The End of the World

is just the beginning according to former Stratfor analyst Peter Ziehan in his “Mapping the Collapse of Globalization.” It’s been a challenge to convey my reaction to this book. On the one hand, I had some negative reactions. On the other hand, I did end up reading the whole thing, and it has made me think. I’ve been talking to colleagues about it and fussing about this review. I feel that any book that can make you think that much has accomplished its mission, so kudos to the author for that. I’ll lay out the key arguments and respond. But let me state clearly that just because I have a different view, doesn’t mean I’m right! I respect the author’s views and simply offer another perspective. And then you be the judge!

The basic argument is that aging societies and the US withdrawal from its global protector role will create a cascade of reinforcing breakdowns that will decimate consumption, production, and trade that ultimately collapses globalization and lead to “decivilization.” Nations will turn hostile and inward and the US is in better position to survive on its own than most other nations.

Put a different way: the world of the past few decades “… has been the best it will ever be in our lifetime. Instead of cheap and better and faster, we’re rapidly transitioning into a world that’s pricier and worse and slower.” He foresees more than a billion people starving to death, and another 2 billion suffering from chronic malnutrition. Lest we get too morbid: “by 2040, the youngest Millennials will be in their forties, and their money will have made the system flush once more.” In fairness to the author my After Capitalism images are placed at 2040-2050 and I agree that the next 20 years could be quite rocky!

Let’s first look at the demographic collapse: we know about population stabilizing or slowly declining in most of the world, except for Africa. The problem he sees is that aging populations flip the support ratio to fewer workers supporting more retirees, reverses economic growth, and crashes economies. His most prominent example is China, which he notes is the fastest aging society in history. “It will have a complete demographic collapse certain to occur within a single generation – in the best-case scenario. He sees the Chinese population in the year 2070 will be less than half of what it was in 2020.” Now this seems over-stated, if not just plain wrong. It would likely take another generation to reach that number. But nonetheless it is pretty remarkable point to consider, so let’s not quibble on timing.

He believes China will have to face its version of the 1997 Asian financial crisis, in which the other export-led model countries had to come to terms with massive debt. He suggests that China has generated the largest and most unsustainable credit boom in human history, and the declining population and de-globalization will pop the massive credit bubble. It’s a scenario worth considering.

On the other hand, one might argue population decline is a good thing. My work on After Capitalism concludes that degrowth is a sensible strategy for the future. Growth is literally overwhelming the climate and carrying capacity. I also believe the author underplays the potential role of automation in substituting for the shrinking workforce. And there is an unspoken and outdated assumption that retirees won’t work.

The second key argument is the collapse of the American-led global order – “the Americans have gone home.” He argues no one else has the military capacity to support global security, and from that, global trade. The breakdown of global supply chains and the unwinding of global trade is an extreme scenario, but not implausible, and worth considering. I do feel this point about American going home is not adequately backed up. The US still seems pretty involved globally to me, despite “reveling in our internal petty squabbles.” He suggests the US will do fairly well, or at least better than most in the deglobalized world. But here too, I think he might be assuming unity within the US will hold, which in this dire scenario is a big assumption.

There are a few cringey points from a futurist perspective that we are still seeing t0o frequently in popular works:

• The author proclaims his thanks those who helped him be “able to read the future.”
• He relies far too much on his “trusty tools of geopolitics and demography to forecast the future” and overlooks the rest of the STEEP (social, technological, economic, environmental, and political) context.
• And a personal one for me: “everything is going to change.”  [see Change is slower than we think]

In conclusion, I reiterate my thanks to the author for making me think and rethink; for challenging some of my assumptions! I suspect some of the hyperbole about the greatness of the USA in the book derives from an author knowing his audience and doing a bit of pandering – it will appeal to some and likely alienate others, but the others probably won’t buy the book anyway. I’m glad I did.  – Andy Hines.