New World Order - 2060

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by spuzzum

Superpowers:
1. The US will be broke in 20 years, if not already thus negating their superpower status
2. China or India are on the up and up. Calculate their 10% yearly GDP growth over 50 years and those numbers being frightening.

Don't these 2 points contradict each other? The only thing that sustains such rapid growth in those countries(particularly China) in the overspending in the US.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by jammies

I was going to put us in at 100:1 and write up some eyewash about how it's possible that after the 2nd US Civil War, we move into the three Pacific states, etc, but realistically the chances are zero. Other than, I suppose, as part of some kind of resurrected Commonwealth in some extremely unlikely future on the order of 1000:1.

You give Canada 1000:1 odds but you give South Africa 200:1 odds?? Clearly you have never been to South Africa.

[VladtheImpaler]

Interesting topic. Few points, some of them already brought up individually in other posts:

(1) it would be more correct to speak of a hydrocarbon era, and when you factor in natural gas... this era will last longer I think than you predict

(2) population - Japan, large parts of Europe and Russia are dying out; China, the rest of Europe, and to a lesser extent NA are "greying"

(3) South Africa - is only ahead of the other African states because of what was built up before the ANC took over; it's much more likely to turn into Zimbabwe than grow into any sort of super-power

(4) Islamists are a non-factor, except as a destroyer of other societies; "Islam" remains stuck in the 14th century - it will need a Renaissance of sorts to become a "power"

(5) Is anyone else struck by parallels between US and the Roman Empire?

(6) Of all the potential "superpowers" only 2 seem to want to be "super" - Russia and China. I discount Russia because of demographics and incredibly inefficient government; China has its own governance issues, but...

(7) Of all the potentials, Brazil is by far the best placed geopolitically - it has no regional rivals, and is only limited by its own wherewithal

Just some random thoughts...

[CaptainCrunch]

We'll all be dead in the next 100 years so does it matter?

As the population grows and resources diminish and no safe respite in sight, the age old genetic instinct to want . . . need . . . take will kick in and the globe will be heavily redistributed.

As tensions rise between the old guard (England, Europe Russia, NA) and the more ruthless and pragmatic new guard in the asia's (China, India, Pakistan etc) we'll see the recreation of savage proxy fights on a smaller letter as the two sides try to tip world politics in their favour, the UN will function badly and the extremists will find ways to increase tensions. Finally a all out planet busting war will erupt with the winner taking the charred husk of this planet.

A earth with 10 or 15 billion people on it, is a powder keg that needs one match to become uncontrollable.

[starseed]

I just starting reading a book called The Next 100 Years by George Friedman. It is a great look at the geopolitical landscape and how it should evolve over the 21st century. As for the population boom problem, he says that it will control itself, in fact, that it already is starting to.

This is from part of a blog I wrote a couple days ago:

In the 1800s, the birthrate was estimated to be somewhere between 6.5 to 8.0. Women at that time did not have the same rights, her role in society was to bear children from her teens until either her death or the time when her body could not bear children any longer. The population did not have the exponential growth rates it had in the 20th century simply because of the mortality rate. Medicine was nowhere near as advanced as it is today. Out of the 8 babies that were born, 5 to 6 of them did not live long enough to reproduce.

Eventually medicine advanced and the mortality rates dropped. The birthrate did not go down with it, there was much incentive for people to have lots of children. My father has 3 sisters, 2 older brothers, and a twin. His mother also had at least two miscarriages. They grew up on a farm in northern Saskatchewan. In those times it was profitable to have children. More hands to work on the farm and thus more profits, and social security was having many children to take care of you.

The birthrate has now declined significantly in developed nations because it is not profitable to have children anymore, instead they have become a financial burden. That is why the birthrates of the early to mid 20th century cannot continue. He points out that the birthrate worldwide was 4.5 in 1970, and it dropped to 2.7 worldwide in 2000. A birthrate of 2.1 is needed simply to sustain a population level.


He also talks about the war in Afghanistan and Iraq as already being a victory for the USA. He says this because he believes the ultimate objective was to keep the middle east off balance and prevent them from uniting and being a significant rival to the USA. He says the middle east will not be a significant player very soon. However, he mentions Turkey might eventually increase its power dramatically simply because it is the largest economy in the middle east, and it stands between Europe, the middle east, Russia and the Mediterranean.... and the USA does not see it as a threat.

As for Russia, he says that it will try to re-establish its sphere of influence as its economy begins to rebuild due to energy resources. This may lead to Poland becoming a significant player with it being on the border between Western Europe/Germany and Russia's sphere/Belarus.

I picked up the book thinking it would be just entertaining, he has a chapter about war with Japan in the middle of the century, and a conflict with Mexico in 2080. But this book has been very interesting and insightful.

[Cowperson]

The rise and fall of certain populations will certainly create stresses in the next 50 years.

However, we should remember that 60 years is a long time and the population shifts we talk about today may well have come and gone.

I think, as an example, that 2030 is roughly the peak for the baby boomer retirement drag on the USA while China may have the problem linger longer. By 2060, both countries may have demographically younger populations and the USA has always had a very vigourous immigration policy.

Simultaneously, with the collapse of radical Islam and a more mature, better-educated, more economically engaged, more secularized Islamic world emerging, I would wonder if the Islamic world and it's rabid birthrate may see an aging population drag - the same curse America is going to experience - showing up by 2040 and beyond.

China's population is already peaking out . . . . . . and they have the same problem with an older demographic that other, significant global economies are facing.

India has been a sort of tortoise through this but, in the end, they could be a more dominant military and economic power than China.

Japan is one of the most racially homogenous societies on Earth, with little immigration . . . . . and has no hope of reversing a decline in its population.

Russia and the rest of Europe, unless overrun by the Islamic hordes immigrating there, will be lesser powers.

We saw in this last economic cycle that there is a certain price area where fossil fuels become uncompetitive and people refuse to pay, instead looking for alternatives.

You will see that trend continue, where market forces eventually push alternatives to fossil fuels forward and innovative technologies do the same for inputs of consumer products.

Mankind being what it is, we will continue to punish the planet on the ecological front, driven particularly by the lack of caring outside of the major democracies. Death rates from ecological-caused distress will soar . . . . . as one example, blankets of smog smothering the Far East, something we've already seen.

The planet will continue to be paved and the 600 million new Americans created in the last economic surge will be nothing compared to the future, where enhanced globalization, while creating peace in general through the world as mutual interests become inextricably entwined, will also enhance consumerism in countries that haven't experienced it yet.

We are already seeing that radical Islam is a self-defeating organism and I think it will be only a marginal irritance 50 years from now.

I think biotechnology and stem-cell research in particular will extend life spans beyond our imagination. Us older chaps may not see the benefit of that but those of you in your 20's probably will. It would not surprise me at all if, by the end of this century, the average life span on a global basis extends beyond 100 years of age. Well, maybe it would surprise me because I would be more than 140 years old if I were around to witness that.

Some of-the-cuff thoughts.

Cowperson

[Ozy_Flame]

I'm putting my money on India / China being dual superpowers by, say, 2030. Both have extremely high GDP growth, huge workforces willing to work for cheap, and massive Western investment - outsourcing abroad has been the trend for years now and it's usually to these two dominant Asian countries.

That said, I don't think their sphere of influence is going to be huge in terms of culture, however. They both have to get past the political corruption (which includes censorship, patronage and personal handouts) in order for others to buy into a Pax Sinica or Pax Indiana.

I also believe we will see another big war in our lifetime, much to the chagrin of civilians on both sides. Twitter will likely crash numerous times during this period.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

I think biotechnology and stem-cell research in particular will extend life spans beyond our imagination. Us older chaps may not see the benefit of that but those of you in your 20's probably will. It would not surprise me at all if, by the end of this century, the average life span on a global basis extends beyond 100 years of age. Well, maybe it would surprise me because I would be more than 140 years old if I were around to witness that.

Cowperson

This is another problem I've had. While stem cells and biotechnology can help us live longer and stay healthier, who the F*** wants to be bed-ridden in a senior's home for 40 years? I can't imagine anyone being very mobile (if mobile at all) at 100 even if their life is extended.

Cow, while I do believe you are right on all accounts, I will suggest that suicide / euthanasia will be a VERY hot topic in the next 30-60 years.

[starseed]

Ray Kurzweil believes that with the advancement of technology, it is possible for people in their 50s and 60s to live forever. He says that advancements in genetic research and nanotechnology will significantly extend the lives of people in the near future, and by the 2040s technology will have advanced enough for humans to transcend biology. He points out that processing speed has doubled every 2 years since computers were invented. The CEO of Intel says it will continue well into the 2020s, and by then we will have made significant progress in switching from integrated circuits to nanotubes. So he thinks this combined with other technological advancements will make it possible to fully integrate the human consciousness with machines.

He makes some pretty cool predictions about how nanotechnology will improve our health... and not just simply curing disease and reversing the aging process, but also making us able to do things that we normally could not do... like hold our breathe underwater for an hour.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by starseed

Ray Kurzweil believes that with the advancement of technology, it is possible for people in their 50s and 60s to live forever. . . .

. . . and still never see the Canucks win the Stanley Cup . . .

[mikey_the_redneck]

The U.S. is doing their best to secure all the resources in other countries as they can, with oil at the forefront of course. The corporations want to keep the oil industry going, because of profit. We are not running out of oil, and the corporations don't care about the environment or sustainability. They care about profit.

The New World Order will be a central or global government over most of the planet if all goes according to plan. World Bank/IMF, the UN, the European Union, the North American Union. Some of it is in place already.

The population..............I'm not worried. With disease, war, and the cost to have kids (in developed countries especially), the explosion is over. If you watch the news, swine flu might just kill us all .........

[JimmytheT]

I have not read through every single post, but from what I can tell, no one has mentioned soils.

At the end of the day, our sustainability as a species (at the current population level) depends on our ability to produce food. Good quality soils are becoming harder and harder to come by; in many places in the world, existing good soils are getting degraded year after year. Moving from non-sustainable agriculture practices to sustainable ones is one of the biggest challenges (and currently a very underrated one by the public at large) our species' will face over the the next century.

We may see conflicts--particularly in the population bubbles of Asia--arising from the need to grab up more arable land for the mother country.