There are many things wrong with this article.<p>Foremost is its portrayal of power.<p>Power, which he implicitly defines as the force backing a nation's border, is not premised solely upon the sweat of our technological brows, the way we disrupt and revolutionize economies in pursuit of sky-high GDP.<p>Power also flows from the barrel of a gun.<p>The most populous city-state in the world, Hong Kong, has been swallowed by the People's Republic of China. Why? Because China's planned women's army by itself exceeds the population of the United States. Because Deng Xiaoping told the British their troops would cross the bridge with or without a handover.<p>Contrary to the tone of this article, China is vigorously contesting territory in its sphere of influence. Go look at the sand they're pouring into the south China sea: does that look like dithering?<p>And even if China, Russia, India, etc. decline within fifty years, that doesn't mean city-states will fill the vaccuum.<p>It means the remaining players, the ones that have kept their cities and their country together, will have the power. And they will eat these new nimble players alive.<p>There's a reason the majority of our armed forces hail from the south and midwest and not from the north and west. [1]<p>Finally, to address the unsaid assumption behind this article: the decline of nations, if it happens, will not be a tea party. The last time a worldwide economic crisis engulfed our planet and threatened the very concept of a nation state, we had the bloodiest war in human history.<p>[1] As a bit of trivia, when the U.S. government commissioned a study concerning the long-term consequences of full-blown nuclear war, they predicted Latin American gunboats would be pillaging our coasts within 3-4 months. Fun.