4 ms·

Zeihan's synthesis view of geopolitics is pretty interesting, but he does display glaring faults when he ventures beyond that niche, e.g. when he tries to summa

Zeihan's synthesis view of geopolitics is pretty interesting, but he does display glaring faults when he ventures beyond that niche, e.g. when he tries to summarise the economic systems of the world in his most recent book he says all of Europe is socialist, which is what I would consider a very basic American layman's take on economics, not really fitting for any kind of public intellectual in the social sciences. I try to look past it, though, since his demographics and culture-focused geopolitics analysis is still interesting to me.

DavidPiper 3y ago
This was my take on Zeihan too. He's one of the few I've approached in the way the OP is talking about (minus the worship part). I bought and read one of his books. I completely agree with your take: his demographics work was a new model of thought for me, and interesting to think about and apply. A lot of his extrapolation felt really off, though. For Zeihan in particular I went a bit deeper in trying to figure out why a lot of his analysis didn't sit well with me. Part of it was the America-centricity - the superficial non-interest for Europe and other continents. The second part, though, was that I don't think he really considers that the people making these systems work also suffer if the systems collapse. At a societal level, we are motivated to keep our global systems maintained because they sustain our ways of life - not because somebody signed an agreement. The signing was just a means of getting it started. Anyway, end rant, but I guess his ideas feel too far down the isolationist line. My analysis of which probably proves the OP's worshipping point. It's designed to pull you in.
- helpfulclippy 3y ago
  I think of Peter Zeihan commentary as having two parts. The first part is where he takes a current event and contextualizes it with a bunch about the geography, demography and supply chain stuff, or maybe some history. I'd say he has an overall pretty high level of quality here, helped along by the fact that everyone's geography and demography is usually pretty stable from week to week. In the second part, he takes everything from the first part and fits it into his career-long public storytelling project, where he's writing a thriller novel out loud 5 minutes at a time, set in the near future where Eurasia is now Mad Max except without all the gas, and pirates rule the seas. I happen to love Mad Max AND pirates, so I have fun, but I don't take it as seriously as the first part.

DavidPiper 3y ago

This was my take on Zeihan too. He's one of the few I've approached in the way the OP is talking about (minus the worship part). I bought and read one of his books. I completely agree with your take: his demographics work was a new model of thought for me, and interesting to think about and apply. A lot of his extrapolation felt really off, though. For Zeihan in particular I went a bit deeper in trying to figure out why a lot of his analysis didn't sit well with me. Part of it was the America-centricity - the superficial non-interest for Europe and other continents. The second part, though, was that I don't think he really considers that the people making these systems work also suffer if the systems collapse. At a societal level, we are motivated to keep our global systems maintained because they sustain our ways of life - not because somebody signed an agreement. The signing was just a means of getting it started. Anyway, end rant, but I guess his ideas feel too far down the isolationist line. My analysis of which probably proves the OP's worshipping point. It's designed to pull you in.

helpfulclippy 3y ago
I think of Peter Zeihan commentary as having two parts. The first part is where he takes a current event and contextualizes it with a bunch about the geography, demography and supply chain stuff, or maybe some history. I'd say he has an overall pretty high level of quality here, helped along by the fact that everyone's geography and demography is usually pretty stable from week to week. In the second part, he takes everything from the first part and fits it into his career-long public storytelling project, where he's writing a thriller novel out loud 5 minutes at a time, set in the near future where Eurasia is now Mad Max except without all the gas, and pirates rule the seas. I happen to love Mad Max AND pirates, so I have fun, but I don't take it as seriously as the first part.