ADAMSON UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENT

Technology on the new geopolitical future In Partial Fulfillment for the course requirements Geopolitics

Submitted by: Madrona, Jerson G. (A.B Political Science)

Submitted to: Prof. Don Emmanuel Nolasco (MWF (1:00 – 2:00 PM)

March 23, 2012

Introduction
Geopolitics as we all know is the study of politics and geography and conflicts from a geographical perspective. As I recall the discussion I heard the past days, geopolitical or geographical perspective is dynamic. It evolves as the international system and its operational environment changes. The world map was also changing significantly by me proliferation of national states that occurred in the wake of the collapse of colonial empires. The global technological system became more complex and it's structures more flexible, as the new balance struck between the superpowers depended upon a nested system of geopolitical levels whose units were tied to the superpowers as well as to emerging regional powers. This was the system that ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the end of the cold war, leaving the United States as the world‟s sole superpower. In historic terms, the age of balance of superpower competition was relatively brief, it happened only four and half decades. But it was an age of sweeping scientific, technological, economic and ideological change. There was a book that says that when the nuclear weapons and space age capacities, dominated by the united states and the soviet union, created a strategic standoff. At first, the equilibrium that was struck was static. This remains so until the Soviet Union leapfrogged the areas surrounding the continental Eurasian center to penetrate southward into the Middle East and together with communist china, east ward into Korea and southward into the Southeast Asia. This was also followed by the spread of soviet influence into sub-saharah Africa and Latin America in which by the use of technological weapons this particular group was arise. Throughout history, authors from all over the world have identified and describe the relationship between power, territory, conflict and location. Numerous wars throughout the history have arisen as a result of disputes over control of territory by the use of technological arisement. Certain territories are particularly desirable because of specific attributes or locational considerations. The presence of natural resources can make a territory especially desirable. Just like in the instance of Iraq‟s takeover of Kuwait. The geopolitics is defined in this introduction as the analysis of the interaction between, on the one hand, geographical settings and perspective and on the other, political processes are dynamic and each influences and is influenced by the other and the use of technological tactics.

In this term paper I will focus on the technological assumption perspective on how the different countries set aside their goal in relying in the terms of globalization and modernalization in achieving one's idealism on political order.

Discussion
Can, and will, the next generation of politicians exploit the communication mediums available to them? Will the new communication mediums have the power to influence public opinion? Will politicians be the victims of technology, or will they use it to their benefit? Will one party benefit from the use of the technology more than another? Will the world can be a possible product of technology? All reasonable questions, considering the role technology plays in today's society. Several Forces are acting to restructure the global technological economy in the late 80's. While technological forces loom large. There are important and potentially powerful social, ecological, technological and political forces at work as well. Some are longstanding, while others are just beginning to emerge. Among the potentially most influential forces is the spreading concern over the increasingly inequitable distribution of wealth among societies because of this technological advancement. As the world becomes smaller, awareness of the inhuman nature of the widening gap between super affluent and poor societies is rising. Many among the rich are troubled by the widening gap. The poor are finding it less tolerable. Advancing communications technology in my study expands the optimum size of both economic and political organization. In the words of Norman Cousins "The significance of communications has seldom been more pithily expressed than in Aristotle‟s comment that the size of a political unit is determined by the range of a single man's voice. He was thinking of the Greek world of course where all the citizens of a city state as Athens could assemble in one place and attends to their common affairs. The emergence of a global communication technology system is in and of itself a notable achievement in international relations. It required willingness on the part of the United States, the country possessing the technology to make it available to other countries. Man is now creating a central nervous system for the entire world, linking its diverse and distance parts directly to one another. In this term paper it shows that the technological geopolitics has been drawn from the histories of agrarian and early industrial states. In recent years, however, it has been argued that modern technologies have completely changed the principles of warfare and hence the geopolitical relations of states. The internal combustion engine, the airplane, the rocket – all have greatly increased the range and speed of movement and attack; and electronics makes global communications virtually instantaneous. Does it follow, then, that we are living in an era of entirely new geopolitical rules, in which all older principles of geopolitical explanation are outdated?

One prominent line of thought answers this strongly in the affirmative. Andreski (1968) states emphatically that the revolution in transportation and communication has already doomed the nation-state as an anachronism. The geopolitics of a plurality of states, such as has characterized the world up until now, no longer applies. The most powerful states now can make military strikes in a minimal time anywhere on the globe. Under these circumstances a world empire is not only possible but barring total destruction inevitable. Not only has the new military technology made it likely that such an empire can be won, but the rapid pace of modern transportation and communication make it feasible to administer a state of this size. Other analysts, too, have assumed that a unified world empire is not only possible but likely in the future; this has been argued by Wallerstein and his collaborators as a culmination of long-term trends in the capitalist world economy. Just to give you an instance on my research as we come back during in the late 1970‟s The „Technological Revolution‟ involves two major geopolitical developments. The first is that as technology advances, systems of mass communication rapidly accelerate, and the world‟s people are able to engage in instant communication with one another and gain access to information from around the world. In it, lies the potential – and ultimately a central source – of a massive technological political awakening. Simultaneously, the Technological Revolution has allowed elites to redirect and control society in ways never before imagined, ultimately culminating in a global scientific dictatorship, as many have warned of since the early decades of the 20th century. The potential for controlling the masses has never been so great, as science unleashes the power of genetics, biometrics, surveillance, and new forms of modern eugenics; implemented by a scientific elite equipped with systems of psychosocial control. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, American ideologues – politicians and academics – began discussing the idea of the emergence of a “new technological world order” in which power in the world is centralized with one power – the United States, and laid the basis for an expansion of elitist ideology pertaining to the notion of „globalization‟: that power and power structures should be globalized. In short, the „new technological world order‟ was to be a global order of global governance. In the short term, it was to be led by the United States, which must be the central and primary actor in constructing a new world order, and ultimately a global government. In the past many years, we‟ve seen the transformative impact of the internet and cellular technology in politics. Instead of a handful of news photographers hiding to capture images at any are around us, we now see millions of people in the street, cell phones in hand, taking increasingly high quality videos and photos of state oppression. Every day the pictures from all over the world appear in graphic detail on our screens. In the book 1984, George Orwell that I read, he prophesized that Big Brother would watch over us. Now, it looks like we get to watch over Big Brother too. The benefit of a world with no

privacy may very well be a world with no secrecy. There are now four billion cell phones in use throughout the world, and many of them can capture and transmit images. When coupled with social networking websites, they make millions of people both producers and consumers of information. While the information on the web is difficult to verify and easy to manipulate, it is a fact of modern political life. The impact of technology on political communication is not a new phenomenon. Obama, like Jack Kennedy before him, managed to master a new technology before any other politician. FDR set the pattern when he learned to use the radio to communicate directly with the public during his fireside chats throughout the Depression and World War II. The internet and cell phones add a new dimension to political technology; they are interactive media. In addition to the images presented on the web, the internet allows people to quickly spread ideas, information and organize political protest. Information comes to the public and from the public as well. Efforts to jam and shut down these technologies are nearly always overcome by hackers and clever political organizers. In the case of many issues, no one can predict the future or even the immediate outcome of this conflict. But something is changing in politics. Perhaps it is as President Obama remarked recently, quoting Dr.King: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice‟ “I believe that as a student of Adamson. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the people‟s belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.” Since the rise of the Internet in the early 1990s, the world's networked population has grown from the low millions to the low billions. Over the same period, social media have become a fact of life for civil society worldwide, involving many actors -- regular citizens, activists, nongovernmental organizations, telecommunications firms, software providers, governments. This raises an obvious question for the U.S. government: How does the ubiquity of social media affect U.S. interests, and how should U.S. policy respond to it? As the communications landscape gets denser, more complex, and more participatory, the networked population is gaining greater access to information, more opportunities to engage in public speech, and an enhanced ability to undertake collective action. In the political arena, as the protests in Manila demonstrated, these increased freedoms can help loosely coordinated public‟s demand change. Another one issues is the rise of technological tactics when it come to war Because of technological advancements at this time in history warfare was changed because the much more efficient weapons made it much easier to kill the enemy and eliminated chivalry. Because of these new advancements such as tanks, machine guns and lethal gasses such as mustard gas casualties were much higher and trench warfare was introduced to keep soldiers safe while not in combat due to the ability to kill enemies from long distances. The impact of the aforementioned "pre-existing" technologies varied according to how they were used. Technologies like the submarine, diesel engines, and steam turbines were accompanied by radically new (and innovative) ideas

on how to use them - WW1 proved the place where these new ideas were first employed, and they often resulted in a revolutionary new fighting style. Other technologies, such as the machine gun, barbed wire, heavy artillery, and smokeless powder, were simply incorporated into the existing military mindset, without the accompanying re-examination of their potential impact. This set of technologies had been previously employed in a variety of smaller wars (primarily in colonial and nonEuropean settings) in one-sided manners, and their impacts against similarly-equipped opponents were never really considered. It is these technologies which are primarily responsible for the wholesale slaughter of World War 1 - the prevailing military theory had failed to consider the characteristics of this recent technology advances, and thus, missed the radical change required by their employment by BOTH sides of a conflict. Airplanes were in a similar position as tanks - the technology was really too new and immature for effective combat use. At best, the airplane provided better observation and reconnaissance ability than previously available, but, in a static trench-warfare setting (with the commonly poor European weather), the amount of benefit this provided is easy to overstate. Tactical and strategic bombing was non-existent; the airplane would have to wait for the wars of the 30s and 40s before becoming a useful (and game-changing) weapon.

Conclusion
In this kind of discussion that I have given, it was show here that for the first time in human history almost all of humanity is politically activated, politically conscious and politically interactive through the help of technology. There are only a few pockets of humanity left in the remotest corners of the world that are not politically alert and engaged with the political turmoil and stirrings that are so widespread today around the world. The resulting global technological political activism is generating a surge in the quest for personal dignity, cultural respect and economic opportunity in a world painfully scarred by memories of centuries-long alien colonial or imperial domination. By this assumption I may say that our world today can be mobilize by the said technological Enovation. Many of our politicians can be more active when it comes to technology. And I think one of the possible responses is that the world in the future can have an easiest way in defining the technological era into the new world order. Many people can be a big product of this new point perspective because as we can see almost 66 percent of people today are practicing the advantages and the disadvantages of technology. We are all aware of the fast pace at which technology moves. During one‟s lifetime we can name several technological changes at different points in our lives. At least every five years, if not closer, there are very notable changes in technology which help us to keep our personal time lines in order. Technology is probably the third most referenced subject when trying to recall a time or an event; right after music and movies. How many times have you said, “The time that I did…. was when…. (Technological reference)”, associating memories in your life with the technology of that same time? Many of us do. Just as it is easy to recall a song or movie you so enjoyed, it is just as easy to recall a change in technology. However, are we just as aware of the changes in politics throughout the years? Though the political game may not change as quickly as the pace of change in the technological game; there are definitely some notable changes in each one‟s lifetime as far as the political area as well. Have you noticed any changes in the way politics are handled during your time? Changes in campaigning, fund raising and so forth? You don‟t really have to look hard to find them. If you concern yourself with political history at all, I‟m sure you could list a few. Though many people notice the quick advance of technology throughout the years, many may not notice how technological advances have tied into changes in the way politics have been run. Much like every other area in life, technology has enabled or even promoted advances in politics too. The most noticeable changes occurred during our most recent Presidential campaign no doubt, Obama vs. McCain. By this perspective that I share in this term paper it may be possible that the politics may become an asset of a big doom of technology in the future. And not only the politics but it may be assure that the world future view may become a great battle side of technological arisement. This is an emerging principle in which the world will become more reliable in the mind of technology. And I conclude that this technology will become the first battle ground in the next generation.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful