Thanks for the interest, all
Really like the use of the Pacific-centred Worlda to implicitly show the change in geo-political dominance. If I may ask why is there such a sharp cut off in the countries to it's North compared to the DRC in terms of colonists (and thus presumably wealth) are they simply less fortunate/developed ? And is New Zealand wealthy or comparatively poor?
The DRC is wealthy and humming economically, as are the East African Federation and South Africa. Part is due to historical and continued investment from India, China and elsewhere, as well the economic benefits of the colonies. The countries contained in the "triangle" the DRC, South Africa, and the EAF form are benefitting from the economic good times, including the various population booms that occurred between now and the date of the setting.
I pictured Chad, South Sudan and Libya as being really hurt by "post-oil" (a bit of a misnomer - easy to reach petroleum is largely exhausted on Earth, alternative energy sources are the norm terrestrially, but 'oil' found on the colonies is still being used, largely in military and a few other applications). They largely missed out on foreign investment or other chances to diversify and develop, lots of late 21st century migration to neighboring countries so a smaller population base. In modern times, these places are not really bad places to live, but yes, they are definitely less wealthy and developed than some more fortunate neighbors, and so less people can afford colonization. The CAR I pictured as being fairly wealthy, but as a place where people largely elect to keep their feet planted firmly Earthside.
New Zealand isn't poor, or really all that wealthy - which is not to say it's a bad place to live. I pictured the low population (and NZ did not have a population boom like many African, South American, and Asian countries did in the history of the setting) contributing to the low rate of immigration, as well as NZ developing a more insular, inward-looking culture.
Good job there. So there's nobody outside the Global System, so to speak? Shorter on territorial changes than most future scenarios, but that's plausible enough. Are these colonies in-solar system, or is this a setting with FTL?
(Multiple wars in Europe in the 21st century? Not how I'd bet, but hey, sometimes improbable crap happens).
Yes, all the world's countries are signatory to the Treaty of Accra, the Alliance's founding document, but some countries have a lesser rate of participation and interest in others.
The setting is on the softer side of sci-fi, so there is indeed FTL with habitable Earth-like planets.
As for Europe, I wouldn't necessarily bet that way either, but I figured it would be more interesting to have a few more reasons for not many Europeans going to space, than just simply the fact that I believe Europe will get (speaking relatively) poorer as the rest of the world develops.
Certainly more interesting than most FH scenarios we see, but I absolutely loathe the term "Terra" or "Terran" to refer to a global alliance. I really don't see why everyone insists on it. Actually, why would they refer to it as an alliance? Alliances are generally used as a united front against a common enemy, right? If this is a massive hunky-dory world-government-type situation, wouldn't confederation, union, or something along those lines be more suitable?
Neither term explicitly implies political unity. I imagine your world is more like a large United Nations than an actual polity, right?
I do not like "Terra" for Earth either, nor do I like "terrans." Nobody in the setting calls Earth "Terra" or people from Earth "terrans" (outside of some colonial populations using it derisively). The name comes from an attempt to imitate history's little wrinkles of political bs and institutional intertia, as explained in a post I made long ago in the worldbuilding thread:
Historical Note: "The Alliance of Terran States" and "Earth"
In the late 21st century, the body that would eventually become the Alliance was known the"United Earth Government. A bland and misleading name (as the Earth was not "united" as traditionally conceived) that was then associated with a bloody war, in the aftermath of the 2108 Rebellion, the UEG attempted a "rebranding." The name of the organization was changed to its current one, and there was a government campaign to start referring to Earth as "Terra." However, after only a few years, it became clear that this attempt was a failure. But while the star charts were changed back to referring to the human homeworld as Earth, the name of the Alliance stuck and continues to the present day.
I also wouldn't characterize the Alliance as "hunky-dory" world government. Earth's countries are still sovereign, and there's lot of problems; but for a detailed explanation on the exact nature of the Alliance, here's the link to the
Treaty of Accra post I made in the wikbox thread.
Niceeeeee futuristic map there.
Ah excellent stuff, I thoroughly enjoyed your sci-fi saga.
Thanks guys!
If anyone's interested, the links in my sig are short stories set in the universe.