# Could Canada become the first major world power without an Empire phase??



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

100-150 years out Canada will look very different.
We have an enormous portion of the planet's resources

What do you think of the possibility that Canada will emerge as a major power without going through an Empire phase that has marked most other emerging powers in the past.

I suppose it could be argued that Brazil is on it's way as well tho perhaps IT'S empire phase is in the future.

Thoughts on what Canada will look like and it's role on the planet a century or more from now.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

I find it far more likely that given the country's sparse population and lack of a signfiicant military deterrent that we'll end up subjugated rather than a power. 

But I'm a bit of a pessimist.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

What is meant by "major" (say, relative to now...military, economic etc.) and why does the "no" option presume shadowing?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Amerika will never allow it
wait until they try draining water from the great lakes to feed their water starved aquifers

the CBC mini-series H2O comes to mind

some notes on water as a commodity vs. vital resource

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/water/


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

We do not have the population base to even think such a thing, nor will we ever.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Beej said:


> What is meant by "major" (say, relative to now...military, economic etc.) and why does the "no" option presume shadowing?


Ditto that. Moreover, what existing conditions lead you to presume that Canada is capable of being "a major power" while somehow bypassing empire status?

I also put some stock in NBiBooker's response. A country this meagre in population up against a titan like China will have a hard time not being subjugated in one way or another... plus history is plagued with the upheaval of reigning countries made up of ex-countries from earlier times; who's to say that Canada couldn't be made to disappear?

The questions themselves are flawed in their gaps and presumptions but at least it might make for a good thread.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Who needs an army of people? In 50 years, it will all be about the Robots! We have the resources to build them and the energy to run them.

Who can stop us?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

LOL

Ahh, but then the robots will in turn pose the inevitable question:

_Who needs people? No one can stop us!_


----------



## madgunde (Mar 10, 2006)

We need nuclear weapons in order to deter other powers from invading. They know who they are...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> What do you think of the possibility that Canada will emerge as a major power without going through an Empire phase that has marked most other emerging powers in the past.


I would argue that we are already a major power.

We already have the resources, we have peace and stability, we are located next to the world's biggest market, we don't have major issues with our neighbours, etc....

However, we haven't played the geopolitical card to the extent we could if we wanted. For example, Russia has been flexing her muscles on the world scene lately and has Europe quite concerned. Yet, we have a higher GDP than Russia and have more oil.

We have half the GDP of the UK, yet we take nowhere near the role they do in world affairs.

We're kind of like China when it come to being insular. Their sleeping dragon will arise this century. But, I don't think Canadians are interested in empire or projecting power. We're just happy to go about our own business. I don't see that changing.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Agreed - good take on things.

Moreover, I don't think Canadians would know what to do with the kind of power true empire entails. Part of that may be due to our having evolved alongside an empire which _has_ wielded that kind of massive geopolitical influence... it leaves us in awe yet doesn't seem to inspire similar goals in our own national psyche.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

We have already subjugated scoundrel provinces like Newfoundland through shear diplomatic force--this is our...EMPIRE!!


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

It's not a moniker you adopt: others must bestow it upon you. Which they are unlikely to do unless they both fear and respect you, and that generally doesn't happen without you throwing your weight around here and there. Which makes enemies, amongst other things.

It's a risky business and you must keep in mind that not only can you gain, you can lose. Canada has much to lose. I don't see the gamble attracting many supporters. A regional power is a possibility for some but not us, that leaves going for the works, and I don't see how we're supposed to pull that off. We can't even pull off the schoolyard bully routine yet, and that's a mandatory first step.

The whole major power thing is a long shot. We've been the world's seventh largest economy for 40 years and nobody even notices that, and the 21st century is seeing us slip to 8th. We're already the second richest people on Earth, and can hardly even acknowledge it ourselves; it's still a secret to most of the population. How many people do we have to kill to make a few more top three lists? Too many.

Not only that, but what nation worth it's salt is going to stand around and watch us go to #2, allied with #1 next door? None of 'em, that's how many.

Even in the unlikely scenario where they did let us, what do you think #1 is going to think of it, even if we are buddies? We can't sit across a border from our main rival. Everyone knows that #2 is just #1 but for a bit of luck, good or bad. They won't like it south of 49, trust me.

History shows us that two big powers next door to each other will lead to war between them, about, let me see here ... oh, there it is ... 100% of the time.

There is a slight possibility that through trade alone, we could be dominant economic power, which usually leads to some form of empire, for a few years. If I understand the question correctly, I think "Empire" is supposed to mean "Imperialism", or conquest.

There are economic empires as well. It's happened before, but without conquest it never lasts long (and with modern societies, the period is shorter all the time ... Japan had a taste for the last 20 years of the 20th Century). But, that would mean selling stuff to more than one customer, something we seem reluctant to do. It won't happen any other way.

How many Canadians would even know that at one time not too long ago, everyone feared ... the Dutch? A little earlier ... the Swedes? We're not even talking more than a few hundred years ago. But, there is much work in making any such empire last. Sooner or later, they all fall.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It's mainly to stimulate this kind of discussion.

Major power - akin to Britain, Germany, France, Russia, Japan

We are there economically, no where near in other regards.

Superpowers - US currently, EU emerging, Soviets gone, China emerging.
I doubt we would want or get to Superpower status - leave that off the table.

Remember we are talking 100 years out and the second largest land country on the planet. We will certainly be in the 100 million or more range barring disasters.

The US will double in that range to about 700 million.

Sitting next to the US is a fact and will always shadow world status for us.

Bigger question will be how much will the US fade given it's current path.

GG has some very good points :clap:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

gordguide said:


> We've been the world's seventh largest economy for 40 years and nobody even notices that, and the 21st century is seeing us slip to 8th. We're already the second richest people on Earth


What are the 7th and 2nd rankings based upon?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Britain, Germany, France, Russia, Japan


By that standard, yes. Along current paths, a more balanced set of world powers is emerging (closer to population differences). Sudden geo-political events can change this, but trends in BRIC are pretty standard so I think we'll have more continuity from "super" to "major" and we'll be in the mid-major/low-major area.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Instead of being a nation of fence sitters, we'll be a mid-major/low-major nation of super powered fence sitters!


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Remember we are talking 100 years out and the second largest land country on the planet. We will certainly be in the 100 million or more range barring disasters.
> 
> The US will double in that range to about 700 million.


I'm not sure about that. In the short term our populations will grow, but eventually the world population will peak (~12 billion) and then decrease over time. With the rapid growth in third world countries, I think the desire for people to immigrate will decrease.

20 years ago, somebody raised in Beijing would definitely want to move to North America for opportunity. Would that same person think the same today? Or has the centre of opportunity shifted?

I think you are correct that our population will grow more quickly as a percentage of the US, but 700 million?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Vandave said:


> With the rapid growth in third world countries, I think the desire for people to immigrate will decrease.


Agreed in principle, except that instances of extreme and rapid climate change may spur on some rather unexpected migration patterns. Too, areas that have suffered greatly due to massive man-made environmental degradation may be avoided in favour of the more 'pristine' spots left on the globe. Factor in things like shortages of potable water and and I think it's fair to expect as much migration as the world sees today, if not more... and Canada's share of immigrants would probably rise.

Just a guess. It's always pretty loosey-goosey when you're conjecturing a hundred years out.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Sure! Why not? I mean if America can do it (become a major player)...


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

Aren't we already part of a broader "anglo"-empire composed of Canada, Britain, the United States and Australia? (yes, I know there are french people in Canada)

I mean a lot (not all) of our peacekeeping missions have either been about suppressing communism (like in Korea, the Congo and Vietnam), protecting Israel or trying to stabilize the middle east. In other words, trying to prevent people in other countries from establishing political views different from our own and trying to secure a steady supply of oil.

The Cypress thing was about preventing two NATO allies from going to war with each other during the Cold War...that wouldn't have been in our best interests.

We, as much as anyone, exploit the people in the Middle East for their oil and exploit people in the third world and China for cheap labour.

The second Gulf War was one of the few times we didn't join the rest of the empire by instead diverting our troops to the other imperial project in Afghanistan.

It is true that we have never been the leader of the empire, that has fallen to Britain and the US, but we participate and benefit from it.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Our "cheap labour" is someone else's best wages in a lifetime. It is not a zero-sum thing. 

Hundreds of millions of people have moved out of poverty (real poverty, not a developed nations' version) due to our "exploitation" and our stuff has been kept cheaper at the same time. We can actually help each other by: 1) us not putting low-productivity jobs on life support using government largesse and 2) those jobs moving to countries where what we call low-productivity is actually high-productivity for them.

Lines on maps have convinced too many people that it is "us" and "them" when it really is not.


----------



## rondini (Dec 6, 2001)

Canada is the only nation with nuclear power that has chosen not to be a Nuclear Power!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think the Duchy of Grand Fenwick became a power without developing an empire...


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MasterBlaster said:


> Definete NO.
> 
> Canada and its people and leadership lack the unity and leadership needed to become a real powerhouse in the world. It will always be an under achieving under performer.


We have one of the highest standards of living in the world, if not the highest. We are not under performing.

This is the greatest country in the world. I can't believe you don't see that.  



MasterBlaster said:


> We don't even have the wherewithall to manufacture most of the things we consume. We will only be an exporter of raw materials. The structure and attitudes of the country would need radical change to ever reach potential.


It's got nothing to do with wherewithall or potential. You might want to learn a bit about economics and why countries specialize and how that is beneficial. With 30 million people, you don't manufacture everything you use.

Go for a drive to Alberta and tell them that exporting raw materials is bad for business. :lmao:


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MasterBlaster said:


> Definete NO.
> 
> Canada and its people and leadership lack the unity and leadership needed to become a real powerhouse in the world. It will always be an under achieving under performer.
> 
> ...


wait 5-10 years


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MasterBlaster said:


> I see Japan as a country that with few resources has the system that ensures it will always be a growing power.


Always? Such a long time.

Such is hubris... no nation grows indefinitely. You just aren't using a long enough time scale. I'm sure there were those who at one point said 'those Mayans will always be a growing power.' Substitute 'Mayan' for any other once-dominant, long-extinct power and you get the idea. Power ebbs and flows around the globe, much like long-term weather patterns like ice ages and ocean currents changing over time. No one nation gets to rule the roost for millennia.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Don't let the border hit you on your way out!




MasterBlaster said:


> People from France, Australia, Japan, Germany, and Israel all believe that theirs is the greatest country in the world.
> 
> Canadians are just brainwashed and delusional. Canada is exepensive, inefficient and corrupt. It must be the paper work and red tape capital of the world. Geographically its bloody cold or way too wet.
> 
> ...


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MasterBlaster said:


> People from France, Australia, Japan, Germany, and Israel all believe that theirs is the greatest country in the world.
> 
> Canadians are just brainwashed and delusional. Canada is exepensive, inefficient and corrupt. It must be the paper work and red tape capital of the world. Geographically its bloody cold or way too wet.
> 
> ...


You're clueless.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MasterBlaster said:


> The Boeing corporation was originally a BC company.


I've never heard that about Boeing. Did they buy a Canadian company at some point or was Boeing itself started in Canada (any references)?

Second, Canada has many successes, so simply pointing out missed opportunities doesn't mean too much. I do agree that we make it too difficult for business and that we are underperforming. However, regarding general corruption and inefficiency, much of that is based on perception. We're not number 1, but we generally do well, if I recall correctly, on various surveys for business opportunity or corruption. We perceive massive corruption, but very few countries would have televised committee discussions regarding a pack of gum. 

As for making stuff: It isn't necessarily a good thing to manufacture your own goods. That's pretty straight-forward (allocation of labour). High-end manufacturing is still quite good for the leading developed nations, and so is resource development. It is about the best allocation of labour (and capital, but to a lesser extent with global markets). 

Canada does have too many strange protectionist measures and incentives to push resource development but, as a macro statement we're picking the right things (some specific problems, especially in agriculture and fisheries). Many other countries have distortionary protectionist measures. France, Japan and Germany are quite bad for that; not sure about Australia and Israel.

Also, why would you need a lottery to leave? If it's so bad, then moving to another developed country is quite accessible (especially as a Canadian). People with minimal resources can move here, people with "developed" nation resources can easily leave, acknowledging language and skills barriers. And if skills are the barrier, then you've got your answer.


----------



## Sun Dog (Jan 4, 2004)

Canada's current demographic trends are unsustainable in my opinion. Growth, or stability, solely based on immigration will lead to serious problems, and a lower living standard than what we are used to now.

Immigrants sent about 80 billion from Global North countries back to their families in the Global South in 2006. If Canada's future is based on immigrant communities, this will affect the economy significantly. It will will increasingly affect us negatively (though for others it will be positive). 

Secondly, immigration is only a short term solution to our aging population and below replacement birth rate. To remain stable, or to grow, we will need to bring in more immigrants every year than previous years as the baby boomers die off. In other words, as the size of the drain hole grows, we'll have to increase the input. At some point, likely within the next 100 years, we will not have the resources and infrastructure necessary to bring in the amount of people needed to keep the population stable, AND maintain current living standards. The extra costs (i.e. ESL) will become increasinly significant, and there will be increasing language barrier issues with unknown consequences. It will be tough to get jobs in other ethnic communities, especially with the language barries, but also due to the lack of tolerance. Numerous Canadian educational standards will become less meaningful as we will need to accept certificates from countries all over the world at face value, and this too will have consequences. At some point, we will need to accept a decline in population, even with high immigration. 

I also think that multiculturalism is not held in most immigrant communities as their responsibility to eachother, but as the responsibility of others, to them.... especially native Canadians to them. Unless these communities adopt multiculturalism to the same degree native Canadians do, it will not last when they take the torch from native Canadians. If this happens, Canada won't be as nice of a place to live in with so many competing insular communities with vastly different values... or a new majority community will simply end up dominating. 

That being said, immigration is of huge value to any country IMO, but a sound policy is necessary to lead to high standards of living in the future, for all who live here. Given current trends, I don't think the future is bright. We may have to simply accept a decline in living standards.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Vandave said:


> Who needs an army of people? In 50 years, it will all be about the Robots! We have the resources to build them and the energy to run them.
> 
> Who can stop us?


Did someone say robots?


----------

