Future history

[citedon]

Commodre Nate

I see your point. I don't know why I threw that in. The history would probably have worked better if I had just started with 2009.

Thanks.

 

[citedon]

I don't think it'll take 200 years for China to become a democracy, i believe it'll take far less. America as a nation was only really born just over 200 years ago.

Your're probably right. I just picked a year, without giving it much thought.
I think I was just getting tired of writing.

 

[RalofTyr]

I have the image of Captian Kirk from the indians in space episode of Star Trek... "I AM KIIIRROOOCK!"

Heh, I actually got all the names from a Star Trek random name generator...

 

[Disenfrancised]

I don't think it'll take 200 years for China to become a democracy, i believe it'll take far less. America as a nation was only really born just over 200 years ago.

America as a nation was the child of British Parliamentary tradition, jurisprudence, and European enlightenment principles that went back centuries before that 'birth' . That said 200 years does seem on the outside, though I doubt it will have settled democracy in under 40.

 

[Traitorfish]

2009: A giant onion eats the US President, thus, according to Necromonger law, becoming the new President.
2010: President Onion eats Osama bin Laden, thus ending the War on Terror
2011: President Onion eats Spain, thus ending the War on Spain.
2012-2018: President Onion eats Various Things, thus ending Various Wars on Various Things.
2019: President Onion conquers earth, ushering in a new age of peace and prosperity.
2345: The sun explodes for some reason, catching everyone a little off-guard.

I'll believe that's not realistic when someone conclusively proves to me the non-existence of giant, sentient onions with Presidential ambitions.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

2009: A giant onion eats the US President, thus, according to Necromonger law, becoming the new President.
2010: President Onion eats Osama bin Laden, thus ending the War on Terror
2011: President Onion eats Spain, thus ending the War on Spain.
2012-2018: President Onion eats Various Things, thus ending Various Wars on Various Things.
2019: President Onion conquers earth, ushering in a new age of peace and prosperity.
2345: The sun explodes for some reason, catching everyone a little off-guard.

I'll believe that's not realistic when someone conclusively proves to me the non-existence of giant, sentient onions with Presidential ambitions.

1. Contradiction: You can't prove a negative. Ergo, the burden of proof is on you. You must prove to us that such an onion exists. I hope to God it isn't growing in your garden, because then he'd have to fight with mine for the honor of eating Mr. Bush.

2. Though Mr. Onion would NOT in fact become President, it's not like a Cheney Presidency would be any different...

PS: Note in annoyance: Firefox spellcheck apparently doesn't recognize "Cheney."
PPS: Neither does it recognize "spellcheck."

 

[Sharwood]

PPS: Neither does it recognize "spellcheck."

That's because it's not a real word. It should be spell check, or alternatively spell-check.

 

[TheLastOne36]

2026: EU makes long-expected announcement that it will not tolerate its members foreign policies being dictated from outside Europe. this is seen as a warning to the SCO and the US. NATO, in a period of long decline, begins to unravel. France, Germany, Italy and Holland leave the alliance. Poland and the baltic nations seceed from the EU and reaffirm their loyalty to NATO.


TBC...

That is interesting. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with this, but i doubt that we'd allow America to control us. Especially since by that time Poland will be a major player in Europe with a growing Population and economy. Sticking with the EU and befriending america to get them to build bases on our border with Russia/Belarus would be our best bet.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

That's because it's not a real word. It should be spell check, or alternatively spell-check.

Perhaps it ought to be. People certainly use it like one: people usually string the words together in conversation without any space between them (which both a space and a hyphen imply).

Yeah, I privilege the spoken word over the written. You got a problem with that?

 

[Sharwood]

Perhaps it ought to be. People certainly use it like one: people usually string the words together in conversation without any space between them (which both a space and a hyphen imply).

Yeah, I privilege the spoken word over the written. You got a problem with that?

I have serious problems with that. Want to make something of it? Well do ya? Punk!

 

[RedRalph]

That is interesting. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with this, but i doubt that we'd allow America to control us. Especially since by that time Poland will be a major player in Europe with a growing Population and economy. Sticking with the EU and befriending america to get them to build bases on our border with Russia/Belarus would be our best bet.

with all due respect, Poland like Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Romania (I know Poland is easily the mosy powerful of all those countries, but its not top tier, even in europe) etc is going to have its policies closely supervised by, if not dictated by either the EU, Us or Beijing over the next 50 years. It just isnt strong enough to not come under someones umberella. Very few countries are. At the moment Poland seems to be closer to the US than to the EU, more interested in NATO than European intergration. A day is going to come when the EU and American interests will diverge from being the same, to different, to eventually in competition with eachother. In a world of dwindling resources, thats just how its going to be. As the EU grows in power and influence, it will become uncomfortable with its nation states having outside loyalties, NATO, the UK's lapdogism towards the US etc. Eventually, countries like Ireland, Poland, Czech etc are going to have to choose where their loyalties lie. thats dosent preclude them from friendship with the US, but it will just mean they will refer any questions, such as the missile shield one, to Brussels.

 

[TheLastOne36]

with all due respect, Poland like Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Romania (I know Poland is easily the mosy powerful of all those countries, but its not top tier, even in europe) etc is going to have its policies closely supervised by, if not dictated by either the EU, Us or Beijing over the next 50 years. It just isnt strong enough to not come under someones umberella. Very few countries are. At the moment Poland seems to be closer to the US than to the EU, more interested in NATO than European intergration. A day is going to come when the EU and American interests will diverge from being the same, to different, to eventually in competition with eachother. In a world of dwindling resources, thats just how its going to be. As the EU grows in power and influence, it will become uncomfortable with its nation states having outside loyalties, NATO, the UK's lapdogism towards the US etc. Eventually, countries like Ireland, Poland, Czech etc are going to have to choose where their loyalties lie. thats dosent preclude them from friendship with the US, but it will just mean they will refer any questions, such as the missile shield one, to Brussels.

Again i said i wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with you. i just pointed out what the best situation would be for us. I think Poland as well as all the other countries will stick with the EU in the long run. Makes more sense especially since by the time that happens, the EU will more then likely be able to do all things, like build military bases, that America can do. Also think for a second, all those countries you've pointed out, "Poland, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Romania" there still recovering from communism, dictators, and from being poor. Getting help from both America and the EU is better then just getting help from the EU. In a couple of years from now, i can see all of central europe(excluding Slovakia) on the same level as western Europe. by then, i don't think Central Europe would need that much help from America. (excluding maybe Poland which by then will still want some bases on the Polish/Belorussian-Russian border. But that's only if by then, the EU or Poland itself cannot make those bases on there own).

Also i'm curious as to why there hasn't been anyone even mentioning a Latin American Union or a SE Asian union.

 

[Sharwood]

Again i said i wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with you. i just pointed out what the best situation would be for us. I think Poland as well as all the other countries will stick with the EU in the long run. Makes more sense especially since by the time that happens, the EU will more then likely be able to do all things, like build military bases, that America can do. Also think for a second, all those countries you've pointed out, "Poland, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Romania" there still recovering from communism, dictators, and from being poor. Getting help from both America and the EU is better then just getting help from the EU. In a couple of years from now, i can see all of central europe(excluding Slovakia) on the same level as western Europe. by then, i don't think Central Europe would need that much help from America. (excluding maybe Poland which by then will still want some bases on the Polish/Belorussian-Russian border. But that's only if by then, the EU or Poland itself cannot make those bases on there own).

Also i'm curious as to why there hasn't been anyone even mentioning a Latin American Union or a SE Asian union.

Probably because most people posting here aren't from Latin America or South East Asia. I might whip up something along the ASEAN lines if I ever get the time and feel the inclination for you.

 

[RedRalph]

I'd very much love to see a Latin american union, albeit probably one far far to the left of the one ye would want... but my knowledge of Latin american politics is fairly limited, still Im might give it a gop over the next few days. Brazil to the South american Union would be like Russia to the EU

 

[TheLastOne36]

I'd very much love to see a Latin american union, albeit probably one far far to the left of the one ye would want... but my knowledge of Latin american politics is fairly limited, still Im might give it a gop over the next few days. Brazil to the South american Union would be like Russia to the EU

Brazil isn't part of it?

 

[Mirc]

I agree with RedRalph, I'd love to see a working Latin American Union. The language situation is a lot better than what we've got here in the EU (compare 23 languages with... 2 - okay I know there are other minority languages in Latin America, like Quechua, but minority languages aren't counted in those 23 European ones either).

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Brazil isn't part of it?

Brazil is a founding member of the [wiki]Union of South American Nations[/wiki] which intends to be the EU of South America and appears likely to get there quite quickly. The capital of Unasul is even temporarily Brasilia.

 

[RedRalph]

Brazil isn't part of it?

Hmm... we'll see how it develops!!!

 

[Disenfrancised]

Brazil is a founding member of the [wiki]Union of South American Nations[/wiki] which intends to be the EU of South America and appears likely to get there quite quickly. The capital of Unasul is even temporarily Brasilia.

A south american union will happen with Brazil's leadership and approval or it won't happen at all (much like the US would get a bit perturbed by a North American union between Canada and Mexico ). A Latin Union does have the advantage of fewer languages to cover than the EU, but lacks the founding members oodles of cash and a coherent south american infrastructure is a much more expensive and difficult proposition.

 

[Brighteye]

Obama wins the US presidency and subsequently shows that despite all his calls for change, he hasn't the nous to push through serious reforms, and makes only relatively minor changes to the way the country is run.
The Conservatives win the next general election, despite the perverse dislike half the population have for anything they say (before even listening to it).

Turn-out in both elections is relatively high because of the perceived closeness of the competition, concealing a distinct voter apathy towards politics. Commentators talk about a revival of democracy but opinion polls still show an astounding level of disinterest.

Political parties start to develop insidious control over news channels or programmes, probably via 'independent' but biased parties. Even more money is wasted on presentation, as evidenced by a few more scandals about cover-ups. These scandals are perceived as simply more government waste, and enhance voter apathy, but are symptomatic of a very disturbing trend of mental manipulation rather than actual achievement, and a culture in power that has become accustomed to being able to control or distort information, and therefore naturally hides bad information.

Further down the line, these two democracies become established, de facto oligarchies with many similarities to police states. They would no longer be superpower, and power, respectively, but Russia has fallen victim to wasting resources on maintaining Putin in power and funding crimelords, rather than its economy, as has happened to Russia for centuries, and China has too much to deal with in the form of desertification, starvation and pollution. China possibly also experiences mass unrest, and indulges in what would be called civil war if it weren't so one-sided.

Thus the three possible super-powers, Russia, China and the US, spend more and more effort on internal affairs and power games, and their economies and power projection suffers.
The world becomes more chaotic as states realise that they can get away with border invasions and rely on allies in the UN to stall any sort of condemnation at all.
Piracy spreads, and multinational corporations come to rely on mercenaries to defend their interests.
Some of these mercenary groups become international powers, some make the multinational corporations international powers (and monopolies) and many start small civil wars or power struggles in the less stable countries in which they are employed.

Africa and Southern America remain largely chaotic, fuelled by civil war, mutinational mercenaries and drug cartels.

South-East Asia and Europe become new 'superpowers', although the word no longer has as much meaning. They do not surpass China and the US in raw power, but because these two countries lose interest in global affairs they gain an almost equal level of international prestige.
South-East Asia will be the new talking point, as people wonder whether they will truly become a superpower through closer integration, or will remain an influential group of nations.
Europe will have already tried this, but its members will have suffered disagreements on the level of integration, leading to a partially unified Europe with internal conflicts/bureaucracy emasculating its international presence.