HOME | DD
RvBOMally — 2040 from 2017
Published: 2017-08-11 21:50:55 +0000 UTC; Views: 25753; 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after the French election, and given the rapidly escalating events of the past few days concerning Korea, it might be outdated next week or even tomorrow.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
I'm not assuming China would have linear economic growth, actually. As I said before, the CCP would democratise by the late 21st century and beyond as it experience its own stagnation (stated explicitly on the 2nd to last sentence of point 2). China will experience its own superpower hegemony between the early 21st century to the late 21st century before stagnating and falling behind to other powers such as India and Indonesia, the two other rising economies of Asia. As I stated before, it will continue to experience economic prosperity, reaching 4-8% GDP growth rates and increasing GDP per capita in urban provinces through the early to mid 21st century. I acknowledge the fact that it will eventually stagnate from point 2, but I think you're assuming it'll stagnate in the next twenty years. In my opinion, China will experience its own stagnation by the next 50 to 60 years and into the late 21st century and that's when the CCP multichotomise into divergent parties and interests. It will fall, but definitely not in the next twenty years as you placed on 2040. In my opinion, economic stagnation will occur into late 21st century/early 22nd century. This is in due part of the two trillion USD foreign investments across Asia and Africa. The One Belt, One Road Initiative along with the Asian Banque Investment fund projects have spurred massive economic integration of the Eurasian economy by cutting cost of transportation across Europe, Asia, and Africa via motorways, railways, and pipelines and capitalising on emerging markets of Asia. These foreign investments will continue to allow China see economic growth throughout the twenty-first century. However, by the end of this century, most likely India will overtake China, which will in time eventually be superseded by Indonesia-- in my opinion.
As for the war, the United States isn't the biggest country to export to for many nations. And if this hypothetical war was to ever start, which is unlikely given how both sides don't want war and that both the US and China are interdependent of each other, US embargoes would probably not change that many views. In Asia alone, the US only account for about 0,383 out of 5,377 trillion USD of the Asian import market as of 2014. That's not exactly much. Cutting off US trade on neutral countries such as Iran, Central Asia, and others will only push economic imports to other countries like to Brasil and to China, diversifying their economic import market as the US embargoes them. China already is the largest exporter to Africa, leading over the US. How is the Africanist movement going to get rid of Chinese imports ? If they barred China from importing to their nations, what manufacturing hub are they going to look towards to ? The US with its high minimum wage driving outsourcing ? These hypothetical Africanist movements will not be able to push out Chinese imports due to simple economics and it's typically in most countries' interest to continue free trade nowadays. And most likely these Africanist movements would not even exist due to the fact that all of Africa won't be following the same stroke of ideology. Africa is a diverse continent. You have South Africa having a cautious view of China. To the east, you have Kenya with a high positive view of Chinese investments. It won't be a continent-wide hatred of China and this hypothetical Africanist movement would not even be practical given the diversity of Africa.
I love your pre-present hypothetical maps, mate, but honestly, when it comes to future predictions, I think economic interests needs to be regarded here more often when extrapolating from the present day. It isn't all about geopolitical interests all the time. Economic interests go hand in hand with national security interests and most of the time, but not always as I acknowledge, the interests of the nation are to secure economic cooperation and openness for economic growth (but not always as I will state). Right now, China is Africa's largest importer. Unless you have another nation to replace all those imports and investments to (and I hardly believe the US would replace Chinese investments), then China will probably continue to trade with these neutral countries during a hypothetical Sino-American War. American embargoes would probably hurt, especially in terms of raw resources and technology which would probably only sway some nations, but definitely not ALL of Africa due to the diversity of the continent and their individual national interest.
EDIT: I forgot to add : if China is going to be critique in its economic projection, how is the US not affected ? It will be facing an economic depression during a Sino-American War and it's not going to be number one forever. When will the US ever fall from number one or will the US reign supreme for the next thousand years ? Please address this as I have trouble seeing how the US will stay on top for this long. . .
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not assuming China would have linear economic growth, actually. As I said before, the CCP would democratise by the late 21st century and beyond as it experience its own stagnation (stated explicitly on the 2nd to last sentence of point 2). China will experience its own superpower hegemony between the early 21st century to the late 21st century before stagnating and falling behind to other powers such as India and Indonesia, the two other rising economies of Asia. As I stated before, it will continue to experience economic prosperity, reaching 4-8% GDP growth rates and increasing GDP per capita in urban provinces through the early to mid 21st century. I acknowledge the fact that it will eventually stagnate from point 2, but I think you're assuming it'll stagnate in the next twenty years. In my opinion, China will experience its own stagnation by the next 50 to 60 years and into the late 21st century and that's when the CCP multichotomise into divergent parties and interests. It will fall, but definitely not in the next twenty years as you placed on 2040. In my opinion, economic stagnation will occur into late 21st century/early 22nd century. This is in due part of the two trillion USD foreign investments across Asia and Africa. The One Belt, One Road Initiative along with the Asian Banque Investment fund projects have spurred massive economic integration of the Eurasian economy by cutting cost of transportation across Europe, Asia, and Africa via motorways, railways, and pipelines and capitalising on emerging markets of Asia. These foreign investments will continue to allow China see economic growth throughout the twenty-first century. However, by the end of this century, most likely India will overtake China, which will in time eventually be superseded by Indonesia-- in my opinion.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, until 2040 rolls around and we'll see who's right. 
As for the war, the United States isn't the biggest country to export to for many nations. And if this hypothetical war was to ever start, which is unlikely given how both sides don't want war and that both the US and China are interdependent of each other, US embargoes would probably not change that many views. In Asia alone, the US only account for about 0,383 out of 5,377 trillion USD of the Asian import market as of 2014. That's not exactly much. Cutting off US trade on neutral countries such as Iran, Central Asia, and others will only push economic imports to other countries like to Brasil and to China, diversifying their economic import market as the US embargoes them. China already is the largest exporter to Africa, leading over the US. How is the Africanist movement going to get rid of Chinese imports ? If they barred China from importing to their nations, what manufacturing hub are they going to look towards to ? The US with its high minimum wage driving outsourcing ? These hypothetical Africanist movements will not be able to push out Chinese imports due to simple economics and it's typically in most countries' interest to continue free trade nowadays. And most likely these Africanist movements would not even exist due to the fact that all of Africa won't be following the same stroke of ideology. Africa is a diverse continent. You have South Africa having a cautious view of China. To the east, you have Kenya with a high positive view of Chinese investments. It won't be a continent-wide hatred of China and this hypothetical Africanist movement would not even be practical given the diversity of Africa.I love your pre-present hypothetical maps, mate, but honestly, when it comes to future predictions, I think economic interests needs to be regarded here more often when extrapolating from the present day. It isn't all about geopolitical interests all the time. Economic interests go hand in hand with national security interests and most of the time, but not always as I acknowledge, the interests of the nation are to secure economic cooperation and openness for economic growth (but not always as I will state). Right now, China is Africa's largest importer. Unless you have another nation to replace all those imports and investments to (and I hardly believe the US would replace Chinese investments), then China will probably continue to trade with these neutral countries during a hypothetical Sino-American War. American embargoes would probably hurt, especially in terms of raw resources and technology which would probably only sway some nations, but definitely not ALL of Africa due to the diversity of the continent and their individual national interest.I think you're making the mistake of believing that people are motivated primarily by economics. It's certainly a major factor, but cultural preservation and power politics also play a role, and I think they will play an increasingly important role in the future. What's good for the current leadership and big economic players isn't necessarily good for the people, or at least, they won't necessarily perceive it as good. Or, to put it more clearly: the powers that be may be motivated primarily by economics, but I predict they won't be in power for much longer. The backlash against globalist neoliberalism is, well, global, and that will only grow. It takes many different forms, as appropriate to the culture of the region, but the basic idea is "these foreign interests have to go."
Also, I should have made this clear, but India swooped in to replace China during and after the war, not America.
EDIT: I forgot to add : if China is going to be critique in its economic projection, how is the US not affected ? It will be facing an economic depression during a Sino-American War and it's not going to be number one forever. When will the US ever fall from number one or will the US reign supreme for the next thousand years ? Please address this as I have trouble seeing how the US will stay on top for this long. . .No, America won't be on top forever. It's already given up Europe and the Middle East, and its Asian "empire" is shaky. I should have added that I see this as a sign of America's gradual decline. I should have hinted at this more, but I believe that India will eclipse it.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Thanks for the response ! I'll add further commentary to your notes :
1) Well, I guess we will see what happens by 2040. We'll never know unless it happens, but I'll stand my opinions until 2040.
2) Currently, the Trans-Pacific Partnership is still in affect and prospering without the United States. Trade deals have already been signed between China and the EU to further the One Belt, One Road Initiative. Also, in the UK, the 2017 election have seen the collapse of the Conservative majority and the rise of Labour with Jeremy Corbyn's left-wing agenda. They have captivated the young generation and here in the UK, most adolescents and 20 year olds are members of Labour. In France, if you look at the second tier election of 2017, the voting demographics is run by age.
American backlash against globalisation can't be translated worldwide. In France, the Millennialls voted significantly for Marine Le Pen, but the 18-20 year old Generation Z voted significantly for Emmanuel Macron along with the elderly. This is opposite of the US. French Millennials are right-wing whilst the teenage Generation Z voted for the centre-left.
It is wrong to assume what is happening in America will translate for the rest of the world. As you see, not every generation will have the same right-wing shift. French teenagers such as I detest the older Millennials for their love of Le Pen. 18-20 year olds voted with the elderly to oust Le Pen whilst the middle Baby Boomers and French Millennials had a 50/50 split to Le Pen. ( I hated my 29 yr old Millennial employer for her vote ).
The global backlash against globalisation will probably just affect a few Anglophone nations but it won't affect non-Anglophone nations. It's not going to be translated worldwide because other nations have significantly different issues and different generational political divides.
3) This should be added into your commentary. The map's commentary gave the impression that
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It is wrong to assume what is happening in America will translate for the rest of the world. As you see, not every generation will have the same right-wing shift. French teenagers such as I detest the older Millennials for their love of Le Pen. 18-20 year olds voted with the elderly to oust Le Pen whilst the middle Baby Boomers and French Millennials had a 50/50 split to Le Pen. ( I hated my 29 yr old Millennial employer for her vote ).
The global backlash against globalisation will probably just affect a few Anglophone nations but it won't affect non-Anglophone nations. It's not going to be translated worldwide because other nations have significantly different issues and different generational political divides. I don't think the backlash against globalization would be exclusively right-wing, either. I picture the left taking those planks because it will bolster their support. It's not like globalization is an inherently left-wing ideology, either. Antifa protests against the G20, after all.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
If it's also a left-wing backlash against globalisation then France should be more socially and economically left-wing at least. France Generation Z is left-wing and heavily supported the Socialist Mélenchron whilst the older Millennial/young Baby Boomers (30-40 years) were a bit more centre-right to right-wing and was 50/50 split.
In 2040, the older Millennial/younger Baby Boomers would be around 50-70 and would likely start to go into retirement. The more left-wing and socialistic Generation Z would be in their prime, voting for Mélenchron-esque candidates that is both critical of the European Union but favour socially left-wing and economic left-wing policies, expanding on government role on welfare and the like but being critical of supranational organisations such as the European Union. More likely, France would be the American equivalent of Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont (I) except more left-wing since we already have universal healthcare.
It won't be a social shift to the right for much of the non-Anglophone nations. If either left-wing or right-wing backlashes occur against globalisation start becoming mainstream, then you would likely see a divergence between Western nations that move leftward and nations that move right. The American Democrats I see more of taking the Mélenchron-esque approach of being critical of NAFTA but strong on the welfare-state such as universal healthcare (which is growing in support across parties in America currently), cannabis legalisation (way pass 50% in American 2017 polls and part of the 2020 DNC agenda announcement as of yesterday), ending the War on Drugs, transgender rights in the American military (already serving and pass 50% support amongst military households), and the 15 US dollar minimum wage (already the DNC agenda and support is popular amongst US left and some in the centre).
This push further to the left amongst American Democrats have been going on for ages. During the 1990s, the American Democrats were centre-right and were somewhat touting the privatisation of Social Security and made a promise to end « Big Government ». The shift to the left started around the mid-2000s during the Bush Jr administration as support for privatising Social Security fell amongst the left-wing and Democrats began pushing to the left. The rise of Obamacare and the ACA between the late-2000s and the late-2010s pushed the narrative of the public that it is the government's duty and responsibility to provide people healthcare. The financial crisis of 2007-2013 led to a push in the narrative for regulations of the financial market and increased the sense that not everything in the free market can regulate itself.
There is a shift amongst the left and the American independents that the American government should do more to provide the welfare of the people. This will most likely exaggerate during the Trump administration as the American centre and the American left increasingly support the government to provide healthcare and to provide more for the welfare of the people. As for the American right, more Republicans (57%) support continuing Medicare and Medicaid in 2017 than anytime in recent history. Here is the poll for healthcare in June 2017 in America : Cliquez-vous ici
I think, in terms of economics, the Americans will move to the left and supporting government responsibility for the creation of the welfare-state. Socially, it'll probably stagnate between progression and regression. Who knows what would happen to future civil liberties and what would happen socially by 2040. However, in terms of economics, Americans will certainly shift leftwards and accept more government roles and responsibility. The era of tax cuts will probably be unpopular and the new era of the American Big Government will probably begin, at least in my opinion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Year after year I hear that the EU will dissolve since the crisis began, and that's quite frankly the only thing in this map I don't see happening. But it's cool. I'm already making a serious attempt at futurism myself, and I'm sure it will raise more eyebrows.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I suggest Mattyseo's futuristic maps. He does a great deal in futuristic world-building from a realistic scenario acknowledging various economics and geo-politics extrapolations.
Shameless promotion of his scenario for 2150 here : Earth 2150: Politics
I love both RvBoMally and Mattyseo maps, but for different reasons. RvBoMally for pre-present map references whilst Mattyseo for post-present futurism.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Twitter being dead in this world is a plus in my book; so much time wasted worrying about each and every tweet when people should just do something else.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Most realistic future alternate history on the internet in my opinion
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This is my good world! But say, what of my adopted favorite country, Germany? Is it just in no union at all? Is it influential? Is union with Austria being flirted with? How are the Hohenzollerns doing?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Look at Kaliningrad... Mein gott...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's more or less the same as modern Germany, only more right-wing. Obviously not Nazi or nowhere near it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
And my other question?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I dunno, they're still rich and doing nothing?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I think you overestimate Russia's post-Putin age as much as you underestimate a replacement, but besides that, a champion of predictability that makes me truly wonder what you read, in a good way of course. The Economist?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I attribute Russia's gains more as it filling a vacuum left behind by the United States than it is the success of Russia. I don't actually read The Economist, I read all sorts of things sent to me by my friends in daily discussion.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
I like this future world. America is still in one piece, and Korea is united under the Seoul government.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
What makes you think India will have a moon base rather than, say, Russia and/or China?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I'd figure Intermarium or some Viseguard alliance since they have gotten a lot to traction lately.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Have we? I haven't noticed. Or do you mean in this future?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The Intermarium idea has been brought up many times throughout history, the last one was right after WWI. I've been following it somewhat with youtubers from Central/Eastern Europe since well, the MSM isn't going to cover it. If things continue as they are, it's possible it could at least include Poland, Hungary, Czech republic, and Slovakia. Although that's more of the Visegrad group doing its own thing since the Intermarium, as proposed includes about 8 more countries.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well calling a union of V4 countries Intermarium wouldn't make sense.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Right, granted the possibility of the Intermarium is greater than it has been in a long long time.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
China got screwed up and Russia isn't what it used to be. Yeah, it's got control over the Middle East, but that region isn't as important as it is today.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'd figure China (PRC) would die by its own hand. Much like a lottery winner who pisses his winnings away in spending spree of cocaine and hookers.
Russia? I don't know. Maybe it'll slowly make its way to becoming more westernized.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
<= Prev |