Two Guesses

[Person Man]

By 2025,
- Will WMDs be used?
Nope, our security systems have evolved to the point where this is pretty possible. Terrorism is mostly on the run and its days are numbered especially if the American government becomes even a little popular in the Middle East
- Will there be another war?
More likely but I would see another war in the future being more of a humanitarian war and less of a war for other reasons. Also chances are it would be small.
- Will there be a reccesion?
Yes, almost for sure.
- Will there be a depression?
Possibly, I doubt it though.
- Will life-saving science be abandonned?
No, I see the world as a whole becoming more scientific.
- Will any other potentially world-changing sciences be abandonned?
No way, except possibly cloning and other "immoral" forms of science that could be applied to agriculture and end many food shortages.
- Will there be a large disaster that is much bigger than Katrina on the United States?
I think most definatley this will happen, though it will be a multi-pronged disaster.

Another thing to consider-

What will society be by 2080-2150?
Oh boy this is hard to predict. I think American society has two paths, one that is much more White, more nationalistic, and that leads to the downfall of American society with possible chaos erupting. It depends on events though but this is very possible.
Another possibility is that we become much more multicultural, liberal, a la European society and essentially become an extention of what I like to call the modern first world society, aka very secularist, very free market based but with cradle to grave benefits, high technology, but the main difference is we would very possibly be competing with them.

I think this question is really based on how America will react to Fareed Zakaria's globalized world where all of the peoples of the Earth might more or less be equal by the second half of the twenty-first century. There are really two ways we can deal with-

- Join the world that we created and bask in the glory of a 500 year old project coming to fruition. This will mean a world a lot like the center-left countries of Britian, Japan and Germany (more or less), Czech Republic and the Netherlands. Basically, the United States joining a world based around a democratized free market society.

-Continue our current policies of trying to bask in the glory of the state of nature, by seeing the sole role of Government as to protect the state of nature. With this cycle in place, we will continue to place loyalty ahead of responsibility and basically become what the Soviet Union was in the 1980s or what the Roman Empire was in the early 400s. We will essentially be a relic of history trying to rule over a dying Empire based on glory, rather than the needs of whom it serves. We will become the Empire of Discontents and an Empire that is solely the creation and property of its various masters. The United States will simply be a collection of warlords vying for the most amount of territory and eventually, the forces of the outside world, feeling ever threatened by a large, aging empire, will come to feast on a dying carcass that has been weakened by corruption, war and demagoguery. By 2075, a time in which many of us may be still living our last days, the United States could simply be what the Soviet Union was by 1995, a semi-failed state that was hemmoraging and being dragging into the modern world through a wood chipper. Or it could be like the Roman Empire in the year 500 AD, basically a failed state in which much of its territory is now governed by non-state colonial interests from outside. I can see half the country being partitioned between various local governments, businesses and ethic minorities that have succeded the nation.

[Person Man]

You could see two situations:

1.  Obama wins and is the next Jimmy Carter, only worse.  Within 5 years of today there is Christian conservative Congress abnd President.

Worse than Jimmy Carter? How is that possible?

You could see two situations:
2.  McCain win and the evangelicals in the party are diminished.

If anything, the Dobsonites will support primary challenges in 2010 that will further bifurcate the GOP between the economic folks (default secularists) and the evangelicals.

That's probably right.

I am also thinking that if Obama does SOMETHING different and things don't get any worse, I think we could be on the way to a more progressive country. Basically, no one knows what will happen after or before November 5, 2008. I mean, if McCain wins, that could have the same effect of a bad Obama administration- people could simply become more dissillusioned with progressive politics and there could be massive reprocussions on the Left. Maybe the democratic party will go the way of the whigs. I mean, do you see a future for the Democratic Party if their platform is discredited?

The odds on an Obama failure (due to lack of experience) are high.

There is also another problem.  Having a black president breaks down barriers, but it also removes a very powerful argument that that the country discriminates.  You could see a dismantling of race based affirmative action.  You could see a total end to affirmative action and, in future elections, the black electorate being totally taken for granted or candidates from both parties using the urban black electorate as scapegoats.  That is at least partly true with a successful Obama presidency.

Maybe if this was a different period, maybe you would be right. I think the entire black issue will depend on how his presidency goes or whether he even wins. I mean, if he loses, it will because most Americans are so pissed off at him that they are willing to live in Bush's America for four more years. Obama will have to  up royally to lose this election, and if he does, Black America could be blamed for creating a politician that was so close to the White House, yet so destructive to America. This would basically cause a "black lash" that could cause a total end to affirmative action AND possible re-segragation (I mean, black nationalists want it and the Supreme Court seems willing to grant it). I mean, if Barack Obama, the first black candidate, is so hated by the American People and so attached with this ethic identity, some of that hatred is going to fall to the black people, themselves.

However, if there is an Obama presidency, it may help with the integration of the black culture into American society. Sure, Obama is inexpierenced, but will this simply mean that he is more opened to be influenced by an age of which we even avoid speculating about?

[Person Man]

Maybe if this was a different period, maybe you would be right. I think the entire black issue will depend on how his presidency goes or whether he even wins. I mean, if he loses, it will because most Americans are so pissed off at him that they are willing to live in Bush's America for four more years. Obama will have to  up royally to lose this election, and if he does, Black America could be blamed for creating a politician that was so close to the White House, yet so destructive to America. This would basically cause a "black lash" that could cause a total end to affirmative action AND possible re-segragation (I mean, black nationalists want it and the Supreme Court seems willing to grant it). I mean, if Barack Obama, the first black candidate, is so hated by the American People and so attached with this ethic identity, some of that hatred is going to fall to the black people, themselves.

No, for this reason.  The nomination of Obama will drive people that vote principally on race out of the Democratic Party.  For it to have the full effect that I've described, Obama will have to be elected and discredited.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, first, he has to understand the different culture.  He's failed at that (and if he loses, he'll have four years to understand it).

...and they haven't already. Economically, you are 20 years ahead, but socially, you are 40 years behind. ...and you don't think someone will be blamed for making the Republican Party invincible in the White House? ...and are you sure that Obama will ever want a re-match if he loses and you are even more sure that he understands American culture any less than any other president in modern American history, with the exception of Clinton or maybe Ford? I mean, you make all of these generalisations that create more questions than answers and have predicted Obama's downfall for two or three times now. Maybe the fourth (him losing) or fifth (him being discredited) will be the charm, right?

[Person Man]

By 2025,
- Will WMDs be used?

Most likely not. Even countries hostile to the United States know that if they are implicated in helping terrorists release these weapons they basically cease to exist. Terrorists know that this is probably the one act that will turn most of the world, including the Muslim world, against them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are always wars.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, probably a three year economic downturn akin to the late 80s/early 90s recession or the late 70s.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, unless a large section of the world financial community, the Federal Reserve, the IMF, World Bank, and the President screw up royally which is highly unlikely.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh...no. Especially with the growing baby boomer population, anything that delays aging, keeps people alive longer, and can make a huge profit from that will be researched vigorously.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, when have we ever abandoned a science? When? I can't think of a single example since the Dark Ages where some sort of science has been abandoned. Some interesting projects have been abandoned, the XB-70 Mach 3 strategic bomber anyone?, but that was usually because there was no longer a need for those projects because better technologies became available.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My money would be on no but you can never tell with mother nature.

So, the world will keep rolling, but will probably go through a shift like it did in the 70s.

[Person Man]

So, the world will keep rolling, but will probably go through a shift like it did in the 70s.

Yeah pretty much. The world is too interconnected now for a major war to start, it's financial system is too secure to fail as it did during the Great Depression, and there is no major catalist for any sort of revolutionary change on the horizon. There will be a slump, I'd say more late 80s than 70s but it's really just a matter of semantics, and then growth. I think you're to quick to assume that the future is all doom and gloom. I'm not saying its bright and cheery either, just that it will keep on moving along. The world will grow more multipolar, of course, but the US wont go all "rogue nation" on everybody, it's played the multipolar game before and will learn to do so again. It's status isn't going anywhere, it'll stay a major power, barring any incredibly crippling scenarios, for at least the next century or two. The international "club", so to speak, will grow larger but the basic structure will remain.

That's probably the way things will naturally work. Life sort of moves through the path of least resistance. The one thing I am concerned about is the idea that socially conservative policies may make the United States less competitive. No business or individual will want to live or stay in the United States if ; the healthcare system is inefficient, the infrastructure is bad, dangerous and unreliable, the police are oppressive and biomedical research, or any other research with metaphysical significance is over-regulated. Then again, no one will want to move here or stay here if it's too expensive, too hard to make a profit or there is too many people on the street making the average person uncomfortable. In our globalized world, individual countries may be assessed like individual states are today.

For example, one may want to live or do business in Texas because taxes, labor and housing are cheap. However, they may choose to live or work in New York if the conservative culture in Texas overregulates their business, makes the roads, insurance providers and schools unreliable and makes them uncomfortable. Then again, there could be countries that are a lot like Nevada, where it is uncomfortable to live, but a good place to do business or enjoy yourself or like Florida or Georgia, where the opposite might be true.

[Person Man]

Another issue that makes your prognostics weak is the idea that you expect the early 21st century to be like the late 20th.

[Person Man]

Another issue that makes your prognostics weak is the idea that you expect the early 21st century to be like the late 20th.

No, I expect it potentially to be much different than the mid-20th Century.  But you seen not to have read Santayana.

I haven't. Is it like Ortega? Tell me about it. To tell you the truth, one should look at small, fast growing-trends than large and old trends.

[Person Man]

Well, besides the fact of what you think about the candidates in question, what could be farther right than what we have now? Have we ever been farther to the right in say- the past 70 or 80 years?


I mean, I am guessing we will probably return to the 60s and 70s if Obama or some succesor who takes up his cause is succesful and pushes the country back to the center-left....but what would happen if this country went any further right? Would that even be considered "change"?

[Person Man]

Can you provide more examples of what you want and what could happen? I just don't see how this country could go further to the right. I mean, I guess a reasonable "liberal" like myself could get deported as well as most of the people on this forum...but seriously...

[Person Man]

I know about the 1919-21 scare, but what kind of policies could we see today? You seem to be stating that the 2010s could be the 1920s, complete with eugenics, prohibition, mass deportations, scandals, and basically proto-fascism.

[Person Man]

So, Gattica could become an issue, then?

What about other issues- are we just talking about creating a domestic vice version of the PATRIOT Act and handing over of social services to businesses?

...would this interference be also found in the establishment of Single-Payer Health Care and Higher Taxes?

I know of what you are talking about, but will there be a difference in all issues, some issues, specific issues and how much of a difference will it make? Perhaps you are talking about the fact the relative political balence of power will remain the same, but the Republican party's primary issues will be War, Race and Religion, instead of Taxes and Business.

[Person Man]

I am thinking that he, a socially moderate (marginally in favor of secularism, civil liberties and civil rights) conservative, thinks that if McCain is a succesful politician and administrator, that the religious right's influence will decline and that the American political climate will shift to that of which is seen in the non-mormon west. This means that the country will probably continue its current conservative consensus, but probably deal with issues like "killing babies", cloning, public religious instruction, racial issues,  "homos" and "dope" in a more matter-of-fact, open to comprimise and objective manner. Basically, he thinks that the Post-McCain America will be one of a centrist social consensus that rests on top of our conservative economic consensus.

However, if McCain fu cks up, and becomes the next George H. W. Bush, we could see the unraveling of the current conservative consensus. What this could mean is that the U.S. becomes more like what Britian and Germany is today....socially and economically pragmatic.

[Person Man]

So, the United States will basically become like Wyoming or Colorado...maybe with UHC. Social issues will probably be dealt wth pragmatically and taxes will be low.

While Europe will become a mixture of Utah and Gattica.

Does this mean that our civilization is dying, changing or what? ...and if we are dying, will there be a reanasance?

[Person Man]

Okay, now you are being more specific. What would these two new parties look like? Without you going into detail, I can see somewhere between Mark Pryor's and Bill Clinton's Democratic Party and Alan Simpson's and Bob Dole's Republican Party...or simply that the culture war will end in an uneasy truce.

[Person Man]

Though, if the urban vote doesn't work for the dems, I do see a shift of the democrats to suburban seculars and mainline protestants in the West and Midwest. Hell, I could see the GOP going after that vote, too if the fundies can be forgotten. This would mean that an economically conservative, socially center-left consensus could be met by both parties. Think of the politics of the 1950s.

[Person Man]

Though, if the urban vote doesn't work for the dems, I do see a shift of the democrats to suburban seculars and mainline protestants in the West and Midwest. Hell, I could see the GOP going after that vote, too if the fundies can be forgotten. This would mean that an economically conservative, socially center-left consensus could be met by both parties. Think of the politics of the 1950s.

I don't agree that this is what will result, but you could see the collapse of the extremist wings of both parties.

I wouldn't quite see that as a real change out of the Age of Reagan, though. I mean, just because social democrats had more power than day-by-day pragmatists by the 60s, didn't mean that the New Deal was over yet.

[Person Man]

Perhaps the decline of the Blue Dogs within the Democrats could see their exodus to the Republicans, leading to a more populist Republican party. This increase in dominance of social conservatives could see the more socially moderate Republicans shifting to the Democrats - leading to a populist Republican party facing off against a more libertarian Democratic party?

That's a possibility....a bit generic though. We will see. Perhaps if Roe was finally done-in?

[Person Man]

Democrats have been lurching to the right hence my predictions of them eventually ending up a secular moderate conservative party with a libertarian wing. Also, Roe V. Wade will never be done in and serious restrictions on abortion will never be enacted. The right isn't stupid and won't do anything to endanger it's ability to get out the vote.

I guessing we will know within a year from now, if McCain wins, whether the right will make irrelevant or stop the enforcement of Roe v. Wade. The republicans are only one vote away vote doing just this. That vote that is preventing this is 89 yeas old. I believe that he will retire next year due to a widened senate majority that in theory, will not allow the allowance of abortion bans. However, McCain's and the Sen. Leahy's behavior will give us a clue to what will happen. Will McCain yeild to the senate or will Leahy yield to the 40 year republican "mandate"? ...and even after that, will Kennedy finally be pursuaded by Roberts to let Roe go and how will the new nominee REALLY vote?   

[Person Man]

Why would the right kill one of their get out the vote causes by banning/seriously restricting abortion?

Eliminating Roe v. Wade

1) Would be done by justices who have legitimate concerns about the Constitution and limited concerns about GOTV efforts.
2) Would be done by justices who oppose Roe v. Wade as a public litmus test against them so that Republicans appear effective.  McCain often promises to appoint justices in line with this thinking.
3) Would cause the issue to bombshell as every state legislature and maybe Congress considers to what extent to limit abortion.  It's not like overturning Roe v. Wade makes abortion illegal, it just makes it legislatively debatable.

Yes, but that will bring 5, 10 or even 20 years of political chaos to this country and only lord knows whether it will end in a bang or a whimper.

[Person Man]

Eliminating Roe V. Wade would cause a social liberal backlash to the point where I'd be considered far right(as in how we'd see someone like Tancredo/Peroutka)..

I could actually see that, if McCain looses.

I think that a Obama loss is a victory for the center of both parties, very long term.

What would it mean if he wins...

[Person Man]

Let's play the hand out

Scenario 1: McCain wins

Let's presume McCain wins and gets in his 2 justices plus a compliant dem congress. We're talking repeal of Roe V. Wade, continued strong FCC, etc. Removing Roe V. Wade removes the conservative base's single rallying point and energizes the left. We're talking a move to the left on social matters not seen since the 60s/progressive era with the trend against neoliberal/washington consensus economics still going on but not being spurred by this. Basically, things change to the point where in 2012 I have a bit of a hard time deciding who to vote for and in 2016 I vote down the line republican because the democrats were too socially left for me.

Scenario 2: Obama Wins

Obama wins and manages to move things slightly more in a moderate direction but his incompetence drives things off the rails leading to a backlash. The end result is a deadlock on social issues on the federal level, de-emphasizing morals/nanny state controls in favor of focusing on security concerns. We're talking 20s red scare level purges against muslims, mormons(the whole xenophobia plus percieved polygamy bit), elements of the far left(the blame america crowd, anarchists), greens, minority ethnic nationalists and some of the more strange lifestyle movements(the transgender movement is crushed to the point where it doesn't recover for a generation, the more outre elements of gay culture are repressed, hippies are repressed, goths/emos get repressed). Identity politics is savagely repressed.

So anybody who doesn't "Get with the fu cking program" get's deported or jailed? Oooohh...will there be eugenics? Look at my Olympics thread... if you are right, I'm going to save up on my money and get all of the advantages I can get lest I get jailed, deported, go unemployed or lose every thing. Gee...I need to go to bed.

[Person Man]

Let's play the hand out

Scenario 1: McCain wins

Let's presume McCain wins and gets in his 2 justices plus a compliant dem congress. We're talking repeal of Roe V. Wade, continued strong FCC, etc. Removing Roe V. Wade removes the conservative base's single rallying point and energizes the left. We're talking a move to the left on social matters not seen since the 60s/progressive era with the trend against neoliberal/washington consensus economics still going on but not being spurred by this. Basically, things change to the point where in 2012 I have a bit of a hard time deciding who to vote for and in 2016 I vote down the line republican because the democrats were too socially left for me.

I think it's the opposite.  McCain is elected, but with lesser support of the religious right.  He can pay less attention to them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Democratic party becomes the Black Person's and Liberal's Party, meaning that the Black Congressional Caucus is in control.  It becomes clear that to seek power in the Democratic party, you must appease these these groups.  It pulls the Democrats to the left, probably dooming it for the next realignment. 

So will McCain reverse Roe? and what if he does?

[Person Man]

I guess so...that doesn't seem too bad, except the Gattica thing.

[Person Man]

I guess so...that doesn't seem too bad, except the Gattica thing.

I'm sure you Gamma types will find a productive place in society.

likewise, Mr. Delta Minus.

[Person Man]

I guess so...that doesn't seem too bad, except the Gattica thing.

I'm sure you Gamma types will find a productive place in society.

likewise, Mr. Delta Minus.

Me, definitely an Alpha.

Maybe an Alpha Minus Minus. Listen, I'm not worried about being marginalized, ok.