There are 195 countries today, and while we've all grown up assuming that's a normal number of countries for the world to have, it's historically not normal at all.
Depending on your definition of a country, you could argue that the world has had both far fewer, and far more countries/sovereign regions in the past.
Looking forward, do you think we'll have more or fewer than 195 countries in 100 years?
I would ask how many countries are truly sovereign today? Seems more like the vast majority of nations are subservient to the USA or to an increasing extent, China. I would suggest that the EU, Japan, Canada, Australasia, S.Korea and most of Lain America and Africa are monetarily and militarily subservient tribute states to the USA. USA controls the legacy institutions of global governance and banking. Iran, Russia, N.Korea are now reliant upon China for international trade payments...and China has built its CIPS and mBridge alternatives to the US petrodollar SWIFT trade payments hegemony. Saudi Arabia and others have joined mBridge. Most nations are also increasingly dependent upon China for trade - both in selling their commodity exports and imports of manufactured goods. Are there any truly independent nations except for USA and China?
Good question to ask
I'm also joining team more.
I think the days of vast geographic areas ruled by a centralized authority are coming to a close. Municipal governments will likely persist, though.
What do you think will compel today's countries to break apart?
Fiscal insolvency and political polarization
My thinking is that political polarization is pushing people more towards distinct poles (red vs blue), rather than causing people to splinter into a million different belief systems.
Of course there are lots of sub-groups, but it feels like most tribes fit neatly into red or blue narratives these days.
You're right, so far. Polarization is highly bipolar.
Still, that drives urban-rural divides and could lead to cities wanting more autonomy from their surroundings.
This is the key division: rural vs urban
There are no blue states only blue cities
drones
why?
drones are cheaper than security guards and can be deployed much like private security.
I think when towns are able to protect themselves, they will elect to do so.
Will it persist as a form of confederacy, or full city state sovereignty?
As long as belief in system will persist, I don't think something would change if governments wouldn't go full in planned economy. Well, EU still would blow up in 20-30 years I think, too many idiotic decisions they made. And UK if they won't reverse their course into madness.
I think we’ll see Europe crack up before America.
I’m sure some of the smaller units will form confederacies. No reason to think it’ll be the same arrangement everywhere.
I am going to guess more. You go your way and I'll go mine will be the trend of the latter half of the century.
How many countries will have a claim to a piece of Canada's current landmass in 100 years?
More; it's harder to keep minorities in line nowadays.
more countries. States in the US, Russia, and Brazil are gonna push for independence.
@remindme in 100 years
Which states in the US are most likely to push for independence?
texas and cali
Yep, as well as interstate division in California, Washington, and Oregon. California is far to large and diverse. There are at least 3 or for distinct cultures in the state.
Yup.
Texas is mostly unified, and their Fed district is nearly entirely the one state.
Texas seceding from the U.S. entirely would not be surprising. And a lot sooner than 100 years from now.
California is not unified. And they are only one of 9 states in that Fed district.
I could see a handful of counties in SoCal (San Diego, Orange County, and some or all of the Inland Empire (Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino) seceding from the State of California, but staying within the U.S. yet. But for 100 years from now though, a lot could change.
You are correct in that it has shifted in the past. Germany is a good example as it was once a more loose group of provinces prior to Hitler's rise. I have an American friend that moved back from there a few years ago and be talks about the different cultures inside of Germany that still persist.
While it is true that Germany as a united state was formed later than other European states, this had absolutely nothing to do with Hitler. Rather, the "Deutsche Reich" (German Empire) was founded in 1871.
Thanks, I wasn't trying to suggest it was connected.
Just take a look of Italy it has 105 provinces, each with its own language or dialect, different food, clothes and many other aspects. Diversity is good, but the left hate this kind of diversity. If decentralization wins we will have far more, as HHH says an Europe of a thousand Liechtensteins.
Who is HHH?
Maybe Hans-Hermann Hoppe?
Exactly
thanks!
I think it could go either way. More in my opinion would be better. That means more choice and more likelihood of countries being focused on a singular culture. I really think there is a strong case for voting with your feet and culture is in my opinion a more important factor than current governance systems as a factor for where one should live. People seem to forget this in the US but IMO many of our issues today are primarily due to cultural divides exaggerated by political opportunism. Voting and elections are at best lagging indicators or at worse the result of an easily duped population.
If different cultures can't or won't coexist in the same country why not peacefully spit and just trade with each other. We have done this for many years (trade).
More.
I could see more in Europe. Lot's of regions want independence like Catalonia.
Seems like it can go either way. Either way, I hope it will go hand in hand with a better life for most people.
Tyler Cowen had some nice musings on this, but unfortunately I can't break the paywall. Helps? https://www.thefp.com/p/tyler-cowen-what-countries-wont-exist
https://archive.is/HZn5T
BEAUTIFUL, thanks
I'm leaning towards fewer countries, but I'm not sure.
It seems like on the company level, we've seen waves of consolidation everywhere, and industries that were once powered by dozens of players are now dominated by 2 or 3.
Wouldn't be shocked to see something similar play out on a global scale... a few "global power" countries making deals to take smaller nations under their wing amidst rising uncertainty.
i hadn't looked at it that way before, but it makes sense.
i'm Canadian (i think maybe you are too?) and there is (at least) one province that seem to have had a good case for secession for a long time and haven't gotten away with it. while it might be better if we had more as opposed to fewer, you might be right.
How many countries were around a 100 years ago?
It can't get more I believe. So <=195.
If the concept of a
countryremains a thing after 100 years. We may remove this concept at all.I think that at some point a world government will emerge that really controls all openly under a single flag.
I think there will be more than 195 countries in 100 years. With rising independence movements decentralization and even digital nations the world is heading toward more fragmentation not less.
Great point, I think the world will converge on 10-15 fiat currencies, and the amount of countries will converge maybe to 20-30 countries.
Very interesting line of thought I think the major super powers will still be in place (i.e. USA, Russia, China), but I think we will see countries like around the world converge towards the super powers.
deleted by author
Another point of view: every individual is a country.