Comments by "Golag Is watching you" (@golagiswatchingyou2966) on "The Geopolitics of Space Colonization part 2(feat. Isaac Arthur)." video.
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
@adamnesico I think that's nonsense, the drive to space is not fueled by religion, otherwise islam would have reached mars by now.
Space exploration and colonisation is driven by security and oppertunity, once you are secure in your national intrests, have no enemies that could invade you and have enough resources, wealth and know how to reach the stars, you will.
The youngest person in space is a 18 year old dutch person, which was today, I know plenty of people in Europe who want to go to mars if they could, again the desire is there, the only thing that's stopping it is that we don't have the same scale of technology and privilage as the US, in fact most nations and most of humanity don't, including most americans.
However I will grant you this, if Europeans are going into space, they would first focus on gaining and economic or scientific goal instead of wanting to make a moon base or mars base, which the US and Chinese might be more inclined to focus on since it might give them a military advantage over the other.
1
-
1
-
@adamnesico interesting theory, only im not realy seeing much evidence of it.
the last part though is more true for western and northern europe on a lot of issues, why or how it came to be, I don´t know for sure but I don´t realy see it as something permanent or something that can´t be overcome, it´s more of cycle of history you see constantly, great powers, rise and fall and then a new power emerges from the ashes to take it´s place, in the past this was mostly fueled by the desires and wishes of kinds and queens and then in the 20th century it was force by iron and blood through nationalism and in the 21th century i think it will be forged by technology, will and desperation, as the world goes into a new era and the old idealism of a bygone generation die out, what will be left? my believe is not the soft and shamefull state you see today.
if you look at it from a global, geopolitical perspective, Europe as of right now is 3rd on the global power scale but lacks the focus to grow further, likewise other powers are much less powerfull but have more momentum, the question is how will those path's clash? I predict a great series of wars on the continent of africa, I predicts stagnation for nations like Russia but also Germany and the UK, I believe the USA will become more and more divided and will want to move towards revolution of some kind, at which point it's enemies will try and secure their futures, as for Europe, it stand on the crossroads between it, does it wither away in the fires or does it fight back and regain that lost piece of identity they used to have, both can happen, I just don't know for sure.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It all realy depends on creating artifical gravity, everything else can be recreated to a large degree, temperature, food, water, medicine, resources, everything can be recreated or stored, everything except Gravity and without it, bones can't form properly, can't have sex, it's like having a fish from the Bottom of the sea come to the surface, it just falls apart.
You would have to create like a mini black hole to produce the gravity in a compact space ship for it to work.
Perhaps you could do it cheaper somehow but I'm no expert on artifical gravity.
1
-
1
-
@leon-jj9dv I disagree, China is expanding in every direction and while some of their actions aren't as smooth shall we say as they wanted it to be, they do get away with it, facing little to no problems in doing so, if a western nation even did 1% of what China is doing to the Ugers in Xinjiang (which we even got on tape for crying out loud) then there would be a huge outrage world wide but in China? nobody seems to care or at least not enough to actually do something.
I have to be carefull with language on youtube since it likes to censorship issues related to race, esspecially with a few specific demografics but basically the reason why they aren't assimulated is that black culture is by it's nature very hostile and independent of the wider american culture, you got a diversity of european people's hispanics, asians, so on people who consider themselves american but the african americans for quite some time now consider themselfs victims of america and not a part of the wider society, miscegenation won't realy let them assimulate because that would mean losing their oppressed status in society a fact that many democrats use to maintain influence over their voter base.
for them to be assimulated would mean two things, 1. an exodus from the USA as no longer being one where they exist as ''african americans'' but just as americans, some black nationalists want seperation (unrealistic) or a return to africa movement (more realistic) some movements have been made to promote this and as the african continent grows more wealthy this might become a realistic move to make.
2. the people who are mixed have to basically become ''white'' as much as possible along with many hispanic groups, there can be non of this hostile, racialist, turning america black which many, many african americans believe in for them to be accepted properly, people realy have to push down on this mentality, it's not even good for african americans themselves, it's them creating themselves as the ''other'' and different from american values, history and identity and does not earn them any favors, it actually make certain white nationalists look good and democrats love to see the fires rise in american cities.
idk how would the USA incorporate northern mexico? since it's government still controles it's territory, the northern counties would have to leave Mexico and then join the USA which they could reject, could happen but im not so sure.
as for Canada, I don't think the USA wants Canada, Greenland is perhaps the most likely since it's basically a puppet of Denmark and might have more to gain by being an actual state of the USA, the USA would also love to have Greenland because most people there are white, very few in number and would give them a greater reach in the artic which is a potential new front for the USA and Russia.
though to be honest, why not make a EU style North American Federation/union? won't change US laws, no extra senate seats, more interconnected movement of people, goods and services, might be difficult on the mexican border but perhaps have the US controle the borders on the Mexican southern border, way cheaper and easier to maintain compared to the US southern border.
1
-
@leon-jj9dv yeah China is not loved, it's more of a boss employer relationships than a sense of brotherhood between civilizations, Europe and the USA might bicker and hate eachother on specific topics or feel insulted by eachother sometimes but there is a civlizational sort of bond that's way stronger than say Russia and China.
China's economy will have a downturn at some point, esspecially with their demografics, the question is can they act now and create the type of economic and military alliance to challange the US superpower status? im not sure, probably depends on if they can get India on their side and gain minor victories like Taiwan.
as for african americans, if it were the 1920s I would agree with you but it's 2021 and from my perspective it honestly looks like african americans (the majority) are very hostile to the USA as an identity and I don't mean that as in ''they want to destroy the USA because they hate it so much'' (some do for sure) but more so that their whole identity is incompatible with the idea of the USA as a whole, the majority sees themselves as victims or simply enjoy the perks of being seen as a victim by both the republican and democrat parties, just for different reasons, let me give an example, the George F riots, the saintfication of this man both by the media, the african american community as a whole and the democratic party shows an immense disconnect and subjugation to the idea of victimhood, the BI_m movement even furthers this victimhood status, while at the same time having this one-drop rule become flipped on it's head, in which every mixed race person becomes seen as part of the african american identity not mixed or white, it's not that white people aren't accepting of them, in fact they tolorate them too much and play along with the victimhood game, the divide is deepening not closing.
the main reason why african americans don't move to africa is not because they don't feel a connection to the continent but because that would mean they aren't victims of evil white oppresors, also due to africa not being as rich as the USA going to africa would mean losing many privilages, standards and rights that they have, it's a bad deal indeed but instead of becoming fully american they want both which brings them into conflict with the wider american culture.
they don't feel at home in the USA or Africa, their identity is always the oppressed, not the oppresor, not the american, not the equal, that's not my view but the view of themselves and the elites, I just don't see them suddenly giving up this identity to go back to making jazz music and having stable families, I just don't think it's going to happen, I could be wrong, im not an american but that's what I see when I look at the USA, a nation of americans of all colors and backgrounds and the african americans acting like crazies and tearing it all apart for some new sneakers or something, a minority of african americans have adapted but only by rejecting this majority view of african american identity.
Canada might fall apart and then the USA could annex bits of it, that might happen but I have my doubts that the elites in government will want it, even if the people supported it.
as for Mexico, that might be the same situation, still seems unlikely though and would piss off the mexican government, of course the US can say ''fuck you'' but idk, kinda asking for a potential cuban missle crisis if it became a chinese ally.
I think the EU style relationship between mexico and canada might be for the best, it would stabalize both nations potentially and get them into the US sphere even more, that might smooth the full annexation process and perhaps give a frame work for new potential members like Guatamala or something.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@leon-jj9dv the USA is a colonial empire, in fact it's the biggest one, their settler based colonialism is superior to the European explotative colonial system.
The European people still had some desire to maintain their empires but not to expand it, however the american presure is what realy killed the desire for empire, since empires was about prestige and about making money but now in the modern era they would have neither due to how both the USA and the USSR opposed European colonialism, after that decolonisation set in many places, often against the wishes of local leaders and elites who had power over their local regions, many of these nations economies collapsed afterwards, so basically it was an indirect splitting up of colonial holdings due to the rise of the new two super powers and the entanglement within the cold war.
The desire for empire is dead in Europe but more so because the USA would not allow it to happen first and the economic reasons behind it no longer make sense, it would cost to much and give them nothing.
The roll of expansion and empire still exists but it's more subtle, it's in the form of corporations, military projects, web of allies and military involvement (like France in Africa) and internal expansion with supranational organisations, the EU is a good example of this, starting quite small, expanding to eastern Europe, trying to improve it's system of government, the era of empires might be over but empires still exist, the biggest one remains the USA.
1
-
@leon-jj9dv forgive me but I feel like we aren't talking about the same ideas when it comes to what an empire is, to how it acts to what it means to be an empire, so if you could help me understand we might come to a better understanding of eachother because i feel like what your saying is a very american focused perspective without the perspective to how it looks from Europe or how we experienced/would want empires.
an empire (at least in my opinion) is whenever a core nation/people expand into the historical/literal territory of another nation/people to either settle it or exploit it, in the
case of the USA, the thirteen colonies are it's core, it then expanded into other territories either by buying land, using force or simply by demografics to spark joining the core like with Texas, with this in mind most of the USA is a colony used for settlement and expansion of it's core, some are more empire like compared to others, like Hawaii which was openly annexed against local wishes by force but they could not do anything against it.
Russia and China are also empires and they have mixed amounts of controle per period in time, Russia today in fact has had many breakaway parts and continues to have issues with some regions, might even come up this century.
now on the subject of the EU, this is where I get confused, you say that ''empires demand aggresion and expansionism that the EU lacks'' but the EU has expanded, just not by force, you then raise the point that if Bulgaria or Romania didn't join the EU they wouldn't force them, this is confusing to me because you seem to propose that the EU could do this but that it just does not want to, this realy confuses me because the EU does not have a standing army to do so but if they did they would probably use it to expand if the USA and it's EU member states would not mind in them doing so.
If you listen to some people in the EU they very much want to turn it into an empire, I think Guy Verhofstad says it the most, it's not that they don't want to, they literally can't due to them not having an army and the USA would divide and invade them if they did, so it's a bit odd to say they just don't want to and it has nothing to do with european citizens opposing them, they barely oppose their own governments, if the prospect of empire was there for them to perhaps beat back Russia and defend Europe (a narrative mostly only expressed by people in the so called ''far right'' and fascistic groups) they might be willing to go for it, they just don't have the choice right now.
it's a bit of subjective point on who caused imperialism to die down in Europe the most, the americans, the soviets or the Europeans themselves, personally I think it's more the americans more than anything, since the soviets were seen as a threat to unify against and many Europeans still wanted to keep their empires but the USA wanted them docile and also made treaties to the strongest European nations like Germany to limit their army and remove the right of being able to cause wars for Germany, France even left NATO for a while because they did not want to be subjects of the USA and keep their colonial empire as long as they could.
as for the future, I think we will see a return to empire in Europe with it's main enemy being Russia and/or Turkey being oppossed to them, probably a flash point with ukraine or belarus, at that point the empire so to speak will become necessary and openly supported by the USA, right now it's not necessary, not allowed, not promoted and serves no purpose, that's why it does not exist yet in the way you consider empires.
1
-
@leon-jj9dv I see, there is some truth in what your saying, to me though it's a bit different, the EU today kinda reminds me of the early period of the USA under the articles of confederations, that one was also disfunctional, in an era where each colony saw itself as more of independent nation state than one single country, a feeling that would remain untill the american civil war.
likewise Europe is divided between itself, in a disfunctional system in an era where each member is a nation state of itself.
however, I would say that the EU does have other tools besides military expansion (which i maintain the US would want to shut down quickly) which is economic presure, when Greece was at risk of leaving the EU, the EU, France, UK and Germany bailed them out and implemented reforms, while the greeks aren't hardline pro EU members they are less inclined to leaving the EU, same with most nations that wanted to leave but after Brexit all seem to have become soft Eurosceptics, not as hardcore as they used to be.
as for military expansion in general, when was the last time any major nation annexed another piece of another nation? all I can think of is cremea and looking at Russia they don't realy give me the impression when i look at their demografics and economy that they are going to suddenly take over all of Europe, of course if the USA suddenly left tomorrow that would give the Europeans a panic but at the same time it would be a silly move by the americans since access to Europe and military bases is good for it's power projection towards Russia and in turn more bases for reaching into Africa, the middle-east, western asia, the other expanding force in terms of military use is Turkey under Erdogan and he is becoming quite the dictator and not very well liked by other NATO members and Europe, sometimes been a question for me what would the US do if a NATO member attacks another NATO member? ( I honestly don't know)
What im trying to say is, for a long time, empires were seen as backwards, destroyed, sanctioned, invaded or isolated from the rest of the world, often by the USA but not always just them, what modern version of expansion via military means exists in today's world? in order for military expansion to become reasonable there has to be some motivating factor that drives it, it does not simply come from nothing.
for Europe to become stronger it can't return to the old days of empire, even if the people wanted it, it would go no-where in today's era, the only way I can see it happening is if it unified to then focus on it's major rivals which any single member state would not want or be able to but as a collective might be driven to.
it's a bit hard to say where things are going in Europe, there are nationalistic and even pan-european parties trying to turn the EU into an empire or a desire to return to nationalism as a sort of national revivial but would that work? would the USA tolorate it? would that not bring about the nationalism most Europeans seem to fear? if so then they would want to stick with the EU disfunctional as it is, the alternative would be empire on a smaller scale, right?
it's all very complicated and difficult to predict how things will go, I also don't know if the EU itself is able to change or if the people will just come apart like some people predict, when i talk to some of the youth though, they do seem more pan-european focused, even some of the nationalist groups i've seen want some form of European cooporation and nations like the UK seem to be falling apart even faster than nations in the EU, that might also be the spark that forces the change, seeing how the UK collapses and perhaps due to global warming more humanitarian crisis's and threats from Turkey and Russia could motivate more militaristic focus.
idk but food for thought, thanks for the reply.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1