The End of the World Is Just the Beginning: Mapping the Collapse of Globalization

In the 2022 nonfiction work The End of the World Is Just the Beginning: Mapping the Collapse of Globalization, Peter Zeihan argues that the world is in transition from globalization to de-globalization, which benefits the US but has dire consequences for most countries. Declining populations and the withdrawal of US security from global transport are driving this transition.

Zeihan is a globalization expert who has served as a geopolitical consultant for decades and holds a postgraduate degree in Asian studies. The book, which is written for nonexperts, became a New York Times bestseller. It explores several themes, including The Causes and Consequences of De-globalization, Demographic and Geographic Challenges, and The Dominant Role of the US.

This guide references the 2022 hardback edition.

Content Warning: The book’s analysis of potential future challenges and geopolitical scenarios is intense and could evoke feelings of uncertainty. In addition, the author’s perspective and predictions could be viewed through various lenses, potentially raising concerns about bias or oversimplification.

Summary

The period of globalization, which peaked between 1980 and 2015, was a historical anomaly. During the Cold War between the US and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) following World War II, the US protected global shipping (to prevent interception) and opened its markets to imports. Because transport was protected, global commerce flourished until 2015. At that time, two factors—the US withdrawal from global security and demographic crises—precipitated a return to the natural state of de-globalization. Many countries, especially Asia and Europe, have few young people and large aging populations. While geographic assets and location were almost irrelevant during the period of globalization, they become determinative in a de-globalized world. Using geopolitics, or the study of how place impacts populations and demography, the text analyzes the impact of de-globalization on six economic sectors: transport, finance, energy, industrial materials, manufacturing, and agriculture. The text identifies North American countries as those most likely to succeed in a de-globalized era and names China and many countries with low-income economies as those most likely to be impacted.

Safe transportation was critical to globalization, so the world developed a highly specialized division of labor. The cost of transportation was low, and products came reliably on time. However, if the US no longer protected transport, long-haul shipments would end given the risk of interception. This would force countries to supply their needs internally or engage in regional trade. The text cites the US, the United Kingdom (UK), Japan, France, and Argentina as the likeliest beneficiaries of this change given their internal waterways and safe borders. Conversely, the change would disadvantage several countries, including Germany and China, because they are at the end of exposed supply routes.

Demographic trends will adversely impact finance. From 1990 through 2020, the largest group of people were in their late forties through early sixties. During those years, this group contributed skilled labor and investments to their economies. After 2020, this group began retiring, and world populations lack enough young people to take their place. As a result, lending costs will rise, and investment will decline. The US is in better shape than most because of the Millennial generation. However, it will be harder to obtain financing in a de-globalized world, a reality that would further slow economic growth.

In the globalized economy, oil shipments were protected. Regardless of location, a country could access oil. In a de-globalized world, geographic location would matter. Shipments of oil from the Persian Gulf might not be safe. Except in eight countries, including the US, oil shortages would occur. Because people would be unwilling to return to preindustrial conditions, the text anticipates a significant increase in the use of the dirtiest fossil fuel, coal, which would hasten climate change. The text notes that solar and wind power cannot provide sufficient energy to offset oil shortages.

To maintain modern lifestyles, countries must have access to numerous industrial materials. These materials were traded freely and safely during the globalization period. In a de-globalized world, only the US would have access to all these materials. The UK, France, Turkey, Japan, and Russia would attempt to do so as well. Most countries would go without some of these materials. China was the largest importer, processor, and exporter of many of these materials during the globalization period. The text argues that China would lack the money or labor power to maintain that role. For example, China processes 90% of rare earth elements, which are used in many products. While backup processing facilities exist, shortages are likely during the period of transition.

In the global economy, East Asia was the center of manufacturing. Its products could be safely shipped to European and American markets. Given the impending demographic collapse in East Asia, especially China, its position in world manufacturing is unsustainable. Additionally, China is too far from Europe and the US in a world without safe transport. In a de-globalized world, manufacturing products closer to end markets would make more sense. North America is in the best position to assume a dominant role in manufacturing given its demographics and geographic assets. In a world of de-globalized manufacturing, some countries would lose access to products, while others would face higher prices.

The most important sector is agriculture, as it provides food to the world. In the global economy, most countries import food and produce highly specialized cash products. The changes from de-globalization in all other sectors would negatively impact food production. Without safe transport, shipping food would become untenable. Farmers would be unable to purchase necessary seeds and machinery without finance—or to run machinery without oil. Industrial materials used in manufacturing some fertilizers would be in short supply. Unable to depend on cheap food shipments, countries would have to grow food internally or obtain it from friendly neighbors. The lag time in changing to a different system of agriculture would result in famine all over the world. Worse, climate change would further reduce supplies of food because of an increase in desert and tropical areas, neither of which is good for growing food. The US and other food exporters, such as France, Argentina, and New Zealand, would have more than enough food. Other countries, such as China, would need to reverse urbanization trends and return people to small farms but still would experience food shortages. Sub-Saharan African countries simply would not have enough food.

For most countries, de-globalization would have severely negative consequences. The US would emerge even stronger than it was in the global economy by the 2040s after a period of adjustment. Elsewhere, regional powers would likely emerge. Some candidates are Japan, the UK, Scandinavia, Australia and New Zealand together, and Spain and Portugal. A world of regional powers is a more dangerous one, and violence would be a looming threat.