in the eighties to funnel popular resentment against the US and Soviet Union. Even though the Cold War is now over, it has found more reasons why they should exist. Even if one isn't Wahabi, one is still suseptable to the lifestyle, thanks to those schools run by both clerics and the state, and they teach nothing but the Koran and how evil infidels are.
The last factor is population. There is little arable land in the Middle East or North Africa, but their populations are growing like weeds. Saudi Arabia has a fertility rate of 5 children per mother.
Put the three together, and you've got barbarism. Many Middle Eastern economies are built on oil, and that's pretty much how they live. If they collapse, they can't feed their people. Fundementalism will become even more popular, as humans love finding scapegoats. It may lead to the collapse of Arab and some African governments, and they'll expand. While they may not be as dramatic as the last great barbarian wave, they'll produce lots of 9/11 type attacks. And don't forget, they'll still have the oil to power their tanks, aircraft, etc.
Now how does Iraq play into this? I'll answer that later. I do have an idea of how, but I'm saving it for later because I'm afraid this thread will become exclusively an Iraq debate thread--as we don't have so many already. But please, tell me what you think about my theory first.

i didnt read all that but i did see g0at... wtf? :?

i didnt read all that but i did see g0at... wtf? :?
Which means I'm bad at getting my point across. However, I use this forum for practice to help me get better, so bare with me.

It's all based on the whole alternate energy source. Assuming that you are correct in your own assumption, the theory seems likely.

It's all based on the whole alternate energy source. Assuming that you are correct in your own assumption, the theory seems likely.
I'm glad you picked up on that.Much to the dismay of Tactical Grace, I am hopeful that life can go on after oil. Physics, biology, and mathematics have at least doubled in knowledge in the past decade. They are most likely to find us a new energy source soon. And there's plenty of incentive to invest in R&D of these fuel sources, with high oil prices, blackouts in Europe and the US, etc.
However, even if I'm wrong about the new energy resource, and we do run out of oil, the same thing in the Middle East could happen. However, they wouldn't have the spare oil to power military hardware.

I, for one, would welcome our new barbarian masters.

I am convinced that the current world order is within a century of radical change. I read a book on geopolitics (VERY interesting by the way) that puts forth the division of nations along not political or regional, but cultural, or 'civilizational' lines. Think of the cultural conflicts in this world. There are too many examples to name. And not only will some nations cease the egalitarian front they have presented for the past century, they will openly support these kinds of things. It goes down to the 'us vs. the strangers' idea. Will you stand with essentially your family over a stranger, who even though he agrees with you and the family doesn't, you choose your faily, because the family is you? We face a barbarian horde, yes. Chaos. Chaos follows when order, like the rapidly decayig order of today, relies solely on a monolithic support? I say that the United States is that obsidian pillar on which the fraying tent of human order rests. But if the fabric tears...

Surely you understand me now. I fear an end to even a semblance of order, because chaos is a wily foe. The forces of chaos have more will than we ever will, because they are united under chaos. The oil cartel is a fortress of cards. It is magnificent, until the winds of change blow it crashing down. What about the inability of many more nations to even consider seriously controlling their populations? Yes, Europe is dying off. But did you know that Brunei, an Indonesian Muslim nation of about eight million souls, has a POPULATION GROWTH PROGRAM to increase their number to 30 MILLION??? :shock:

Yes. I say that this planet we know is in serious danger of instability. This gives all the more importance to the space program, so we can leave this rock and eliminate the Mutually Assured Destruction that continent-spanning insurgences and devious subversion will undoubtably bring. Whoa, that was a lot. Good day to you all.

Talking on Purlys point to avoid confusion.

Oil is not just used for fuel though, as you pointed out previously. It's use as a lubricant, and plastic in general, are equally valuable and necessary to sustaining our way of life. As well as a new power source, we would need to develop new materials to replace plastics, and new lubricants, as all of our machines would wear in fractions of the time.

Woah. This is deep even for me.

Talking on Purlys point to avoid confusion.

Oil is not just used for fuel though, as you pointed out previously. It's use as a lubricant, and plastic in general, are equally valuable and necessary to sustaining our way of life. As well as a new power source, we would need to develop new materials to replace plastics, and new lubricants, as all of our machines would wear in fractions of the time.
But plastics are a minor usage of oil, compared to energy, anyhow. Prices would drop significantly. Besides, for plastics alone, I'm sure oil sources in more developed nations, like in the US and the North Sea, will be enough for our oil needs then.
Besides, there's always crops to make plastics with. The problem is that they decompose in a few weeks, but they're a possibility for certain plastics.

I, for one, would welcome our new barbarian masters.
Me, king. You, slave. You obey me. You must work! :D Ok, not a good joke, but I'm the master at bad jokes.

I am convinced that the current world order is within a century of radical change. I read a book on geopolitics (VERY interesting by the way) that puts forth the division of nations along not political or regional, but cultural, or 'civilizational' lines. Think of the cultural conflicts in this world. There are too many examples to name. And not only will some nations cease the egalitarian front they have presented for the past century, they will openly support these kinds of things. It goes down to the 'us vs. the strangers' idea. Will you stand with essentially your family over a stranger, who even though he agrees with you and the family doesn't, you choose your faily, because the family is you? We face a barbarian horde, yes. Chaos. Chaos follows when order, like the rapidly decayig order of today, relies solely on a monolithic support? I say that the United States is that obsidian pillar on which the fraying tent of human order rests. But if the fabric tears...

Surely you understand me now. I fear an end to even a semblance of order, because chaos is a wily foe. The forces of chaos have more will than we ever will, because they are united under chaos. The oil cartel is a fortress of cards. It is magnificent, until the winds of change blow it crashing down. What about the inability of many more nations to even consider seriously controlling their populations? Yes, Europe is dying off. But did you know that Brunei, an Indonesian Muslim nation of about eight million souls, has a POPULATION GROWTH PROGRAM to increase their number to 30 MILLION??? :shock:

Yes. I say that this planet we know is in serious danger of instability. This gives all the more importance to the space program, so we can leave this rock and eliminate the Mutually Assured Destruction that continent-spanning insurgences and devious subversion will undoubtably bring. Whoa, that was a lot. Good day to you all.
The Pentagon is currently looking into space weapons. Many understandably don't like the idea, but this type of stuff tells me it's necessary. If there really is global chaos that threatens the US, we'll use whatever is at our disposal. I myself feel that the US and everyone in the Americas can survive this. There's no reason to believe that something like this will form here, or that any barbarians can get across our oceans en masses. Hell, even South America's now a quiet place.
However, terrorism will be much more common on our soil, and, God forbid, a WMD will be used against us. We'll be locked into WWIII.
The scariest part, however, is that they'll probably exploit Russia quickly. For one, Russia's economy has been oil-based since the fall of the Soviet Union. That means that Russia will be in the same boat as the Middle East, whether oil runs out or becomes useless. 20% of Russians are Muslims, and more easily suseptable to Arabs. They might be able to fracture Russia very easily. Rogue officers have also been known to sell arms, as Russia has been through some rough times. If they see rougher, they'll be tempted to sell nukes, a very frightening possibility.

Posts too long. Can't concentrate. World going dark. AHHHHHHHHHH

*Japaica's head explodes*

Posts too long. Can't concentrate. World going dark. AHHHHHHHHHH

*Japaica's head explodes*
Let me give you my point in a nutshell: Middle Eastern and North African economies are based off oil. Their populations are growing at a fast rate. They have little arable land or potable water. Oil will either run out or become useless if an alternative fuel source is found. And more are becoming fundementalists. Add them together, you get a need to migrate, violently. They'd be called barbarians.

Posts too long. Can't concentrate. World going dark. AHHHHHHHHHH

*Japaica's head explodes*
Let me give you my point in a nutshell: Middle Eastern and North African economies are based off oil. Their populations are growing at a fast rate. They have little arable land or potable water. Oil will either run out or become useless if an alternative fuel source is found. And more are becoming fundementalists. Add them together, you get a need to migrate, violently. They'd be called barbarians.

Thanks. I agree.

Posts too long. Can't concentrate. World going dark. AHHHHHHHHHH

*Japaica's head explodes*
Let me give you my point in a nutshell: Middle Eastern and North African economies are based off oil. Their populations are growing at a fast rate. They have little arable land or potable water. Oil will either run out or become useless if an alternative fuel source is found. And more are becoming fundementalists. Add them together, you get a need to migrate, violently. They'd be called barbarians.

Thanks. I agree.
No problem.

But please, tell me what you think about my theory first.
Garbage.


And most interesting of all, some researchers claim that they can build an inexpensive table-top fusion generator by decade's end (and it doesn't use cold fusion).
Sources?

But please, tell me what you think about my theory first.
Garbage.


And most interesting of all, some researchers claim that they can build an inexpensive table-top fusion generator by decade's end (and it doesn't use cold fusion).
Sources?
Popular Science magazine, June 2003. And what makes you feel that my ideas are garbage?

Here's an internet source on my fusion claim, btw.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994741

But please, tell me what you think about my theory first.
Garbage.


And most interesting of all, some researchers claim that they can build an inexpensive table-top fusion generator by decade's end (and it doesn't use cold fusion).
Sources?
Popular Science magazine, June 2003. And what makes you feel that my ideas are garbage?
Taleyarkhan's claims are still being disputed by fellow scientists.
http://www.physicsweb.org/article/news/8/3/3

Your hypothesis is garbage because:
1. It relies crucially on assumption that "bubble fusion" will generate energy and will soon supplant fossil fuels as energy source of choice. Yet, evidence of viability of "bubble fusion" is very much inconclusive.
2. There is no evidence that either Bush or Bin Laden & Co. are aware of Taleyarkhan's research or that it somehow influenced there decisionmaking.
3. Even if one for a moment assumes that "bubble fusion" is possible, U.S. invasion of Iraq does nothing to insulate economies of Moslem countries from the impact of collapsing oil prices.

A big hole in the theory is population dispersion. The larger Islamic countries, with the exception of Nigeria, Indonesia, and Iran, do not have oil based economies. Indonesia, Bangladesh, India, China, Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey, Iran, and Nigeria are the countries with Islamic populations over 50 million. Most of those are already very poor, and loss of oil revenue is not going to change that.

i hate barbarian invasions, they ruin my day.

i hate barbarian invasions, they ruin my day.
Good movie, though :wink:

Let me give you my point in a nutshell: Middle Eastern and North African economies are based off oil. Their populations are growing at a fast rate. They have little arable land or potable water. Oil will either run out or become useless if an alternative fuel source is found. And more are becoming fundementalists. Add them together, you get a need to migrate, violently. They'd be called barbarians.
The process of being invaded by Fundamentalist Muslims is already well underway in France, at least. They have the potential to be a Muslim majority country in under 25 years. There is already talk of introducing Sharia into the secular law of France.

Wasn't the last great wave of barbarians the Mongols?

Wasn't the last great wave of barbarians the Mongols?

Yes but I wouldn't worry about it too much. :wink: Theres a lot of other ludicrous stuff in this thread.

Wasn't the last great wave of barbarians the Mongols?

Yes but I wouldn't worry about it too much. :wink: Theres a lot of other ludicrous stuff in this thread.

Holes you can drive a Mack truck through...

But please, tell me what you think about my theory first.
Garbage.


And most interesting of all, some researchers claim that they can build an inexpensive table-top fusion generator by decade's end (and it doesn't use cold fusion).
Sources?
Popular Science magazine, June 2003. And what makes you feel that my ideas are garbage?
Taleyarkhan's claims are still being disputed by fellow scientists.
http://www.physicsweb.org/article/news/8/3/3

Your hypothesis is garbage because:
1. It relies crucially on assumption that "bubble fusion" will generate energy and will soon supplant fossil fuels as energy source of choice. Yet, evidence of viability of "bubble fusion" is very much inconclusive.
2. There is no evidence that either Bush or Bin Laden & Co. are aware of Taleyarkhan's research or that it somehow influenced there decisionmaking.
3. Even if one for a moment assumes that "bubble fusion" is possible, U.S. invasion of Iraq does nothing to insulate economies of Moslem countries from the impact of collapsing oil prices.
It's not entirely based off that. There are many, many advancements into physics that are closer to findinjg an alternative fuel source. Even wind and solar power are better than before. And don't forget ethanol. That can be easily used if we can figure out how to increase corn supplies (and that isn't hard). There are quite a few solution. Also, I didn't make a claim about Iraq yet, just look at my initial post. I will state my opinion about it when I feel it is time, but it isn't what you're asserting.
BTW, Taleyarkan has done better than those cold fusion guys. At the very least, he has managed to duplicate the same expiriement twice, and the second time yielded better results. It's fair to say that he's onto something.

A big hole in the theory is population dispersion. The larger Islamic countries, with the exception of Nigeria, Indonesia, and Iran, do not have oil based economies. Indonesia, Bangladesh, India, China, Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey, Iran, and Nigeria are the countries with Islamic populations over 50 million. Most of those are already very poor, and loss of oil revenue is not going to change that.
There are two things wrong with that rebuttle. One, it's not all Muslim countries that will behave like this. Nigeria may fall into this trap eventually, but so far, Islamic fundementalism isn't as prevelant in everyday life for most Nigerians as it is for certain Arabs. Besides, if the Nigerians had the motivation, they might be able to find enough arable land to feed 300 million people. Iran may not head in this direction either, though I have no doubts that the government certainly would lash out in violent ways.
Also, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have high fertility rates, with Saudi Arabia having a birth rate of five children per mother. Their populations will explode, and in Saudi Arabia especially, radical clerics reign supreme.
Even the non-oil based economies of the Middle East, like Syria, Jordan, and Turkey, will suffer because the oil exporting nations are their main trading partners. The Bosporous has also become a popular oil transit checkpoint, and Istanbul will suffer. Ultimatly, however, it doesn't matter how much a lack of oil, or useless oil, will degrade their lives. Fundementalists will gain a foothold, as they are doing in Egypt and Turkey.

Wasn't the last great wave of barbarians the Mongols?
I don't count them as barbarians because they built their empire due to an ambitious leader, Gehngis Khan. They were not forced to migrate due to overpopulation, lack of food, etc. The Mongols also had real cohesion of their forces--unlike the barbarians that helped destroy the Roman and Han empires.

Interesting hypothesis. Certainly if oil goes south (maybe losing out to better hydrogen cells, too) and their economies aren't prepared, well they'll either migrate elsewhere or stay admidst social, economic, political upheaval, maybe starvation and stuff.

But I don't know if they would qualify for a wave of barbarians. I mean, generally, most if not all migration is started for similar reasons of overpopulation pressure (etc).

There are two things wrong with that rebuttle. One, it's not all Muslim countries that will behave like this. Nigeria may fall into this trap eventually, but so far, Islamic fundementalism isn't as prevelant in everyday life for most Nigerians as it is for certain Arabs. Besides, if the Nigerians had the motivation, they might be able to find enough arable land to feed 300 million people. Iran may not head in this direction either, though I have no doubts that the government certainly would lash out in violent ways.
Also, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have high fertility rates, with Saudi Arabia having a birth rate of five children per mother. Their populations will explode, and in Saudi Arabia especially, radical clerics reign supreme.
Even the non-oil based economies of the Middle East, like Syria, Jordan, and Turkey, will suffer because the oil exporting nations are their main trading partners. The Bosporous has also become a popular oil transit checkpoint, and Istanbul will suffer. Ultimatly, however, it doesn't matter how much a lack of oil, or useless oil, will degrade their lives. Fundementalists will gain a foothold, as they are doing in Egypt and Turkey.

You missed the point entierly. Your proposition depends on these assumptions:
a) the large, growing Islamic countries are dependent on oil
b) the same countries are radicalized
c) the same countries will face economic implosion due to an oil collapse

All 3 assumptions are incorrect.
The oil kingdoms are so small in population as to be insignificant .
The large Islamic countries are split on radicalization, with Egypt, Iran, and Pakistan on the radical side.
Again, the large Islamic nations already have poor economies.

If your assumptions were correct, and you consider the oil riches of the major Islamic nations, then we would already have seen a Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi, and Xian "barbarian" horde. We have not.

Oh, and your distinction between the Mongols and the Goths, Huns, Germans, Franks, (who I am assuming you mean by the barbarians) is false.

The Huns were at least as advanced as the Mongols, and possibly even more advanced.

In addition, you have ignored other "barbarian invasions" of Europe - such as the Norse, Saracens, and Turks.

The expansion of the Huns, Norse, Saracens, Mongols, and Turks all happened, in part, due to population pressures. But the issues are much much more complex.

http://www.fikas.no/~sprocket/snpa/chapter-VII2.htm
http://www.imninalu.net/Huns.htm

There are two things wrong with that rebuttle. One, it's not all Muslim countries that will behave like this. Nigeria may fall into this trap eventually, but so far, Islamic fundementalism isn't as prevelant in everyday life for most Nigerians as it is for certain Arabs. Besides, if the Nigerians had the motivation, they might be able to find enough arable land to feed 300 million people. Iran may not head in this direction either, though I have no doubts that the government certainly would lash out in violent ways.
Also, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have high fertility rates, with Saudi Arabia having a birth rate of five children per mother. Their populations will explode, and in Saudi Arabia especially, radical clerics reign supreme.
Even the non-oil based economies of the Middle East, like Syria, Jordan, and Turkey, will suffer because the oil exporting nations are their main trading partners. The Bosporous has also become a popular oil transit checkpoint, and Istanbul will suffer. Ultimatly, however, it doesn't matter how much a lack of oil, or useless oil, will degrade their lives. Fundementalists will gain a foothold, as they are doing in Egypt and Turkey.

You missed the point entierly. Your proposition depends on these assumptions:
a) the large, growing Islamic countries are dependent on oil
b) the same countries are radicalized
c) the same countries will face economic implosion due to an oil collapse

All 3 assumptions are incorrect.
The oil kingdoms are so small in population as to be insignificant .
You yourself said that Indonesia, Nigeria, and Iran are large and oil dependent. In fact, according to National Geographic's World Atlas, 7th edition, most OPEC nations have their economies built on oil by about 40%. That includes Egypt. Pakistan has no oil, but of course, it's always a wildcard in the Muslim world.
The large Islamic countries are split on radicalization, with Egypt, Iran, and Pakistan on the radical side.
True. But you forgot Saudi Arabia. It's not large, but that may change quickly. Most of the population is under 25. The annual growth rate is 3.27%, meaning they may double to 48 million in twenty years. Look at some of the regional fertility rates in the CIA World Factbook. They're not as high as Saudi Arabia, but they're respectable, and faster than quite a few developing nations. In fact, Kuwait is the developed nation with the highest fertility rate.
Again, the large Islamic nations already have poor economies.
And what little economies some of them have are largely proped up by oil.

If your assumptions were correct, and you consider the oil riches of the major Islamic nations, then we would already have seen a Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi, and Xian "barbarian" horde. We have not.
They may hop on the bandwagon with Arab nations, especially Pakistan. But one has to ask if they ever knew of a time when their economies were very good, in recent history.
Oh, and your distinction between the Mongols and the Goths, Huns, Germans, Franks, (who I am assuming you mean by the barbarians) is false.

The Huns were at least as advanced as the Mongols, and possibly even more advanced.

In addition, you have ignored other "barbarian invasions" of Europe - such as the Norse, Saracens, and Turks.

The expansion of the Huns, Norse, Saracens, Mongols, and Turks all happened, in part, due to population pressures. But the issues are much much more complex.

http://www.fikas.no/~sprocket/snpa/chapter-VII2.htm
http://www.imninalu.net/Huns.htm
The Saracens (and please, call them Arabs) were due to pure expansion, as were the Mongols. No one knows why the Norse raided Europe. And the Turks were also conquering due to expansion. I won't deny they were "barbarians". However, they weren't a great barbarian wave as, with the exception of the Mongols, they didn't have global ramifications.

Interesting hypothesis. Certainly if oil goes south (maybe losing out to better hydrogen cells, too) and their economies aren't prepared, well they'll either migrate elsewhere or stay admidst social, economic, political upheaval, maybe starvation and stuff.

But I don't know if they would qualify for a wave of barbarians. I mean, generally, most if not all migration is started for similar reasons of overpopulation pressure (etc).
That in itself wouldn't be bad. However, fundementalism has always gained popularity throughout the Muslim world. It may push them to be violent in expansion.

Arab people are not barbarians.

In nations which have seen internal bloodshed the root cause has usually been friction between tribes or clans.

We would not have our modern "western" civilization if not for the culture of the Arabs.

Arab people are not barbarians.

Fundamentalists are the people being discussed, and they haven't exactly taken a step out of the 12th century, much less into the 21st. :roll:

Your theory is generally incorrect I'm afraid. Read articles on the "Post-Postivist challenge" (available on the web and in various journals and books published after 9/11) and especially John Gray's "Al Qaeda and what it means to be Modern" and get back to us.....

....in loose terms you call Arab and Eastern peoples "barbarian", which, despite the fact the real Barbarians were in many ways nothing of the sort, denotes political and social inferiority, fondness of anarchy and destruction, and 'primitive' types of behaviour which belong in the past, and yet you appear to accuse these very "barbarians" of using modern methods in attempting to achieve their goals- this is frankly a contradiction, although it's one that several members of the US administration, particularly the PhD-holding Condi Rice, have failed to comprehend, so it's nothing to be embarrassed about if you've come to similar conclusions, whether based on strong evidence or not. However, you are not taking account of highly significant arguments, especially neo-realism, poststructuralism and post-positivism.

Thus if you are a keen reader of politics as I think you must be from such a long and well constructed thesis, you ought to read some other points of view such as Gray, Kenneth Waltz (esp. Man, the State and War), Morgenthau (Politics among Nations), Andrew Linklater, Alexander Wendt, and various others who you'd become aware of from reading those.... but still, it's a thought-provoking idea all the same. 8)

Arab people are not barbarians.

In nations which have seen internal bloodshed the root cause has usually been friction between tribes or clans.

We would not have our modern "western" civilization if not for the culture of the Arabs.
500 years ago, they weren't. Today, they aren't. Tommarow is a big maybe, and whether oil becomes useless, or if it runs out, it is likely that large portions of them will act up. And I do agree that the Arabs gave us Western civilisation. I mean, they preserved some critical Greek and Roman texts that'd have otherwise been lost. This, I feel, makes it all the more ironic of a situation.

Arab people are not barbarians.

In nations which have seen internal bloodshed the root cause has usually been friction between tribes or clans.

We would not have our modern "western" civilization if not for the culture of the Arabs.
500 years ago, they weren't. Today, they aren't. Tommarow is a big maybe, and whether oil becomes useless, or if it runs out, it is likely that large portions of them will act up. And I do agree that the Arabs gave us Western civilisation. I mean, they preserved some critical Greek and Roman texts that'd have otherwise been lost. This, I feel, makes it all the more ironic of a situation.

Your theory is generally incorrect I'm afraid. Read articles on the "Post-Postivist challenge" (available on the web and in various journals and books published after 9/11) and especially John Gray's "Al Qaeda and what it means to be Modern" and get back to us.....

....in loose terms you call Arab and Eastern peoples "barbarian", which, despite the fact the real Barbarians were in many ways nothing of the sort, denotes political and social inferiority, fondness of anarchy and destruction, and 'primitive' types of behaviour which belong in the past, and yet you appear to accuse these very "barbarians" of using modern methods in attempting to achieve their goals- this is frankly a contradiction, although it's one that several members of the US administration, particularly the PhD-holding Condi Rice, have failed to comprehend, so it's nothing to be embarrassed about if you've come to similar conclusions, whether based on strong evidence or not. However, you are not taking account of highly significant arguments, especially neo-realism, poststructuralism and post-positivism.

Thus if you are a keen reader of politics as I think you must be from such a long and well constructed thesis, you ought to read some other points of view such as Gray, Kenneth Waltz (esp. Man, the State and War), Morgenthau (Politics among Nations), Andrew Linklater, Alexander Wendt, and various others who you'd become aware of from reading those.... but still, it's a thought-provoking idea all the same. 8)
Thank you. I'm only 15, however, and I feel some of the stuff may be a bit over my head (but I will read some of the books you've recommended). I plan on majoring in Political Science, and if, as I point out, oil does run out, I'll be fine dying :lol:.
Anyhow, I use the term barbarian loosely. Barbarians destroyed Rome, and as far as our European ancestors were concerned, their world. But from that, they've gotten a bad rap they don't entirely deserve. The Huns were more "modern" than the Romans, infamous for relying too much on mercenaries and infantry. There wasn't as much anarchy as one may like to think, either, as they did distribute decent sized kingdoms amongst their warlords everywhere they went.
Yet, barbarians are, like many immigrants, forced to leave due to overpopulation. 99% of the time, it's peaceful. But once every few millenia, a great wave of migrants expand and, for some reason or another, they turn violent. This has happened on a smaller scale before and since, though never has it been as great of a violent migration as it was 2000 years ago. The Dorians, for example, invaded Greece around 1200BC. The Hyksos invaded Egypt around 1700BC. And more recently, when the Manchus invaded China in the 1600s. The Arabs, however, may have reason to become violent if a combination of economic pressures and Islamic fundementalism gets to them. In some ways, the process has begun.
One last note I feel I must address. Eastern people won't necessarily beciome these barbarians I've described, with the possible exception of Indonesia. The Chinese aren't likely to become barbaric anytime soon. My definition of a barbarian, btw, is more like moving out violently, and learning to push your enemy's buttons (thus the percieved anarchy of Roman barbarians, but it really wasn't anarchy).

You yourself said that Indonesia, Nigeria, and Iran are large and oil dependent. In fact, according to National Geographic's World Atlas, 7th edition, most OPEC nations have their economies built on oil by about 40%. That includes Egypt. Pakistan has no oil, but of course, it's always a wildcard in the Muslim world. ... True. But you forgot Saudi Arabia. It's not large, but that may change quickly. Most of the population is under 25. The annual growth rate is 3.27%, meaning they may double to 48 million in twenty years. Look at some of the regional fertility rates in the CIA World Factbook. They're not as high as Saudi Arabia, but they're respectable, and faster than quite a few developing nations. In fact, Kuwait is the developed nation with the highest fertility rate. ... And what little economies some of them have are largely proped up by oil. ... They may hop on the bandwagon with Arab nations, especially Pakistan. But one has to ask if they ever knew of a time when their economies were very good, in recent history.

Again, you are missing the point. Theose nations totally dependent on oil are too small. Those that are large are, with a few exeptions, not dependant only on oil. The only really large Islamic country as totally dependent on oil as Qatar, Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait, would be Iran.
The growth rates in the oil kingdoms are high, but not enough to catch up. The large Islamic nations are going to remain large.
Muslims in Indonesia, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Xian, and India have yet to show the radicallization of the Saudis, Afghanis, and Pakistanis. Certainly there has been some, but not to anywhere near the same level.

The Saracens (and please, call them Arabs) were due to pure expansion, as were the Mongols. No one knows why the Norse raided Europe. And the Turks were also conquering due to expansion. I won't deny they were "barbarians". However, they weren't a great barbarian wave as, with the exception of the Mongols, they didn't have global ramifications.

The Saracen Invasion didn't have global ramifications? The Renaissance and the rise of Europe were direct results of the Saracen invasions.
The Norse founded Russia and impacted Europe and the region.
The Turkish invasions resulted in the Ottoman empire, which resulted in (partially) to WWII and the mess in the Balkans (which has been a friction point between the Islamic world and Europe for a long time).
Surely these have all had a global ramification or two.
:wink:

And why would you object to the term Saracens? The term is a perfectly good historical one that describes the various peoples involved in the invasions of Europe. They were not all Arabs afterall. The Moors and Seljuk Turks were involved as well.

bump

You yourself said that Indonesia, Nigeria, and Iran are large and oil dependent. In fact, according to National Geographic's World Atlas, 7th edition, most OPEC nations have their economies built on oil by about 40%. That includes Egypt. Pakistan has no oil, but of course, it's always a wildcard in the Muslim world. ... True. But you forgot Saudi Arabia. It's not large, but that may change quickly. Most of the population is under 25. The annual growth rate is 3.27%, meaning they may double to 48 million in twenty years. Look at some of the regional fertility rates in the CIA World Factbook. They're not as high as Saudi Arabia, but they're respectable, and faster than quite a few developing nations. In fact, Kuwait is the developed nation with the highest fertility rate. ... And what little economies some of them have are largely proped up by oil. ... They may hop on the bandwagon with Arab nations, especially Pakistan. But one has to ask if they ever knew of a time when their economies were very good, in recent history.

Again, you are missing the point. Theose nations totally dependent on oil are too small. Those that are large are, with a few exeptions, not dependant only on oil. The only really large Islamic country as totally dependent on oil as Qatar, Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait, would be Iran.
The growth rates in the oil kingdoms are high, but not enough to catch up. The large Islamic nations are going to remain large.
Muslims in Indonesia, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Xian, and India have yet to show the radicallization of the Saudis, Afghanis, and Pakistanis. Certainly there has been some, but not to anywhere near the same level.

The Saracens (and please, call them Arabs) were due to pure expansion, as were the Mongols. No one knows why the Norse raided Europe. And the Turks were also conquering due to expansion. I won't deny they were "barbarians". However, they weren't a great barbarian wave as, with the exception of the Mongols, they didn't have global ramifications.

The Saracen Invasion didn't have global ramifications? The Renaissance and the rise of Europe were direct results of the Saracen invasions.
The Norse founded Russia and impacted Europe and the region.
The Turkish invasions resulted in the Ottoman empire, which resulted in (partially) to WWII and the mess in the Balkans (which has been a friction point between the Islamic world and Europe for a long time).
Surely these have all had a global ramification or two.
:wink:

And why would you object to the term Saracens? The term is a perfectly good historical one that describes the various peoples involved in the invasions of Europe. They were not all Arabs afterall. The Moors and Seljuk Turks were involved as well.
Call Sarecens Muslims, then.

About your first point, oil rich nations do have a high growth rate. However, even oil poor nations have most of their economies hinged on oil. Egypt, for example, doesn't have much oil, but relies so much on it that price swings make it prosper or suffer, depending which way the market goes. Indonesia is another nation like that. Fundementalism is rather prevalent in these nations as well. If they can't sell oil, they all suffer.
As for the invaders of Europe. They did have a few large ramifications. But none of the earth-shattering ramifications of the barbarian wave 2000 years ago. They had a hand in destroying quite a few of the world's empires, and not just in Europe. And the Crusades caused the Renaissance, not the repeated Muslim invasions.

One thing about barbarian hordes is that they stopped when gunpowder armies started becoming prevalent. Modern weaponry requires a stable industrial base- not something a disorganised horde of migrating neo-barbarians would have easy access to.

But please, tell me what you think about my theory first.
Garbage.


And most interesting of all, some researchers claim that they can build an inexpensive table-top fusion generator by decade's end (and it doesn't use cold fusion).
Sources?
Popular Science magazine, June 2003. And what makes you feel that my ideas are garbage?
Taleyarkhan's claims are still being disputed by fellow scientists.
http://www.physicsweb.org/article/news/8/3/3

Your hypothesis is garbage because:
1. It relies crucially on assumption that "bubble fusion" will generate energy and will soon supplant fossil fuels as energy source of choice. Yet, evidence of viability of "bubble fusion" is very much inconclusive.
2. There is no evidence that either Bush or Bin Laden & Co. are aware of Taleyarkhan's research or that it somehow influenced there decisionmaking.
3. Even if one for a moment assumes that "bubble fusion" is possible, U.S. invasion of Iraq does nothing to insulate economies of Moslem countries from the impact of collapsing oil prices.
It's not entirely based off that. There are many, many advancements into physics that are closer to findinjg an alternative fuel source. Even wind and solar power are better than before.
Again, you overstate the case for alternative sources of energy. At this time solar and wind power generators are not terribly efficient. Compared to relatively compact oil- or gas-powered generators, vast fields of solar panels or wind turbines must be built to generate equivalent amount of power. Yes, the technology will improve, but for the forseeable future oil/gas/coal will have a substantial cost advantage - and this gradual improvement in solar/wind technology will be highly unlikely to cause a rapid collapse of oil prices.

And don't forget ethanol. That can be easily used if we can figure out how to increase corn supplies (and that isn't hard). There are quite a few solution.
If ethanol was indeed a viable alternative, certainly farmers in advanced oil-importing countries would've been growing as much of it as they possibly could, eh? However, the reality is that the U.S. gov't must subsidise ethanol production. Why? - Because ethanol can't compete with gasoline on price either.

Also, I didn't make a claim about Iraq yet, just look at my initial post. I will state my opinion about it when I feel it is time, but it isn't what you're asserting.
Uh-oh, a grand revelation must be awaiting us! I'll be on pins and needs until then.

BTW, Taleyarkan has done better than those cold fusion guys. At the very least, he has managed to duplicate the same expiriement twice, and the second time yielded better results. It's fair to say that he's onto something.
Hooray for him. But if (almost) free energy was indeed just around the corner, then perhaps the press would've been giving it quite a bit more attention than they do now, don't you think? As it is, enough scientists must be expressing scepticism about Taleyarkan's results to keep them from the front pages.

But please, tell me what you think about my theory first.
Garbage.


And most interesting of all, some researchers claim that they can build an inexpensive table-top fusion generator by decade's end (and it doesn't use cold fusion).
Sources?
Popular Science magazine, June 2003. And what makes you feel that my ideas are garbage?
Taleyarkhan's claims are still being disputed by fellow scientists.
http://www.physicsweb.org/article/news/8/3/3

Your hypothesis is garbage because:
1. It relies crucially on assumption that "bubble fusion" will generate energy and will soon supplant fossil fuels as energy source of choice. Yet, evidence of viability of "bubble fusion" is very much inconclusive.
2. There is no evidence that either Bush or Bin Laden & Co. are aware of Taleyarkhan's research or that it somehow influenced there decisionmaking.
3. Even if one for a moment assumes that "bubble fusion" is possible, U.S. invasion of Iraq does nothing to insulate economies of Moslem countries from the impact of collapsing oil prices.
It's not entirely based off that. There are many, many advancements into physics that are closer to findinjg an alternative fuel source. Even wind and solar power are better than before.
Again, you overstate the case for alternative sources of energy. At this time solar and wind power generators are not terribly efficient. Compared to relatively compact oil- or gas-powered generators, vast fields of solar panels or wind turbines must be built to generate equivalent amount of power. Yes, the technology will improve, but for the forseeable future oil/gas/coal will have a substantial cost advantage - and this gradual improvement in solar/wind technology will be highly unlikely to cause a rapid collapse of oil prices.

And don't forget ethanol. That can be easily used if we can figure out how to increase corn supplies (and that isn't hard). There are quite a few solution.
If ethanol was indeed a viable alternative, certainly farmers in advanced oil-importing countries would've been growing as much of it as they possibly could, eh? However, the reality is that the U.S. gov't must subsidise ethanol production. Why? - Because ethanol can't compete with gasoline on price either.

Also, I didn't make a claim about Iraq yet, just look at my initial post. I will state my opinion about it when I feel it is time, but it isn't what you're asserting.
Uh-oh, a grand revelation must be awaiting us! I'll be on pins and needs until then.

BTW, Taleyarkan has done better than those cold fusion guys. At the very least, he has managed to duplicate the same expiriement twice, and the second time yielded better results. It's fair to say that he's onto something.
Hooray for him. But if (almost) free energy was indeed just around the corner, then perhaps the press would've been giving it quite a bit more attention than they do now, don't you think? As it is, enough scientists must be expressing scepticism about Taleyarkan's results to keep them from the front pages.
Solar will only be good for playing ancillary roles for imbedded applications, but it'll still be useful for many things. Wind technology has come a long way. Now, some wind turbines can produce up to 5MW.
Ethanol isn't exactly a bad idea. For one, it'd be cheap for farmers to use, and thus it'd keep global food supplies coming in the event of a hydrocarbon disaster. Besides, it's used in 10% of gasoline already, and Brazil uses it in place of gas.
Now as for the sonofusion, why hasn't it appeared on front pages? I myself am still a bit of a skeptic on this, based on the fact that it sounds too good to be true. But it has a better, more believable basis than cold fusion. So perhaps whoever knows about this wants to have it confined to small articles in scientific journals for now, as not to raise the public's hopes on this. Then again, great scientific advancements happen every day, and they're lucky if they can get a biline in the back of the New York Times.

Now, as for Iraq. I would tell you my thoughts, but I love you mocking me for keeping them a secret. I won't tell you for maybe a few pages or so. So keep mocking me, and ripping me apart. After all, if it doesn't kill me, it just makes me stronger.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif
DP

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

"My definition of a barbarian, btw, is more like moving out violently, and learning to push your enemy's buttons (thus the percieved anarchy of Roman barbarians, but it really wasn't anarchy)".

That would be the British, Americans And Canadians on the North American continent then. The Spanish and Portugese in South America.
The British, French, Germans, Portugese and Dutch in Africa. The British, Portugese and Dutch in China and the Far East. The Japanese in China and the Pacific. The British and Americans in the Carribean. The British and Americans in the Middle East. The Russians in Eastern Europe. The Romans in the Mediteranean and Middle East. We're all bloody barbarians and it's highly arrogant to accuse the Arabs / Muslims of being barbarians, especially at a time when they're again being dominated and bullied by the Americans and British. As for fuel. Do you honestly believe that oil companies all over the world would be frantically increasing their budgets and searching ever deeper and in ever more dangerous places for oil and gas, if there was the slightest prospect of non-fossil fuels anywhere near on the horizen? As is my way, I read the whole thread before posting and was struck by the fact that you're shifting ground. I'm not going to get into the 'we went to war for oil' argument, but if oil didn't exist in the Middle East, not one American or British soldier would be risking his or her life now for scheming politicians. By the way, remember the 'barbaric' Jihad and the resulting 'barbaric' Christian Crusades?

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

"My definition of a barbarian, btw, is more like moving out violently, and learning to push your enemy's buttons (thus the percieved anarchy of Roman barbarians, but it really wasn't anarchy)".

That would be the British, Americans And Canadians on the North American continent then. The Spanish and Portugese in South America.
The British, French, Germans, Portugese and Dutch in Africa. The British, Portugese and Dutch in China and the Far East. The Japanese in China and the Pacific. The British and Americans in the Carribean. The British and Americans in the Middle East. The Russians in Eastern Europe. The Romans in the Mediteranean and Middle East. We're all bloody barbarians and it's highly arrogant to accuse the Arabs / Muslims of being barbarians, especially at a time when they're again being dominated and bullied by the Americans and British. As for fuel. Do you honestly believe that oil companies all over the world would be frantically increasing their budgets and searching ever deeper and in ever more dangerous places for oil and gas, if there was the slightest prospect of non-fossil fuels anywhere near on the horizen? As is my way, I read the whole thread before posting and was struck by the fact that you're shifting ground. I'm not going to get into the 'we went to war for oil' argument, but if oil didn't exist in the Middle East, not one American or British soldier would be risking his or her life now for scheming politicians. By the way, remember the 'barbaric' Jihad and the resulting 'barbaric' Christian Crusades?
The Crusades were indeed very barbaric of a time, but they weren't as a result of population pressures, but rather imperial desires. Barbarians, at least in my mindset, are different. They violently expand because of population pressures, and that's what I'm thinking. It's not arrogant, it's not racsist. It's just doing what you're so fond of doing yourself: looking into my crystal ball, and telling what I see.

its the terrorists man!!!