Predicting the Next Decade 2020-2030

Baldtastic

Ad Honorem
Aug 2009
5,184
Londinium
#41
In the near future (<50 years) climate change and other factors lead to mass migrations, notably to the west. Western nations, having been hardened to such events in the early part of the century, close borders and impose rigorous/oppressive internal security (think of anti-terror legislation +1).


Global pandemic. Poorer nations with younger populations are the first to fall. Large-scale, pan-national organizations come about, democracy is eroded and eventually disappears under the weight of central authoritarian regimes, having been established in the 1st part of the century, or end of the past one (African Union, EU, ASEAN, and so on).
 

GogLais

Ad Honorem
Sep 2013
4,939
Wirral
#43
Automation and AI will destroy far more jobs than they create.

This one is probably 20 years in the future: Aging demographics, falling populations, and decline in employment opportunities will destroy society as we know it. What happens when there are more retirees, disabled, and unemployed than there are workers to support them?
Haven’t you solved the problem there? Rightly or wrongly, I’m reasonably relaxed about automation although I can afford to be at my age. If companies are going to invest in the technology they’re going to need a market for the products surely? My fear is not the lost jobs but that we won’t be able to adapt quickly enough to the new circumstances.
 

Dan Howard

Ad Honorem
Aug 2014
4,016
Australia
#45
Haven’t you solved the problem there? Rightly or wrongly, I’m reasonably relaxed about automation although I can afford to be at my age. If companies are going to invest in the technology they’re going to need a market for the products surely? My fear is not the lost jobs but that we won’t be able to adapt quickly enough to the new circumstances.
I think automation is the only answer to the aging population and shrinking workforce. The problem is finding the money to support all those people who aren't being productive. We can't afford it now (government debt is increasing annually) and the problem will only get worse - much worse (<5% workforce participation). I think there will be severe societal unrest (we are seeing the start of it now). If we don't destroy ourselves during this conflict, what comes afterwards will be pretty neat.
 

Dan Howard

Ad Honorem
Aug 2014
4,016
Australia
#46
Are you saying that Britain of XVII century was socialistic? Because police and firemen were pretty active during the Great London Fire.
Of course it was socialistic, but far less than today. There are degrees of socialism. Today, the entire OECD, except for the US, has socialised health care and none of us are communist.
 

GogLais

Ad Honorem
Sep 2013
4,939
Wirral
#47
I think automation is the only answer to the aging population and shrinking workforce. The problem is finding the money to support all those people who aren't being productive. We can't afford it now (government debt is increasing annually) and the problem will only get worse - much worse (<5% workforce participation). I think there will be severe societal unrest (we are seeing the start of it now). If we don't destroy ourselves during this conflict, what comes afterwards will be pretty neat.
The answer is, or should be, that we get an income for not working or at least the benefits to companies of automation shouldn’t be confined to the shareholders. Easier said than done of course.
 

Dan Howard

Ad Honorem
Aug 2014
4,016
Australia
#48
There have been a few limited experiments with a guaranteed income and none of them have worked very well because only a small minority of the population finds something productive to do when they don't have to earn a living. The degradation of what we call the "work ethic" will cause many problems that I can't imagine how to solve. Humans have been so successful in the past because of our ability to adapt to change and the need to compete and contend with each other. Struggle and conflict makes us stronger and necessity is the mother of invention. With no necessity and no struggle, there is no innovation and no progress. Society will stagnate and we will be unable to adapt to changing circumstances.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2017
262
Regnum Teutonicum
#49

This is an interesting video about the topic from the french branch of the franco-german TV-channel ARTE. It is a bit old, already from 2011, but it is about the possible and likely conflicts in 2030. So we can see, what the people from 10 years ago thought the world will be in 10 years. The experts and institutions they asked for the answers for the video were NATO, Sipri in Sweden, the Rand-Corporation in the USA and the Ecole Militaire in France.

Some of the most interesting points about conflicts in 2030:
-territorial conflicts will decrease
-conflicts for access to resources will increase
-44% of world population will live in South Asia and Africa
-the economy in Asia will continue to grow strongly
-China will be the strongest economic power (GDP over 25 trillion Dollar)
-GDP of the USA will be over 22 trillion Dollar
-India will be third
-Those three will be world powers, but there will be great powers and regional powers like Brazil, too
-8 billion people
-1 billion more people means more energy is needed, which means more tensions about energy security and bad results for the climate
-50% more energy is needed in comparison to 2007
-75% of used energy will be generated by fossil energies
-those energy resources are not distributed equally, which will most likely lead to conflicts
-most of those resources (oil, gas, coal) are in Australia, China, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Russia, India, Iran, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Saudi-Arabia, Libya, Algeria, Ukraine, Germany, Canada, USA, Colombia, Venezuela, Nigeria and South Africa
-2/3 of the oil and gas will be from Iraq, Iran and the gulf monarchies
-Chinese energy consumption will double and a big part of it has to be imported
-beginning with 2030 the mined rare earth minerals will be less than the amount the world needs of them
-China has more than half of the rare earth mineral deposits, which could empower China to influence the world market prices for them, meaning China has an economic and political weapon
-Another important resource which could trigger conflicts is water
-47% of the population will live in regions with water shortage
-When the glaciers of Himalaya melts, there will be much less fresh water per inhabitant: 35% for Nepal, 28% for India, 22% for Bangladesh and 14% for China (the countries were 40% of the worlds population will live)
-because of water shortage cultivable land and food production will decrease
-there will be conflicts for cultivable land
-the new shipping lanes in the arctic will become important and may lead to conflict
-a lot of conflicts will involve several problems starting them
-the atmosphere will be a place of conflict (industry economy, energy and military)
-cyber space will be a much more important place of conflict
-the interception of cyber attacks will lead to rivalries between the great powers
 
Likes: arkteia

arkteia

Ad Honorem
Nov 2012
4,693
Seattle
#50
Are you sure? There was no police or fire brigade at the time. Much of the fire fighting was done by local militia.
You are right. Now, I asked Google this question before I posted as I did not know. From what I understand, what did not exist during before the fire was any fire equipment, fire departments and the logistics to combat the fire. The word "militiamen", is used many times, they even used it interchangeably with firemen. But militia is also an organization to support order.

What I want to say is that the institutions Dan Howard mentioned have nothing to do with socialism as socialism is not determined by the absence/presence of police or fire brigades, much less the roads as any society bound by trade does create roads. (And if he ever traveled in New York to New Jersey and had to pay tolls... I don't even know how our abundance of paid roads can be viewed as "belonging to the society". We are getting tolls in WA, too...).

And plus, socialism is determined by who the means of production belong to and how the products are distributed.
 

Similar History Discussions