Planetary Unification - more than a Sci-fi trope?

[Zyrious]

I agree that the world unifying into some formal Worldstate is vanishingly unlikely.

That's not what I think is happening in Stellaris, though. I think that the mechanics in Stellaris are abstracting the real situation.

Many of you have claimed that the UN is a joke, and I can see why you might think that. As long as it holds no real territory and cannot have any force projection without the help of one of its major member states, the UN is doomed to be an international meeting and treaty organizer. Now, that's an important role and one it will likely continue, but I think you're all missing out on how human expansion into space might affect the UN given current space law and likely future trends.

The Outer Space Treaty is one of the main reasons I say this. Essentially, the treaty forbids Earthbound nations from claiming territory on any celestial body that isn't Earth and prevents nations from putting weaponry into space. You can own your rover/station/hab, but not the land under it. The UN has a major advantage here: it's not a nation. It has also already been established as a global treaty compliance monitor and an international forum. I could see the OST being modified to grant the UN title to all human-inhabited bodies and, if space crime or aliens ever becomes a problem, being allowed to establish a policing force.

I realize that you're probably thinking I'm underestimating how willing countries would be to tear up these treaties and go all gung-ho colonialism. Believe me, I'm not. I understand just how much nations are willing to break treaties and agreements if they can see a huge advantage for themselves. What I think you're missing, though, are the economic implications of increasing our presence in space and that the pros of a unified space administration outweigh the cons. Look at globalization. As companies and corporations expand around the world, they are having to adapt to each country's regulations, tax codes, culture and so forth. Imagine how expensive that it. That's why free trade zones and international accounting standards like IFRS are such a big deal. They reduce the cost of enterprise and allow for economic growth everywhere.

With space expansion, this trend would only have more pressure. Companies would have the chance to influence a completely clean slate, and believe me they would prefer to only have one set of regulations to follow in space. That's not to mention the entirely space-based companies like the asteroid miner Planetary Resources or space-to-space vessel construction firms. These firms would also have a vested interest in ensuring one set or a standardized set of regulations. What's the best body to ensure that? What's the body that has a history of ensuring compliance with treaties that establish things like international regulations? What's the body that already has a semblance of authority over space due to treaties its members signed? What body supposedly serves as a forum for the whole world? The UN. I'd expect most companies to throw their full weight behind the UN as the sole space regulator and police force. It just makes business sense.

Plus, if you want to get cynical, it's also much easier to bribe just UN regulators than regulators across the world. If worst comes to worst and you need to put pressure on the UN regulation commission from below, you can always pressure individual nation states who can then pressure the commission. That's why this arrangement would work so well for companies and other international organizations. When things are going well you only have to deal with one organization, but when they're going badly you have a really easy way to push the Space Commission back to where you want them. Of course, competing interests might mean that your plans won't always work out, but that's just politics. It's still better for them than what would happen if every single country maintained a sovereign space fleet and all the insanity that goes with that.

This is also why countries would, in my opinion, like this arrangement. They would all have a guaranteed voice in the Space Commission, regardless of what was happening in the world. Even countries like the US, Russia, and China would be ok with this arrangement. It gives them an easy way to try to check each other's power and exert influence over space while claiming that it's international action. Of course, long term, as the UN Space Commission gained wealth, influence, and power these nations might be disadvantaged, but I think it's safe to say based on history that most leaders will look at the short-term influence and economic benefits to their nations and either ignore the future possible problems or say "the next generation can deal with it." Small countries would love it because it would guarantee them a voice whereas their two-ship space fleet wouldn't do anything of the sort.

Another reason I see this being possible is because of the immense costs of space warfare. Seriously, space warfare would be hugely expensive and destructive. Not only would it lead to destroyed space infrastructure and the huge economic losses that entails, it also has the potential for huge loss of life on the surface. Look up Rods from God or any one of the hundreds of other fancy, destructive, and easily constructable space weapons we've dreamed up. If there's anything we're good at, it's finding ways to deal death. Consider the uproar that occurs when nations fight comparatively inexpensive and tiny modern wars. Imagine what would happen if millions started dying from space bombardment by another country. If only to limit the powers of the Enemy, whomever that might be, in the immensely powerful arena of space, I have a feeling that countries would be ok building up a UN fleet and retaining UN sovereignty over space. Companies, to avoid the kind of economic death spirals that hugely destructive wars always cause, would also be very much in favor of this which would also push countries towards acceptance.

Ultimately, what I see as "planetary unification" in this game and most near-future Earth space sci-fi is really a disunited planet grappling with each other on the surface of Earth, and possibly the other human colonies as well, all while leaving space travel and commerce to the UN for the reasons I've stated above.

I'm not sure i agree. The US Congress has actually been debating the very treaty you mentioned. Already, the US legislature and courts have ruled that US corporations can now claim and own space bodies like asteroids but are still subject to US law and regulation, and the US Congress is considering pulling out of the current space treaties entirely as we rapidly approach setting up permanent installations on the moon and Mars. Already, corporations are being ruled exempt and allowed to expand into space, as we approach setting up actuall colonies in space, so too do i believe nations will begin re-negotiating current treaties. While some nations, as you say, would be willing to let the UN handle such things, other nations like the US like to have direct influence over such expansion. I can also Gaurentee that the United States will never allow its citizens in a new colony to fall outside its jurisdiction (and taxation), and that once a permanent human colony is established, all established space treaties go out the window (if they havent already).

I think it's highly unlikely that the UN will gain power through space expansion, as already stated it's used merely for the projection of power of its members and has no power of its own, and the member states are unlikely to change that, especially as they begin feeling the benefits of exploitation of space directly.

 

[Arroz]

I'm not sure i agree. The US Congress has actually been debating the very treaty you mentioned. Already, the US legislature and courts have ruled that US corporations can now claim and own space bodies like asteroids but are still subject to US law and regulation, and the US Congress is considering pulling out of the current space treaties entirely as we rapidly approach setting up permanent installations on the moon and Mars. Already, corporations are being ruled exempt and allowed to expand into space, as we approach setting up actuall colonies in space, so too do i believe nations will begin re-negotiating current treaties. While some nations, as you say, would be willing to let the UN handle such things, other nations like the US like to have direct influence over such expansion. I can also Gaurentee that the United States will never allow its citizens in a new colony to fall outside its jurisdiction (and taxation), and that once a permanent human colony is established, all established space treaties go out the window (if they havent already).

I think it's highly unlikely that the UN will gain power through space expansion, as already stated it's used merely for the projection of power of its members and has no power of its own, and the member states are unlikely to change that, especially as they begin feeling the benefits of exploitation of space directly.

You're right. I acknowledge this in the model I propose. I'm talking about the UN gaining jurisdiction over space travel itself, not planetary bodies, and acting as a police force in space, not on planetary bodies.

I also think it's a bit naïve to try to extrapolate what Congress is doing now when it comes to space and what it will be doing when other countries actually start exploiting space as well.

 

[13Foxtrot]

Megacorps vs nations........sweet

 

[Zyrious]

You're right. I acknowledge this in the model I propose. I'm talking about the UN gaining jurisdiction over space travel itself, not planetary bodies, and acting as a police force in space, not on planetary bodies.

I also think it's a bit naïve to try to extrapolate what Congress is doing now when it comes to space and what it will be doing when other countries actually start exploiting space as well.

Space is likely to be treated like the oceans. The UN won't get its own, and the only, "Space police", but rather treaties will be signed upon that each nation traveling through undeclared/international space zones will follow. That won't stop US or Russian ships from protecting their own trade lines or projecting power, of course. If the US owns a planetary body, it's going to want to own the surrounding space as well. However this does nothing to push us closer to some form of world government nor increase the UN's authority any more than it already has. The various nations will want the ability to have authority over spaceships traveling near their facilities as well. Say the US sets up a new colony on Planetary body X, it will likely also declare control over the immediate high/low orbits and probably some space beyond. They may even charge a tax/port fee for ships using orbital facilities for refueling or storage. The United States Air Force already has a space drone fleet that it's expanding, with the eventual goal of having a fleet of spaceships that can shoot down enemy orbitals and enemy space-based drones. This will likely expand to other forms of space militarization as we expand our operations in space.

Other nations getting involved is only likely to push countries to further protect their own interests, rather than give them up to an international body, imo. Getting into space is a big capital investment, as such nations are going to want to see direct returns in taxes and fees and are going to want the ability to directly protect and manage said interests. When the time comes that we're expanding into other solar systems, depending on the availability of habital planets, more and more space will be kept by individual nations. It may end up that only the Sol System has international space, as nations begin declaring zones of interstellar space their own as they expand colonization efforts. Difficult to predict on that level.

However i don't see the UN expanding by any significant degree. Most stuff will be handle through the same treaties as always, which, as always, will be broken by some.

 

[Safehold]

Quite a bit offtopic here, but a nice theory that I would like to share. I've been reading the Sapiens book (and recommend it - it is a nice book), and a point the author (Yuval Noah Harari) makes is that humanity, through the course of history, moves itself towards unification. Since ancient times, we moved on (with ebbs and flows, gains and losses) towards unification.

When Cortez and his Spanish troops invaded the Aztec empire, the mesoamerican natives could not understand why they loved gold so much. In their eyes, it was a nice and shiny metal, which they could make good art, but it was inherently less valuable than other things like cocoa. Nowadays, there is nowhere - or almost nowhere - in the globe that cannot appreciate the value of money and gold.

While we have several nations, almost all the globe thinks and believes in roughly the same ideas - there should be law systems, democracy (even in autocracies there is some semblance of democracy), market economies, human rights, etc... Even as each nation and culture twists that ideas with some particular notions, they are still close enough to see the resemblance. Nowhere in the world today you would arrive with ocidental concepts like that and see the face that Montezuma did when Cortez waged wars to strip him off his gold.

And we see megaprojects today that transcend national borders - things like Antartic research (heck, most research done nowadays is made with multi-national teams), economic corporations, UN, and even space exploration - the International Space Station don't have its name for nothing. In other words, the "planetary unification" trope in sci0fi and in Stellaris does not means that there are not several nations in each world, but that if you zoom out and see that an space empire would be created by the effort of these nations helping each other, you can simply assume that the planet is a single entity (or a single goverment) and roll with it.

True, there are a lot of ways to unify a planet, but that is why Stellaris focuses on managing planets that ethos diverges. Even your homeworld can have pops with different ethos and you have to adapt. But since you aren't playing "Japan conquers the world and unifies it" timeline, but the one after the unification, the player doesn't start with "complexity" on their shoulders. That comes later.

 

[mrinku]

Australia is in the UN Economic Commission for Europe too.

And TISM needs to reform and represent Australia at Eurovision.

+1

Maaaaaate!

There's also a point that the scale of Stellaris reduces the granularity of a planet's makeup. If each pop represents about a billion beings, modern Earth would have seven pops. Only two actual countries have enough people to claim a full pop each (China and India). If you break it up by geography, Asia has 4, Africa has 1, Europe has 1 and the Americas have 1.

 

[Arroz]

Space is likely to be treated like the oceans. The UN won't get its own, and the only, "Space police", but rather treaties will be signed upon that each nation traveling through undeclared/international space zones will follow. That won't stop US or Russian ships from protecting their own trade lines or projecting power, of course. If the US owns a planetary body, it's going to want to own the surrounding space as well. However this does nothing to push us closer to some form of world government nor increase the UN's authority any more than it already has. The various nations will want the ability to have authority over spaceships traveling near their facilities as well. Say the US sets up a new colony on Planetary body X, it will likely also declare control over the immediate high/low orbits and probably some space beyond. They may even charge a tax/port fee for ships using orbital facilities for refueling or storage. The United States Air Force already has a space drone fleet that it's expanding, with the eventual goal of having a fleet of spaceships that can shoot down enemy orbitals and enemy space-based drones. This will likely expand to other forms of space militarization as we expand our operations in space.

Other nations getting involved is only likely to push countries to further protect their own interests, rather than give them up to an international body, imo. Getting into space is a big capital investment, as such nations are going to want to see direct returns in taxes and fees and are going to want the ability to directly protect and manage said interests. When the time comes that we're expanding into other solar systems, depending on the availability of habital planets, more and more space will be kept by individual nations. It may end up that only the Sol System has international space, as nations begin declaring zones of interstellar space their own as they expand colonization efforts. Difficult to predict on that level.

However i don't see the UN expanding by any significant degree. Most stuff will be handle through the same treaties as always, which, as always, will be broken by some.

There's one major problem with just trying to treat it like the oceans. Namely, our borders in space aren't so pretty. We've already established as a species that national airspace doesn't go up but so high. (Apologies, but I can't remember the exact distance right now). The important thing, though, is that national airspace doesn't leave the atmosphere. It ends far, far below where vessels will be orbiting. So then how do you propose we have countries try to set up zones of control in orbit? Short answer: they can't. Trying to have countries claim orbits around a planet doesn't make any sense at all.

The only way I could see your argument possibly playing out is that countries all build geostationary space stations above heir territory and then claim a "space traffic control" zone around that. I find that unlikely for several reasons. Primary among them is how inefficient that would be. You have to expend far more fuel to get to and from the surface and the station, making heavier loads far more expensive. For any company dealing in bulk, heavy goods (probably the vast majority of them) that adds huge amounts of unnecessary cost to their production chain. Expect those stations to get lobbied out of existence right away, or more likely never exist at all.

So how do you define orbital borders? It's a complete cluster. That's why I think, as space-based commerce heats up and begins to include more and more countries, you're going to want to see countries try to impose regulation in space. Except they can't do that due to both international law and the practical impossibility of trying to have 180-some planetbound nation-states exert control over space.

Also consider how crowded Earth orbit is going to become. We think it's getting somewhat crowded and filled with space junk now, but that doesn't hold a candle to what it will look like when we've got unimaginable amounts of commerce flowing through. Under your assertions, Earth orbit would look like trying to run New York Harbor without any form of a port authority. Again, that's horribly impractical.

Another problem with your "oh they'll just make a treaty" argument is, then, who acts as the Harbor Police under that treaty? Good luck trying to get the US to allow China or Russia to do it. Good luck getting either one of them to let the US or each other do it. The practicalities of space travel and orbit really do lend themselves to establishing one source of authority like the UN.

 

[mrinku]

Or you may end up with a Heinleinesque Space Patrol ala Space Cadet. They'll nuke your cities if you don't play nice...

 

[Zyrious]

There's one major problem with just trying to treat it like the oceans. Namely, our borders in space aren't so pretty. We've already established as a species that national airspace doesn't go up but so high. (Apologies, but I can't remember the exact distance right now). The important thing, though, is that national airspace doesn't leave the atmosphere. It ends far, far below where vessels will be orbiting. So then how do you propose we have countries try to set up zones of control in orbit? Short answer: they can't. Trying to have countries claim orbits around a planet doesn't make any sense at all.

The only way I could see your argument possibly playing out is that countries all build geostationary space stations above heir territory and then claim a "space traffic control" zone around that. I find that unlikely for several reasons. Primary among them is how inefficient that would be. You have to expend far more fuel to get to and from the surface and the station, making heavier loads far more expensive. For any company dealing in bulk, heavy goods (probably the vast majority of them) that adds huge amounts of unnecessary cost to their production chain. Expect those stations to get lobbied out of existence right away, or more likely never exist at all.

So how do you define orbital borders? It's a complete cluster. That's why I think, as space-based commerce heats up and begins to include more and more countries, you're going to want to see countries try to impose regulation in space. Except they can't do that due to both international law and the practical impossibility of trying to have 180-some planetbound nation-states exert control over space.

Also consider how crowded Earth orbit is going to become. We think it's getting somewhat crowded and filled with space junk now, but that doesn't hold a candle to what it will look like when we've got unimaginable amounts of commerce flowing through. Under your assertions, Earth orbit would look like trying to run New York Harbor without any form of a port authority. Again, that's horribly impractical.

Another problem with your "oh they'll just make a treaty" argument is, then, who acts as the Harbor Police under that treaty? Good luck trying to get the US to allow China or Russia to do it. Good luck getting either one of them to let the US or each other do it. The practicalities of space travel and orbit really do lend themselves to establishing one source of authority like the UN.

The New York Port Authority is a US Organization, not a UN based organization. Just because we need to organize and regulate space doesn't mean we lack the capacity to do it without the UN. A USAF-Coast gaurd equivalent mixed with space-based federal, local, and corporate organizations could regulate space ports, stations, and colonies just as they could anywhere else. I fail to see how you're imagining we would lack the logistical capability to track and regulate commerce through US territory. This isn't coruscant, and space travel isn't going to be flowing with space taxi's and space RV's, it will be significantly reduced traffic even in the future, compared to what we deal with on the surface of the Earth, with massive freighters dropping off freight at space stations and space elevators to then be handled by local services to take it down to the surface.

The issue with space junk is entirely separate from what we're talking about, and is more an issue of polluting space with defunct, unused satellites and materials coming off secondary modules and rockets than with traffic.

If you think the US or China would rather have the UN to protect their space-based assets over doing it themselves, how is that not more naive than what i am proposing? Look at the congressional debates that went on over space bodies just a couple months ago, they were talking about how they need to push for the ability to maintain US sovereignty and prevent international interests from hampering or dictating to US expansion in space.

I am not saying the US is going to claim all of Sol, but you can dictate immediate area's directly above colonies into orbit and around space-based facilities. And just like with international waters, nations would have their own fleets that would protect against pirates or aggressive action of other nations outside of their own immediately owned territory. I doubt the nations of earth would see the need to create a massive regulatory and military organization that would compete with their own authority when they can do it themselves. Also, 180 nations aren't going to have space agencies, most of them will operate through the larger nations space agencies or have license agreements with them (for a fee) to operate through their facilities or colonies.

 

[Safehold]

Australia is in the UN Economic Commission for Europe too.

And TISM needs to reform and represent Australia at Eurovision.

So Australia, in the Southern Hemisphere, is now managing Europe's seasons and economy...?

On another note: The US provides a significant amount of funding to the UN. That's why African ethnic cleansers are on the Human Rights Commission, to make sure they can use that funding to fund their little wars without getting world attention for it.

By extension, a lot of nations, Japan/Russia/China even, are in the UN merely because the US is. If China wanted to run affairs with a world council, Vietnam, India, Korea, Korea Kim, Japan, Australia, Mongolia, and even Russia would do better to form their own world council.

 

[Milten]

The UN is not regarded as a joke by most nations

I think the joke is mostly in it's name, you know "United Nations". It's original purpose was being a discussion place for superpowers and was even a bit useful back then. Once number of superpowers lowered to one, it's inabilty to prevent anything but World War 3 became apparent. Big guys can veto the hell of everything and small guys are more afraid of US sanctions. Lack of will and instruments prevent it from gaining will and instruments, as I see it.
Though sometimes I wonder what would happen if it got someone with "Strong Secretary-General" trait.

 

[Safehold]

Though sometimes I wonder what would happen if it got someone with "Strong Secretary-General" trait.

The Chinese, Russians, and Americans are very good at "disappearing" inconvenient people. And even if Americans are too internally conflicted to hold to a stable foreign policy for more than 4 years, Russia loves knocking off competitors.

A Strong Secretary General is only safe in New York so long as the US allows it. If the US kicked them out to some island, Russia and China would be allowed to do whatever they wanted to do, without attacking someone on the US mainland.

The point about having a UN like organization to manage space traffic and conflicts does have merit. But it won't be the Un because the UN isn't competent at managing high tech problems. Whoever is managing the Russian-American space station efforts, would be more useful as a super national alliance manager.

 

[mrinku]

So Australia, in the Southern Hemisphere, is now managing Europe's seasons and economy...?

And Eurovision. Don't forget the important stuff, mate.

We've got a stake. Melboune is the 6th largest Greek population in the world, and the largest outside of Greece (ranks between Larissa and Volos).

 

[Milten]

The Chinese, Russians, and Americans are very good at "disappearing" inconvenient people.

That usually works for their own citizens or some little fish though. Otherwise a lot of politicians would dissapear a long time ago.

 

[Zyrious]

The Chinese, Russians, and Americans are very good at "disappearing" inconvenient people. And even if Americans are too internally conflicted to hold to a stable foreign policy for more than 4 years, Russia loves knocking off competitors.

A Strong Secretary General is only safe in New York so long as the US allows it. If the US kicked them out to some island, Russia and China would be allowed to do whatever they wanted to do, without attacking someone on the US mainland.

The point about having a UN like organization to manage space traffic and conflicts does have merit. But it won't be the Un because the UN isn't competent at managing high tech problems. Whoever is managing the Russian-American space station efforts, would be more useful as a super national alliance manager.

You're right it wouldn't necessarily be the UN. Here's what i could see happening in a century or so when space travel is more significant. The major nations could set up a "Pan-space trade agreement", which agree's upon certain rules for international space (Space not immediately surrounding space stations or immediately above a colony). There would be no "international space police", but rather, as with international waters, the space fleets of the member-nations could enforce the agree'd upon terms(and before we have space fleets, merely sue the corporation or country or individual that violated whatever law when they return to Earth/Colony). Once you entered the space another nations space station or colony, you're bound to their rules and regulations and would contact their local port authority, no different from crossing international waters into say, US waters when approaching Portland or New York.

There's really no need for more than that, and for specific unique scenarios Treaties will likely be drawn up when necessary, if necessary. I don't see the need, however, for a massive UN-type organization for "space traffic control" and "Space law enforcement", when each individual nation can continue doing in space what it has been doing. Just like the Us Coast gaurd and US Navy watch over international and coastal waters, the US Air Force and US - whatever, air force coast gaurd...starfleet? would watch over international space and US space stations, ports, and colonies. Other nations would do the same.

Nations would prefer this as well as it would further their ability to project power, blockade misbehaving nations, and personally protect their own assets, as well as ensuring people pay them the proper fee's, taxes, and tariffs, naturally XD.

 

[Juboboman]

The only way earth would temporarily unite would be if cliche "were coming to kill/enslave you all and are going to tell you our intentions at the start in gory detail" type aliens attacked. I have to think that in reality, aliens smart enough to travel the stars would have probably been made aware of divide and conquer/sedition strategies. Even if their ultimate goals were to wipe out humanity it would still be simple common sense to initially hide that objective and play the jealousy/hatreds that already exist on the planet.

It would most likely take the form of playing off the bitterness of the former 2nd world over their present weakness and promising them the new dominant position in the world. The 1st world already relies on the US for protection and would no doubt rally to America in any alien invasion. The 3rd world is too dysfunctional/weak to pose a challenge to the 1st world even with outside help unless they received the type of alien support that would show the aliens to be so powerful anyway that any resistance would be futile rendering their need for subterfuge moot. That leaves the Russia/China/Iran/NK/Cuba types of the world. They despise but are not strong enough to challenge the current order, so rather than alien arrival marking the start of some hippie we are the world government, it would almost certainly devolve into war of extermination between NATO and US Asian allies against Russia/China and it's circle of outside looking in friends being supported by the hostile aliens.

The only hope for a unified humanity is if the aliens are weak enough to not be able to conquer us effortlessly regardless of what we do, and at the same time stupid enough to bluster onto our planet declaring their intentions to kill us all regardless.

 

[Turin the Mad]

Smarter aliens bent on wiping us out that don't mind sifting rubble would initiate a meteorblitzkrieg.

 

[Zyrious]

The only way earth would temporarily unite would be if cliche "were coming to kill/enslave you all and are going to tell you our intentions at the start in gory detail" type aliens attacked. I have to think that in reality, aliens smart enough to travel the stars would have probably been made aware of divide and conquer/sedition strategies. Even if their ultimate goals were to wipe out humanity it would still be simple common sense to initially hide that objective and play the jealousy/hatreds that already exist on the planet.

It would most likely take the form of playing off the bitterness of the former 2nd world over their present weakness and promising them the new dominant position in the world. The 1st world already relies on the US for protection and would no doubt rally to America in any alien invasion. The 3rd world is too dysfunctional/weak to pose a challenge to the 1st world even with outside help unless they received the type of alien support that would show the aliens to be so powerful anyway that any resistance would be futile rendering their need for subterfuge moot. That leaves the Russia/China/Iran/NK/Cuba types of the world. They despise but are not strong enough to challenge the current order, so rather than alien arrival marking the start of some hippie we are the world government, it would almost certainly devolve into war of extermination between NATO and US Asian allies against Russia/China and it's circle of outside looking in friends being supported by the hostile aliens.

The only hope for a unified humanity is if the aliens are weak enough to not be able to conquer us effortlessly regardless of what we do, and at the same time stupid enough to bluster onto our planet declaring their intentions to kill us all regardless.

One scenario i could see uniting humanity is a huge catastrophe that killed billions. Say Yellowstone erupting, or an major asteroid hitting the Earth... or both. As the worlds economy dissipated we would be forced to pool all of our resources together and united just in the hope in saving the few humans still alive, eventually this could/would culminate in a singular government as the population/liveable area decreased and supplies/wealth dwindled.

However, should we survive said apocolypse and begin prospering again, such unity would likely be short lived as age old political, ethical, cultural, and religious divisions would swell up again, not to mention there would probably be a few cases of nationalism rising up with people wanting to restore their/their parents nations to their former glory (The US shall rise again! Russia for Russians! God save the queen (crickets...j/k)).

 

[mrinku]

Hmm. In Realpolitik terms, whoever gets off their arse and actually colonises is going to run Space. My money's on China at the moment.

Plus they actually have a full Pop, unlike Russia and the USA.

 

[Zyrious]

Hmm. In Realpolitik terms, whoever gets off their arse and actually colonises is going to run Space. My money's on China at the moment.

Plus they actually have a full Pop, unlike Russia and the USA.

Possible, though wealth plays a huge part in it too, so the USA will be able to stick its flag quite a few places, and likely open up immigration limits to help populate it just like they did with the west. Still, if you want some betting odds, look to India. They could be a surprise player in space, competing with China and the US in the far future.