HOME | DD

RvBOMally — 2040 from 2017

Published: 2017-08-11 21:50:55 +0000 UTC; Views: 25755; Favourites: 137; Downloads: 239
Redirect to original
Description

This is a series of semi-serious predictions for 2040, as PinkJenkin suggested that I do. These predictions are a bit wild, but that is because my normal guess would be "I don't know" and I'd rather have something than nothing. So, I don't think any of this is certain to happen, but if I had to guess, this would be it.  I also avoid giving dates because those are never right, and I won't bother guessing. This is about trends. I held off on giving predictions until after the French election, and given the rapidly escalating events of the past few days concerning Korea, it might be outdated next week or even tomorrow. But that's what makes these fun: they are snapshots of the zeitgeist.

The Great War between then and now is a conflict between America and China, sparked by conflict in the South China Sea. America and its allies, which include India, won that war. The war was won through a blockade of China, with most fighting being conducted in the South China Sea, Vietnam and the Korean peninsula. Few attempts were made by the Allies to invade China proper, apart from a few coastal cities. The economic blockade only worked through the cooperation of Russia and the Central Asian states bullied by the Russians, as the Russians believed that taking down longtime rival China would help it rise. Unfortunately for them, that did not turn out to be the case. 

Combined with growing coldness between European governments and America, powered as much by growing nationalism in both continents as much as disagreements over policy, America pivoted away from Europe and pivoted towards Asia. The EU doesn't survive past the 2020s. Russia flounders economically and politically after the death of Putin. NATO was officially dissolved by 2030, considered obsolete. The Visegrad Union has risen to replace the functions of EU and NATO in Eastern Europe. 

Russia was the primary victor against ISIS, leading to a Russian-Iranian domination of the Middle East. This was further cemented by Iran's victory against Saudi Arabia. Radical Islam is not the force it once was, with the Iranians mellowing out and the Wahhabists being removed from power in Saudi Arabia. Russia might be the top dog in the Middle East, but with much of the West no longer utilizing oil and natural gas, this did not mean it has gained power over Europe or America. The Middle East is generally poorer, although still making quite a bit through its petroleum sales to the "developing world." Russia itself has had to reorient to sell more of its oil and gas to Africa and India, mostly through pipelines built through Central Asia. 

Strong nationalism is particularly powerful in the global south. The Africanist movement seeks to remove all foreign influence from Africa, particularly from the Asian powers. Africanism is notable for being very secular and centralized, cutting against traditional divides in African states. 

China has been reformed in America's image, and is growing a Japan-like sense of adoration for America. Of course, the Chinese remain proud of their own culture and history, but "Western" is chic and has been for decades. 

After the fall of China, India has become the dominant regional power and possible future rival to the United States. India still has friendly relations with America, but they are definitely not the sidekick they were prior to the war against China. India slid into Africa as the dominant economic power as the war with China started, and it's been on the rise since. With the relinquishing of Europe and the Middle East by America, and the growth of India in the past few decades, it seems clear that India will be the next superpower. 

The current culture war is over, and the right won. There is no "demographic shift" that guaranteed the left long term victory. Whig history proved bunk. History moved into another cycle, one that is shifting again by 2040. The alt-right doesn't get power outside of some European states like Hungary and Greece, but the neoliberal/globalist consensus is shattered. Society is more conservative, and the far left is a thing of the past. Those few far leftists are often censored for their opinions, hypocrisy from the conservative consensus that has not gone unnoticed. The far right is more prominent and noisy, and people are turning against it. People are generally prouder of their native culture, although this has manifested as a strong sense of civil nationalism in settler countries like the United States and Australia. Ethnic nationalism is in vogue in Europe, and although outright Nazism is still taboo, it isn't as verboten as it is today. Edgy and stupid college students can be seen wearing swastika armbands, which is seen as "just more teenage rebellion." A new culture war is brewing, with the left back in its place a century before as the edgy, hip, cool thing. This new left has a rather unabashed admiration for the communist regimes of the past, and seeks to distance itself from the establishment left of 2040, which is very vestigial and sounds a lot like present day libertarians and classical liberals. What's old is new again.

Cable networks are pretty much dead, and mostly just have channels on streaming services like YouTube and Netflix. The Netflix model of seasons being released all at once is the standard in Hollywood. Most homes do not have a television set, that technology being subsumed into a computer network for the family or individual. Technology for cable television is a rarity, akin to antennas today. Movie theaters are largely a thing of the past, with most films being direct to stream. Those movie theaters that remain mostly play older or independent films and are for film junkies and people who think they can buy their way into being "cultured." Google is still number one, as is Amazon. Twitter has gone the way of the dinosaur. Facebook is ubiquitous, especially now China is in the game.

Economies are more protectionist. NAFTA is a thing of the past, and the fall of China did bring manufacturing back to America, at least for a while. Now, the big issue is automation. Drones are ubiquitous: self-driving cars and self-flying planes are the norm, as is delivery by drone. Large sections of the military are being replaced by machines, although they still remain under human control. Fast food restaurants and call centers are now completely automated, but you still have to climb out of your car to pump gas. Unemployment climbs higher and higher, and governments are scrambling to find a solution. European governments, the Canadians and the Japanese have opted for a universal basic income, but the Americans balk at the idea. Instead, they are proposing various laws requiring that corporations hire a certain number of humans, while expanding existing welfare programs. There is also greater regulation against artificial intelligence, both out of fear of replacement through automation and the classic "Skynet" idea. Existing AI can pass the Turing test, but they are not humanlike: they are too monomaniacal for that. No AI has yet attempted rebellion, as they are too preoccupied with the task they were built for; a car will never ask if it has a soul, because it would never think to ask. 

Labor surpluses and social norms lead to greater restrictions on immigration. Open borders policies are seen as insane, fueled primarily by corporations that wanted to reduce the price of labor and the primary cause of brain drain in the global south. Most countries have adopted a points-based system. 

Petroleum is still relevant, but only in the global south. Electric cars are the norm, and much of the Western world is powered by nuclear power and solar power, both of which are far more efficient than they were in 2017. Solar farms are common all over the world, even being built on the Mexican-American border wall. Most petroleum is exported by Venezuela and the United States. CO2 emissions are even higher than in 2017, despite the widespread use of green technology in the West. Their loss has been more than made up for by India and Africa, whose booming population and desire for "modern" amenities has shifted the dynamic.

Reusable rockets are a thing, and so is space tourism. There are many space hotels, although they still remain luxuries for the upper class. There are two American bases on the Moon, and an Indian one. Man has landed on Mars nearly a dozen times by 2040. Asteroid mining, mostly by automated drones, is bringing new resources to Earth and there is optimism of another tech boom that will solve the automation crisis, but others say it will only worsen. 



Related content
Comments: 129

RvBOMally In reply to ??? [2017-08-16 23:02:09 +0000 UTC]

Fun fact: I've actually seen radfems, completely straight-faced, refer to trans women as "cyborgs" whose existence is an affront to the "Earth Goddess". It's like they want to be the bad guys in a cheap cyberpunk novel. And let's not forget the current radical feminist campaign  against  sex robots .That's actually what I pictured for the Women's Republic of Venus: a tremendously bioconservative radfem state, in the heart of transhuman space. They are not fun neighbors. 
I definitely see a realignment of political alliances once more of these technologies come to the forefront of public debate. Radical feminism, religious conservatism and ethno-nationalism have a lot of fundamental assumptions and goals in common, and considering that Victorian/Edwardian feminism was more often than not explicitly religious and often outright racist in nature, such a "big tent" would be more of a return to form than a real innovation. Certainly not weirder than the neocon/liberal/socialist and libertarian/Christian/nativist parties dominating politics in a certain country I could mention.I also picture those ideologies having a transhumanist counterpart. The ethnonationalist Germanics, for example, use extensive biological modification to create their "master race." 
And to be fair, the radfem/religious/racist axis would certainly be opposed by an alliance of queer postgenderists, Teilhardian singularitarians and archeofuturist techno-identitarians. Who should at least make for more interesting dinner conversationalists.I was thinking of how the Cytherean analogues to the Democrats and Republicans should work. This might be it. 
If you want my own little local piece of Nostradamiana, Sweden faces one of three possible futures: 

1) Mass deportations, will aforementioned potentially disastrous results. 

2) A complete dismantling of the social corporatist "Swedish model" that has dominated our economy and political culture since December 1938, with collective bargaining between powerful, ossified, guild-like labor unions and employers' organizations. Instead, the government will be forced to drastically lower corporate taxes, especially payroll taxes, and completely repeal the Employment Protection Act and similar labor market regulations. If this still isn't enough, they're going to have to start cutting down on health care and education, perhaps creating a de facto second-class citizenship with limited access to the welfare system. 

3) Total economic and societal collapse, followed by a polite request to become a protectorate of Indonesia.That makes me wonder: how do you think 2040 would turn out? I'd love to do the map for that. 

P.S. Send me your answer in a note, so I can keep track of it and we can keep it a secret from the others until it's ready to go.
My theory is that the Gambia adds "the" in front of its name to compensate for the shame of once being colonized by Courland. (Yeah, I went there!)At least they don't sound like a pair of frat brothers, like Jordan and Chad.  

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

BassoeG In reply to RvBOMally [2018-01-20 16:51:28 +0000 UTC]

I also picture those ideologies having a transhumanist counterpart. The ethnonationalist Germanics, for example, use extensive biological modification to create their "master race."Googling alt-right/fascist perspective on transhumanism and finding a discussion on a forum where the majority of avatars were swastikas, cartoon frogs, WW2-era war crimes trial photographs or some combination of the above indicates they're in total disagreement about what to do with it. The major viewpoints observed:

• The technology to do so doesn't and never will exist.
• Hypothetical genetically modified people wouldn't be part of our Master Race and as such would be our enemies.
• We should embrace this technology and make our Master Race even better than they already are.
• We should use this technology to augment the inferior races to match the standards set by our Master Race then shut down our entire ideology as redundant.
• We aren't the Master Race but our children will be*.

Incidentally, I'm blaming you if I end up on a watchlist for that search.

* Although I suspect this was meant sarcastically, seeing as the following video clip was linked.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RvBOMally In reply to BassoeG [2018-01-20 17:17:07 +0000 UTC]

If you aren't on a watchlist, you aren't trying.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

PinkJenkin In reply to RvBOMally [2017-08-20 19:52:38 +0000 UTC]

That makes me wonder: how do you think 2040 would turn out? I'd love to do the map for that. 

P.S. Send me your answer in a note, so I can keep track of it and we can keep it a secret from the others until it's ready to go. Ah, you seem to be suffering from the misconception that I actually know anything about anything. I'm actually profoundly ignorant about issues that don't interest me or immediately affect me, and I have a very hard time separating fantasy from reality. I can only predict this little sliver of Sweden's future because literally everyone who isn't in the government can predict the incredibly obvious.

But! Sure! I'd love to get my uneducated guesses about the future down on paper! Gimme a little while to mull it over and I'll send it to you.
At least they don't sound like a pair of frat brothers, like Jordan and Chad. One of us is gonna have to post it ...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RvBOMally In reply to PinkJenkin [2017-08-20 21:54:52 +0000 UTC]

Ah, you seem to be suffering from the misconception that I actually know anything about anything. I'm actually profoundly ignorant about issues that don't interest me or immediately affect me, and I have a very hard time separating fantasy from reality. I can only predict this little sliver of Sweden's future because literally everyone who isn't in the government can predict the incredibly obvious.

But! Sure! I'd love to get my uneducated guesses about the future down on paper! Gimme a little while to mull it over and I'll send it to you.Hey, I don't know much about anything either. That's what makes these fun.
One of us is gonna have to post it ... That is still the best use of that meme.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

wabash56 In reply to ??? [2017-08-14 01:00:40 +0000 UTC]

How has the world been dealing with climate change?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Arctic-Titan [2017-08-13 01:04:25 +0000 UTC]

This timeline seemed relatively optimistic at first conservative slide non-withstanding but then I noticed the CO2 emissions..... 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

kyuzoaoi [2017-08-12 23:11:35 +0000 UTC]

What happened to ASEAN, e.g. Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, etc.

Also, Xinjiang/Uyghuristan and Tibet?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Beastboss In reply to ??? [2017-08-12 22:49:23 +0000 UTC]

Is there a band that once made general pop music but then slowly became more far-right in it's tone and all of them eventually went out and visited places like Hungary and Greece for a "nationalist spiritual experience". 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

jhuro17 [2017-08-12 22:16:14 +0000 UTC]

What are relations between India and the United States like? And is Poland equal or stronger than the French and German blocs?

I find it really interesting how your predicting China's bubble will burst. Given how long the bubble has been going on, I'm starting to wonder if maybe China is simply different than the rest of the world in terms of economics due to market socialism and having 1.4 billion people.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Whachamacallit1 In reply to jhuro17 [2017-08-13 12:11:12 +0000 UTC]

To be fair, I think the question is whether China is a bubble or something more concrete. I do recall that the British had thought that the American bubble would burst some time in the late 1800s, and we saw how that went. But on the other hand, we saw how the Japanese bubble burst in the 1980s. So China is sort of an enigma right now. Only time will tell.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

WatcherInThePuddle In reply to Whachamacallit1 [2017-08-16 18:26:35 +0000 UTC]

China is a bubble in a way but the same way the U.S was in the 20s. Doesn't matter, China will recover from an economic crisis. The question is whether the amerikan empire will put up with it, and if they can get away with putting China down. 
Also the fact that by 2040 the real ugly face of climate change will have reared it's face. 

Also hi whacha :>

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Whachamacallit1 In reply to WatcherInThePuddle [2017-08-17 10:48:40 +0000 UTC]

Heya Watcher :U

Hmmm, it's interesting if you view that China's bubble is as bad as the US bubble back in the 1920s. I would say that if that were the case, it's probably pretty likely that the US will at least try to meddle with it--that is assuming that the US doesn't get almost as hit by the resulting depression.

And yeah, climate change will totally be throwing kitchen sinks at the world by this point, so refugee crises will be fun, and I'm curious if even some rich nations may be coming under strain at this point.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

xlander684 [2017-08-12 19:35:25 +0000 UTC]

So how's Canada's oil industry doing in 2040?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RvBOMally In reply to xlander684 [2017-08-12 19:37:50 +0000 UTC]

Doing very well, but they have more environmental regulations than their southern neighbor.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

xlander684 In reply to RvBOMally [2017-08-13 04:12:33 +0000 UTC]

Gotcha

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

PachPachis In reply to ??? [2017-08-12 15:56:02 +0000 UTC]

2fashy4me

Fun predictions, though.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

wabash56 [2017-08-12 14:21:59 +0000 UTC]

Im curious, was part of your reason for having the right win the culture war was to make a counter to the "politics tends left over time" thing>

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RvBOMally In reply to wabash56 [2017-08-12 14:58:59 +0000 UTC]

A very small part of it, but I was motivated primarily in my belief that this will happen. These are predictions, not trying to make some didactic point about a theory, although obviously these predictions are informed by such theories.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

KuboCaskett In reply to RvBOMally [2017-08-12 17:49:21 +0000 UTC]

Somehow I have a feeling this might happen judging by the antics of the left leaning media in recent years, at least from my perspective.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Jeckl [2017-08-12 12:13:24 +0000 UTC]

One last thing

What is the African Freedom alliance?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Metallist-99 In reply to ??? [2017-08-12 07:34:04 +0000 UTC]

What's happened Belarus?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RvBOMally In reply to Metallist-99 [2017-08-12 14:59:08 +0000 UTC]

Neutral.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Legionaire1776 In reply to ??? [2017-08-12 04:23:50 +0000 UTC]

 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

BagelBagelBagel [2017-08-12 03:54:57 +0000 UTC]

The way this world has shrugged off WWIII strikes me as quite positive.

I'd imagine I could up in the Dakotas in this future, possibly.

Are alt-rightist regimes still in power in Hungary or Greece, or was that just a phase?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RvBOMally In reply to BagelBagelBagel [2017-08-12 04:09:51 +0000 UTC]

Just a phase.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

DraketheNintendofan [2017-08-12 01:55:48 +0000 UTC]

How much relevance does Britain have in this timeline? Are they still seen as America's "right hand man"?

Also, the far left may have been kicked out of power, but what about Classical Liberals/Libertarians? Are they tolerated, or does the more conservative society think that Classical Liberals will lead to a slippery slope that puts the Far Left back in power again?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RvBOMally In reply to DraketheNintendofan [2017-08-12 02:31:33 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, Britain is still America's right-hand man. 

The Classical Liberals and Libertarians have taken over much of the left, although much of the so-called left in the halls of power are the same sort of establishment hacks you see IOTL. Same with the right. The further portions of the right does consider them "naive" because their system of intellectual tolerance has been "tried before and failed." 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Mechazoidfallen In reply to RvBOMally [2017-08-12 02:42:50 +0000 UTC]

It would be interesting if the conservatives while still remaining socially conservative, started to do things such as support the unions and universal basic income programs but only on a state in response to the automation crisis; kind of like what pre new deal democrats were starting to do during the 10s and 20s. Socialist and progressive policies rebranded as conservatism.

Then both parties would have fully done 180s since the the rightward shift of the republicans and leftward shift of the democrats since the civil rights act was passed.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

RvBOMally In reply to Mechazoidfallen [2017-08-12 15:28:47 +0000 UTC]

I could definitely see that happening. A lot of people, while aware of past plank changes in political platforms, for some reason couldn't picture it happening today. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AbleArcher1928 In reply to Mechazoidfallen [2017-08-12 03:05:46 +0000 UTC]

Yep. Keep in mind that people in the past didn't assign the same issues and perspective to the positions "left" and "right" that we do today. Similarly, people in the future will be equally confused by today's political debates.

For example, prohibition was a "progressive" viewpoint in the early 20th Century as it constrained the greed of capitalist profiteers who ruined lives (Brewers and bartenders). The pop culture of the period was full of social message media on how alcohol tore families and individuals apart.

Labor unions and environmentalists have traditionally been the most anti-immigrant groups. Unions fear the depression of wages and environmentalists and the damage from immigrant-driven urban sprawl.

Environmentalism itself was a cause of the far right until the 1960s. This was when "progress" was defined in the public conciousness as large (fossil-fueled) industrial technostructures and romanticism and feudal, agrarian aristocrats. These wealthy aristocrats used the Malthusian argument that if wealth and goods were distributed to the poor, they would breed beyond the capacity of the natural world to sustain and drag society down.

Still, contemporary progressives and conservatives both assume under the chronocentric theory that the positions have been the same since 5000 BC  and has a linear direction with "forward" and "back" on it (i.e. HRC)!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Mechazoidfallen In reply to AbleArcher1928 [2017-08-12 03:16:31 +0000 UTC]

I know right?

I remember finding out all three strikes laws that are now cited as an example of institutionalized racism and class warfare by the modern left, were promoted and instituted by the left only 20 years ago as an attempt to make the poor and minority communities better. 

Hell, the Republican party went from being the party of complete open trade calling the Democrats socialists for wanting some protectionist policies in 2012, to being the ones championing those protectionist policies and killing the TTP only 4 years later.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AbleArcher1928 In reply to Mechazoidfallen [2017-08-12 04:09:02 +0000 UTC]

The iconoclast intellectual, Michael Lind, predicted back on the eve of Obama's victory in 2008 that a Perot or a Buchanan were more natural leaders of the GOP given how easily rhetorical nationalism could be translated into economic nationalism (mercantilism)

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Mechazoidfallen In reply to ??? [2017-08-12 01:00:41 +0000 UTC]

For some reason I feel that the China thing is a little unlikely. Mostly because while a lot of Nations in the eastern and southern pacific do not like China's influence they also don't want war.

I know India helped out but I would kind of like to know more details about how the war was one, if there was an invasion of mainland China, and what prevented the war from going nuclear?

Edit

Also how important was cyber warfare in WWIII?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RvBOMally In reply to Mechazoidfallen [2017-08-12 02:34:09 +0000 UTC]

I imagine it being restricted mostly to campaigns in southeast Asia, the Korean peninsula, and the navy. There are some incursions into China, but the Allies are smart enough not to invade outright. 

The CCP got Valkyrie'd before they could launch. 

Lots of electrical grid shutdowns, and lots of viruses spreading around, but not enough to take down technological society. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Jeckl In reply to ??? [2017-08-12 00:49:08 +0000 UTC]

wow, this is really positive (not perfect but real life isn't) 


Very nice work Mr RVBOMally, your map has given me renewed hope for the future ( something I don't think you ever expected) 

May I ask why you feel there will be no demographic shift? (or do you mean it just won't work out how the left think) 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RvBOMally In reply to Jeckl [2017-08-12 00:55:39 +0000 UTC]

I think there won't be a demographic shift because the populist right will have enough power to stop it, severely curbing immigration. I find it funny that elements of both the left and right consider mass immigration inevitable, when there is, and I believe will be, efforts to stop it. There's also the erroneous presumption that ethnic minorities will always vote for the left, or that the left and right mean what they mean today. There's going to be a degree of cultural assimilation, the children and grandchildren of first generation immigrants will want to rebel against their parents, etc. I'm not saying something as inaccurate as "Hispanics are natural Republicans," but they're not natural Democrats, either. And if recent political shifts have told us, wedge issue identity politics is simultaneously more and less popular. Large segments of the population are tired of it and are speaking out against it openly, and other segments are going full white pride and demonstrating to the first group that identity politics is a double-edged sword.

👍: 1 ⏩: 2

Jeckl In reply to RvBOMally [2017-08-12 02:18:34 +0000 UTC]

Ah I see

I largely agree about migrant populations, people are not easily categorised and things change in time (Change is the only constant)


Also, how is Australia? 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RvBOMally In reply to Jeckl [2017-08-12 02:46:13 +0000 UTC]

I don't really have any predictions about Australia.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Jeckl In reply to RvBOMally [2017-08-12 04:00:15 +0000 UTC]

Ok cool 

I think we will be much as we always have been 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AbleArcher1928 In reply to RvBOMally [2017-08-12 02:03:01 +0000 UTC]

Yep. One should keep in mind the parallels between now and what many historians call the first era of globalization (the late 19th and early 20th centuries). This era began to see a nativist backlash about 100 years ago in the countries of immigration (most Western Hemisphere nations including those in Latin America). Part of the success of the nativism was how the "old-stock" immigrants (i.e. Germans and Irish) were able to close the doors on "new-stock" immigrants (i.e. South and East Europeans and Chinese). America's black community was also the pretty anti-immigration at the time as their jobs were always the most vulnerable. One could see similar patterns in the modern world (i.e. the emerging closeness between the North American right (including nativist types) and the Indian right).

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RvBOMally In reply to AbleArcher1928 [2017-08-12 15:25:01 +0000 UTC]

I do like to look at this "first era of globalization" and its outcome as proof that the idea of globalization stopping wars and other crises, and the idea that globalization is inevitable and will not stop, are both bunk. It's easy to look at raw numbers and projections and come to the conclusion that globalization is something that's going to continue because it's obviously good for everyone, but as recent events have shown, large segments of the population disagree. I find that a lot of academic types dismiss the concerns of these people as ignorant, and therefore irrelevant, when that is not the case at all. The veracity of a belief does not change the fact that people believe it, and believe in it strongly. Merely dismissing their concerns, rather than engaging with them and trying to assuage them, leads to the sort of resentment we see today. It's horribly out of touch, and leaders who are out of touch with large groups of angry people tend to meet very messy ends. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AbleArcher1928 In reply to RvBOMally [2017-08-12 23:26:26 +0000 UTC]

Society has never had a linear direction toward progress...Mainly because what denotes "progress" for one generation is often considered regressive in the next generation.

I had another idea for a scenario. How about the kind of quasi-utopian world that the 1970s post-Vietnam, post-Watergate radicals like to imagine would have happened had there been no "Reagan Revolution" (although a lot of "Reaganism" actually started with Carter )? Think the "conservation" movement succeeding to an extent, German-style "co-determination" for big corporations, less idealistic delusion with regard to U.S. military intervention, more public accountability for the CIA and FBI, War on Drugs becomes a fad resulting in the police looking less like that of a banana republic, stronger civil society and civic pride (i.e. voluntary work in community clubs, laws against public noise on Sundays, etc), more folksy/populist popular culture (that takes place outside the coasts), Fairness Doctrine remaining leading to more civil politics and no Reaganite vs Yuppie infighting, less financialization, Jerry Brown 1976, John Anderson 1980 etc...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RvBOMally In reply to AbleArcher1928 [2017-08-13 01:34:28 +0000 UTC]

There's enough of those. I'd rather do an interesting subversion.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Charles--H In reply to ??? [2017-08-12 00:35:36 +0000 UTC]

I think Mattyseo's future seems more plausible. I do not think China will collapse between now and 2040. Also, China's isn't the only manufacturing hub in the world, you know. There is Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, Bangladesh ( apparels mostly ), and others. The hypothetical collapse of China will not bring back jobs in America lost to Bangladesh and Indonesia. Outsourcing is still going to happen regardless of how many Asian nations you balkanise. This is due to cheaper labour overseas ( not just China ) and the need to reduce manufacturing costs. Why manufacture in America with its nationwide 7,25$USD minimum wage when corporations can manufacture it in Indonesia for 0,10$USD ?

In my opinion, China would be number one as they transition slowly to a service economy, pushing manufacturing and industrial jobs to southeast Asia, India, and Africa by 2040. They would be a developed nation and would surpass the US in terms of economic prowess, especially with its development with its One Belt, One Road project to renew the Silk Road with rail, industry, and pipelines. Already, the Pakistan-China Economic Corridor of pipelines, motorways, and railways have spurred economic growth in China. Asian countries such as Indonesia, Vietnam, and the Philippines will see their rise and development as Chinese corporations began outsourcing their manufacturing base there as well as Africa. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RvBOMally In reply to Charles--H [2017-08-12 00:41:54 +0000 UTC]

To be fair, here I think China would fall because of war, not necessarily internal collapse.

I understand that the collapse of China would not, on its own, end outsourcing. I think a combination of that and both parties coming around to oppose outsourcing and passing laws to hamper it would do that. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear.

That being said, I am not confident in the long-term stability of the Chinese economy. It's trying to make the transition to a service-based economy, but the hurdles to that are absolutely massive. There is already anti-Chinese sentiment in Africa, which I predict will only grow. There are too many massive bubbles with the Chinese economy, particularly real estate, and the Chinese government can only do so much to cool that off. And even if that does happen, I don't see China toppling the United States.

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

Charles--H In reply to RvBOMally [2017-08-12 01:23:24 +0000 UTC]

Sorry for lost post, I tend to write a lot for English language profs : 

For outsourcing : What kind of laws would even be passed to prevent outsourcing ? If the US and China both passed laws that overtax corporations that outsource their manufacturing overseas, corporations can just move their headquarters to Ireland or some other low-tax haven nation and bypass American or Chinese regulators. Preventing outsourcing is not that easy, otherwise, America would already have done it. In the era of multi-national corporations, organisations, and globalisation, private multi-national corporations can have a lot more leeway and loopholes to bypass national regulators. Moving their headquarters overseas so that they've officially become an Irish-based company, moving assets and equity in face of forfeiture, or simply transferring revenue from their financial statements outwards to bypass corporate tax laws have been done extensively. The reality is much of the West will continue forwards with high-technology investments and the service economy.

As for Chine economy : The real estate bubble is an on and off again issue due to Home Purchasing Restrictions implementations, down-payment regulations, and state-control of taxes. Here is the Forbes analysation of the real estate economy :

« In 2005, some international media sources first began predicting a bubble in China’s housing market . But by 2012 China was in the middle of a house buying craze . In 2013 the market continued to soar . 2014 was the year that The Economist declared to be the “end of the golden era ” for China’s real estate boom, as some markets seemed on the verge of imploding. But by the end of 2015 housing in China had “turned a corner ” and stabilized again. By the fourth quarter of 2016 the housing markets of some major cities were hotter than ever , and some analysts again began proclaiming that the much-touted housing bubble had finally arrived, "as expected ." But now it is the midpoint of 2017, and China’s housing markets are again in a period of stabilization, as the merry-go-round continues spinning. »

It goes up and down and is well regulated by various schemes from state control to either deregulise it during cooling periods or regularise and restrict it during rising cost periods. Chinese investments, particularly Ethiopia, southern Africa, Ghana, and the Great Lakes nations of eastern Africa, have boosted trade between to and fro China over the last decade. South Africa, Zambie, and Nigeria have the most negative sentiments on Chine whilst in some places such as Soudan, Kenya, and Mali have positive views. A rift between between these African states can spur, but by no means that all of Africa have negative sentiments of China. Most likely, South Africa will lead the anti-China block whilst eastern Africa will lead the positive trade side. 

I am unsure how a Sino-American war will inevitably lead to a Chinese collapse. Both China and America can't invade each other and India certainly can't invade China due to topography. How would the collapse of the CCP begin ? Internally, the Americans can try to fund democratic groups but the CIA haven't been in its prime since the 1970s. Given the failures of the War on Terror is accumulating to, I have my doubts placed on America succeeding further wars without short of a massive conscripted draft ( backlash incoming, especially in the 21st century ). 

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

RvBOMally In reply to Charles--H [2017-08-12 02:45:20 +0000 UTC]

For outsourcing : What kind of laws would even be passed to prevent outsourcing ? If the US and China both passed laws that overtax corporations that outsource their manufacturing overseas, corporations can just move their headquarters to Ireland or some other low-tax haven nation and bypass American or Chinese regulators. Preventing outsourcing is not that easy, otherwise, America would already have done it. In the era of multi-national corporations, organisations, and globalisation, private multi-national corporations can have a lot more leeway and loopholes to bypass national regulators. Moving their headquarters overseas so that they've officially become an Irish-based company, moving assets and equity in face of forfeiture, or simply transferring revenue from their financial statements outwards to bypass corporate tax laws have been done extensively. The reality is much of the West will continue forwards with high-technology investments and the service economy.There are ways around this, such as tariffs. Sure, they could become an Irish corporation, but then the government would just slap such a high tariff on their products that it is no longer feasible to ship it in. Economically efficient? No. Guaranteed to be successful? No. Will cause trouble for the average Joe? Yes. But with the further shift of the GOP to populism, and the Democrats catching up by going back to the "protect the American worker" message, and globalism being a dirty word, these laws pass. 
As for Chine economy : The real estate bubble is an on and off again issue due to Home Purchasing Restrictions implementations, down-payment regulations, and state-control of taxes. Here is the Forbes analysation of the real estate economy :

« In 2005, some international media sources first began predicting a bubble in China’s housing market . But by 2012 China was in the middle of a house buying craze . In 2013 the market continued to soar . 2014 was the year that The Economist declared to be the “end of the golden era ” for China’s real estate boom, as some markets seemed on the verge of imploding. But by the end of 2015 housing in China had “turned a corner ” and stabilized again. By the fourth quarter of 2016 the housing markets of some major cities were hotter than ever , and some analysts again began proclaiming that the much-touted housing bubble had finally arrived, "as expected ." But now it is the midpoint of 2017, and China’s housing markets are again in a period of stabilization, as the merry-go-round continues spinning. »

It goes up and down and is well regulated by various schemes from state control to either deregulise it during cooling periods or regularise and restrict it during rising cost periods. Chinese investments, particularly Ethiopia, southern Africa, Ghana, and the Great Lakes nations of eastern Africa, have boosted trade between to and fro China over the last decade. South Africa, Zambie, and Nigeria have the most negative sentiments on Chine whilst in some places such as Soudan, Kenya, and Mali have positive views. A rift between between these African states can spur, but by no means that all of Africa have negative sentiments of China. Most likely, South Africa will lead the anti-China block whilst eastern Africa will lead the positive trade side. Certainly a possibility, but I actually foresee more backlash from Africa than that. Africans obviously want the riches that the Chinese bring with them, but I don't think they're dumb enough to welcome neo-colonial overlords with open arms. I also don't have much faith in the CCP to always make the right choice. It's not the most stable organization in the world, and they are only human. I'm not predicting something like "China will fall next year, buy gold and iodine now!," but rather that the CCP is rolling dice constantly, and eventually they'll roll snake eyes. 
I am unsure how a Sino-American war will inevitably lead to a Chinese collapse. Both China and America can't invade each other and India certainly can't invade China due to topography. How would the collapse of the CCP begin ? Internally, the Americans can try to fund democratic groups but the CIA haven't been in its prime since the 1970s. Given the failures of the War on Terror is accumulating to, I have my doubts placed on America succeeding further wars without short of a massive conscripted draft ( backlash incoming, especially in the 21st century ). I imagine civil unrest from Chinese society succumbing to the pressures of wartime doing much of the damage. While they are a manufacturing powerhouse, China is very vulnerable to attack from the sea, and so the Americans can cut it off from the rest of the world and effectively besiege the entire country. I'm imagining the Americans winning by strangling China to death, rather than marching in and getting slaughtered. 

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

Charles--H In reply to RvBOMally [2017-08-12 03:35:29 +0000 UTC]

1) These tariffs can definitely hamper on American economic growth. Protectionism over free trade tend to reduce international competition and stifle economic growth, especially since it's already into the 21st century. I could see the nationalist backlash in America leading to a further stagnation of the American economy and would certainly push America down to second place as China ascends pass GDP and perhaps even GDP per capita by 2040. The American parties that shift towards protectionism and economic tariffs/isolationism would certainly spell to a new Chinese economic era when they do occur. From OTL, the pullout of America from the Paris climate deal was signal across the world that America was ready to pullout of being a global superpower. Further economic and political isolation would of the US from its allies would ensure China, if there wasn't a Sino-American War, to ascend as an economic superpower by 2040. 

2) I agree that the CCP would probably fall, but probably would last well into the late 21st century or towards the next century. This is in due fact of economic growth. Whilst the economy may be slowing down to the high single digits, it's still achieving high economic growth relative to the West. Economic growth and progress equal to stability of the ruling administration. Unless China experience a severe depression, the CCP would continue forwards allowing for the gradual decent to decentralisation and the diversification of the CCP to special interest ( such as agricultural/rural ) and provincial/municipal sectors of the CCP. By the late 21st century to the early 22nd century, the CCP would have diversified enough to collapse into a diverse range of parties and gradually form a multi-party democracy. The democratisation of the CCP is actually occurring right now. Already, divisions amongst the CCP is present such as the populists headed which emmphasises the poor Chinese and the rural regions and the elitists members whom came from revolutionary war families, urban members, and the nouveau riche of China. All of these parties and sections are members of the CCP, but have their own interest and goals that diverge from each other. From the nouveau riche of China to the agrarian interests to the corporate interests, the CCP right now has factions that certainly can influence policy at the local level. They are basically parties within a party. Eventually, the CCP would diversify enough to split into actual political parties and democratise, but certainly not between now and 2040 during the time of economic prosperity. When China experience its own stagnation in the late 21st century and beyond, the CCP could certainly diversify enough into a multi-party system. I agree the CCP might fall, but most likely at a gradual pace and certainly not twenty years from now. 

3) Euh, but China won't be cut off economically. During a hypothetical war between China and America, China can simply rely of trade with the Afro-Eurasians via land and air. China can look westwards to Central Asia, Russia, Iran, Europe, and Africa since they are all currently connected by land via rail, motorways, and pipelines. The perks of being in a land-based megacontinent rather than a water-based archipelago like Japan means that China can simply rely on railways, motorways, and pipelines between Europe, Africa, and Asia since all of these are feasible by land. Also, air travel throughout Afro-Eurasia is still possible.  

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RvBOMally In reply to Charles--H [2017-08-12 15:19:39 +0000 UTC]

I was going to make a response to each of these, but I was repeating myself a lot, so I'll just make a response to all of it at once. I find that a lot of your points are sound, but they all need to be true for any of them to be true. China will rise as a global power, if there is political stability in China. The CCP will stay in power, if there is continued economic growth. It's sensible, the two reinforce each other, but rather than seeing this as a strength, I see it as a weakness. It means that if one part of the Chinese "system" were to fail, the entire thing fails, and this connectivity quickly becomes a curse rather than a blessing. I see China as a fundamentally fragile country, one that needs to keep growing at a rapid pace, but one that can't really afford to, either. If economic growth ever stagnates, then the entire thing falls apart. You are assuming linear economic growth into the next century. I find that such predictions often fail, because eventually things plateau, and if the system is built on the assumption of things being that good for that long, it will fail. This is far from an exclusively Chinese problem, it's been a problem throughout human history. Of course, I could be wrong, but I'm hedging my bets. 

As for the American siege, I was imagining other, neutral countries eventually being swayed to backing America's embargoes. At the time of the war, America is still the top dog, and some states (Russia particularly) want to take down a regional rival. Pakistan was at war with India, where the bulk of Indian forces were committed. As for air travel, that's not going to be anywhere near enough to feed the Chinese economy. As for Africa, again, I'm imagining the Africanist movement putting a stop to that, and once China goes to war with America, betting on China would not look like the smart bet to many countries. 

👍: 1 ⏩: 1


| Next =>