It's time to stop scratching at those crystal balls.
This is the thread in which prognostication is the name of the game.
While I'd rather this thread weren't a sci-fi haven, technological predictions are an inevitable facet of any analysis of the future.
Mostly, though, thoughts on the future of political structures, nationhood, language, society, the law, bio-med, gender, and social interaction will hopefully be this thread's emphases.
Also, if you'd like to write short, fictional or satirical pieces on certain aspects of the future, that would be great.
3. khaval alazman - 5/30/2001 3:31:34 AM
If the above comes up as a double post, please let me know, and I'll delete it. Like the young Sade, am still learning the ropes.
4. ycmeehan - 5/30/2001 6:05:16 AM
Good luck, Khaval.
5. PelleNilsson - 5/30/2001 6:22:41 AM
Most new hosts first of all learn how to use the delete function. It is an interesting phenomenon.
Last week I re-read The Club of Rome's Limits to Growth. It was published in 1972. I guess many of you haven't read it or even heard of it. But it created a big stir when it came and its influence can still be seen in concepts such as "Sustainable Development".
The book was based on research done at MIT where a team developed a "world model" which described the interaction between population growth, mineral resources, food production, industrial production and pollution. The research team found that no matter what assumptions they made, civilisation as we know it would cease to exist around 2020 and 2-3 decades later, the world's population would start to decrease because of depleted resources and poisoned nature.
It is interesting to note that sometime in the 90's our worries for the future ceased to focus on the resource problem. Now the deposit problem occupies pole position, in particular the greenhouse gases.
What strikes one when re-reading the book is its underestimation of the dynamics of economic and technical developments leading to new patterns of resource consumtion. My own field, telecom, is a good example. Up to 1980 it was a big consumer of copper. Since then it has become increasingly silicon-based.
6. transient1a - 5/30/2001 8:37:18 AM
You need some related links.
Here are two:
Can we see the near future -- Year 2025
Does Sex Have a Future?
7. Dusty - 5/30/2001 8:53:09 AM
transient1a
Excellent link (the first, I haven't yet checked out the second) thanks
For those who haven't yet checked out the first link, it includes a discussion moderated by David Brin. Brin is the author of Transparent Society, a book/article we have discussed with much interest in other threads.
8. Fielding - 5/30/2001 10:23:02 AM
Good luck Khaval.
9. Fielding - 5/30/2001 10:23:49 AM
I predict that in the future, this thread will be in the past.
10. PelleNilsson - 5/30/2001 10:29:35 AM
Well, I read that book and recently I had reason to look into some of my own work related to long-term forecasting 20-25 years ago. The striking thing is the static approach. The future becomes essentially an extrapolation of the past and the present. Consider three things which have changed our lives:
1. The ability to pack more computer power into a lap top than in the largest mainframes of 1975.
2. The Internet.
3. The cellphone.
These were not even on the horizon 25 years ago. And the Internet exploded because www became available which it did because some guys at CERN wanted to design system for internal information and happened on one that was immensely versatile and scaleable.
All we can say about the world in 2025 is that it will be different, and I mean qualitatively different. Some things will probably not change though. Some hundreds of millions of people will live in absolute poverty, millions will die of curable diseases and so on.
11. Dusty - 5/30/2001 10:44:42 AM
PelleNilsson
Exactly!
I recently reviewed the report of the Long Term Planning Committee of my professional society. At a meeting, I pulled aside the chair, and asked him if he had reviewed the long term projections done by his predecessors. He said he hadn't but it was an excellent idea. I had mixed emotions. I was happy he thought it was a good idea, but chagrined it wasn't obvious. I had expected him to tell me what they had learned from it, not that they hadn't done it.
I bring it up because of the same phenomenon. I think they did too much simple extrapolation of present issues. The 1996 presentation of issues expected to be important in 2001 is largely a commentary on things that were important in 1996, not any insight into the future.
12. PelleNilsson - 5/30/2001 10:58:23 AM
Even if we can see technological change coming it is extraordinarily difficult to predict all its ramifications. The cellphone in its present, digital form emerged in 1991-93. Who could have foreseen then that today I can use my phone to pay my parking fees in the city? Admittedly, that is not a big thing, but it is the aggregation of small things and the way they interact that changes society.
13. arheles - 5/30/2001 11:27:33 AM
By 2005, the lights come back on in CA, but the political & economic costs are steep. Silicon Valley is a ghost town, migrating to ID,CO,OR,WA. CA goes Repub, ensuring a national Repub majority. CA becomes a tourist/retirement state, a FL west.
14. arheles - 5/30/2001 11:28:17 AM
By 2010, US Dems are destroyed by the left. NE seaboard Repubs immediately bolt to re-form the Dems as a permanent minority fiscal con/soc lib party. With consensus on economic issues, Red v Blue values politics become the norm. Roe is overturned, abortion rights are re-affirmed in most states, eliminating the issue from national politics. Crime continues to decline. Without these issues, a vigorous values politics can't be sustained. US world-wide dominance in business/science/tech increases. The US becomes peaceful, materially rich, and perpetually striving. They are too busy to notice their unhappiness.
15. arheles - 5/30/2001 11:29:13 AM
By 2015, France tries and fails to construct an anti-US EU. A German dominated Federation of Europe forms. Third Way EU adopts neutrality in world affairs. Hollywood, UN relocate to EU. WWF moves to England adopting medieval costumes. EU becomes peaceful, culturally rich, and seemingly contented. Wooden shoes become hugely popular, as do ABBA revivals. Suicide rates unexpectedly soar.
16. arheles - 5/30/2001 11:29:46 AM
By 2020, WWIII starts when internally troubled China invades Taiwan. Unified Korea joins US led alliance. EU remains neutral, despite massive French support of China. AU is neutral. Japan is neutralized by Chinese offer of Korea in secret treaty. Japan reclaims US bases, ejects US. India refuses to support Alliance, immediately attacking and conquering Pakistan. Indonesia sides with China. Brazil supports China, war breaks out in South America.
17. Cellar Door - 5/30/2001 11:31:33 AM
The AIDS crisis of this decade will make the late 80's and early 90's look like a blip on th radar.
Get ready for a LOT of funerals.
18. arheles - 5/30/2001 11:32:01 AM
By 2030, McDonalds closes it's 2 millionth store.
19. marjoribanks - 5/30/2001 11:37:38 AM
Good predictions Arheles! Some telling thrusts there.
Cellar, I certainly hope you're wrong. What are you basing your predictions on? (By the way, the global effects of the pandemic make the Us deaths in the 80's a blip on the radar anyway).
20. marjoribanks - 5/30/2001 11:38:13 AM
Also BTW, welcome to the mote, arheles, if you're new.
21. JayAckroyd - 5/30/2001 11:53:26 AM
Like Dusty, I thought of The Transparent Society when I saw this topic. 0ne of the things in Brin's book that he makes a big deal about is the coming ubiquity of video cameras.
It's a good way to illuminate the increasing transparency of our lives. Your face is showing up on videotape or hard drive storage several times a day, and will appear more and more often in the future. Some people find this intrusive, but anything that captures the truth strikes me as, on balance, a good thing.
I expect cops will be videotaping all their arrests soon, and if they don't they will find themselves being videotaped more and more often.
Is this a good thing or a bad thing? No matter what you think, there will be more and more cameras in your future.
22. JayAckroyd - 5/30/2001 11:56:33 AM
Another interesting issue involves spy agencies like the NSA and the CIA. The combination of the end of the cold war and the widespread use of satellite photography, among not just government but also private agencies makes the CIA's collection of human intelligence increasingly irrelevant.
The NSA is in a heap of trouble, as encryption technology continues to improve. Is it time for the United States to adopt a more transparent foreign policy? Will they?
23. khaval alazman - 5/30/2001 12:13:19 PM
Wow! Thanks for the kind wishes and fantastic posts, folks.
There is so much to read (links, books etc.).
***
Arheles, I really like your political prognostications for the US, though I disagree about WWIII. If China is going to get bolshie over Taiwan, it will happen sooner than you predicted.
Obliquely related to Jay's post: is this the place to discuss Echelon? Is it being discussed in another thread. It seems almost too fantastic (in the literal sense).
And Jay, I'd disagree about the irrelevance of human resources in intelligence gathering. As smart as gadgets may be, you will always need smarter humans who know where and how to implement them. Also, the finer points of espionage require the finesse of the human brain: intuitition is vital when attempting to keep tabs on a target. I cannot conceive of a monitoring system so omnipotent that it would obviate the need for human direction. ANd human direction requires that human's familiarity with the nature and movements of the target.
***
BTW, for the next fortnight, I have exams/essays. I will do my utmost to maintain the thread and post any links that any of you feel would be useful, but I'll be temporarily limited in my participation in discussions.
24. JayAckroyd - 5/30/2001 12:18:20 PM
What I meant when I was talking about human intelligence (humint in the spy business vs signal intelligence [sigint]) which entails the use of people in foreign countries obtaining information. The recent Hanson counterespionage case is an example of a Russian human intelligence operation.
Yes, I think Echelon and Carnivore should be part of the discussion here. In fact, I think they will be counterproductive for the agencies involved because they will encourage the use of strong cryptography. Right now, encrypting a message is itself evidence of sensitive material being exchanged, and therefore lends itself to traffic analysis. When everybody encrypts everything, that won't be possible anymore. And Carnivore will be out of business.
25. rubberducky - 5/30/2001 12:35:26 PM
i liked your posts, arheles.
this made me take notice: They are too busy to notice their unhappiness. because, well, i think a lot of people are in this boat already. but it is a trend that will most assuredly increase.
26. arheles - 5/30/2001 12:45:01 PM
Thanks Marg, Khaval, rubberducky. I'm surprised how easy it is to generate plausible scenarios. I better finish the war, then on to easier predictions:
Despite initial success (including destruction of the Panama Canal) and massive conventional effort, no Chinese soldier survives more than 24 hours on Taiwanese soil. Thwarted in Taiwan, China expands war into Indochina, India and Russia. VN dominated Indochina joins Alliance. US and VN conventional forces successfully defend Indochina. Indonesia disintegrates into civil war. Brazil, Venezuela et al, are beaten by Mexican led SA alliance. Russia withdraws from EU, forms alliance with India and extends NMD shielding to India. Ind-Rus v China nuclear exchange destroys China as political entity. WWIII ends. EU led Marshall Plan saves millions from starvation, India becomes world power, Korea occupies Japan.
27. arheles - 5/30/2001 12:46:22 PM
Humans continue worldwide migration to coasts. By 2100 the interior of Africa is largely depopulated. Noticing that 90% of Canadians live within 150 km of US border, Canada votes to begin merging with the US. Canada depopulates, effectively becoming an enormous eco-reserve. US Mexico adopt open borders and begin political partnership. NZ and AU merge, NZ depopulates. Most of sub-saharan Africa becomes protectorate of UN.
28. arheles - 5/30/2001 12:47:08 PM
The dictatorships of the Middle-East continue to oppose peace, fearing the spread of democracy. Israel becomes disgusted and resolves to leave. Their right of return claim is refused by Argentina, Spain and Zimbabwe. They eventually end up in New York, Massachusetts and Nebraska, benefitting the US enormously. Except communal farming doesn't work in Nebraska, either.
29. labwabbit - 5/30/2001 12:54:30 PM
Wooo Hooo
Predictions for 2002:
-PP will have helped at least one person to find their way to the light. However, another year of the RedSux losing to the Yanks will take a toll that will induce heavy drinking and social withdrawal forcing the doors to permanently close at the Sportsbar.
-marjori will sell his cab company upon receiving the Golden Turban award for consistently finding the longest possible route to the airport. (Will receive honorable mention for most pedestrians taken out in a crosswalk at one time).
-Judith will finally achieve the perfect drunk without a hangover. Will celebrate by killing 50 lobsters.. and while coated in melted butter, will dance naked in the kitchen as they scream.
-seadate will shun golf shorts and will move inland to establish a shoe store chain specializing in sandals.
-MsNo will open a very successful Institution of Whips and Bondage in North Carolina by the discovering a new interpretation of Sodom and Gomorrah that clearly points out they truly lived as God intended all mankind to be like.
-ycmeehan will have passionately taken up the cause to protect and preserve all birds of prey. Her realization and application that if speaking french brings out the animal in men, why wouldn't it bring out the men in animals will eventually establish her as the Dr. Doolittle of raptors.
-TheDiva will...well remain the Diva. (Some things do spring eternal.)
-CalGal will be incarcerated to a total solitary confinement cell for life. Although she will at some time during this period discover the secret of life, the world will still be unable to interpret her salivitations and hence be doomed to continue on in ignorance. (msgreer will be assigned the task of making sure her outfit is securely fastened and monitoring the IVs.)
-CellarDoor's penus will fall off from too many fantasies of a gay Tom Cruise drinking white zinfandel in his personal hot tub.
30. labwabbit - 5/30/2001 12:54:41 PM
-Pelle will be nominated for Kora Temple World Headquarters Emirate. Sadly however he will not be able to accept proving that vodka, coffee, and chainsaws will inevitably cost him more than an arm and a leg. (He will however lead the way for establishing a handicapped world bowling league.)
-TheMote will come to an end. Wabbit, Alistair, and Jay will eventually come to realize that it is more profitable and rewarding to open a Schizo-Affective Disorder forum for the many who have already taken the first step of admitting, (unwittingly by registering into the Mote), that there is an overwhelming need to exploit such a lucrative market opportunity, while simultaneously satisfying humanitarian desires.
-labwabbit will still be maintaining the same stupid grin as always while sitting daily on the front porch sipping Beam.
31. khaval alazman - 5/30/2001 1:08:10 PM
Let the love fest begin!
Arheles, I simply adored your last three posts. I disagree with parts of them vehemently and hope to answer you in detail after I've had my four hours sleep (it's 3:15am here). But what food for thought!
Labwabbit! Yay. What fun!
32. PsychProf - 5/30/2001 1:10:45 PM
Very funny Lab.
33. PsychProf - 5/30/2001 1:12:35 PM
Khaval...nice thread and good to have you at The Mote.
34. JudithAtHome - 5/30/2001 1:14:13 PM
Yep, very funny...except I disagree with mine because the holy grail of it isn't worth the journey.
I like the butter idea, tho...
35. khaval alazman - 5/30/2001 1:16:51 PM
Thanks Mr. Prof. I have been causing great offense and destruction in the International (and a bit in language and sex)thread for a while now (I think since last year), but I felt it was time to venture beyond....
36. Jenerator - 5/30/2001 1:22:22 PM
arheles,
I've enjoyed your predictions as well; however, you're sorely mistaken if you think the WWF will move to England. It's shown once every other week there, but Vince McMahon will not move the cast and crew overseas. William Regal is one of the least popular wrestlers.
Don't ask me why I know this.;-)
37. arheles - 5/30/2001 1:53:10 PM
Thanks Jen. I know little about Moties, so I tried to make remarks as discussable as possible. Apologies for the WWIII scenario, but once I started, it just sort of wrote itself. Here's a scenario from a different source:
Shintaro Ishihara (gov of Tokyo):
("Gendai", December 1999 edition. A special story: A series of 10 exciting opinions "I can't leave without saying this")
Japan is so exploited by the US. It is also a financial slave of the US. Why is it so afraid of America? Japan doesn't need to care the security treaty with the US at all. If America complains to Japan about the treaty, we just ask the US Army to get out of Japan. At present, this country has enough military technology and budget, so we make it become a strong defense nation by using its money and ability. Then, we should do what the US is most afraid of. Japan sell US Treasury bonds (it has bought about 3 trillion dollars). It will be criticized as pulling a trigger of the Depression, but this is Japan's turn to drop atomic bombs.
The world economy will sink after Japan sells all its Treasury bonds. Then, which country or region will recover first? It will be Japan and East Asian Nations that can make high quality products. The best manufacturing country, Japan, as admitted by the US, will survive. And the East Asian nations also have manufacturing technology and a high standard of education. Therefore, the "Greater Asia Yen Sphere" will be established.
38. khaval alazman - 5/31/2001 3:46:27 AM
Hokay, I've now got a chance to respond properly to Arhele's fascinating scenarios.
"By 2020, WWIII starts when internally troubled China invades Taiwan. Unified Korea joins US led alliance."
Firstly, I don't think a Chinese invasion of Taiwan is likely or even feasible. The process of liberalisation in China will occur at a far faster pace than the process of strengthening its military capability. ANd because China knows that any invasion of Taiwan will entail an American response, China must first have the capability to engage with AMerica. Currently, it does not, and by the time it does, it will be a China quite unlike the China of today. With the liberalisation of the economy and the explosion of communications technology and uptake, China is unlikely to have a static hegemonic type. Before Taiwan can even become a realistic issue, there will be all manner of internal strife in China for which the military will be deployed and will have to focus its resources on queslling.
"EU remains neutral, despite massive French support of China. AU is neutral. Japan is neutralized by Chinese offer of Korea in secret treaty. Japan reclaims US bases, ejects US. India refuses to support Alliance, immediately attacking and conquering Pakistan. Indonesia sides with China. Brazil supports China, war breaks out in South America."
Assuming such a war would occur, the EU would most certainly not remain neutral. It could abstain from active troop deployment, but in terms of shared intelligence and other resources, the EU would firmly support the US. Despite the constant grumblings, AMerica and the EU are the only two monolithic structures in the world with such similar political and eonomic philosophies. They are natural allies.
cont....
39. khaval alazman - 5/31/2001 3:48:02 AM
....cont.
Australia will forever - or within my children's lifetimes at the very least - be America's toady in the South Pacific. We are a mini-America, anyway, and indeed have always behaved (since WW2) as an AMerican colonial outpost. We have given our troops to America in every single war (outside the Americas) since WW2.
As for Japan: it will remain neutral or join with the American alliance. But by 2020, if it's current rate of economic decline continues, Japan will have to worry about being taken over by Korea, and not the traditional other-way-around. But I do agree that by 2020, The Koreas will be reunited.
Now, as far as Indian neutrality is concerned, I agree that had such a war taken place ten years ago or earlier, it would have stayed neutral. It's relationship with China is precarious owing to border disputes and previous war, and it has always been wary of becoming a pawn of the US, like Pakistan.
cont....
40. khaval alazman - 5/31/2001 3:48:59 AM
....cont.
Today, however, since Clinton's warm embrace, and since the info=tech explosion in India, India is moving ever closer to the US in its relationship. By 2020, India and the US will be even closer, as India's middleclass blows out out past 400 million (it is already over 200 million), and technology transfer between the two countries increases exponentially.
Also, if China is embarking on expansionist follies, the first large country to become exceedingly nervous would be India, as its own territorial integrity would be threatened. India would very much want to see China neutralised in such a circumstance and would do everything possible to assist the US in this endeavour.
Now, why Indonesia would support China in such circs is difficult to understand. It is undergoing a process of democratisation and has been liberalising economically for many years. Its natural ally is the US.
Brazil is the same, if not more so. Its leading role in Mercosur demonstrates its ideological affinity with the US and by 2020, the Mercosur and Nato blocks will have the most intimate of trade links, if they are already not united in an EEU type economic federation.
More to come....
41. khaval alazman - 5/31/2001 5:11:46 AM
Some more responses to Arheles"
"Humans continue worldwide migration to coasts. By 2100 the interior of Africa is largely depopulated."
This one has a natural limitation. While I agree that generally, interiors will continue to experience emigration, this is not a uniform trend and is very much based on the nature of the resources available in such areas.
As such, already arid areas will not be able to sustain expanding populations; however, the coastal regions will also experience intolerable congestions, at which point disease and conflict will draw people back to habitable interiors while coastal regions will undergo "natural" depopulation from disease as well. Assuming that such coastal regions remain habitable, there will be another return, until the next congestion crisis, at which point there will be yet another retreat to the interior. Such migration patterns will always be inherently cyclical.
cont....
42. khaval alazman - 5/31/2001 5:13:10 AM
....cont.
"Noticing that 90% of Canadians live within 150 km of US border, Canada votes to begin merging with the US. Canada depopulates, effectively becoming an enormous eco-reserve. US Mexico adopt open borders and begin political partnership."
This is an interesting scenario. I don't know enough about it to comment confidently, but from what I can tell, Canadians work very hard at distinguishing themselves and their society from Americans and America. Their society functions much more like one in Northern Europe than it does the US. There are fundamental political and philosophical chasms which I believe will serve to maintain the US and Canada as seperate states.
I do think, though that NAFTA will expand greatly and that an EU type integration is inevitable. In the same way, however, that sovreignty has not been totally abrogated in EU member countries, I don't think we'll see Canada and the US become a single entity.
Also, the southern concentration of Canadians is less to do with their love of the US, and more to do with climate and economics.
"NZ and AU merge, NZ depopulates. Most of sub-saharan Africa becomes protectorate of UN."
Actually, I cannot for the life of me understand why NZ and Australia have not yet merged. Only an idiotic sense of pride is behind continued NZ independence. They are an econmic backwater due to their size and location, we receive countless NZ immigrants every year anyway, our political systems are near identical, and we have absolutely identical political and social cultures. The separation is just too stupid for words. And like most stupidities, it is not sustainable. New Zealand will be an AUstralian state by 2050 at the latest.
cont....
43. khaval alazman - 5/31/2001 5:14:25 AM
....cont.
"The dictatorships of the Middle-East continue to oppose peace, fearing the spread of democracy. Israel becomes disgusted and resolves to leave."
Actually, most Arab countries want peace of some sort -mainly because they want a Palestinian state to take all those pesky, restive Palestinian refugees off their hands. If you think the Israelis don't much like the Palestinians, you should take a look at Syria's, Jordan's, Kuwait's and others' record with them.
Eventually, the Palestinians will have a state. There is simply no alternative.
cont....
44. khaval alazman - 5/31/2001 5:15:01 AM
...cont.
And the Israelis won't be leaving any time soon. They are some of the most tenacious (to the point of idiocy) people on earth. They will fight until either they win, or they are wiped off the map. Most Israelis would be happy if there were a Palestinian state, and the war of attrition were over.
Should such a gift from God occur, eventually (2050) we will begin to see a bloc emerge. First it will include just Israel Palestine and Jordan, but will eventually include Lebanon and Syria. Lebanon, should the Syrian military get out earlier, will become as intimately connected with Israel as Jordan.
The bloc will begin as a free trade and then labour zone. This will be impelled by infrastructural (most particularly water) cooperation.
Future wars in the Middle East will be fought WITHIN nation states, and "artificial" states like Iraq will disintegrate.
"Their right of return claim is refused by Argentina, Spain and Zimbabwe. They eventually end up in New York, Massachusetts and Nebraska, benefitting the US enormously. Except communal farming doesn't work in Nebraska, either."
There will, however, be an exodus of Ashkenazi Jews to the Anglo-world in the next 50 years. Israel, by that time, will be ethnically and culturally Arab, if religiously Jewish. Should the theocrats in Israel win out, it will very much resemble Iran. Otherwise, it will resemble Brazil in its political culture.
45. khaval alazman - 5/31/2001 5:33:31 AM
Oooh. I forgot... when I said that Israel will resemble Iran if the theocrats win out in the current (underreported) struggle between secular and religious, I should have mentioned that the "Iran" I refer to is the Iran of 10 years ago -the Iran of the booga-booga stories aired on Western TV.
Iran's in the process of some pretty fundamental liberalisation, both on the official levels and grassroots levels. The reformist leader, Khatami, has his greatest support from the young and from women. Over 50% of the Iranian population is under 25. Over 50% of medical students are women (ie. Women in Iran are not women in Saudi Arabia).
The majority of the population today in Iran was not alive or "conscious" during the reign of the last Shah. There is growing ancient-Persian revivalism, with a re-(near)-deification of the first king, Cyrus, and the reemergence of Hafez's poetry's premier place in the Iranian cultural lexicon with the Quran (it never really left, but people are more open about it now).
So, my prediction is this: that by 2050, Iran will be like the Israel of 1993(Oslo), and that Israel, in 2050, will be like the Iran of 1989.
46. stostosto - 5/31/2001 5:44:46 AM
Wooden shoes become hugely popular, as do ABBA revivals. Suicide rates unexpectedly soar.
Strike "unexpectedly" - the causality is highly plausible.
47. stostosto - 5/31/2001 6:21:00 AM
Ian Pearson is a "futurologist", employed at BT (British Telecom). Quite intriguing chap. I've met him.
Motto: "Just occasionally, everyone else IS wrong".
Perhaps Pelle knows him too?
48. stostosto - 5/31/2001 6:47:31 AM
A snippet to give a feel:
"[B]y 2020, new babies can expect to live to well over 100, perhaps 130 might be common. In fact, for a while, life expectancy will increase faster than people get older. By the time today's babies are due to die we will probably be able to download their minds into electronic storage and they will be able to carry on digitally even when their bodies are dead and buried. Imagine making a speech at your own funeral! Many of today's children will survive long enough to enjoy this effective immortality."
49. transient1a - 5/31/2001 6:50:57 AM
Gee!
I wonder where pseudoerasmus went?
The least he could do is show up and argue with himself.
50. pseudoerasmus - 5/31/2001 7:44:04 AM
How do you know I'm not already doing that?
51. transient1a - 5/31/2001 8:03:51 AM
As usual, you don't read my posts carefully.
Where have ruled that out?
52. transient1a - 5/31/2001 8:05:00 AM
Oops!
Where have I ruled out?
53. transient1a - 5/31/2001 8:06:36 AM
Damn!
Where have ruled that ou?
(I have a very bad head cold.)
54. khaval alazman - 5/31/2001 8:11:20 AM
Transient, a head cold's one thing. I'd be more inclined to ask you what you've been smoking. That is one weird and off topic series of posts.
55. MsIvoryTower - 5/31/2001 8:33:20 AM
By 2010, US Dems are destroyed by the left.
It's much more likely that by 2010 US Repubs are destroyed by the right.
There really never was a true left in this country, and what remains of what was is quite tame and somewhat pitiful.
It's hard to be wealthy (GNP per capita) and radical.
The extreme right, on the other hand, is becoming more frightening daily (interestingly, this is a world-wide phenomenon). My guess is that they merge with the fringe gun-toting isolationists, and make a move to overtake the Republican party for the sake of God and country.
56. transient1a - 5/31/2001 9:01:39 AM
BT technology timeline -towards life in 2020 (From related links.)
Note that this was written in 1999.
The Addendum is probably the most interesting part.
Two predictions worth commenting on:
1
>2005 Computers that write most of their own software<
This implies very fast evolution of computer software.
2
>2040 Robots physically and mentally superior to humans <
The mental part has now been set at about 2060.
This means that all mathematics and science will be performed by computers. As well as, of course, computer hardware will be designed by computers -- leading to very fast evolution of computers.
A dumbed down version of computer language, especially designed for humans, will eventually become the universal human language. (Although facile computer translation may slow this down.)
The moon and mars will be inhabited by computers. Most manufactured products, and possibly energy as well as some food will be shipped back to earth.
Computers will allow the complete deciphering of the human genome. Designing human genetic structure will allow human intelligence to compete with computer intelligence in short term. The genome of every human being will be routinely recorded and analyzed.
Cybergs will be common.
ALSO
It has been predicted that, within a few hundred thousand years, the only humans around will be pets of computers.
57. transient1a - 5/31/2001 9:16:30 AM
Message # 54
khaval alazman. Damn, I meant pseudoerasmus. Or do I mean khaval alazman?
I don't know. It's this damn head cold.
58. khaval alazman - 5/31/2001 9:21:06 AM
Transient, that's very interesting. I look forward to others' responses.
BTW, is a Cyberg a Jewish cyborg, or are Cyborgs Swedish cybergs?
(Sorry... couldn't help myself :))
59. arheles - 5/31/2001 11:01:28 AM
Message # 38 Of course a Chinese invasion of Taiwan invasion is feasible!!!! It would have happened in Carter's second term!! Or Gore's!!! I agree it's unlikely, given Chinese security needs. But internally, I don't think that China can liberalize peacefully, and they'll go looking for some popular foreign dragon to slay. Taiwan, not because they need to externally, but because they need a distraction internally.
The thinnest book in the world has got to be 'European Intelligence Findings for the US for the Year 2XXX'. How can an organization whose members are individually tending to neutrality form a meaningful military? Neutral EU is almost a natural fact.
60. arheles - 5/31/2001 11:10:52 AM
I didn't know you are AUslander!! AU is no one's toady, but at some future point, they will deal with an aggressor China diplomatically. They'll sign a treaty guaranteeing the integrity of the Barrier Reef or some other silliness. Outpost America. Pfui!!!
India I know little about, they seem so inconstant in their affairs. My scenario was designed to draw Mr. Banks in. FWIW, India evaluates the Taiwan lunge as stemming from internal needs, not an expansionist impulse.
Brazil formed Mercosur TO OPPOSE US interests!!!!
Africa doesn't have a chance. Or rather, the world can't effectively help Africa without taking over (most of) it. Which the world won't do.
Canadians all secretly yearn to be USers. HAHAHA.
61. Wombat - 5/31/2001 11:12:03 AM
Arheles:
Explain to me how China plans on crossing Taiwan straits in force in the face of heavy resistance and US intervention. Seizing Quemoy and Matsu, yes. Bombardment with IRBMs until Taiwan gives in, possible.
62. arheles - 5/31/2001 11:19:09 AM
Well, Americans think Israelis are well tanned Europeans in a sea of hostile Arabs. Your comments are most appreciated. I'm surprised how dour you are about Israeli religios and Israel in general. O, Israel!! Poor Nebraska!!
63. arheles - 5/31/2001 11:37:04 AM
Message # 62 was to khaval. Wombat, I don't think China goes against Taiwan without internal problems forcing it to. Since they won't be responding to an external threat, they don't have to win militarily. Since (via scenario) their gamble doesn't succeed in quelling their internal problems, they desperately expand the war to some place where they can succeed.
64. arheles - 5/31/2001 11:53:48 AM
Message # 55 MsIT surprised by your comments about the US right! Their big problem was the Christian Right. Moral Majority gone, ibid Christian Coalition. What's left to scare liberals with, certainly not Promisekeepers. Agree with you about the left generally but not left v liberals specifically. See The Future Once Happened Here by uber-lib Fred Siegel on how the left undermines liberals.
65. thoughtful - 5/31/2001 11:54:19 AM
Hmmm. In 20 years, I predict we will have poverty, crime, malnutrition, disease, natural disasters, pollution, sun spots and plant and animal extinctions. Reagan will be dead, though it's up in the air about Strom Thurmond, and they still will not have located Jimmy Hoffa.
Unless of course the Mayan's are right.
66. arheles - 5/31/2001 12:17:29 PM
MsIT, if you're saying that for the Dems to win, the Right must self-destruct, I agree. Dems are blocked by 'tax and spend' politics. And Naderism. If the US Right doesn't implode, over time these will prove decisive. I think R v L in the US is mostly explained by liberals losing, not conservatives winning.
Thoughtful, you are completely right...
67. arheles - 5/31/2001 12:19:47 PM
Er, I think R v L in the US is mostly explained by liberalism losing, not conservatism winning.
68. khaval alazman - 5/31/2001 12:26:24 PM
Arheles, ich bin ein Austlander after a fashion. I have citizenhip here. Let's leave it at that.
As for my being "dour" about the religos... good God, sir. DOn't get me started - well, not tonight anyway. The destruction of the State of Israel as we know it will have nothing to do with Arabs. There will be an eventual civil war between the secular and the Orthodox.
As for Yankees thinking that Israelis are tanned Euros, er.... Maybe they are confused by Israel's being a democracy. There is almost nothing European about Israel. The Jews of the Muslim countries and their descendents (also those from mixed marriages) constitute the vast majority of Israelis. There are very few "pure" Euro-Jews of my generation (I'm 25).
Interestingly, when there is a mixed marriage, the usual result is that the "Euroness" of one parent is subsumed by the "Easternness" of the other in terms of the environment in which children are raised. This has two reasons, I believe: firstly, easterners constitute the cultural majority in the country, so the Eastern parent's culture will find an easier reception, and also the Easterner families are huuuge. The kids will therefore have numerous Easterner cousins and relatively few Euro cousins, if any.
What confuses the Yankees is the ostensible liberalism of Israel. Yes, compared with Arab countries, Israel is far more liberal; but attitudes are shaped by the US, not Europe. European liberalism certainly underpinned the establishment of political and social institutions at Israel's birth; however, this founder generation is largely dead, and we are now seeing an evolution of Israeli political culture which might be broadly described as "Mediterranean". Corruption and cronyism are ever increasing, and are now encouraged by the large influx of Russians whose political experience in Russia informs their political behaviour in Israel.
cont....
69. khaval alazman - 5/31/2001 12:26:55 PM
...cont.
As for China: seriously! Right now (and even more so back in Carter's day), China's military capability is unbelievably primitive. It would never take action which could lead it to confrontation with the US.
I agree that there will be internal problems in China, though, and the trigger will be democracy, but the deeper causes will be increasing social stratification due to economic liberalisation coupled with and inflamed by access to unpredented amounts of information through info-tech.
Regarding Mercosur: of course its role is as counterpoint to NAFTA. This is, however, irrelevant. The Mercosur countries would encounter economic stagnation without access, in the future, to the markets of Nafta. They will not be competing blocs - they will be trading blocs.
But even if I did subscribe to the notion of competition, I'd still say that your argument is irrelevant in relation to Brazil and the US. Mercosur represents an ideal which is very much in keeping with the American liberal ethos. There is simply no point of conflict in this arena.
Also, Mercosur will be redundant by 2050. Instead, there will be a pan-Americas free trade zone. Nafta will transform into a political designation rather than one purely concerned with trade.
I think that's it. If I remember anything, I'll post it when I wake up. Good night.
70. MsIvoryTower - 5/31/2001 12:28:45 PM
arheles reMessage # 64
I disagree. Extremists have been growing in this country (on the right) while withering on the left. There is no reputable left in the US today, IMHO. On the other hand, whacko's abound in this country, and are growing in numbers and whackiness.
The interesting thing is that the Republican party is their natural home given the party's platform as opposed to the liberal party agenda. While the religious right has been quiet of late, I don't discount their silence either, it is a thing to be watched.
I agree that this country's politics is marked more by liberals losing then conservatives winning, but that's changing too.
As for the Republicans imploding, it's more likely now then it ever was, given the lack of any clear middle base in the party. Just compare Bush's actions in the first 100 days to Clinton's. Bush moved quickly to pander to his extreme right base, while Clinton moved to cut his extreme liberal base off at the knees.
The left has no teeth anymore, whereas the extreme right is a force still to be reckoned with in this country.
71. Ronski - 5/31/2001 12:55:03 PM
I disagree. Clinton's first hundred days paralleled Bush's. Both made gestures to the non-center, as it were. Clinton issued his executive order on abortion, Bush issued his to rescind it (or rather, to reinstate what Clinton had rescinded). And Clinton made his announcement on gays in the military. Fortunately, Bush has not answered this with any overtly anti-gay gestures.
Eventually, Clinton raised taxes, while Bush quickly lowered them.
Clinton did have his famous Sista Souljah moment, but that was in the campaign. He did not triangulate, that is move to the center appreciably, until after the disastrous (for the Dems) midterm elections in '94.
72. Ronski - 5/31/2001 12:56:21 PM
And frankly, I don't think either major party is in any danger of collapsing for the forseeable future.
73. JJBiener - 5/31/2001 12:58:27 PM
Labwabbit - I am disappointed. I liked your posts (29 & 30), but there was no prediction for me. Go back to your crystal ball, come up with something.
74. JJBiener - 5/31/2001 1:00:01 PM
Ronski - And frankly, I don't think either major party is in any danger of collapsing for the forseeable future.
You are probably right, but one can still hope.
75. Ronski - 5/31/2001 1:03:49 PM
JJ,
I'm always hopeful, but despite what some may think, I'm also a realist.
76. PelleNilsson - 5/31/2001 1:09:32 PM
Is this to become another boring thread about contemporary American domestic poltics?
77. Ronski - 5/31/2001 1:13:52 PM
I can't see that far into the future.
But we could direct U.S. political discussions back to Politics.
78. khaval alazman - 5/31/2001 1:15:42 PM
*PREDICTION INCOMING*
Should this become a purely American Politics thread, I will be impelled to ritual suicide.
79. khaval alazman - 5/31/2001 1:17:33 PM
Look, I don't want to move any posts simply because they are about US politics. I think that's a big problem, because of the degree of influence the US has on the rest of the world.
On the other hand, if posts do degenerate into party political internecine arcana, I will shift them.
80. PelleNilsson - 5/31/2001 1:21:04 PM
An interesting point in the future will be when China surpasses the US as the world's biggest economy, to be followed by India. I wonder what that will do to American self-esteem?
81. Ronski - 5/31/2001 1:23:07 PM
Pelle,
How are into the future do you see those things happening?
82. Ronski - 5/31/2001 1:23:26 PM
How far, that is.
83. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2001 1:30:31 PM
I wonder what that will do to American self-esteem?
Lower it to the same level as Sweden's.
Looking forward, I predict the Swedish Riksdag will regret this move, as it encourages wanton drunkenness not seen outside of roadside diners in Texas.
Likely, the unpopularity of the measure will lead to the violent overthrow of the Swedish government by the Radical Temperance League of Bjork-Abba. Violence will take the form of throwing sour milk and pickled herring at all who oppose the new Temperance Party and its music.
84. PelleNilsson - 5/31/2001 1:34:43 PM
I don't know, but I don't think it's terribly far off. China has three times the population and grows faster. PE should be able to answer. Intriguing how he popped out of the blue, wasn't it?
85. ElliottRW - 5/31/2001 1:36:22 PM
when China surpasses the US as the world's biggest economy...what [will that] do to American self-esteem?
Won't happen unless it happens soon. After about 2030, machines will trump people as producers and the U.S. will have an insurpassable lead. As for American self-esteem: it would be unaffected. The people who loved America because it was the most productive economy in the world learned their lesson in the 70's and 80's courtesy of Japan. Now they love America because of its bad-ass military.
86. Ronski - 5/31/2001 1:37:52 PM
I can't think of any ways that Japan's economic success hurt American self-esteem, except possibly for a handful of lunatics whose self-esteem was already well-compromised and who attacked Asians in bias cases.
87. PelleNilsson - 5/31/2001 1:39:35 PM
Indy
I must refrain from comment or be accused of turning this into a thread for domestic Swedish politics.
88. thoughtful - 5/31/2001 1:41:07 PM
Well, I thought about how much has changed in the last 20 years as a measure of how much things might change in the next 20 years. What a frightening revelation! 20 years ago:
o I was married to the same man I am today
o I was living in the same house I am today
o I was working in the same department of the same firm as I am today
o I was struggling with my weight, diet and exercise level as I do today
o I gardened, mowed lawn, split wood, watered and weeded plants just as I do today
o I spoke with my mother every day as I do today
o I had a cat, no children, a married brother and a nephew just as I do today.
o I have the same water pump, clothes dryer, toaster oven and kitchen cabinets.
o There hasn't been a day of TV listings without Lucy reruns on it.
In other words, much remains the same. In many respects, that is a good thing.
89. thoughtful - 5/31/2001 1:42:54 PM
Pelle, by my estimates if China & the US grow at the same rate as they have since 1980, China's GDP will get larger than the US in real terms in about 30 years.
90. thoughtful - 5/31/2001 1:43:15 PM
India will take much longer.
91. ElliottRW - 5/31/2001 1:45:14 PM
Pelle, if you turn this into a Swedish politics thread, I will be forced to do an imitatation of a performance of ritualistic suicide.
92. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2001 1:46:56 PM
Pelle: But at least it wouldn't be another discussion of US politics.
At one time, many believed the Soviet Union's economy would pass that of the US. And then of course there was the Japanese miracle economy.
Before China or India's economy could pass ours, the world economies would be so integrated as to make such discussions meaningless.
93. thoughtful - 5/31/2001 1:53:00 PM
So, for the next 20 years, I hope to be married to the same man, but living in a new house including anew water pump, clothes dryer, toaster oven and kitchen cabinets. I hope to be retired from the firm. I truly hope I am healthy enough to continue to struggle with my weight, diet and exercise and be able to do things like water plants, split wood, garden, etc. I will consider myself most fortunate if I am still able to talk to my mom on a daily basis, hope for a different cat, though the same brother, nephew.
However, I fear the only one I'll be able to count on with any certainty is that they will still be rerunning Lucy.
94. arheles - 5/31/2001 2:01:02 PM
Khaval of the Outback. Don't Israelis reject all things US, excepting currency and the occasional aliyah guilt expiating tourist? Ex religios conflictus, a novel based on this would certainly sell well. Why not write it and become a world famous author. Your knowledge of Israeli marriage dynamics is fascinating. How are you interested in this?
The Chinese people see Taiwan as a repatriation project. As long as that is true Taiwan is at risk. Period. How is dependent on circumstances. Not why.
Brazil was a gambit, a way to involve SA and further isolate the US. They're big and they're down there. For all I know they say pro-US novenas every night.
95. arheles - 5/31/2001 2:01:52 PM
MsIT, you're expressing the anti-Republican sentiment that helps prevent liberals from forming an affirmative politics. Whacko, schmako. I sneer at the VRWC liberal hype. Piffle. I conceded that the left is adentria generally. You elide my point about l v l. If you don't like what Siegel has to say about the left ask Gore.
96. arheles - 5/31/2001 2:06:21 PM
Pelle, US self-esteem is almost completely explained by US self-aborption. If China, or India ever 'overtake' the US economically it will be hardly noticed except by US politicos.
97. khaval alazman - 5/31/2001 2:10:48 PM
Arheles, I am the most urban of cow-girls to whom you're ever likely to post. To put me and the outback in the same sentence is truly bizarre.
And did you know that Australia is the most urbanised country on earth? All those Croc Dundee stereotypes are totally off base.
Also, in International thread, I've written at length about how very un-Australian I am. SO do not read my comments as in any way representative of Australian thinking.
And Israelis most certianly do NOT reject all things American. Every Israeli dreams of spending serious time in New York and LA. They watch the movies, listen to the music, take their cultural cues, and formulate their attitudes to the non-ME world according to US direction. America is adored in Israel, as a general rule.
I know about Israeli marriage because I have spent chunks of my life living in Israel and the majority of my family lives there. And my mother is writing a book about religos (though not Israelis) and she's already a world famous author, so I might have to forget about your suggestion :)
98. arheles - 5/31/2001 2:15:03 PM
Oooops! Hear me O Khaval. From this day on, I shall write no more on US politics in this thead. Forever.
99. thoughtful - 5/31/2001 2:27:39 PM
Interesting question will be the role of genetics and bioengineering over the next decades....will we be generating classes of people hybridized for specific tasks? Custom-ordering children as we do cars? Will having babies the old fashioned way become obsolete instead rearing fetuses in sterile environments with all the correct nutrition, immunities, and genes eliminating birth defects and genetic disorders? (Day care beginning at conception rather than birth?)
100. Fielding - 5/31/2001 2:29:09 PM
Mine.
101. JJBiener - 5/31/2001 2:53:10 PM
Thoughtful - I don't think we will ever see the Brave New World. It is waaaaay too much fun to make babies the old fashioned way. There is a biological imperative that I don't think technology can ever touch.
I also don't think mothers will give up being mothers and be satisfied being egg donors. Maternal and nesting instincts tend to be very strong.
I do believe that more and more birth defects will be detected early and in some cases corrected before birth. This is already being done to a limited extent. I think it become common and cover a wide range of defects.
102. Fielding - 5/31/2001 2:56:08 PM
I do believe that more and more birth defects will be detected early and in some cases corrected before birth.
And as a corrolary, people will determine their unborn child's gender, eyecolor, height and sexual orientation.
103. JJBiener - 5/31/2001 3:04:39 PM
Fielding - I disagree. Genetic manipulation implies artificial fertilization. Once a genetic sequence has been intiated, I don't think we will ever be able to change it successfully. I don't believe that people will ever accept and be comfortable with that level of manipulation in the mating process. It is very dehumanizing. The more we advance technologically, the more people will be drawn to natural methods. We have seen this over the last 25 years.
104. amax - 5/31/2001 3:06:02 PM
I'm pretty sceptical about self aware machines or self programming machines. It may happen, but it would take a breakthrough of a fairly high order for it to happen. More likely to dominate the tech agenda in the coming decade is, IMO, the biotech field. For instance, I expect the first generation of anti-aging drugs will go to clinical trials in about 10 years -- the demographic implications of that should stir up the wonkish crowd somewhat, not to mention the usual crowd of technology commentators...
105. thoughtful - 5/31/2001 3:07:45 PM
jj, there are some forces I see countering that:
o mothers are also very protective of their children and if test-tube conceptions or mechanical uteri present the best hope for healthier babies, mothers' will do it. For other mothers with fertility problems may find this their only alternative.
o mothers may be given no choice -- if the So. Carolina ruling maintains...the state will take fetuses away from mothers who drink, do drugs, have HIV, etc. etc.
o pregnancy is no lark and "mail order" babies if a safe and viable alternative may become popular among a certain types of woman: those with economic/business pressures who feel they can't afford pregnancy and/or those who, once they have the babies typically ship them off to the nanny/boarding school, etc. Sorta of the modern-day wet nurse approach.
106. amax - 5/31/2001 3:10:47 PM
PE, I recall the club of Rome's best case scenario involving depletion in 2020 -- that scenario assumed that the world would reduce demand for materials and scale back economic growth. Under their forecast of then-present trends, the world was supposed to hit a total resource depletion sometime in the mid 1990's. They had a sophisticated computer model that predicted this. The problem was in fact their assumptions, as I recall.
107. ElliottRW - 5/31/2001 3:12:15 PM
It is waaaaay too much fun to make babies the old fashioned way.
You mean it's fun to have sex. There is a difference.
108. JJBiener - 5/31/2001 3:13:31 PM
thoughtful - You make valid points. I don't dispute what you say. I agree that there will probably be a segment of the population that will choose that route. I have trouble believing that it would ever be more than a handful. I don't see that those things are strong enough to overcome biological imperatives and maternal instincts. Given the choice of biology or technology, I will go with biology every time.
109. JJBiener - 5/31/2001 3:17:48 PM
amax - You mean it's fun to have sex. There is a difference.
No, I meant what I said. Yes, sex is great fun. However, when you are having sex with someone you love and you are creating a child in the process, the act takes on much greater significance. I don't think most humans will ever give that up.
110. labwabbit - 5/31/2001 3:19:51 PM
There is an old saying, "...you can never lose a wife, you just lose your turn."
Must have been the postman's turn Elliot?
111. JJBiener - 5/31/2001 3:23:00 PM
lab - I loved your predictions. Why no prediction for me?
112. PelleNilsson - 5/31/2001 3:37:09 PM
amax
I assume your last was directed at me, but please don't use "PE", which usually stands for pseudoerasmus.
The most serious flaws in the Club of Rome study was assuming that
113. thoughtful - 5/31/2001 3:41:40 PM
jj, you may be right as there are some women who feel if they've had to have a c-section, they haven't really given birth!
114. labwabbit - 5/31/2001 3:43:18 PM
Ran out of time JJ. Usually I get 15 mins of uninterrupted time first thing in the morn and sometimes use it to post. Sometimes it is actually a complete sentence.
The rest of the day is crash/slash, bob and weave.
I began more predicts this morning but had no chance after replying to someone's counter-point. I predict more to come...(you know absurdity is never far away when I come to play)
115. thoughtful - 5/31/2001 3:47:04 PM
jj, having sex to make a baby is something many couples are already forced to give up due to fertility issues...and that is something entirely different from carrying for 9 mos with associated nausea, pain, swelling, physical deformities, frequent urination, painful breasts, heart burn, hemmorhoids (?) not to mention the "joy" of the equivalent of passing an 8-10 lb. ham!
Further, I've known of several women who suffered the heartbreak of miscarriage multiple times. If there were a technical solution that allowed the baby to reach full term, I'm sure they'd go for it in a NY minute.
116. arheles - 5/31/2001 3:48:36 PM
Amax/Pelle aren't COR types stopped at the gate since non-linear processes can't be modelled with linear methods? I don't know why this isn't pointed out in the global warming debate.
117. ElliottRW - 5/31/2001 3:52:35 PM
Must have been the postman's turn Elliot? If you're accusing me of being a cuckold you can take it to the Inferno. I personally don't think that cuckoldry is a laughing matter. Just thinking about it gets my dander up. My comment was an allusion to the discomfort, pain, and risks of pregnancy, not the participants.
118. labwabbit - 5/31/2001 3:54:32 PM
I personally don't think that cuckoldry is a laughing matter.
I understand.
119. CalGal - 5/31/2001 4:00:43 PM
Re babies: at a certain point, insurance will step into the picture. It's dangerous to have a baby, and if test tubes can eliminate the risk of costly medical procedures--to say nothing of an unintrusive way of guaranteeing a better percentage of results--then that is what will happen.
120. MsIvoryTower - 5/31/2001 4:08:04 PM
MsIT, you're expressing the anti-Republican sentiment that helps prevent liberals from forming an affirmative politics.
So sayeth you. Actually, I'm not anti-Republican at all, only ant-extremist, in any form.
Et al.
I was thinking about transportation issues. How are those likely to change?
I can't see much improvement in jet travel in the next 25 years. Maybe incremental improvements in speed, but not anything spectacular to wow us from our budding 21st century myopia.
121. MsIvoryTower - 5/31/2001 4:16:42 PM
What about cloning? Where will we be on that issue?
I tend to agree with amax that the most progress will be made in the biotech field, and particularly in medicine.
122. thoughtful - 5/31/2001 4:17:34 PM
MsIT, if oil/energy prices keep rising we can expect to see big improvements in fuel efficiency and maybe technology related to that at least for autos. However, for air travel, I suspect few technical "wows" as they are very expensive to develop and I would suspect RPMs (revenue passenger miles) growth to slow as much business travel and perhaps even recreational travel will be replaced with "virtual" visits.
123. Wombat - 5/31/2001 4:20:35 PM
MsIt:
Dramatic increases in airplane capacity (seen the latest Airbus?) will--theoretically--lower costs.
Maglev trains?
Hybrid autos become common. Fuel cell autos are introduced.
124. MsIvoryTower - 5/31/2001 4:22:12 PM
Thoughtful
Yes, fuel efficiency should drive some significant changes in ground transportation. Perhaps we'll really get that electic automobile after all.
We agree on air travel, but I'm hoping that virtual visits don't replace actual physical travel, the thought brings forth images of drone-like sci-fi scenes.
We go to some virtual center, lay down and go into a coma for two weeks. Ugh. No thanks.
125. MsIvoryTower - 5/31/2001 4:23:43 PM
Wombat
Airbus's? I already feel like a piece of cattle when traveling by air, this should certainly cement the experience.
126. MsIvoryTower - 5/31/2001 4:24:05 PM
that's airbusses....
127. thoughtful - 5/31/2001 4:25:18 PM
Not that....I had more in mind sparing the entire family from having to blow a whole February vacation to fly/drive to visit Old Aunt Sadie with the clacking dentures who smells funny, can't hear, and gives very sloppy, wet kisses. A virtual visit has its advantages...unless you want to spend a week beaching in the caribbean!
128. CalGal - 5/31/2001 4:31:36 PM
Ace and I once were talking--I forget which thread--about why it is that science fiction scenarios from 50 years ago are so off base. But in reality, they are pretty close in a lot of areas--medicine, computers, even gender equality. Except transportation. We haven't been able to move off our reliance on fossil fuel in any meaningful way.
129. MsIvoryTower - 5/31/2001 4:36:51 PM
By the way khaval
Is this going to be just another international thread? If so, then it should simply be a sub-topic of the main international thread.
If we can't talk about US politics while we can talk about other countries, then I'd say you have an imbalanced perception of what is acceptable.
130. janjon - 5/31/2001 4:44:18 PM
In some ways, commerical air travel will regress from what it achieved in the late 20th century.
Oh sure, there will soon be even larger cattle-cars-in-the-sky, and they no doubt will come with little shopping malls on a lower level, a soda fountain, etc.
But - once the remaining Concordes go, when will there ever be another commercial SST?
131. CalGal - 5/31/2001 6:23:46 PM
No, I don't think so.
But why is it we never progressed all that much on fuels, I wonder? Is it because nuclear technology was so unpopular? (although it is coming back).
132. janjon - 5/31/2001 6:35:08 PM
I think we've not progressed as far as we should in terms of alternative or synthetic fuels (as compared to oil or even coal) because we Americans have not yet bought into the idea that supplies of the fossil fuels not only are indeed finite per se but also that there may be prices too high (environmental damage, etc.) to extract some of that which exists.
We are still beholden to this concept that we Americans are somehow entitled to our cheap gas.
I mean, I could perhaps go along with this crap that Cheney and others are now spouting about upholding the AMERICAN LIFE STYLE if - and only if - that was coupled with an allout effort to put together a truly farreaching energy policy instead of one that is so clearly dedicated to principally coming up with new supplies of fossil fuels.
There also is undue faith in American ingenuity. I think it was concerned who said some time ago words to the effect that heck what's the big deal in terms of using up our oil supply, when it becomes apparent that we are running out we'll invent something to take its place.
Right.
133. CalGal - 5/31/2001 6:53:11 PM
instead of one that is so clearly dedicated to principally coming up with new supplies of fossil fuels.
Yes, I agree with this, and it doesn't have anything to do with which party is in power.
I am, in fact, one of those who believes we'll come up with something else. The problem is, though, that the less time we have, the less likely it is that our solution will be palatable and cheap.
I just remember when I was a kid, there were Disney special interest (or maybe it was Woody Woodpecker) cartoons about the marvels of atomic energy, and how soon our homes would be powered by them for nearly free. Now we watch those and snicker. But when will we have cheap and easily acquired energy? Who is looking for it?
134. joezan - 5/31/2001 11:30:29 PM
I believe that the problems associated with fossil fuels will reach critical mass long before we have developed any viable alternative. At that point, we will be left three choices; increase oil exploration efforts, go nuclear, or decrease the amount of time we spend driving.
One of the promises of the computer age which has never lived up to its full potential (mainly, I believe, because of our refusal to significantly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels), is that much - if not most - of our work would be accomplished from our homes. This to me is the solution that makes the most sense, especially when you consider all the birds that could be killed with this one stone.
135. khaval alazman - 5/31/2001 11:32:43 PM
MsIvoryTower, I do not think you are being fair.
This is very far from being an International thread duplicate, with discussions of technology and medicine prominent.
My sphere of knowledge does not incorporate info/bio-tech, so I do not feel qualified to make pronouncements on the issues. I am, however, fascinated to read other posters' predictions on the issues.
To discourage discussion of American politics in general would be unreasonable, and I have never done such a thing. Indeed, I previously wrote that no analysis of the future could exclude such discussion.
What I was requesting was simply that this thread did not totally degenerate into more of the highly partisan Democrat/Republican bickering that can be seen in a number of other threads already.
And it is not reasonable to draw an analogy with International's possible duplication. If we are talking about the future of "the world", we are compelled to discuss the nature of of nation states other than America (as well as America), along with discussions of info/bio-tech. It is not reasonable to expect this discussion to avoid looking at future world structures.
All I am asking is that discussions of AMerica occur in a more global context, because there is ample opportunity for the exploration of the minutiae of Americana elsewhere, whereas similar opportunity for other countries does not exist.
136. MsIvoryTower - 5/31/2001 11:39:56 PM
MsIvoryTower, I do not think you are being fair.
I think I was being as fair as you were in prejudging a conversation before it even got off the ground.
Someone made a prediction. I disagreed for the reasons stated. Before the conversation even went into a tailspin about "insular" american politics you made your comment.
I simply want to know, what are the rules of this thread? Are we to avoid any predictions about american political parties?
Can someone make a prediction but then we're not supposed to respond?
What precisely will qualify as derailing the conversation and pulling it into "just another discussion of american politics"?
137. khaval alazman - 6/1/2001 12:10:34 AM
Oh honestly, MsIvoryTower!
You can't be serious.
If you want "rules", I am afraid you will be disappointed.
I stated quite clearly that I will not be removing American politics posts (I doubt I'll remove any posts), and simply expressed a strong preference that this did not become an Amercan politics obscurantist's thread.
This request is fair enough. If you expect me to don the jackboots and begin wielding the delete button in a manner that will induce off-topic conflagration, again, I am terribly sorry to disappoint.
Here is a prediction: I will not continue this discussion with you.
138. angel-five - 6/1/2001 12:36:26 AM
A prediction: European energy consortiums are going to get a tremendous leap on American ones in the field of alternative sources of energy -- that is to say, more of one than they have now. One that is going to be VERY noticeable in the American economy once fossil fuels go south on us completely. Why? Because there is much less pressure here in America to develop those sources of energy.
139. angel-five - 6/1/2001 12:41:42 AM
Another prediction: Elective gene induction therapy -- not medical gene therapy, but the transgenic enhancement of human tissue and organs -- will be available in ten years to a significant percentage of the population. This isn't really a prediction know, because it is possible now.
140. angel-five - 6/1/2001 12:44:55 AM
A third prediction: We will have sufficient technology placed in orbit (or on the moon) within ten to fifteen years to find oxygen-rich planets in orbit around other stars.
This is, btw, near-universally accepted as proof that life exists on the planet in question.
We will find O2-rich planets. And reaching them will be the cause celebre among scientists and cognoscenti that SETI currently is now.
141. angel-five - 6/1/2001 12:57:42 AM
Human babies will be born from genetically enhanced sperm and ova. These children will probably be notable for growing up to lead tragic lives because of all the bewildering attention they will get. The ones who come out best won't learn about it until they're in their twenties. The ones who get the best genes will probably, however, figure it out early on. There will be psych people who specialize in treating these children, as a result.
142. arheles - 6/1/2001 1:12:47 AM
US feminism will continue to decline chiefly due to an inablility of the movement to produce the next generation of leaders.
143. arheles - 6/1/2001 1:13:33 AM
The left will never get past their contempt for bourgeoisie values, dooming their project of principled criticism of society. They will turn to comedy writing for a living making us all laugh while inside they weep.
144. arheles - 6/1/2001 1:13:56 AM
Lit Critters will be as rare in 2100 as classical Greek scholars are today.
145. arheles - 6/1/2001 1:14:38 AM
Seduced into making scientific arguments by the global warming issue, environmentalists open themselves up to rational argument and are crushed. They should have stuck with perfectly useful pseudo-religious principles. Having Barney tell small children that the earth is a sacred entity was their best long term strategy.
146. arheles - 6/1/2001 1:18:40 AM
I will own an F-15 fighter jet. IwillIwillIwill.
147. stostosto - 6/1/2001 6:13:55 AM
80. PelleNilsson - 5/31/01 6:21:04 PM
An interesting point in the future will be when China surpasses the US as the world's biggest economy, to be followed by India. I wonder what that will do to American self-esteem?
It depends on two things: The initial GDPs of the two economies, and the assumed future average annual growth rates.
The formula can be written thus:
x = [ln(a)-ln(b)]/[ln(ib)-ln(ia)],
where
x: the number of years until catch-up
a: GDP today for country a
b: GDP today for country b
ia: assumed future average annual growth rate for country a
ib: assumed future average annual growth rate for country b
The World Development Report 2000/2001 gives the GDP for USA (a) for 1999 as $8,351.0bn; China's (b) put at $980.2bn.
Assuming US growth (ia) at 2% (ia=1.02), and Chinese growht at 7% (ib=1.07), x is 44.8 years.
Note that this is GDP at current exchange rate. If we use the so-called Purchasing Power Parity exchange rate, China's GDP is much larger, at $4,112. If this is taken as the starting point, assuming the same growth pattern, China will overtake the USA in 14.8 years.
148. stostosto - 6/1/2001 6:20:24 AM
Of course, you can try for yourself with different values of a, b, ia, and ib.
Here are some alternatives copied from a spread sheet I made:
a 8351 8351 8351 8351 8351
b 980,2 4112 980,2 980,2 980,2
ia 1,02 1,02 1,02 1,015 1,03
ib 1,07 1,07 1,05 1,1 1,07
x 44,7 14,8 73,9 26,6 56,2
149. stostosto - 6/1/2001 6:21:13 AM
Ack, that didn't come out very elegantly. But I am not going to take the time to do a neat table. Sorry.
150. stostosto - 6/1/2001 6:22:08 AM
FWIW, I think GDP at current exchange rate is the better indicator for this type of calculations.
151. MsIvoryTower - 6/1/2001 9:05:27 AM
khaval
You're right, I was misdirected in my comments. I went back and saw that it was Pelle who was so quick to whine about a few comments directed at an American prediction. You then voiced your request that it not be turned into another american politics thread.
I simply note that there have been several posts about the political futures of other countries, so why the knee-jerk anti-american mantra?
I could, of course, whine about how international is simply a pseudonym for Israeli politics, but that would be petty, wouldn't it.
And I've been engaged in a small battle regarding host duties and powers, and my comment about you defining the rules was directed as much at that conversation as this thread.
In any case, I'm tired of the different rules for the different threads, and what is or isn't an appropriate topic for discussion.
Here's my prediction.
This site will implode within a year if it doesn't become more interesting and open to free-flowing discussions.
Here's another one.
I predict the thread hosts will begin establishing their own mercenaries, so that they can "take over" the territories of the other hosts: all for the sake of expanding their power base.
Maybe they'll be in the form of kamakazi posters, whose mission will be to go in and ruin a competitor's thread. Maybe they'll be in the form of sweet, inane, little posters, who will kill the other threads by their banalities.
It could happen.....
And feel free to move, delete or otherwise rail against this admittedly off-topic little tirade.
152. MsIvoryTower - 6/1/2001 9:05:55 AM
toys
154. pseudoerasmus - 6/1/2001 9:18:54 AM
Message # 112
Smelle Nipson said:
The most serious flaws in the Club of Rome study was assuming that * World population will continue to grow exponentially. * Food production is directly proportional to the area under cultivation. * Pollution is directly proportional to industrial production
But you forgot the most elementary flaw: the assumption that households and firms would not change their behaviour in response to changing market prices of raw materials. For example, it was assumed that a fixed amount of natural resources was required for each unit of output produced by the economy. Therefore increasing production was assumed to put increasing strains on the world's resources. But that's true neither theoretically nor empirically. We know from various OPEC crises that the principal response of the world to high energy prices was to retrench on the consumption of oil. CoR models, in effect, denied the rationing role of prices.
155. pseudoerasmus - 6/1/2001 9:26:18 AM
I suppose that's not the most elementary. Assuming a constant agricultural productivity, failure to notice that birth rates have declined with affluence, and assuming that pollution levels do not vary with technological innovation --these, mentioned by Pelle, are also pretty elementary flaws.
156. khaval alazman - 6/3/2001 12:19:50 AM
MsIvoryTower said:
Here's my prediction.
This site will implode within a year if it doesn't become more interesting and open to free-flowing discussions.
Good God! Should this thread survive for a year, I would be both surprised and pleased.
The thread idea was something of a selfish enteprise: I love prognostication in any sphere; I am impressed by the breadth and depth of knowledge of many of the posters on this forum, and want to pick their brains; it's nice to have my own fantasies about the future argued with and challenged by informed people.
For as long as it survives, I'll consider the whole exercise a wonderful diversion and something of a privilege.
MsIvoryTower also said:
Here's another one.
I predict the thread hosts will begin establishing their own mercenaries, so that they can "take over" the territories of the other hosts: all for the sake of expanding their power base.
Maybe they'll be in the form of kamakazi posters, whose mission will be to go in and ruin a competitor's thread. Maybe they'll be in the form of sweet, inane, little posters, who will kill the other threads by their banalities.
It could happen.....
*LOL* I like this prediction very much. Indeed, if there is enough support, I sill set up a sub-thread in which we can plan (hypothetically, of course), the violent overthrow of other threads' leadership. Or perhaps, it might be nice to set up a simulation sub-thread in which each poster represents a nation state or a faction within a nation state. We could have a scenario such as, "In 2020, President X decides it's time to invade X". Each representative would respond to the scenario as he/she sees fit.
We'll see if anyone bites.
157. khaval alazman - 6/3/2001 12:21:29 AM
Bugger. Toys
158. khaval alazman - 6/3/2001 12:22:12 AM
How do you stop this monster?
159. khaval alazman - 6/3/2001 12:22:30 AM
Phew.
160. angel-five - 6/3/2001 12:47:36 AM
Well, MSIT is cheating. Something like that has happened more than once in this community and the Fray before it, so it hardly smacks of Nostradamus to say it might happen again.
161. khaval alazman - 6/3/2001 3:36:05 AM
ARheles, you've written more really interesting stuff to which I'd like to respond:
142. arheles - 6/1/01 6:12:47 AM
US feminism will continue to decline chiefly due to an inablility of the movement to produce the next generation of leaders.
Arheles, I don't think it's just US feminism that is in decline. In all Anglo countries, there is a crisis. I also think that it is too simplistic to blame this decline on a failure of leadership. Why is there such a failure?
1) Feminism has been hijacked by the lunar left and is only countered by rdiculous right - there is no centre to which women who do not subscribe to ideological strictures within "mainstream" (read: campus) feminism might gravitate;
There is no place beyond the narrow discourses of the Dworkian/MacKinnonesque neo-Victoriana, unless one decides to abrogate all conventional feminist thought (and thought in general) in turning to the Paglia camp.
The only feminist academic who doesn't make me want to hurl because of rape/penetration fetish (Dworkin/MacKinnon), or idiotic, intellectually flacid post-modern drivel (Paglia), is Katie Roiphe. Her attack on the prudery underpinning the date-rape hysterics, while repudiating the "well, women should just be tough and who's to say that we are not all Venus anyway" idocy of Paglia is exhilarating.
But one writer does not a movement make. Indeed, Roiphe is not embraced as a fresh, young academic, pushing the boundaries of a stale ideology. Instead, Roiphe is castigated, excoriated, adn reviled by almost all "conventional" feminists.
This inability to countenancne dissent and the refusal to allow injections of original thought is deadly to any movement. Cannibilising all newness ensures the stagnation of feminist thought.
cont....
162. khaval alazman - 6/3/2001 3:38:58 AM
...cont.
2) There is a crisis of meaning;
While MacKinnon is wetting herself over porn, and Dworkin is doing her bit for penetration theory, it emerges that "representations" of women have become more important than the women themselves.
Feminism is perhaps the best example of the mindless destruction that post-modernism wreaks on analysis.
It is an abomination to run around screaming: "PORN = RAPE" when, in certain places, forms of rape are sanctioned by law (and pornography is almost non-existent, BTW), in which women's clitorises are being sliced off, in which women are beaten legally, in which women are enslaved. The navel gazing which characterises ANglofeminism is nothing short of an abomination when there is a whole world of genuine abuse against women, and few champions with limited resources are waging an impossible battle.
Again, Po-Mo raises its pustular, suppurating head - this time, in the guise of cultural relativism. Well, say many of these feminists, it's not for us to dictate how or when a woman's clitoris is hacked through with a piece of glass or a rusty razor. That would be cultural imperialism.
That leaves feminism reduced to battles over body hair and pornography. I'd call this a crisis of meaning.
3) There is an alienation of young women
A crisis of meaning is hardly the thing to attract a new generation to the cause. Also, because we have grown up in relatively liberated circs, we cannot get excited about wearing ugly clothes and seeing men as the enemy. To what end might a young woman become a feminist? You will find that on all the campuses in Australia, feminist clubs are almost synonymous with lesbian clubs.
cont....
163. khaval alazman - 6/3/2001 3:39:27 AM
...cont.
If we are not lesbian and refuse to submit to penetration theory, and if we find the Paglia alternative offensively idiotic, where to?
4) The refusal to cast men as the enemy
The biggest downfall of a feminism which refuses to modernise, is the casting of all men in an adversarial role. To most young women, this is no longer acceptable, even if it may once have been necessary.
143. arheles - 6/1/01 6:13:33 AM
The left will never get past their contempt for bourgeoisie values, dooming their project of principled criticism of society. They will turn to comedy writing for a living making us all laugh while inside they weep.
You're a genius! :)
But also, the left is doomed by its internal theoretical inconsistencies, its inability to accept that ideology does not make for good economics, and that a large, productive and affluent bourgeoise is the greatest bulwark against tyranny through its contribution to liberal politics and to the maintenance of a healthy economy.
144. arheles - 6/1/01 6:13:56 AM
Lit Critters will be as rare in 2100 as classical Greek scholars are today.
From your mouth to God's ears.
164. joezan - 6/3/2001 11:22:14 AM
Khaval:
Please delete my post 153. It should not have been posted here.
Thanks
165. khaval alazman - 6/3/2001 2:20:46 PM
OK, Joezan
166. stostosto - 6/3/2001 5:49:48 PM
I have a question.
What will be considered 'natural' in the future? It seems to me what is 'natural' to us humans is frequently a matter of legitimising social behaviour and social structures. And when these change, there will be a pressure for changing the perception of what is 'natural'.
For instance, the big objection to gene modicfication technology is, arguably, that this is not natural. It's human interference with nature in an artificial way. Of course, humans have been interfering with nature in all sorts of ways for thousands of years, but we're sort of used to the old ways, so they have become 'natural'. But don't paradigms change when it's socially expedient, not just when it's scientifically necessary?
Example: Fetal screening? Will it be considered 'natural' in the future to have examined the genetic makeup of your fetus in order to determine whether to have an abortion or not?
Will it be natural to have specific genes selected in order to secure specific characteristics for your off-spring?
Will it be considered 'natural' to use brain enhancing drugs that might be available in the future? (You might ask, will refraining be a viable option?)
Etc...
167. JudithAtHome - 6/3/2001 6:26:29 PM
Once we kill off all the natural food, will artificially engineered food become "natural"?
168. stostosto - 6/3/2001 6:33:02 PM
Judith,
I don't doubt it - and that's my point exactly.
169. angel-five - 6/3/2001 9:34:00 PM
I suppose it boils down to what you consider 'natural'. There are enough different folk definitions of 'natural' to bedevil the point. And Sto has so far mentioned two fields where the question 'What is natural?' applies, two different fields, moreover, in which different ideas of what is 'natural' obtain.
I think in the field of foodstuffs there will always be the notion that some foods are natural and others not. We've even appropriated other words, like 'organic' or 'whole', to designate what used to be considered 'natural' and an entire industry (paradoxically enough) has sprung up around these kinds of foods. There is a similar trend in horticulture and gardening, where 'heirloom' cultivars are often preferred to hybridized or modified plants. A smaller but still thriving industry has sprung up around providing these 'threatened' cultivars to those people who prefer their plants to come without the aura of laboratory alteration. That suggests to me that there is enough interest in preserving 'natural' foods, at least to those wealthy enough to consume them, for 'natural' food to stick around.
This doesn't mean that GM food will always have the aura of Frankensteinian tinkering around them, because I expect that people will rapidly become accustomed to them once they get over their untutored fears. The rate at which they get over their fear will also depend on prices and economic necessity in each individual case. But I think there's always going to be a demand for 'purer' foods.
170. angel-five - 6/3/2001 9:34:15 PM
WRT the other field Sto mentions -- medicine -- I expect humanity will get over their fear of new technology pretty rapidly. Modern medicine, after all, is hardly 'natural' in the first place. While there is some demand for more 'natural' forms of healing or improvement of the human lot in life, as in 'homeopathic' medicine or healing, modern medicine is so much more efficacious in general that homeopathy will never really capture enough of the market to be a factor.
Surely, there will continue to be medicines and cures and whatnot which have a certain cachet because they are touted as 'natural' and therefore somehow 'better' -- look at the massive market in herbal medicines such as St. John's Wort and gingko biloba, and those horrible tasting Ricola cough drops. These are, however, remedies that people turn to when they have the luxury of choice. When it's a serious medical matter they tend to worry less about how 'natural and wholesome' a medicine is and more about whether or not it's going to save their life or ease their condition.
171. angel-five - 6/3/2001 9:35:17 PM
It's sort of amusing to consider that in the future, only the very rich and the very poor may end up eating 'natural food' -- the rich out of preference and the poor rural folk out of economic necessity.
172. MsIvoryTower - 6/3/2001 11:08:21 PM
The navel gazing which characterises ANglofeminism is nothing short of an abomination when there is a whole world of genuine abuse against women, and few champions with limited resources are waging an impossible battle.
Not that I don't agree with your analysis, but you are aware aren't you that Anglo (specifically American) feminists have been soundly routed by third world feminists for imposing their values regarding women, women's rights, and what is or isn't oppressive onto them. I believe the most public of the chastizing was at the 1976 World Conference (or something).
So while I don't keep track of feminist theory, I'm not the least bit surprised that anglo feminists (again read american) stay away from critiquing women's lives in other countries.
173. MsIvoryTower - 6/3/2001 11:13:00 PM
And please don't jump down my throat for using the term "third world", if it offends anyone, just substitute "developing".....
Sto
I suspect that in America, we will eventually adopt any means technologically available to enhance our own lives (physically) and/or the lives of our offspring; particularly if it means obtaining a competitive edge over others.
174. MsIvoryTower - 6/3/2001 11:17:10 PM
Sto,
To clarify: the concept of natural will adapt to whatever meaning is most beneficial to soothing the american psyche while at the same time allowing us to take full advantage of bio-tech and medical advances that improve our physical, mental and economic capabilities.
175. khaval alazman - 6/3/2001 11:29:50 PM
Aytchman, I really like your #171.
And I think it demonstrates one component of what has and will determine what is "natural".
The term (natural)is so culturally laden. It is almost meaningless as an objective designation. It finds its use in dichotomising and binary opposition which serve four purposes (often in combination): political/economic, control, conservative, religious.
natural/artificial:
.organic/gm modified
.herbal remedies/synthetic medicine
.infanticide/foetal screening
.homesexuality/heterosexuality
All four of these binary opposites are problematic and are prone to definitional dispute, existing in a highly politicised context, ie. gentically manipulated vs. non-naipulated, processed herbal remedies (containing synthetic components) vs munching on the hypericum plant itself, penicilin vs tamoxifan, primitive agriculture utilising GM seeds vs. intesive agriculture without GM seeds, pederasty vs. loving homosexual relationship (LHR), rape vs. lvong heterosexual relationship.
cont....
176. khaval alazman - 6/3/2001 11:31:04 PM
...cont.
These are only a tiny number of the variations within the categories, and what they demonstrate is the ability to reduce all human endeavour/behaviour/production, via this process of binary opposition, to the distinction between primitive v. non-primitive. Its logical conclusion is hunter gatherer vs. urban citizen.
This is not, however, the definition by which most people (excluding wacko feral types) approach the "natural" designation. What people mean by natural is, "something which seems basic".
Now, I'm stating the bleeding obvious when I write that what is basic to me is not basic to you. It is basic to me that women should keep the hair under their arms - to me, this is "natural". To you, probably, this is not "natural"(although it is the primitive state. "Natural" to you is bald armpits. "Natural" to both of us in this context is simply a pseudo-objective way of saying, "normal".
"natural" and "normal" are designations which are conservatism's best friend (and I am NOT using "conservative" in the party-political sense).
cont....
177. khaval alazman - 6/3/2001 11:32:30 PM
...cont.
It suits a conservative to call GM food unnatural while muching a nectarine. The nectarine is an "unanatural" fruit. It is a hybrid. Indeed, almost none of the fresh food we eat in any ways resembles the wild ancestors from which they originate. They have been "genetically manipulated" over the past 10,000 years - selecting for size, taste, and in some cases, poison (absence of). The only appreciable differences between GM and the domestication process are speed of change, and the class of person responsible for the manipulation.
Whereas 10,000 years ago, the consumer was usually the producer who had been selecting for favourable characteristics, today, there is a massive gap in the production chain between producer and consumer.
I think it's this gap which raises the ire of anti-GMers so. They feel that they don't know what 's in their food - a very primitive fear. The primitivism of this fear is expressed in their terminology - "Frankenstein Food" - lifted directly from that bastion of logic and rigorous fact-checking, the British tabloids.
As for natural medicine, again, the "natural" designation is in no way based in logic, but deals with the primitive fear that in taking synthetic drugs, one cannot self prescribe, one does not really know what's going on, and one feels a lack of control.
To support this, first think of the composition of a basic antibiotic: penicillin, a doctor prescribed drug, and probably not considered "natural" despite the obvious.
Now take a look at the ingredients in my "natural remedy" snot preventer, Echinacea: echinacea, betacarotene, ascorbic acid, calcium panthonenate, pyrydoxine hydrochloride, d-alpha-tocopheryl acid, zinc amoni acid cholate.
cont....
178. CalGal - 6/3/2001 11:33:27 PM
I'm not sure what the feminism discussion is doing in this thread, but I think the single biggest failure of feminism in Western countries is that it has become synonomous with what women want. As if women couldn't be self interested slobs who cheerfully accept equal pay while also being held less responsible for their families, or think that they should get equal opportunities in the military but not have to meet the same standards, or have the right to abort a child but not give the man the same right (a "paper" abortion). NOW was losing membership in the 80s until they realized that they were, and had always been, a special interest group for their members and that any definition of "feminism" better be exactly what the membership said it was.
Likewise, Western feminists bend over backwards to avoid offending those women in developing countries who angrily resist the notion that slicing a clitoris off with a piece of glass is barbaric and demand that we all "tolerate" their culture.
Feminism is, or should be, about the equal rights and responsibilities of women. The fact that many women don't want true equality is, or should be, irrelevant. If only there were someone who could fund the effort, blithely unconcerned about the wailings of the sisterhood who like all the cake they've had for the past 30 years.
Which leads me to an improbable but delightful prediction for the future: that the final steps towards equal rights for women will be initiated by court cases and new laws demanded by men.
179. khaval alazman - 6/3/2001 11:33:56 PM
...cont.
All of this stuff is contained in a small pill. Now I'd get most of this stuff just by eating fruit&veg, but there is no one food in which all of these ingredients are combined "naturally", and it must be less natural to take this pill than to eat those foods and suck on an echinacea root.
But this pill is preferable to antibiotics to many, not because of medical concerns about anti-biotics resistence, but because it is "natural" and can therefore be self-prescribed - giving the illusion of control.
Another screech fest occurs over the topic of foetal screening. What is rarely discussed is how common throughout human history - how natural -infanticide has been. A lame baby, an unwanted baby, or a baby of the wrong gender (where such a baby endangers the family's food production, wealth, or status) has rarely had the chance until recently to live to adulthood.
The "naturalness" of such behaviour is utterly ignored when its far less barbaric logical descendant, foetal screening, comes under attack. Humans have always selected for an absence of "damaging" traits in offspring. When foetal screening is decried for its opposition to nature, we often forget how natural infanticide used to be and, in some areas, still is.
It is far less natural (in the literal sense) to stick a premature baby into an incubator than it is to leave it to perish outdoors. The latter, however, is repugnant to us. It has BECOME natural to use technology to save the life of a baby, and UNnatural to leave it to die on a hilltop.
If such life saving intervention - such unnaturalness - can become natural, then why not preventative screening as well?
cont....
180. khaval alazman - 6/3/2001 11:34:27 PM
...cont.
The last opposition is homo/heterosexuality. The 2 most oft-used arguments by those opposing gay rights is that homosexuality is unnatural both in the reproductive sense and in the biblical sense.
It is a truism that two homosexuals will not be able to reproduce with each other. So what? An infertile couple cannot reproduce. Is their union unnatural?
Homosexuality is prevalent in other species. In the "primitive" sense, homosexuality is entirely natural.
That the bible designates homosexuality as unnanatural is also a truism. But biblically, woman-superior sex is also unnatural, slavery is natural, pig eating is unnatural, and polygamy is natural.
Obviously, in the West, we do not take much of what is designated "natural" in the bible as truly natural. Even the most fundamentalist Christian will not admit to condoning slavery (despite the Bible's assent to such behaviour), or that women on top during sex are sick, but not as sick as the man underneath her.
In itself, the term "natural" has neither typological nor theoretical consistency.
Essentially "natural" is the designation used to protect a desirable status quo, an excuse for oppression, and the expression of an opposition to powerlessness.
181. MsIvoryTower - 6/3/2001 11:36:49 PM
Likewise, Western feminists bend over backwards to avoid offending those women in developing countries who angrily resist the notion that slicing a clitoris off with a piece of glass is barbaric and demand that we all "tolerate" their culture.
Well, yeah, that's what I was getting at in my initial comment.
Which leads me to an improbable but delightful prediction for the future: that the final steps towards equal rights for women will be initiated by court cases and new laws demanded by men.
This is already underway in the US. It won't be much longer till we get to the hardcore issues, either.
182. khaval alazman - 6/3/2001 11:46:02 PM
Ms.IT, I wouldn't jump down anyone's throat for using the term, "third world". That sort of PC induced obsessive compulsive behaviour - the concentration on irrelevant minutiae to the detriment of the "issues - is exactly that for which I castigate Anglo feminists.
As for the third world getting upset with "cultural imperialism" of first world feminists, I think this is a perfect example of what I am talking about.
Feminist activity which gives concrete assistance to poverty alleviation, the building of crisis centres and attendant infrastructure, and joint efforts with third world feminists to ameliorate women's political situations have NEVER been criticised and hopefully never will.
The anger stems from western masturbation which obsesses over "representation", and the ignorance displayed by most Anglo feminists of the history, economics, politics and culture of the society's which they are critiquing.
Both these "sins" are the direct results of the Agnglo feminist unwillingness to collaborate as opposed to dictating what are ultimately useless exercises in theoretical idiocy.
183. CalGal - 6/4/2001 12:06:17 AM
Ms,
I should have referenced that it was your comment. My focus was that Western feminists don't stare these reactionary freaks down and say, "Fuck you, it's torture" but rather fall meekly back on "well, it's what they want". After all, feminists here in the US use what the majority of women want as a definition of their goals all the time, so what on earth would make them suddenly start being more absolute in their standards? The only absolute in feminism doctrine is the evil of the patriarchy. Everything else bends and stretches to the interests of fundraising.
This is already underway in the US. It won't be much longer till we get to the hardcore issues, either.
What do you see as the hardcore issues? I eagerly await the first real debate on "paper" abortions. The laws and policies all declare a man financially responsible for the children of pregnancies he participated in, whether he consented or not to be a parent. Give a man the same ability to opt out of parenthood that a woman has, and the justification for AFDC from birth as well as a fair amount of child support battles goes right out the window. (which is why society won't be thrilled with the idea)
Divorce laws are already equalizing, but I really feel they have a long way to go. I don't see equal rights and responsibilities in the military coming along any time soon. I'm so tired of hearing that the nation "isn't ready" for women to come home in body bags; as the mother of a son my response is the nation can go fuck themselves for devaluing men.
There are so many little ways in which women are marginalized, but I think all the major laws and policies that institutionalize inequality involve pregnancy and children. Which of course also involves money.
184. MsIvoryTower - 6/4/2001 12:07:48 AM
Both these "sins" are the direct results of the Agnglo feminist unwillingness to collaborate as opposed to dictating what are ultimately useless exercises in theoretical idiocy.
Undoubtedly this was the source of the challenge to western feminists by women in developing countries in the 1970's, I think it inaccurate to speak of it as the current state of affairs.
Calgal's comment is probably more accurate, that western feminists bend over backwards to accomodate third world feminists. The problem, of course, is that third world feminists still want resources (money) without strings, and that is certainly not going to happen in the US.
Women in the US would simply not support organizations that funnel resources into countries that do nothing to address the quite real problems you identified earlier: slavery, legal rape, clitorectomies, and the like.
Perhaps you should start your own movement in Australia, you might have more success in raising funds to do what you suggest.
185. angel-five - 6/4/2001 12:08:21 AM
Thanks for the compliment, but I'm not Aytchman.
You wrote a lot and I have little time, but I would like to add that I think the 'natural' cachet centering on herbal remedies has far more to do with the idea that the active ingredients come directly from plants (which are after all natural biochemical factories) and that our bodies are somehow more prepared for them than they would be for a biochemical cooked in a flask.
It's typically bunk, but it's still a prevalent idea. Just because nature produces it... well, hell, last I checked, Nature produces a lot of stuff that will kill you deader than Disco. And whereas humans have been engineering chemicals for specific purposes for a very short time, nature, through evolution, has been producing toxins specifically designed to do everything from make one mildly ill to kill them in a few heartbeats for a couple of billion years.
186. khaval alazman - 6/4/2001 12:14:07 AM
I must take a friend to the airport now, but there are so many interesting things to which I want to respond. In the words of the immortal feminist icon, Arnold Schwarzenegger (sp?), Ah'll bi buck... assuming I don't total the car.
Just before I go, Cal, I'm with you all the way on this one (clit slicing and western timidity).
187. angel-five - 6/4/2001 12:14:16 AM
Of course a concept like 'natural' finds itself in binary oppositions. It's not useful otherwise... inasmuch as it is useful ever. And binaries are illusion.
We consider a beaver dam, or a black walnut's cambium (which poisons most other kinds of competing plants) or such to be natural, and shopping malls and car exhaust to be unnatural. But they're really the same thing. The fossil record is replete with examples of a core group of species coming to dominate an ecosphere and completely changing it as a result. We've just been more successful in a shorter period time than blue-green algae or the dinosaurs.
188. MsIvoryTower - 6/4/2001 12:14:54 AM
The laws and policies all declare a man financially responsible for the children of pregnancies he participated in, whether he consented or not to be a parent. Give a man the same ability to opt out of parenthood that a woman has, and the justification for AFDC from birth as well as a fair amount of child support battles goes right out the window.
I don't think this will happen, primarily because then the state becomes responsible for the care of the child (by default) if the mother is unable to support it. From a policy perspective alone, the courts will reject this right for men.
And I don't see how giving men the right to opt out of financial responsibility for their child would eliminate the need for AFDC.
189. CalGal - 6/4/2001 12:17:58 AM
Feminist activity which gives concrete assistance to poverty alleviation, the building of crisis centres and attendant infrastructure, and joint efforts with third world feminists to ameliorate women's political situations have NEVER been criticised and hopefully never will.
I criticize much of that. There is something quite nauseating about the UN Women's whatever going to a developing country, seeing disease, starvation, death, misery, and publishing a paper about how all of this is bad for women and children. Someone should take the prism these bitches peer through and crack it over their heads.
Besides, children aren't a feminist issue. The right to an abortion, surely. But not children. Get children their own UN organization and keep women out of it. Someone who is interested primarily in the wellbeing of women will never be the proper representative for children, since he or she will never be able to make recommendations that are against the interests of women, even if they are far better for their children.
The political issues are fine, and within the purview of feminism. But I don't think there's much point to them, although they make activists feel better.
190. MsIvoryTower - 6/4/2001 12:19:23 AM
My focus was that Western feminists don't stare these reactionary freaks down and say, "Fuck you, it's torture" but rather fall meekly back on "well, it's what they want".
Well, yeah, that too. However, in defense of feminists (weakly), they got slapped pretty damn hard by the international community in the 70's for doing precisely this. Add to this the fact that anthropology has now become consumed with "respect" for other cultures, and an ideology that "outsiders" can never fully understand developing cultures (tribal or otherwise), and you get a sort of paralyzation of western intellectuals on the subject.
191. CalGal - 6/4/2001 12:32:49 AM
Ms,
I specified AFDC from birth for a reason. If a woman has never had any means of supporting herself and not even the myth of a father she was expecting to support the child, much of the rationalization for longterm AFDC goes away. This is as opposed to the majority of AFDC which is short term and incurred because the father did leave, lose his job, etc.
Remember that both conservatives and feminists endorse the fantasy that women who get pregnant and go on AFDC can be helped if only the father is found. Conservatives blame her for not pinning him down, feminists blame him for leaving the poor dear, but the premise is that the guy is there, somewhere. But if he opts out, then the woman has no excuse for having the baby and there's no one to blame but her.
I don't think this will happen, primarily because then the state becomes responsible for the care of the child (by default) if the mother is unable to support it.
But that is what is happening now anyway. What else is welfare, but the state acting as the wallet? I think your parenthesis "(by default)" is entirely the point. Right now, we allow the myth that a man is somewhere to be found who we can force into being the wallet. But the reality is that the state is the wallet for many, and in many cases where the man is solvent, the state assumes the cost of hunting down the guy so that he can be a wallet, whether he consented to be a parent or not.
Someday, somewhere, someone is going to remove that inequality and then the ugly truth will be out there all by itself: that far too many women choose consciously to have children they have no ability to support and in all probability they view the child as a means of getting support (either by unwilling guy or the state).
192. CalGal - 6/4/2001 12:41:39 AM
It is profoundly unfair that a woman has full control as to whether or not she becomes a parent and a man does not. Society's interests really should not force a man to be a parent if he doesn't want to, and it is evidence again of how irrelevant men are considered to familial matters that they are viewed primarily in terms of their ability to provide money, not their rights.
I agree that society won't want to sign on for this. They not only need the myth, they don't want to pay even more of the bill for women's irresponsibility. More importantly, they aren't ready to do what needs to be done, which is to treat women as equals to men and hold them responsible for their actions.
If nothing else, a societal expectation that an abortion is the best choice for a pregnant woman who can't provide for a child and has no consent from a father willing to provide would be a terrific first step. If she really doesn't want an abortion, put the woman in debt for her welfare payments, so that any money she gets she will be expected to work off once her child is in school.
But I would expect any such changes (fantasies though they are) to take place after men are given equal rights, undoubtedly over the screaming objections of society.
193. CalGal - 6/4/2001 12:44:19 AM
However, in defense of feminists (weakly), they got slapped pretty damn hard by the international community in the 70's for doing precisely this.
I swear, it's like the 70s were the last time that feminists had anything approaching integrity. But they had a choice (or at least the major organizations did). They could "evolve" into special interest groups and keep their standing as powerful organizations, or they could stick by their guns and lose a lot of their membership, but keep their integrity.
194. Stumbo - 6/4/2001 1:03:28 AM
Khaval:
I don't read Paglia all that much, but she doesn't strike me as the type to approve of (or even excuse) cliteridectomies. Your posts #161-2 seem to imply that she does. If that's what you meant to imply, could I see some evidence?
195. khaval alazman - 6/4/2001 6:50:56 AM
Stumbo, I apologise if my writing was unclear. I did not mean to imply that Paglia is a supporter of clitoridectomy. Indeed, she is an example of the sort of meaningless/useless feminism which is so offensive WHILE such horrors as clitoridectomy is occurring. While women are being sliced, Paglia enjoys ruminating on vagina dentata.
196. khaval alazman - 6/4/2001 6:54:49 AM
Cal, I understand your opposition to children's and women's right being lumped in together.
Children are, however, in most underdeveloped environments, advantaged by their mothers' empowerment.
Development theorists are almost unanimous in their assertion that development and poverty alleviation must begin with the amelioration of women's positions.
Abuses of children, most notably, child labour and prostitution, are very much only able to be attacked successfully if there are significant improvements in the general economic situations of their families in general, and their mothers specifically.
197. MsIvoryTower - 6/4/2001 8:24:26 AM
Calgal
The current rationalization for ADFC rests on the precarious notion that we(as a country) don't endorse abortions even though we've reluctantly extended women the right to seek them for a limited period (during the pregnancy).
For your scenario to hold true, that the rationale for ADFC would be undercut by allowing males to opt out of any responsibility for a child requires the state to fully endorse and support abortion on demand. Without it, men simply get a free pass from taking any responsibility for their sexual behavior while the state picks up the tab.
Nice gig if you can get it.
198. Dusty - 6/4/2001 8:47:19 AM
Sorry to interrupt, but since the Ms is around:
In Message # 150 sto3 said:
FWIW, I think GDP at current exchange rate is the better indicator for this type of calculations., referring to a comment in Message # 147. I would have thought PPP was superior to current exchange rates.
What say you?
(And sto3, I'd like to hear your reasoning.)
199. CalGal - 6/4/2001 9:48:28 AM
Ms,
Well, the state actually does support that. There's just a reluctance to take that line of thinking the entire way. But I'm not sure what the state would have to do with it, once men got the bit between their teeth on the unfairness angle. What surprises me is why no one has really thought of it up to now, or seriously challenged it. It also seems to me that you could make a similar "right to privacy" argument, but I'm certainly no constitutional expert.
200. JayAckroyd - 6/4/2001 10:21:12 AM
A5 says this:
We've just been more successful in a shorter period time than blue-green algae or the dinosaurs.
That's an interesting comment in the context of the future. In the polemical, and sorta crazy stuff by Daniel Quinn, like Ishmael, he argues that this success is necessarily going to be short-lived. The last 6000 years (of from between 100,000 to 2 million years of human existence, depending on when you declare a particular instance of homo as us) of human history has been the steady adoption of sedentary agriculture. There are almost no people left who do not practice this way of living.
Sedentary agriculture produces a surplus of food, generally speaking. And because people are made of food, populations grow, at a current rate of about 1.2 percent. The UN (page 6) expects the rate to slow, as fertility rates have been falling in the OECD, resulting in a population level of 9 or 10 billion in 2050. I also assume they've figured in the coming population crash in China, as the effects of having families consisting of one son starts becoming manifest. If the rate doesn't fall, it'll be 13 billion.
Note the time spans we're talking about here. A little more than a couple of generations in the future, and we'll be between half again as many people and twice as many.
Looked at broadly, the rate of growth for these last 6,000 years has been astronomical. Is it sustainable? For how long?
201. MsIvoryTower - 6/4/2001 10:28:40 AM
Cal
First, abortion laws are driven at the state level, so not all laws are the same, but generally, abortion on demand is not available.
First, many states have restricted it to medical reasons, or have imposed waiting restrictions, consent restrictions, and access restrictions.
Second, funding of abortion clinics has been declining, with federal funds almost completely gone now.
Third, almost all states that I know of restrict when a woman can have an abortion, with increasing prohibitions as the pregnancy matures. I don't know if any state allows third trimester abortions unless there is clear evidence that the life of the mother is endangered (and this means really, really, at risk.
Finally, access to low cost abortions for women has been declining for the last few decades.
I would hardly call this a reluctant acceptance of abortion on demand.
202. MsIvoryTower - 6/4/2001 10:33:04 AM
Dusty
Do you mean the purchasing power parity or some producer price index? If you mean the former, then I agree with Sto.
203. CalGal - 6/4/2001 10:34:43 AM
Ms,
I don't think any of that is untrue, but the fact remains that abortion is legal (points about third trimester aside, since there's plenty of time before that). The fact that the public is reluctant to fund abortions for poor women does not change the fact that it is legal, but that's only because no one has made the case properly. Tell the public that if they fund abortions they can reduce AFDC because women won't have an excuse to require it and things might change.
I've already said that social approval is a long time in coming. But abortions are, and will continue to be, legal. At some point, I hope that it will be pointed out that an abortion is the ability to opt out of parenthood, and that we give this to only one gender, while expecting the other to live with her decision and be forced into parenthood without any consent.
204. JayAckroyd - 6/4/2001 10:37:23 AM
MsIT,
I've come to believe that the current abortion access situation is an unintended consequence of organizations like NARAL and NOW trying to 1) make abortion affordable to poor women and 2) campaign against restrictions on access by talking about coat hangers and back alleys.
Specialized, inexpensive abortion clinics had the effect of ghettoizing the procedure for many doctors. Rather than being part of a normal ob/gyn practice, as with contraception, the procedure was given special status--which was turned into a taint by the anti-choice folks.
Then, trying to keep access as available as possible, they mounted campaigns about the bad old days. IMO, that added to the taint. Even if a doctor in a special clinic wasn't using coat hangers, the procedure was tainted by the imagery. I think that makes the anti-choicers imagery more effective, as well.
205. MsIvoryTower - 6/4/2001 10:38:17 AM
Jay
I don't see how it is sustainable. The countries least in need of expanding food and water resources are those who are most likely to develop technology that extends their production. If we can generate more food to feed an ever expanding population, it will likely be under the control of the western industrialized countries.
So do you think that the future wars will be fought over water and food resources?
206. MsIvoryTower - 6/4/2001 10:40:00 AM
Tell the public that if they fund abortions they can reduce AFDC because women won't have an excuse to require it and things might change.
I really don't see this happening. There is such strong opposition to abortion that I can't see this situation ever being resolved because of the logic of a rationale.
207. MsIvoryTower - 6/4/2001 10:42:10 AM
Jay,
I don't disagree with your point, I simply commented that the issues I raised were indicative that neither the federal government or state governments have supported abortion on demand (except for a brief few years after Roe v Wade).
208. MsIvoryTower - 6/4/2001 10:48:06 AM
I've alread
