The World in 2030?

[Thedrin]

I'm dipping in and out of Physics of the Future by Michio Kaku at the moment. It's not so much about physics as about the state of technology by 2030, 2070, and 2100.

Some of the technological advancements that interested me most in the 2030 time frame:

Internet contact lenses which overlay information from the internet on top of your vision. As you walk down the street you'll see information about the people you're walking past floating above their heads. Looking for a new apartment? As your walking down the street your contact lenses will point out to you the location of apartments that fit the criteria you're looking for. It may lead to the point where learning new languages becomes obsolete as your contact lenses could overlay subtitles of what someone is saying to you in a foreign language (or your babelfish earpiece would dub what they're saying).

Flexible electronic paper. Your laptop is a sheet that can be folded down to the size of your current day mobile phone or unfolded to the size of a newspaper.

The end of Moore's Law. Without a significant and unexpected technological breakthrough the cost of computing power will cease to half every eighteen months.

Ability to detect the presence of cancer early and destroy cancer cells using nanomachines.

 

[Verarde]

I can't predict what will happen in the future. Who knows what might happen?

At the very least, if I don't die and time doesn't come to a close, I'll be 34.

 

[Dachs]

Still only has about one third of of America's and less then one tenth of China's population.
The assumption that China will be a superpower is far less stupid than the Japan craze during the eighties.

If population were a decent metric for the likelihood of states to become superpowers, you might have a point.

 

[Core Imposter]

Really can't expect to project much. We have a global thermonuclear war in there somewhere unless Jesus comes back. We have to get past December 21st before we can think about Christmas.

/thread

 

[exhile]

humans will have returned to the moon
the international space station will have deorbited

 

[Abegweit]

If population were a decent metric for the likelihood of states to become superpowers, you might have a point.

Agreed. The next superpower will obviously be Greenland.

 

[Akkon888]

Agreed. The next superpower will obviously be Greenland.

I don't know. It might be farfetched for 2030, but in a few hundred years, I wouldn't be surprised to see global warming boost it and Canada and Russia to a powerful status.

 

[Abegweit]

I don't know. It might be farfetched for 2030, but in a few hundred years, I wouldn't be surprised to see global warming boost it and Canada and Russia to a powerful status.

Blindsided. This argument simply never occurred to me. So let me change my choice. I'm going for Vanuutu.

 

[Integral]

18 years?

- the US CPI will no more than double, and will probably rise by about 70% overall from 2012-2030.
- Economic growth will average < 2% per capita per year in the US.
- DT's first child will be thinking about where to go to college.

 

[Save_Ferris]

America will continue to decline, China will collapse, Russia will run out of resources.
Europe will rule the world.
Germany will rule Europe.
I will rule Germany.

There's also gonna be a new video game crash within the next five years.

I would expect a television industry crash, with online shows and a general decline of overall quality, but not video games. They kinda had their crash ten years ago.

 

[Smellincoffee]

The United States won't be looking very pretty. I imagine suburban sprawl will be visibly rotting by that point. It can't be maintained without cheap gasoline, and even with that a lot of the stuff that's built now will be crumbling by then. It doesn't support a self-sustaining tax base, and we don't have the money to keep it going. I think some major interstate highways, at least the portions which cut into cities rather than go around them, will have been torn down. We can't maintain them and people are starting to rebel against their sheer ugliness. Maybe the movement in Iran will succeed in another government change.

If the United States is smart we may see some reinvestment in rails.

The bound book industry will continue to decline, making me increasingly bitter. I may have been imprisoned for snatching gadgets (Kindles, iphones, smartphones, whatever) out of people's hands and throwing them under a truck/into a river/etc.

Certain politicians will still be maintaining that global warming is a lie and that there's plenty of oil in them thar hills.

 

[downtown]

- DT's first child will be thinking about where to go to college.

As long as that isn't Michigan or BYU, I will happily support DT.Jr's choice.

(lets hope that's actually a little more than 18 years away).

As for geopolitical stuff, I have no idea.

 

[Save_Ferris]

The United States won't be looking very pretty. I imagine suburban sprawl will be visibly rotting by that point. It can't be maintained without cheap gasoline, and even with that a lot of the stuff that's built now will be crumbling by then. It doesn't support a self-sustaining tax base, and we don't have the money to keep it going. I think some major interstate highways, at least the portions which cut into cities rather than go around them, will have been torn down. We can't maintain them and people are starting to rebel against their sheer ugliness. Maybe the movement in Iran will succeed in another government change.

I, for one, will welcome our new megapolis overlords.

 

[Dachs]

As for geopolitical stuff, I have no idea.

Congratulations, you're right! Neither does anybody else, and if they say they do, they're lying.

 

[Antilogic]

Congratulations, you're right! Neither does anybody else, and if they say they do, they're lying.

We'll all be cackling with glee as we are crushed under the boots of mighty Lesotho.

More on topic: yeah, extrapolating is a dangerous game.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

If population were a decent metric for the likelihood of states to become superpowers, you might have a point.

It's at the very least a limiting factor, and one that can't be remedied any time soon.
Rome started as a city-state, the British Empire started as just one Island, but they both didn't stay small. In today's world countries eihter fragment or retain their size because military conquest simply isn't an option. Neither China nor the USA would just sit back and watch if the Japanese were to decide "Korea now belongs to us, and Malaysia, and Indonesia...".
This may change with time, but I'm fairly confident in won't happen for at least half a century.

I would expect a television industry crash, with online shows and a general decline of overall quality, but not video games. They kinda had their crash ten years ago.

How did it crash ?
I base my prediction on the homogenisation of the console market. Nintendo was innovative, but Sony and Microsoft seem to be hellbent on ripping Nintendo and each other off and there don't seem to be as many platform exclusive titles as before. Add to that the rising costs and the hardware itself and online services, online passes and perceived creative satgnation and you have a recipe for disaster.

 

[Tahuti]

If population were a decent metric for the likelihood of states to become superpowers, you might have a point.

The best metric for superpower status is economy, since economic prowess allows for greater military funding (see USA) and political leverage (once again, see USA). And to have a powerful economy, you'll need to have capital, resources and labor. China happens to have a lot have the latter.

It's at the very least a limiting factor, and one that can't be remedied any time soon.
Rome started as a city-state, the British Empire started as just one Island, but they both didn't stay small. In today's world countries eihter fragment or retain their size because military conquest simply isn't an option. Neither China nor the USA would just sit back and watch if the Japanese were to decide "Korea now belongs to us, and Malaysia, and Indonesia...".
This may change with time, but I'm fairly confident in won't happen for at least half a century.

It is also a matter of political continuity. Why bother conquering countries if it's success will lead to your political downfall?
Back in the days of Rome, few inhabitants of the Roman Empire were actually citizens, so political continuity was relatively easy to maintain. The Gauls couldn't vote out any Roman politicians (hell, most "Romans" even couldn't!), so the Romans could go ahead and annex what is today's France anyway. Today, this would be called apartheid, which would spark domestic resistance, as well - and you mentioned already yourself - the wrath of outside powers. So the only option is to make them citizens, which would destroy all political continuity to be had.

 

[Dachs]

The best metric for superpower status is economy, since economic prowess allows for greater military funding (see USA) and political leverage (once again, see USA). And to have a powerful economy, you'll need to have capital, resources and labor. China happens to have a lot have the latter.

There is no one best metric for whether a state qualifies as a superpower or not; it's generally agreed that it's some sort of aggregate of various forms of soft power, e.g. ideological, cultural, economic, etc., and hard power. Some of that stuff has to do with population; some of it doesn't. Some of it can even theoretically be ******** by having a high population without the capacity to properly manage it.

And I have to say that whatever you said about Rome is not totally wrong, but the parts of it that are wrong (most of it) are about as far from what was actually the case as if it was on the dark side of the moon.

 

[Tahuti]

There is no one best metric for whether a state qualifies as a superpower or not; it's generally agreed that it's some sort of aggregate of various forms of soft power, e.g. ideological, cultural, economic, etc., and hard power. Some of that stuff has to do with population; some of it doesn't. Some of it can even theoretically be ******** by having a high population without the capacity to properly manage it.

Didn't said the bolded part wasn't true. In fact, China's rising status is almost entirely attributible to its improved abilities to manage its large population. Right now, the US is more powerful than China is despite having less inhabitants because the US is able to get more out of its citizens, which could change in the future.

And I have to say that whatever you said about Rome is not totally wrong, but the parts of it that are wrong (most of it) are about as far from what was actually the case as if it was on the dark side of the moon.

You're missing the point, since you are highlighting historical details that are irrelevant in a discussion about geopolitics. It is about the general idea, which is that in today's world - compared to the Roman Empire - states have little incentive in conquest because upon succesful subjugation of another state, they will become international pariahs or have to change their political constituencies to the point of self-destruction of political capital.

 

[Dachs]

Didn't said the bolded part wasn't true. In fact, China's rising status is almost entirely attributible to its improved abilities to manage its large population. Right now, the US is more powerful than China is despite having less inhabitants because the US is able to get more out of its citizens, which could change in the future.

The point is that you said it was an economic matter, and I disagreed with you. Much of the rest of the comment is not directed at you specifically, but at GoodSarmatian, assuming he still cares.

You're missing the point, since you are highlighting historical details that are irrelevant in a discussion about geopolitics. It is about the general idea, which is that in today's world - compared to the Roman Empire - states have little incentive in conquest because upon succesful subjugation of another state, they will become international pariahs or have to change their political constituencies to the point of self-destruction of political capital.

It is possible to make such a point without reproducing the abortion of history you typed above, you know. Having said that, I don't think that concerns over adding new constituents come even close to the relevance of international pariah status or the military difficulties inherent in maintaining control of conquered and restive territory.