brian

Some interesting ideas come up elsewhere, so I thought I'd dedicate this thread to people's ideas for the future of the world - meaning how you see humanity progressing, either simply through this century, or else beyond - and maybe discuss some of the ideas and opinions.

Firstly, for some reason I see Africa as the key to the 21st century. I don't know why - intution has the words "Africa" and "21st century" as being brightly linked.

As for beyond - human destiny as to evolve beyond the physical into something we perhaps would refer to as an "angel-like" state of being. Though the historical use of that term is so culturally loaded perhaps I should just suggest the mere complete eventual transcendence of physical reality!

Go on - be kooky!

Survivor

Africa won't be "key" in any global sense. Which is probably best for them, being used as a proxy battleground is not a fun thing.

A socialogical Singularity point is more likely to be senescent rather than transcendent. The mere idea of transhumans coming to power will be enough to unleash a backlash that is difficult to imagine. Besides, as you approach the transcendent curve, you necessarily accelerate the senescence curves as well. Civilization never pulls very far ahead in the long term, the barbarians are too good at catching up.

The global players will continue to include the US and China for the first couple of decades. Russia might make a comeback, but my feeling is that they'll go the way of Europe. India/Pakistan will probably settle down into a sort of Cool war (the border issue will prevent it from ever becoming Cold, which is just as well, since limited tactical engagements will probably bleed off their tensions without spilling over into the region too much). We'll never be a real player in that game.

There's no way to extricate the US from the Middle East for the forseeable future, and while the Chinese aren't stuck there, they don't mind dabbling if it distracts America from the Pacific. If they can control the economies in the neighborhood, it will put them over the hump for superpowerdom. So far they've been more successful at combining political repression with economic prosperity than most other governments.

Africa is going to have to play catchup with South America, and they have no Monroe Doctrine to protect them from European designs, so they'll have a rough time of it. On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be as much interest in them as before, which could work out for the best.

brian

Yes - I don't see Africa as being politically important on the global scale in terms of suddenly turning into a military superpwoer, or anything remotely similar. Maybe it's something to do with the changes over the century - moving towards stability and building up a strong agriculturla base while everyone else starts losing degrees of their to own to such issues as global warming - maybe even proper free trade as well (ie, bereft of subsidies - the EU talks about removing their own, but I doubt the USA would be happy doing likewise).

As for the USA and China, I wonder if the planned "son of star wars" system - which although not off to a greatly successful start - will evolve into something much bigger - a global defence shield against rogue states launching warheads? Developing it now would help any possible superpwoer confrontation between the USA and China at a later date if the capacity exists to remove a significant - even majority (by then) - percentage of armaments from high orbit. That would keep China in the strategically inferior position. The only way they could strengthen their own is to take part in the project itself (which by then would no doubt encapsulate the EU, maybe even Russia (as a stability measure). Who knows - a global shield may even offer some limited protection against potential asteroid strikes - controlled high atmosphere detonation.

Just some thoughts.

nemesis

Future of the world? US and EU merge. Russia follows.

Survivor

Not a chance. In fact, I see the US fragmenting at some point, unless a strong totalitarian government emerges (a weak totalitarian government is more likely, though, which would only accelerate the break-up). I can't speak to conditions in the EU, but I imagine once the US begins an economic "death spiral" a lot of other countries will follow suit for a while. Those that have too much social tension (class divisions, deep religious sectarianism, race polerization, et al) and not enough unifying traditions will break apart under the stress, others will survive at a markedly reduced standard of living.

With the breakdown of international organizations as major nations and economies break apart, territorial wars--particularly in the Middle East--will have a new day as the predominant means of diplomacy. Africa will be largely insulated from much of this, except in the north, as will other nations that are not heavily involved in the global economy. This is all unforseeable for the present.

SDI is dead. The US will never build a space based system, and ground based systems will only provide marginal protection against warheads if fully implemented. Also, a ground based system will simply be incapable of doing anything against a kinetic bolide.

Bigmacscanlan

Just a few more I have made them as statements, but they are mearly suggestions

I very much doubt the US will breakdown, at least not in the way the USSR did anyway. It's Superpower may reduce drastically, making way for China to center the world, but I cannot really see a physical breakup occuring.

If anything I think that at least part of Europe will unite forming a state similar to the US.

Economically, I think that the Euro and the US Dollar, will become a single currency, The introduction of the Euro, and its similarity (almost identical) in exchange rate to the Dollar is an intentional move towards this. Once this happens although I do not believe that Europe and the US will ever unite, they will be drawn closer together.

Communism will fizzle out, and finally die. This will probably occur within 20 years of Castro's death.

Another Nuclear weapon will probably be used (possibly in the Indian/Pakistani rivalry). This if it happens it will cause reinvestment in the SDI program as MAD will become irrelavant. I think this will eventually lead to the complete banning of Nuclear weapons in general, Russia will be a big player in getting everyone to disarm.

People in general will continue to live normal lives. Homes will not get to the stage where people control everything in their house with a remote, as for the most part people really aren't bothered if they have to get up to open a window!

TV will become a relic. It will become so poor that people won't bother anymore. Perhaps it will be replaced with something else. People will stop watching sports as advertising gets increasingly dominant. Companies will find new highs (or lows) to reach when advertising. Entire building will be built in the shape of their companies Logo amongst other things.

Eventually Japan will build underground and underwater citys to combat overpopulation. Worldwide birth control will be forced in most countries to limit couples to only 2-3 children.

Man will be cloned, the consequences, both scientifically and morally will uncertain for many years, either opening the floodgates, or causing a permanent ban.

Survivor

Okay couple of other things that you should stick in your (optimism.com) timeline. Fusion power reaches the breakeven point within 40 years, rendering oil all but irrelevant. Peace in the Middle East rapidly follows once Islamic countries have to turn to modernization for economic survival. In about a decade, telomerase activating drugs make advanced life extension treatments possible, in two decades true immortalization treatments become available, being essentially perfected within another half century. In twenty years, we'll have the technical expertise needed to build an orbital elevator, opening the way to serious extraterrestrial colonization efforts, and the demise of the modern environmentalist movement will open the way to advances in terraforming that allow humanity to increase food production on Earth by a factor of ten, and begin terraforming other planets (the moon, then Mars, eventually even Venus). Computer systems integrated directly into the human brain will allow a new kind of sentience, an entirely different kind of perception and mentation.

But I say--give me a break. If it were going to work out that way it would have already happened. Greek science and technology advanced much farther than we have ever really given them credit for, and it didn't save them from the immutable laws of human nature. Our progress cannot overcome the fact that we are still human. We will destroy ourselves, it is our nature.

brian

Hm...the issue of nuclear detonation. There's always been real scope for limited nuclear conflict this century. Pakistan vs India has been a prime suspect for a while.

But apparently Bush has signed papers authorising use of nuclear weapons against Iraq in the event of biological or chemical weapons being launched by Saddam Hussein. Nuts, really - Saddam is happy to sacrifice his own population for his own self-preservation - yet Bush appears eager to satisfy that. Maybe a matter of military protocol, or else political posturing. Either way, just a little worrying. (Report was on BBC Teletext, but cannot locate article on their website).

Another terrible possibility is nuclear attack on a city by terrorists - most likely somewhere like New York or Washington. I most definitely would not want to live in those two cities for the target they present for those seeking to damage the US - as 9/11 demonstrated.

Survivor

Yeah, well, there are a lot better reasons for not wanting to live in N.Y.C or D.C. than worries about terrorist attacks, like the fact that the street system in D.C. was designed by a French madman who apparently hired a demonic entity to put vortices of damnation all over the place, and D.C. is the murder capital of the U.S. (or is it still? It always was when I lived in that area, at any rate). And N.Y.C. is nearly a legend when it comes to reasons you don't want to live in an American city.

I think that he is authorizing tac-nukes, rather than strategic use. That means that he's talking about using low kilo-ton yeild weapons against the actual forces that deploy chemical or biological weapons. It may not deter Saddam, but it will probably deter the hell out of his field commanders (Saddam actually ordered chemical weapons used in the first Gulf war, but the troops deploying them didn't have adequate protective gear and they couldn't evade capture, so they decided against making us really mad).

Tac-nukes do need presidential authorization, of course, but he doesn't actually give the order. The field commander has discretion if the situation matches the authorization for use. Which means that there is a distinct possibility that they will be used, but only if it is the field commander's judgement that they will materially advance his objectives (since we are invading and not defending, that means that using tac-nukes on the enemy positions would be a last resort--like if they were pumping nerve gas all over and we needed to neutralize them and their weapons to prevent massive loss of life).

brian

Hm...reading through - maybe that's why my intuition said that Africa is the key - meaning that if we give the place a couple of decades to sort out the west coast domestics, it could probably become the safest continent to live on. Buy up lots of farmland...