The world in 2100

[Mouthwash]

I encourage everyone to read this piece by Robert Kaplan from 1997 - it's not 'prophetic' so much as it seems an actual literal prophecy, even with the minor details like Aung San Suu Kyi or the Uighurs.

I found it a couple years back. It wasn't the original catalyst for my reactionary turn, but it remains foundational to my worldview.

 

[dusters]

^There was a Sliders episode about that, back in the '90s. It was thoroughly depressing, and I don't recall how the episode addressed the matter of how these virtual reality-addicted people did things like eating and other basic needs.

Movie thirteenth floor comes to mind.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0139809/

 

[Birdjaguar]

I encourage everyone to read this piece by Robert Kaplan from 1997 - it's not 'prophetic' so much as it seems like an actual literal prophecy, even in the minor details like Aung San Suu Kyi or the Uighurs.

I found it a couple years back, as I recall. It wasn't the original catalyst for my reactionary turn, but it remains foundational to my worldview.

That was a really interesting article. Thanks.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's a total probability cloud.

I hold as possibility that we'll pass the Singularity. A googleplex of people will be in virtual enslavement. A larger googleplex of people will be given escape velocity with regards to their own future. There will continue to be people on the planet and I have no idea of it's a virtual paradise or a hellhole. It all depends on whether the charity overwhelms the ability to destroy by the equivalent of overgods.

We might have a society awfully similar to ours. More leisure, more environmental degradation. That depends if we rolled out alternative sources of energy in time and handled automation-induced unemployment.

We might have a pretty threadbare existence where social infrastructure degradation from poverty just cascaded on itself. This is an unpleasant world where the strong truly prey on the weak, but nearly everywhere. Very few places will think that 'thinks have improved since 2020'.

And, some existential risk might hit. We're completely unprepared for NBC terrorist strikes or even massive environmental disaster.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Most civ games agree the world will end in 2050 and the various countries will be assigned a score.

 

[caketastydelish]

The oil ran out and everything is Mad Max style in 2100.

I hope we stop using oil long before we run out.

 

[stinkubus]

I hope we stop using oil long before we run out.

Supplies beginning to truly run short will be a cataclysmic geopolitical and economic event all on its own. The US needs oil markets to force its currency to circulate outside of its domestic institutions.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Similar theme in of one of the Flash Gordon comics.
We ended up in hospital like housing lying on beds with lots of tubes.

In the SF movie Zardoz (1974) with a young Sean Connery as Zed the barbarian... Zed rescues humanity from themselves, they were the Eternals, by disconnecting them from Zardoz granting them death.

It ends with Zed in a cave in the wilderness in effect resetting time with 20,000 years for a second chance of us.
The end scene the most impressive part of the whole as such C movie

Good movie and great analysis there. It is surprisingly philosophical for a low-budget Tongue in cheek movie.

 

[Angst]

The probable devastation of climate change is so dire that it will be impossible to predict. We're basically facing a second bronze age collapse.

Unless prisoner's dilemma stops being a thing and the whole world comes together. Which is not going to happen.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Unless prisoner's dilemma stops being a thing and the whole world comes together. Which is not going to happen.

all you need to do is believe in the invisible hand and sing kumbaya really loud and not change anything at all. trust me, this has always worked so far.

 

[El_Machinae]

Climate change, itself, should just be a drag on growth. There's a chance that it creates devastation, but that should be viewed as a probabilistic event. But it's not the only thing stressing our ecologies. 'Luckily' a lot of the other stressors are more amenable to our conception of borders - fisheries, aquifers, nature preserves, etc. can all be defended with guns. So, it causes conflict but hopefully not a deadly spiral.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Global warming, rising waters, mass migrations and the ensuing conflicts will force change. Some of those will be offset by improved technology and general human adaptability to change. I think the reversion to some pre-industrial level of civilization is very unlikely. Societies have recovered from both natural and human caused regional devastation in the past. And while the challenges humanity faces today appear larger and more devastating, we know they are coming and have huge advantages over our ancestors when faced with massive change. There will be pain and people will die, but I'm confident that 50 years from now your cell phones (or their equivalent) will still work just fine.

 

[Angst]

Global warming, rising waters, mass migrations and the ensuing conflicts will force change. Some of those will be offset by improved technology and general human adaptability to change. I think the reversion to some pre-industrial level of civilization is very unlikely. Societies have recovered from both natural and human caused regional devastation in the past. And while the challenges humanity faces today appear larger and more devastating, we know they are coming and have huge advantages over our ancestors when faced with massive change. There will be pain and people will die, but I'm confident that 50 years from now your cell phones (or their equivalent) will still work just fine.

Oh yea I agree. Problem is just that I care about people more than cell phones

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Climate change, itself, should just be a drag on growth. There's a chance that it creates devastation, but that should be viewed as a probabilistic event.

I don't think that's an accurate representation of the scientific consensus on this issue. The way things are going currently, major change notwithstanding, a good part of the world will be inhospitable and billions of people will be displaced, left behind, get sick, die. Unless things change drastically, irreversible damages will occur. What should instead be viewed as a probabilistic event is us counteracting and curtailing the devastating effects of climate change in a meaningful way.

I think the reversion to some pre-industrial level of civilization is very unlikely.

I agree, it's virtually impossible.

There will be pain and people will die, but I'm confident that 50 years from now your cell phones (or their equivalent) will still work just fine.

I could not really care less about humanity as a species surviving this, I am much more concerned with the billions of lesser priviledged people being sent into their deaths just because they were born close to a shore or cannot afford large-scale mobility. The fact that the priviledged (which, realistically, includes me) will go on and be shielded from most the repercussions gives me little solace considering that the world is heading into a direction where I am unsure I even want my future children to live in it...

 

[IglooDame]

Looking at the last 60-80 year intervals. Someone in 1760 would hardly have predicted Napoleon or the rise of an independent United States or steam power. Someone in 1840 would not predict global industrialization. Someone in 1900 would not predict WWII and the Cold War, or rocketry. Someone in 1960 would not predict the rise of the internet, cellular telephony, or satellite everything while not staying on the Moon or getting to Mars.

So if there's anything predictable for the next 80yrs, it is unpredictability.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Looking at the last 60-80 year intervals. Someone in 1760 would hardly have predicted Napoleon or the rise of an independent United States or steam power. Someone in 1840 would not predict global industrialization. Someone in 1900 would not predict WWII and the Cold War, or rocketry. Someone in 1960 would not predict the rise of the internet, cellular telephony, or satellite everything while not staying on the Moon or getting to Mars.

So if there's anything predictable for the next 80yrs, it is unpredictability.

I can't disagree with your unpredictability standard for the next 80 years, I can quibble on a couple of things:

• The first British patent for a steam pump was granted in 1698
• While Napoleon himself would not likely be predicted, certainly a despotic French King/Emperor ruling much of Europe was well within the realm of possibility.