By the year 2100, Which Country Will be the World's Number 1 Superpower?

[Frodo]

I'm still placing my bet on the United States retaining its status as the world's sole superpower and reigning hegemon for another century, if not longer.  

[Crumpets]

The US is in a very good position for at least a couple of decades - almost certainly better than the EU and China, given the respective birthrates. India is a bit more of a wildcard, and could probably be a true superpower in a couple of decades, but I doubt they would be able to replace the US as #1.

[Famous Mortimer]

I'm really surprised this pro-high birthrate propaganda has caught on so heavily.

You would think educated millennials in their 20s would be able to look at the Facebook profiles of their high school friends and immediately tell that having kids does not equal economic success.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Probably a tie between the US and China. There is not going to be a single "No. 1 superpower".

[Crumpets]

I'm really surprised this pro-high birthrate propaganda has caught on so heavily.

You would think educated millennials in their 20s would be able to look at the Facebook profiles of their high school friends and immediately tell that having kids does not equal economic success.

Of course it doesn't, and too high of birth rates can be terrible for a country, especially if it comes from a lack of access to healthcare and family planning. But having a fertility rate of 2.01 (US) is at least marginally better than having one of 1.60 (EU) in order to not have an aging population, and to be able to pay for the social programs that keep countries healthy with a high workforce:retired ratio.

[ingemann]

I think it may be meaningless to talk about a "World's Number 1 Superpower" by 2100, instead we may have several powers, with no clear nr. 1.

Of course that depend on whether EU successful federate. If EU federate it will be at very least a equal to USA, if it doesn't USA will keep its position as the leader of the West, which will mean that they're nr. 1. But even if EU federate, I think it and USA will keep a close alliance, which make the west dominating.

As for China and India, I don't see India really deal with the institutional problems they suffer from, so I think they will be more of the 22nd century's Brazil than its USA. China have its own problems, but at very least they have a central government, which isn't wagged by the tail.

A interesting aspect is that Nigeria will likely hit 1 billion by 2100, while several other west African states will have population in the hundreds of millions. So we may be talking about the rise of Africa in the same way as people suggest a rise of Asia today.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Nigeria is even more unworkable than India though due to its north south divide.

Personally I feel Indonesia is an intriguing candidate due to its large population and strategic location. However I think power will be more invested in blocs than individual nations. Maybe a hypothetical 'union' of the Americas?

[ingemann]

Nigeria is even more unworkable than India though due to its north south divide.

Yes but that won't keep people from talking about its rise, just as they talk about India today.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It won't it have too low a population and population growth to be nr. 1.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not going to happen, at most we see a federal South America, but I'm doubtful for even that.

[Bigby]

The USA if it doesn't eat itself from within. China and Europe are already collapsing, so it's a matter of attrition at this rate.

[Blue3]

USA



China is fragile, and still has major issues, it's only a matter of time for the financial fraud to cause a recession there, and they have a demographic time bomb.

I've visited India... it's not ready to be a superpower. And it really doesn't have a vision for their place in the world.

The EU is being challenged on all sides... economically with Greece, with the refugees and freedom of movement, with terrorism, with Russia, etc. It can't become a real power until they actually unify into one national government, not this quasi-confederation.

The USA won't be unchallenged, but it will be the dominant superpower, by far.

[DavidB.]

Due to a nuclear winter the world won't exist anymore (normal).

Serious answer? The European Caliphate.

[Gunnar Larsson]

Due to a nuclear winter the world won't exist anymore (normal).

Serious answer? The European Caliphate.

Your answers are clearly insane, but you have a good point in that it is very far into the future, so we really can have no clue what so ever.

For a starter, 85 years ago there was no EU or (independent) India, so it might be some state/union that is not yet formed. Technological development in general might also change things drastically. Then it depends on what you look at. Right now USA has, by far, the largest military. However, EU has the biggest economy.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Depends on whether China has regained its pre-1860 northern territories from Russia by then.

[dead0man]

You can never tell who is joking and who isn't in some threads.

Obviously we can't know as a hundred years is a long time, but odds are damn good it will be the US.  The PRC has major issues.  The EU has lesser issues, but they haven't fully "federated" yet, and likely never fully will.  The US has issues too, clearly, but they are nothing next to the PRC's issues.  India, in my opinion, has the best chance to be a real competitor, at least on the economic stage.

[TDAS04]

USA 

[DINGO Joe]

Canada

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

The United States (potentially with Canada added) will still have a significant lead in term of power and strategic influence over the Russian Empire.

The EU will have completely collapsed, although Great Britain is well-equipped to survive it. China's economy is built on a house of cards and if the world survives the inevitable land war in Asia, they won't be a factor 85 years from now.

Russia, having lots of weakness on its many borders, will have taken advantage and grown to Soviet Union-size or larger mostly unchallenged.

[Simfan34]

The question assumes too much. Or maybe it is just phrased inartfully, as one of the listed options is very much not a "country."

That said, I didn't vote for the European Union - and I wouldn't even classify it as a plausible candidate. Nevertheless, I doubt that the most powerful political entity in 2100 will be anything that we would recognize as a country.

I don't know. Had you asked this question in 1900 I think the correct answers in 1950 or 2000 would have been recognizable political entities.

[Frodo]

We're going to be the world's leading superpower for a lot longer than anyone thinks.  I don't think China any longer has a chance of catching up to the United States as a world superpower, since it appears to be turning into a giant version of 1990s-era Japan.  Once you slip into that trap, it is awfully difficult to get out of it, especially given adverse demographics compounded by China's self-inflicted one-child policy.

Russia is in terminal decline, which Putin has done nothing to arrest despite his efforts.  

Which leaves India, and it is unclear if they have the desire or willpower.  

[Grand Wizard Lizard of the Klan]

Maybe not in 2100 but in few hundred years it will be Terran Confederacy.

[Mr. Morden]

We're going to be the world's leading superpower for a lot longer than anyone thinks.  I don't think China any longer has a chance of catching up to the United States as a world superpower, since it appears to be turning into a giant version of 1990s-era Japan.  Once you slip into that trap, it is awfully difficult to get out of it, especially given adverse demographics compounded by China's self-inflicted one-child policy.

But unlike Japan, China has a substantially larger population and substantially smaller GDP per capita than the US.  China's so far behind the US in GDP per capita, that even in a pessimistic scenario, it still grows faster than the US, doesn't it?  So it keeps closing the gap on the US, it's just that it'll take a lot longer to reach parity than previously thought possible.

[Seneca]

We're going to be the world's leading superpower for a lot longer than anyone thinks.  I don't think China any longer has a chance of catching up to the United States as a world superpower, since it appears to be turning into a giant version of 1990s-era Japan.  Once you slip into that trap, it is awfully difficult to get out of it, especially given adverse demographics compounded by China's self-inflicted one-child policy.

But unlike Japan, China has a substantially larger population and substantially smaller GDP per capita than the US.  China's so far behind the US in GDP per capita, that even in a pessimistic scenario, it still grows faster than the US, doesn't it?  So it keeps closing the gap on the US, it's just that it'll take a lot longer to reach parity than previously thought possible.

I don't see where China will get the hydrocarbons to continue growing arithmetically for 84 more years. At some point, the world will hit hard limits to growth. To answer the question in the OP, I expect no one political entity will be able to exert global hegemony in 2100; the most powerful states will be regional hegemons.

[Frodo]

We're going to be the world's leading superpower for a lot longer than anyone thinks.  I don't think China any longer has a chance of catching up to the United States as a world superpower, since it appears to be turning into a giant version of 1990s-era Japan.  Once you slip into that trap, it is awfully difficult to get out of it, especially given adverse demographics compounded by China's self-inflicted one-child policy.

But unlike Japan, China has a substantially larger population and substantially smaller GDP per capita than the US.  China's so far behind the US in GDP per capita, that even in a pessimistic scenario, it still grows faster than the US, doesn't it?  So it keeps closing the gap on the US, it's just that it'll take a lot longer to reach parity than previously thought possible.

*shrugs*

I suppose it's possible -though by the time (in the distant future) China does catch up in your scenario, wouldn't it have fully transitioned into becoming a liberal, multi-party parliamentary democracy?  This economic crisis could potentially be that trigger starting the process.  

[tallguy23]

America is still a safe bet, although it won't be the hegemonic power it is today.