I just finished reading a little article about a group of science fiction writers in 1987, who were asked to talk about their predictions for the state of things 25 years in the future - 2012.
I'm curious to know what sort of predictions the wonderful writers here in the Reactor might have about the state of the world, the nation, this site, and their individual lives 25 years into the future from now - 2037.
You don't have to share about yourself if you don't want to, but I would love to see as many people as possible putting at least a few seriously considered thoughts on here about what they feel is awaiting us down the road.
Everyone on this site will be bestsellers.
Damnit, man, that is uncanny! God, I hope you're right.
We will be so polarized politically that we will have segregation based on political stance rather than race. There would be blue districts and red districts. They would be governed totally independent of each other. I will be retired, writing full-time while collecting my government-sponsored pension. The site will be digitally imprinted on our brains. Utah will be kicking bots out of my frontal lobe.
Jack, do you think there will be government-sponsored Social Security in 25 years? So, do you see these geopolitical divisions acting as the state-line divisions are now, where there are state laws under the umbrella of a federal body of laws, or more in the sense of wholly separated government entities existing on the same landmass much like Africa or Eastern Europe?
For the US, I predict economic collapse leading into civil war, then eventual takeover by China. Possibly with the assistance of Middle Eastern countries. Then war between China and the Middle East in general, some kind of chemical or nuclear catastrophe, resulting in eventual Tobacco-Stained Mountain Goat.
EDIT - For a serious answer... I have no idea. Who can even speculate anymore? Technology and society are moving too fast, there are so many potential disasters hanging over our heads, over everyone's heads... I can't even begin to speculate. But in 25 years, I think a lot of bad shit will have happened, truly.
No, I don't. But I am a public safety employee and I believe that within the red zones, you will still have pensions for military, firefighters, and police while other people will be left to 401K investment systems. In the blue zones, more people will receive some sort of government benefits for various things, but probably at a lower level.
I will live in a red zone, where I will be better rewarded for public service, but will probably spend most of my time bitching about it and writing subversive blue zone literature under a pen name. I, along with other artists in the red zone, will have a small network of smugglers who will take my work to the blue zone to distribute it.
I see it working as working along the lines of state laws under the loose umbrella of a federal body, but one that will have few direct influences. The blue states themseves will have a seperate affiliated government body with more responsibility, controlling the blue zone collective, while the red zones will work primarily independent of each other with little outside influence.
...will probably spend most of my time bitching about it and writing subversive blue zone literature under a pen name."
I love it! Thank god at least one person was willing to put some mildly serious thought into this. I thought it would've been a more popular thread than it is, but at least you've made my day with that one line alone!
Actually, I had been thinking about it anyway. I saw a thing about creating a new state of South California due to the differing political geography in that state. An interesting part about where I live in Kansas is that my particular district is overwhelmingly democrat, while the surrounding state is overwhelmingly republican.
I started to wonder if we are so polarized at this point that we are literally going to start breaking states in half because we can't get along with each other anymore. I know that in Kansas, our primary has been riddled with conservative Republicans strategizing to get moderate republicans out of office. That is other republicans mind you, not liberals, just moderates.
The republicans believe they have the answers and the democrats cannot possibly be correct. The democrats feel the opposite. It only makes sense that this will eventually create breaks in political geography. You see them anyway with the way people vote these days. I am just taking it one step further.
Either corporate feudalism or neo-communism. (Or are they the same thing?!?!?!?!)
Well, I see hovering skateboards. (Yes, JY, they're the same thing)
I am actually surprised that states haven't already started spliting along ideological lines. It seems like the things you're talking about, Jack, are becoming endemic in many if not all states in this time of countless subcategories of the two main political parties.
I don't know about 25 years, but I'll be surprised if the Untied States will even exist in it's current permutation in 50 years. Maybe this is a little bit of wishful thinking, but I for one welcome our new alien overlords... wait, that was a Simpsons episiode.
Wow, way to go there... ya know, with all the countless posts and discussion and all. No, really, awesome.
The idea of each state becoming officially and permanently red or blue seems absurd, not only to the thinking person but to the Constitution of the United States of America and its purpose. It'd be more likely that both the Reps and Dems would disintegrate and some other people would mop up.
Absurdities do occur, of course.
As oil supplies dry up/increase in price concern over the environment withers and North America becomes more willing to drill/attain it's own soil, coal, and natural gas. Companies able to provide alternative energy at a profit instead of as a do-gooder environmental issue will gain massive amounts of wealth.
China destabilizes due to a mix of lack of internal cohesion, men unable to find wives, and the population wanting to have more rights. This will cause major economic upheaval since it will be a major world importer and exporter, beyond even what it is now.
Birth rates will continue to drop in developing nations, leading them to rely more and more on immigration to maintain a population of work force age.
The influence of religious groups will expand since they are tending to contract slower then secular populations.
I totally agree that companies that specialize in alternative fuels will begin to take financial advantage of the environmentalists and their cries of falling skies. I'll be very shocked, though, if China is less a looming powerhouse, let alone actually starts to destabilize. i have a feeling that a hundred years from now, China will be as we were 50 years ago in terms of being a world leader - and 25 years in the future will likely be just the beginning of that rise to power.
I also have a feeling another major act of terrorism will take place on US soil before the next 25 years is past. I doubt it will be planes into skyscrapers, but possibly worse in overall carnage. Possibly using bio-weapons or a dirty bomb or two.
Of course, if I were a terrorist, I'd forego the strikes on economic centers or symbols of capitalism. To strike true terror into the minds and hearts of the masses, I say bomb old folks' homes, orphanages, veteran's hospitals, and grade schools. When the people start to fear attacks on the most coddled and protected of our nation, then real terror sets in.
You are misunderstadning me. I'm saying someone will sooner or later say, "Forget the enviorment, I can power suchandsuch for 30% the price with solar/wind/whatever! I'll be rich!"
Not sure how that's significantly different from what I said, but whatever.
You guys are downers, and not very creative about it either. Why don't you think anything good is going to happen in the next quarter of a century?
I just want hovering skateboards.
-
Keynesian economics is going to come back in the next 25 years, even if it doesn't happen until Friedmanism has destroyed the Western Economy.
China has problems, but I don't tend to think of these problems as being insurmountable.
In 25 years we will still be talking about "Peak Oil" being right around the corner.
Natural disasters will be on the rise, more Hurricanes, more Flooding, more Wildffires.
The EU... probably won't exist. I mean, that much is certain, but this raises the question of wars in Europe, and if these do start up then how involved will Russia be? And if the Russians start to get involved, won't the US?
Africa.... Africa is going to get their shit together. Desertification causes troubles in the North but Sub-Saharan Africa, no longer burdened by the Western hegemony, finally figures it out, at least as well as Asia or Europe (in 25 years).
Brazil is going to be a superpower, will they get involved in this European mess? South America on the whole is on the rise, so there might be local problems for the Brazillians, but Brazil is likely to be the beacon of Western Democracy and Keynesian Economics.
Will Israel still exist? That's a hell of a question. I doubt that Israel will still exist in any form if they don't make some sort of two state compromise with Palestine before then.
The Iranian/Saudi cold war for control of the Middle East probably doesn't end happy for the Saudis either. If the US can't keep propping up Israel then they can't prop up the Saudis either.
India is the biggest threat to China, but China and Maoism are also the biggest threat to India, Asia ends up dominated by one or the other.
And... hovering skateboards.
Yeah, I think in the next 25 years we're finally going to stop hating people for no reason and focus on the real reason to hate people, bad grammar.
A skateboard foe every child!
@Strange - You're saying they will take advantage of the environmentalists' desires for a cleaner to sell a product. I'm saying on the lab rats will sooner or later come up with a product that legit is better/cheaper and get mega rich off it. Regardless of what you think of of anything, almost anyone will buy something that is cheaper.
@Nick - How is Keynesian going to make a come back when it's in full force, or do you think it'll go out of style?
I don't think they are insurmountable, I jus don't think they will rise to the occasion in the current form they are in, which I think will lead to India as being a slightly larger player in the mid to long range.
I'm not sure if natural disasters will really be on the rise, but the effect on humans will be since we are expending the areas we live in. Flooding or wildfires of a field don't matter that much to us, a housing development does.
EU could very well exist, albeit in a VERY different form then currently does.
I really hope you are right about Africa, but I think that it'll be spotty. Maybe Kenya gets it together and Sudan doesn't kind of thing.
Brazil is going to be a superpower... and Keynesian Economics.
I think that's kind of a either or.
Israel can exist as long as they want to do so. At the end of the day the Palestinians have the ability to really annoy Israel, even without much U.S. backing. I'm not saying it is nice, but what reason does Israel have to trust any of the Arab powers or think that they will be left alone if let them have statehood?
I think right now any of this is hard to predict though, because tech is hitting the point were the next level is just hard to predict. The Arab Spring, for good or bad, wouldn't have been possible with 1990 tech so it wouldn't have been predictable. Although I think if you really want to get into arguments with no telling who is one what side, look at bioengineering. People might be able to pick out all kinds of things about their kids. Less disease, smarter, faster, gay or strait, and who knows what else.
@ Nick: So many of the things you mentioned would be great, especially the end of an Israeli state. I think that would be one of the best things that could possibly happen to that region. As for your comments on Africa, I think that would be a wonderful thing, but only if it means Oscar Pistorius does eventually win at least one Olympic gold medal.
Maybe the IOC will award him with one of those hovering skateboards.
! Dwayne: I think I might see what you're trying to say. Maybe. Sometimes I have a really hard time parsing out what your intended message is. I think I get it though.
Well, I didn't mean to say "my vision of the future will be rosy," but there will be winners and there will be losers.
Without US backing the important question is not whether or not the Zionists can trust their neighbors, it is about whether or not their neighbors can trust the Zionists. And the neighbors don't trust those guys one bit. I mean, I don't see it as a good thing or a bad thing, one group of humans would be mildly less oppressed and another group of humans would be more oppressed, so it's pretty much morally neutral. It's like Luxembourg, why the hell is Luxembourg a country? Do I mind that it exists? Nah, not really. Would I miss it if it were gone? I really wouldn't give a shit.
I have to admit I am excited about the rise of South America, although it bodes ill for the US hegemony, even now the US cannot exert the sort of influence over South America that we used to be able to, and if we can't keep South America under our heel how are we supposed to continue to do that to the Middle East, Europe and Africa?
But South Americans, at the very least, are Americans, so I trust them on some level.
-
I'm sorry Dwayne, I did get a little repetetive with the economics thing. I mean, we don't live in a Keynesian economy, in America any attempt to look at the demand side of the economic equation is considered Socialism, and I don't know if you realize this but the House of Representatives is pretty anti-Socialism these days.
I'd like to say we are living in Friedman's economy, but that's probably an exaggeration. Even Friedman could probably support something so lukewarm as Dodd Frank, or support, say, a program to give families mortgage relief, whereas in our economy these regulations are dismantled in the courts regardless of what protections they offer consumers. We live... in some highly corrupt version of Dagney Taggart's economy.
Anyways, if you want to split hairs about Keynesian ideas you would probably get a more enthusiastic response over on Krugman's blog anyways. I wanted to say Socialism, but I guess I wimped out, meh, whatever. I'm not afraid to say Socialism, or to advocate it, but some people think that it's rude.
I think in the future everyone will have two first names. Your dad will be called Colin Daniel and your mum will be called Laura Louise. That's what I think anyway.
I think television will reach its end-game and show commercials around the clock, with no drama, sport or news anymore.
I think America will finally complete its cultural colonisation of the British Isles, and they'll tow our little island across the Atlantic using a big rope and wedge us onto the east coast - maybe beside Delaware (let's be honest, nothing interesting has ever happened in Delaware so they're due a bit of excitement). And then we'll need to spell words like "realised," using the letter 'z' and it will make us very sad indeed.
I think religion will make a comeback and all the atheists will be burned at the stake and the funeral pyre will be built using unread copies of The God Delusion.
I think, therefore I spam.
@Strange - I'm not a 100% sure I'm losing you. I'm saying they'll stumble upon cheaper engery and get mega-rich for profit, without caring about the enviorment.
@Nick - If we live in a anit-Keynesian times, yay that is the best news I've had in years. However I don't follow your logic. Keynes claims that when the economy is in trouble you do deficit spending to get it going. Who to doesn't matter that much, just spend. Tons of that happened/is happening, with claims they should have/ought to spend more.
@ Dwayne: Oh Yeah, I totally agree with that. and that's pretty much what I meant about the eco-niche taking advantage of the treehuggers, I guess I just didn't include the notion of actually finding a cheap alternative fuel as I personally doubt there is cheap and clean fuel. But, alas, I do agree that someone will undoubtedly get filthy rich on the backs of green hippies.
Renewable and doesn't have to be clean. I'm sure whatever it is will have some horrible messy by product once they get it up and running.
Wow. You both cursed at me, dragged in a station I don't watch, and brought up a chart that is 100% unrelated to my statement! Good job! If it's over your head that a lot of Republicans drank the Kool Aid I don't know what to tell you.
An aside about people getting rich off solar/wind power. I live in the desert...along the major freeway here we have HUGE windfarms but we also have an endangered (and idiotic) tortoise so they fight expansion on that. On the other hand, there are no less than 5 solar energy companies advertising around here as well. Now...this is the desert, so we have A LOT of sun, but the UK (not nearly as sunny, haha) has already put a huge program into effect to get people to invest in solar panels on their homes and pay the individual households for the extra energy they feed off into the grid. I think they've recently lowered the per unit price--but solar energy is definitely working its way into our world in a bigger way than ever before.
Weren't we talking about government spending? Yeah, I'm pretty sure we were talking about the role government spending is supposed to play in the economy.... and so I brought up a chart about how low Obama's spending has been, and then I linked to an article in Forbes about how low Obama's spending has been.
Alright, fine then, sorry I confused your homegrown ignorance with the Fox brand ignorance...
So....how about those hovering skateboards?
Damnit, leave it to my luck to have my Flash not working right when Nick undoubtedly posted a fucking hilarious vid. Curse you, Firefox!
Nick, can I at least grovel for a play-by-play, or do I have to stoop to downloading Chrome?
It's the hoverboard chase in Back to the Future 2.
I mean, that's what the whole hoerboard thing was about, a joke about the 'Back to the Future' title.
Nick, I understand it's frustrating not be able to follow what someone else is saying. That is however no excuse for name calling or cursing, which is generally considered rude in North America. I'd take a look at the last paragraph of the link you posted under "NOTE:" if you need further details. Also your claims about me being ignorant and watching Fox news, like watching them is a bad thing, are irrelevant. No matter how stupid, uninformed, how many puppies I kick, or much you dislike what you assume my selection of new sources is would only be relevant if I Dwayne was the issue.
However I'm not ignorant of these issues, I simply disagree with you. Since you seem unable to follow the difference between government spending in general, and the basics of Keynesian economics I'll explain.
Lord Keynes belied an increase in government spending/lowering of interest rats during times of economic down turn, what he considered to the be perhaps the most serious economic problem, would help bring about a upswing of a swifter and more dramatic fashion then would other wise occur. Thus a graph showing the rate of general growth of spending is unrelated to the issue at hand. The graph would need to show
Further, since Republicans also have embraced the Keynesian (1) model it is not a partisan issue.
(1) The New York Times, January 4, 1971
what is it that the graph would need to show?
That Republicans on 1971 might have embraced Keynesian economics? And nothing has changed since then?
And yet here we are in a recession and all that the Republican controlled house wants to do is CUT federal spending? Interesting. So, if they do accept Keynesian solutions as the right solutions... then they are just doing this to hurt America despite the fact that US Bonds sell for negative interest rates right now?
-
And hey man, I'm sorry I hurt your feelings, I really am. I didn't realize you were so sensitive, and I really hope that you feel better. Have a Midol.
"Have a Midol."
I take offense.
Is Offense more effective than Midol?
@Nick - If your cursing, making assumptions, and insults are okay my observations on your ideas/behavior seeming rude are fair game. Also you should be aware it's rude (and a bit sexist) to insult someone's masculinity. If you can't deal with reasonable disagreement and people calling you out on being rude, I'd advice against making statements you can't support in a rude fashion. From my view, you seem much more upset then I. My reaction has been limited to addressing things you've posted and documented/observable events. I haven't attributed even what I feel would be very fair generalizations about you (i.e. you're rude), but simply made statements about specific things you've posted. You, no so much. I mean for the love of Pete man you have Jessica and me agreeing on the Midol thing. The last time that happened I think we agree bourbon is good. Why does someone disagreeing with you scare you so much they have to be a villain?
Despite claims of this and that at various times both parties have been pro government intervention for a long while now. I don't see how you can reasonably say that isn't Keynesian behavior, at least till they get something passed/vetoed. Unless you're premise is that members of congress can be taken at their word, in which case I'd love to hear that explained.
@Doll - Was it the that bourbon was good?
@Strange - Depends on the goal. I hear Midol is good for pains related to a woman's cycle, and offense is good for...?
I don't think you're being a villain, I think you're being a crybaby.
And yes, I am being rude. Welcome to the internet.
-
But isn't not getting things passed, isn't inaction at a time when action is needed, isn't that enough to judge these politicians by? I dunno, we have a pretty straightforward Jobs act that was designed on Keynesian principles, and I don't think that it was the democrats who kept voting to "repeal Obamacare" instead of doing something to help the American people.
I mean, I'm sorry, but that makes me angry. To me, this inaction, this "Shut the government down like it's 1995" bullshit, it seems fuckng treasonous to me. I don't remember having any extra love for W, and I remember that many liberals didn't agree with him. And yet, I don't remember Nancy Pelosi acting like she didn't have a serious job to do on behalf of her constituents....
Nick, you are way past making sense. If you won't actually read what other people write, can't accept that there are Keynesian Republicans, and think someone pointing you being a jerk is being a cry baby all I can do is wish you well.
Dwayne, I think part of the problem might be that we have a hard time understanding what your message is through the garbled text. You seem to omit necessary words sometimes, or use a tense inappropriate to your meaning, and what you might be trying to say isn't what the words you've actually typed out seem to indicate.
My dad does this when he talks. He seems to think that everything he thinks also comes out in his speech, when in fact, about half of it does, and we're all left trying to piece together what we think he might be saying.
I'm sure that isn't even the lion's share of the problem between you guys, but it certainly doesn't lend itself to clearer understandings.
And Nick, I'm entirely with you that politicians playing a legislative game of chicken is tantamount to treason - on both sides.
But there is no real equivalence on the left, I'm sorry. It's like Bruce Bartlett said, frankly one of our political parties has gone insane, and we all know which one. We can pretend like it's "fair" to act like everyone is equally to blame. But the democrats have become a moderately conservative party while the Republicans have taken on radical positions and refused to make any compromises.
In fact, if you find anyone who worked for Ronald Reagan, if you google the rest of Reagan's former advisors or cabinet, you're just going to find more like this Bruce Bartlett quote, there are sane people who still call themselves Republicans for some reason, sure.
But they aren't going anywhere in the party, because they know how insane it has become.
I can't think of an example of similar obstructionism on the left. Obama still operates without any of his nominees for crucial federal positions, and who is holding up the process there? Liberals?
Did Bush have this sort of problem getting an up or down vote on his nominees?
I'm just saying, in general, that any politician of any ideological leaning, who holds the progress of this nation hostage in a petulant tantrum till they get their candy bar, is a traitor.
Agreed.
@Strange - Maybe, I don't edit these much.
@Nick - I'm not claiming anyone is or is not to blame. I'm simply stating that both sides have long held Keynesian ideas. If you disagree with Keynesian ideas you can think that everyone is to blame and I'd call that reasonable. If you think that Keynesian ideas are good you can think that some groups have implemented them poorly, and I'd call that reasonable.
I'm not a fan of threatening shut downs, but I follow the logic. They feel that the long term risks of current policy are far worse then a short term shut down, so they risk it.
@Nick & Dwayne
Can one of you guys call the other and then podcast the argument--er, I mean...conversation?
Ooooh, yes! Do it!!!
@Nick & Dwayne
Can one of you guys call the other and then podcast the
argument--er, I mean...conversation?phonesex?FTFY
