RE: NAC units, was Odd FT Idea

Yes, you have proven my point exactly, Australia is a part of the
Commonwealth (at least for the time being) yet due to the geographic
dislocation it is very much independant. In the 50's and 60's Australia
took a lot of guidance from the UK but was not dominated by it.

In 2180 the colonies are going to be slave to teh same tyranny of
distance. Given a population of 10 or 15 million, one can safely assume
some level of self sufficiency. So, it would be reasonable to accept
that colonies of this size would be co-operating with rather than
dominated by the Earth based nations.

Owen G

-----Original Message-----
From: jatkins6@ix.netcom.com [mailto:jatkins6@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 8 July 1998 14:10
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
Subject: RE: NAC units, was Odd FT Idea

You wrote: 

>Look at the example of Australia in about the 60s, population around 
15 >million and quite a thriving economy. Use a similar model for the 
middle >aged colonies and it seems quite reasonable.

Right.	And Australia has a GNP (1995) of 337.9 Billion US dollars.  
Compare to US's (1996) $7,567.1 Billions.  If we amalgamated tomorrow, 
who do you think would dominate the union economically?  I find it 
exteremely likely that Terra will continue to be the economic (and also 
'spiritual', for lack of better term) heart of the Human Race for at 
_least_ the next two centuries, especially if you suppose no 
colonization until the 2070s.

John M. Atkinson