The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.
By a wide margin, respondents to a recently concluded poll chose China as the nation most likely to displace the United States as the leading power in the world by 2050.
For the last hundred years or so, the United States has been the most powerful nation in the world. Which country will be most powerful in 2050?
Among “Other” answers to this poll—which accounted for 15% of all responses—the most common reply given was the EU (European Union). Australia and Italy each got three votes, while Liechtenstein (!) and Turkey each received two votes.
Several people said that there would be no countries in 2050, or that some form of global governance would reign supreme. Two people said they expect an A.I. to be the most powerful entity by then, one person imagined Google would be #1, and one gloomy person predicted that by 2050 the human race will have been wiped out.
Some cryonicists want to set up reanimation trusts in Liechtenstein. Over a few centuries the growth of these trusts through compounding interest could give the Liechtenteinian trustholders, and by implication the country's government, vast claims on the world's wealth, like in H.G. Wells's story "When the Sleeper Wakes":
http://www.gutenberg.org/... See Morehttp://www.gutenberg.org/files/775/775-h/775-h.htm
Besides, Liechtenstein's prince has a cool name: Hans Adam II, like a character from Dune. I can just imagine him rubbing his hands over a globe of Arrakis in his private chambers.
44.5 percent think China will displace America. Not good, at least politically. Militarily, China is not a threat as the Soviet Union was; and the threat of economic Chinese hegemony
is exaggerated. The Chinese are not all-knowing, all seeing, Asian Ubermensch.
But China is not a democracy in Western terms, and not much of a democracy objectively. The Communist Party has the tight political grip found in any third world authoritarian nation.
Dr J. you've entered deeply into the mind. I also feel that spirit of the libertarian, but I am not one.
China has an obvious advantage, but it would not be my choice. China is an intelectual powerhouse and is controlled by a political party that has absolutely no idea where it is going. If it loses control, the world's economic foundation will suffer. Just look at the US Senate, they have lost control over their rules, thereby putting US governance in disrepair.
When that happen; China's and US scientists will have an open field.
By 2050, perhaps even before, we will have some forms of governmment, but I don't know how to describe it yet. Politicians have undermind their rule making to such a degree, that people are no longer with them.
It will not be an anarchic structure, but more chaotic in form. Step up Scientists, get ready for your day! Anyone has political ambition?
"Politicians have undermind their rule making to such a degree, that people are no longer with them."
Eduard,
the actual English word is "undermined", but yours is even better: "undermind".
'Overmind' would mean politicians who are not too conflicted and compromised; the Undermind are what we have now. Most of them mean well, but there are more than a few Blagojevich's.
"As an American, I take it as my personal responsibility to see that The United States remains the leading world power, to the best of my ability..."
But Republicans have been clueless since the day the USSR dissolved in 1991.
Try getting a 3rd party going, Marshall.
We're trapped like mice in the party-duopoly mousetrap. Can't speak for you, but it wont change in my lifetime.
"I never said anything about keeping a political party a "leading world power"
PS
Am adding a postscript because this is important, it's good you brought it up, as the Democrats are too globaloney-ist, they actually think there are such 'things' as comprehensive compliance on transnational laws, rules; international civilization.
So that leaves the Republicans; the dingbats who run Bob Doles and John McCains for president. How blunderful. And good luck with third parties.
postfuturist:
If someone wants to organize a third party and raise about 25% of what the Repubs and Dems have, let me know. If I had access to the kind of political machine that Perot had, right now, it would alter the political landscape for the first time in a century of more. As it stands now the Tea Party movement is the closest thing to a third party going, but it's not the same thing.
Game over-- get used to it.
Social progress is finished; all we will know is scientific progress and economic activity. Just listen to the chattering of the maddening crowd on hate radio and TV. They confuse being young in the head with being young at heart.
All Things Tasteless and Vulgar, Marshall, as liberty (i.e. licentiousness) seeps down to the grass roots. Aint democracy grand? We all get just what we deserve!
Happy days were here again,
the sky is blue and clear again,
Let us sing a song of cheer again
Happy days were here again...
The idea that the game is over is the crutch for the limited thinker, the quitter, and the defeatist. I have never been one to follow groupthink and I am more visionary now than ever before, and more determined to change those conditions in society that have led to the state of things as they are today.
For the bold, adversity has always provided the opportunity for change.
Unfortunately, Marshall, bad guys here and in China, the Mafiya in Russia, bad people everywhere at all levels of 'societies' are bold, and view adversity as providing the opportunity for change. I used to be optimistic because I was taken in by progressive intellectuals (such as my family). Now I see progress taken as a whole to be value-neutral.
The bright spot is physical (longevity) and material (economic activity) progress. But I am pessimistic though not apocalyptic on morals-- or lack thereof. There is no consensus thus we know only situational ethics. Libertarians know how corrupt the state is, but they ignore the corruption outside the state or gloss over it. It is too unpleasant to think about as it involves not merely people & institutions far away but also those close to you. Specifically we in America have substandard/overpriced schools, high crimes rates, dishonest politicians, dysfunctional families, and so on and so forth. We raise people up materially, but the depravity at the bottom seeps up via reverse osmosis, so the entire society becomes vulgar; the positive news being that since no one goes broke underestimating taste, the economy grows-- but we are devoid of genuine virtue.
Let us have it clear: I share only your optimism concerning material, physical, progress-- nothing more. Two cheers for progress.
So there is no doubt, I share only your optimism concerning material, physical progress. China has made great material progress but when you visit China make sure your ticket is round trip, not one-way. In America, why is there so much crime & alienation 20 years after the Cold War ended? Why is the govt. still such a clueless behemoth? If the family is a viable institution then why do approx. 50% of marriages break up? Why does America spend hundreds of billions on education yet so many students can scarcely read? You may be determined to change those conditions, but you might not know where to start. The positive is people live longer, but what sort of lives we will be living in the future is up in the air. Will we live in a benign dystopia or a malign 'one'? You know more than I do; can you provide answers to any of the above questions?
postfuturist:
I not only have the answers to all those questions, I know where to start and how to finish. The problem is that when you do realize what the answers are you simultaneously realize that the problems are by design and there are people in place to be sure they exist and worsen because of the benefits that they provide for those who want to exploit those problems for their own ends.
There are two ways to deal with such a scenario - start at the bottom and try to change the system in stages from the ground up, or wait and configure the proper resources, personnel, and opportunities to move in and attack the problem at a higher level, on a massive scale.
I'll let you decide which might be more effective.
Quote unquote "I'll let you decide which might be more effective." Marshall, perhaps you know what the answers are... where to start, however if I could make a crucial decision such as the one you suggest, I'd be a futurist, not a post-futurist. Thought I had the answers at one time, now it appears to have been entirely illusory; based on bad advice, misapprehensions, vanity.
My answers aren't based on advice or anything other than the analysis of data over the years which have proved my original 1971 hypothesis to be correct. I think 39 years is long enough to figure if a hypothesis works or not.
To get back on-topic: from your 39 years of experience with a working hypothesis, would you hazard a guesstimate as to whether China has any intention of ever removing its armed forces from Tibet? Will China cease insisting Taiwan is part of its territory?
The USA of today has a greater attraction to the World. We have become a center for knowledge, for science and technologies, etc. China's officialdom has long desired to own it, to preserve for the Communist Party in perpetuity, a place in the governance of their nation.
Is the USA planning to return to the past; to Texas and the New Confederate States? Looking at the Texas School Board, their Republicans are rejoicing, as if that fact already has been done! US politicians over the last 30 years have been boosting themselves as the movers of the American Exceptionalist experience by persuing the policy of war as an economic incentive. President Nixon began the Republican Anti-Science effort by curtailing the space space program. President Reagan made it his policy, that the business of government is "Business".
Did the Soviet Union, when it collapsed as a political State returned to the 19th century Csarist State? The US politicians have aimed low and are scurrying, like cockraches in our kitchen, to survive the light of our Internet communication technologies.
I see the current situation as an opportunity for change; the US politicians and Wall Street have proven to be agents to themselves, who inspite their corrupt natures still participated in the development the Internet communication technologies, which today puts them under an unfavorable light.
World opinion, with over 6 billion population against a mere 350 million US citizens, is going to force the USA to abandon American Exeptionalism as an idea. The US has to do away that we are the savior nation of the world.
Our resolve, in the future, should be to convince China and Iran to become governments more sympathetic to the human rights of their citizens. It should be interesting to watch the USA take a more fraternal role in our world.
The Chinese government is not as solid and monolithic as they want to have the world belief. We are indebt to them and they have always sought after scientific knowledge. Now that Google is planning to leave, we may see cracks developing among their stakeholders.
Finally, a reply-- from Eduard. You have to go through "do your own research" or "my hypothesis, um, that is, hard to say; er, you have to understand that..." One more time: to the best of your knowledge, Marshall, do the Chinese have any intention ("ever" or not) of vacating Tibet and renouncing the annexation of Taiwan? Yes or no. This is not a multiple choice question.
WASHINGTON/BEIJING (Reuters) : China on Wednesday rejected criticism of its exchange rate policies and said it was being made a "scapegoat" after the U.S. Congress threatened to slap duties on Chinese goods unless it revalues its yuan.
Many U.S. lawmakers, with strong backing from economists, believe the yuan is undervalued by at least 25 percent, giving Chinese companies an unfair edge in trade -- one seen as more critical now that the U.S. economy is struggling to recover from the worst downturn since the 1930s.
The heat is rising quickly in the long-running dispute over China's exchange rate regime, with a bipartisan bill introduced on Tuesday in the U.S. Senate that aims to press Beijing to let its currency rise in value.
I answered your question, postfuturist, 4 hours and 1 minute after you asked it. I said I wouldn't bet the farm on it.
I'm not Chinese, I don't have any in with the Chinese government and I don't communicate with anyone on the Chinese mainland. So I can't say what China will or won't do for certain. However, based on my analysis, which is usually better than most professional commentators, I don't see China doing any of those things any time soon. Baring a major revolution, none of those policies will be reversed before 2020 for sure. Beyond, that who knows. No one thought the Berlin wall was coming down two days before it did.
China, though, is NOT predictable. the Berlin Wall's demise, and the end of Communism, were predictable; the Russians are too smart to be Communist. The Warsaw Pact was about collective security, not genuine Communism-- by 1991 the Warsaw Pact had very little to do with Marxism-Leninism. But you know all that jazz, Marshall.
postfuturist:
What I do know is that I'm wasting my time in further discussions with you. If you think that the Warsaw Pact was about "collective" security and that the demise of the Berlin Wall was predictable, then you either weren't around when those events were happening or simply have a pedestrian knowledge of them, after the fact.
In either case, I have meaningful work to contend with, instead of playing Foreign Affairs, when my original comments were about domestic policies, not predicting what China was going to do anything.
Nothing more to write on China from my end.
I am not trying to gainsay you, however I do not in any way whatsoever agree with your opinions, Marshall, concerning the last years of the Soviet Union: IMO the Soviets were paranoid after WWII and if you go beyond the pedestrian history presented today in the substandard venue we call "history education", you might understand that the Soviet Union had a doctrine after '45 that it would attempt to prevent future wars from being fought on its territory-- and incidentally in Eastern Europe-- by exporting wars elsewhere (the old Russian western captive-buffer-nations strategy updated). That was one doctrine, but a not unimportant doctrine in a very nationalistic world. The Russians who dominated the Soviet Union often used Communism as an external poison to protect their interests, however pernicious those interests were. Perhaps YOU did not know way beforehand that the Soviet Union would dissolve about the time that it did, but some seriously thought it would dissolve in the early '90s: in 1985 I was told Gorbachev's "reforms" would soon erode the Soviet Union. A JANUARY 1989 National Review piece 'The Coming Crackup of Communism' fairly well predicted the fall of the Soviet Empire as being sooner rather than later.
But no matter what I write you, will not agree; people such as ourselves will always be talking past each other.
Will stay on-topic, though IMO China's future actions are too unpredictable to prognosticate.
China views part of the region surrounding it the way America views the Western Hemisphere-- hence China's archaic insistence that Taiwan be absorbed by China. And the way China maintains its grip over Tibet when I am not aware of any long term advantage in China continuing to do so. What does Tibet have that China needs to the point that China would maintain so many troops in Tibet? There is more in that situation than meets the layman's eye.
Thanks for proving my point, postfuturist. You said originally:
"The Warsaw Pact was about collective security, not genuine Communism" and then in your next missive you said,
"the Soviet Union had a doctrine after '45 that it would attempt to prevent future wars from being fought on its territory-- and incidentally in Eastern Europe-- by exporting wars elsewhere (the old Russian western captive-buffer-nations strategy updated). That was one doctrine, but a not unimportant doctrine in a very nationalistic world. The Russians who dominated the Soviet Union often used Communism as an external poison to protect their interests, however pernicious those interests were."
Note that it was Russia that started the Soviet Union and the Russians that were exporting Communism. The Soviet Union was about protecting Russian interests not a "collective" interest as the other nations had no choice but to be in the Soviet orbit. So when you say that the Warsaw Pact was about the "collective security" you're just spouting the Soviet party line. It was about using those nations as a buffer against the West.
As for when the Berlin Wall was coming down, you might notice that you said
"Perhaps YOU did not know way beforehand that the Soviet Union would dissolve about the time that it did, but some seriously thought it would dissolve in the early '90s: in 1985 I was told Gorbachev's "reforms" would soon erode the Soviet Union. A JANUARY 1989 National Review piece 'The Coming Crackup of Communism' fairly well predicted the fall of the Soviet Empire as being sooner rather than later."
which is not about the Berlin wall coming down but speculation on the possible demise of the USSR. Not quite the same thing. I said specifically that predicting the fall of the Berlin Wall was a stretch. I said nothing about predicting the fall of the USSR, although no one was even thinking about any of that until Ronald Reagan came along, which was in 1981.
So, I will now move on and disengage from this tedious and boring exchange, as I have far more important and interesting things to do. Perhaps you can entice someone else to entertain your le feel internacionale, but I must bid you adieu.
Whether you bid moi adieu or not, I still totally disagree on the points. You neglected to mention the lead-up to the Cold War, how Europe lacked cohesion; there was no relatively stable entity such as the US (a bona fide United States of Europe doesn't even exist today). War was inevitable after WWI, not what evolved into WWII, but a war of some dimensions was inevitable. Naturally, no one knows what shape that war would have taken if different conditions had existed. Now, of course you and I do not view the Warsaw Pact as having been an entity dedicated to collective security in Central & Eastern Europe, yet many in those nations comprising Central and E. Europe DID, the Red Army could not have maintained dictatorships for 45 years in all those nations if there had not been a sizable fraction of willing collaborators. Though the Warsaw Pact was a multi-national dictatorship, it was a collective security apparatus of sorts. Extreme authoritarian and totalist states CAN band together in service of a collective security-- however artificial the security is. Third world plutocracies often band together; i.e. Latin America, though the security is artificial, it is still based on collectivity relative to time & place. Your mistake IMO is applying a Western, American, definition of collective security, which is ahistorical. Technically, I agree with you, but we are both mistaken. We are second guessing history. If only such massive totalism hadn't existed in Europe, if only Germany hadn't invaded the Soviet Union; if only Hitler had liberated the Ukraine. If only FDR had been tougher with Stalin. If only NATO had done this or that in the postwar period. If only Dewey had won in '48. If only Robert Taft had had more influence. Coulda shoulda woulda. I entirely disagree that the Berlin Wall's dismantling was not predicted: after Reagan's speech, "tear down this wall." I read informed predictions at that time that the Soviet Union would dissolve after the wall was dismantled as a consequence of increasing unrest in the region due to hyper-competition in the Cold War and other global factors. The Cold War was, IMO, WWIII-- so no wonder. Point is, it WAS predicted that the Eastern bloc would be destabilized, and that the wall would be dismantled, and that then the Soviet Union would dissolve; all of such sooner rather than later. I paid close attention due to remembering the stagnation of the Brezhnev era; keeping tabs on the Soviet Afghan war; glasnost, perestroika, etc.
To get back on-topic (Marshall, we have one thing in common: I'm as obstinate as you are), China is not nearly as predictable as Russia. A burgeoning Asian autocracy of 1.3 billion-- and counting-- citizens? C'mon, you may not have time to respond but you have what it takes, you CAN do better than you have written here.
The reason I'm pressing this is Marshall wrote "[...] instead of playing Foreign Affairs, when my original comments were about domestic policies, not predicting what China was going to do anything", when this particular blog is on China, related to FA. But that is a quibble, here's what disturbs me most: "postfuturist: I not only have the answers to all those questions, I know where to start and how to finish. The problem is that when you do realize what the answers are you simultaneously realize that the problems are by design and there are people in place to be sure they exist and worsen because of the benefits that they provide for those who want to exploit those problems for their own ends[...]" One has to almost admire your certainty & determination. You are referring to "answers", answers are future-tense. This is what I find revolting, so many think the world is a sort-of laboratory (e.g. hypotheses, questions) and they themselves are experimenters (e.g. examining for answers). Now I don't say you are being too pushy, most men are that way, but you are posturing yourself above as a political engineer who has ready answers (you have it ALL figured out??) to questions you cannot fully realize without being a superhuman. You haven't reached that stage-- for absolute sure.
My fascination with China and the US; is that China "owns the gold" and is able to set the standard based on monetary values. The US on the other hand, because of the failure of the Republican and Democratic parties, has given Pres Obama a freer hand in setting the moral and ethical values for the world leaders. Obama's recent Nuclear Summit was a great political move, because it left US competitors for world leadership, Russia and China with no choice, but to be there also. Afterall when over 45 powerless nations came over for a chat, the Chinese and Russians would not want to be absent. If I were a bettng man I would say the US still remain at the forefront of world leadership.
China's leaders have not yet determined what the loss of Democratic and Republican parties means to their national interest. Their attention is mostly turned inward, as it has been for the for the last several hundred years. On the whole China has been the best governed nation for many centuries, because they based it on an educated bureaucracy, the Mandarin system. The Communist Party wants to say on message; Law and order.
I am not so interested in watching what they do with currency values as their attempts to preserve the communist ideals. Ideals are always corrupted by too much money. How they want to control the internet news and social websites? The Chinese government's attempts at hiding cyberwarfare from their business interests by creating quasi government agencies to win at home.
What I see happening is a loss of credibility by the people in the Communist Party leadership. Today the US Congress and Senate is undergoing a similar shift, giving Obama a freer hand world wide. This shift in China would benefit the scientific community greatly, because it is closely entwined with the US.
"the Chinese and Russians would not want to be absent.
If I were a bettng man I would say the US still remain at the forefront of world leadership." You got it as far as can be seen now, Eduard, nothing much left to write after your last comment. Let's hope Obama is re-elected, he is adequate for sure. Republiclones said the same about Clinton in the '90s as they are today saying concerning Obama... there is way too much sound and fury-- which will benefit Obama by his second term. China? haven't the foggiest; but Marshall Barnes couldn't get what I wrote on "collective" "security" (whatever security is relative to place and time). In sum, nations are looking out for their interests in a primitive collective security of sorts, albeit at this time and for the next few decades many nations' interests will certainly not be consonant with our own. We have not reached a really higher stage in our global evolution, it goes without saying.
I think USA shall remain a global power. it has people from around the world; from all the continents. it represents these people being from USA. USA has an enormous budget on security and nobody knows the enormous and new discoveries they are making. Nobody knows what NASA has discovered beneath our atmosphere.
IEET Blog |
email list |
newsletter |
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.
Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
Williams 119, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT
06106 USA
Email: director @ ieet.org phone:
860-297-2376
IEET Blog