Revolution, Flashmobs and Brain Implants in 2035

siddesu writes "Marxist revolution, WMDs, flashmobs and other sci-fi items are coming soon in a country near you, according to the UK Ministry of Defence. 'Information chips implanted in the brain. Electromagnetic pulse weapons. The middle classes becoming revolutionary, taking on the role of Marx's proletariat. The population of countries in the Middle East increasing by 132%, while Europe's drops as fertility falls. "Flashmobs" — groups rapidly mobilised by criminal gangs or terrorists groups. This is the world in 30 years' time envisaged by a Ministry of Defence team responsible for painting a picture of the "future strategic context" likely to face Britain's armed forces.'"

Comments

Thay read too much bad science-fiction

[gweihir]

Or watched too much television or other media ''predictions''. This strikes me on par with the typical predictions made 30 years ago. Allmost none of them have come to pass.

Bottom line: These people should be liable for wasting taxpayer money.

Re:Thay read too much bad science-fiction

[WillAdams]

Or perhaps it's because people like this wargame worst-case scenarios that such have been avoided for the most part?

William

Re:Thay read too much bad science-fiction

[HTH NE1]

Where's the prediction of people flying cars into parking structures?

Re:Thay read too much bad science-fiction

[Anonymous Coward]

Or watched too much television or other media ''predictions''. This strikes me on par with the typical predictions made 30 years ago. Allmost none of them have come to pass.

Actually, the increase of population in the middle east isn't much of a prediction, and the depopulation of europe in general isn't a 'prediction', it's pretty much fact barring genocide, or something of that nature. Demographics is destiny, and europe is dying. The US would be the same way if it weren't for immigration.

Many of the first world countries have population implosions coming their way, which will be much more destructive than the 'population bomb' that was predicted in the 70's and harder to fix.

Re:Thay read too much bad science-fiction

[arcite]

I would wager that most predictions from good sci-fi from the past 30 years HAVE come true...short of the ones where we are all living in space.

Frankly, I would be less worried about social unrest, insurgents, ect... and more worried about consequences of global warming, freakish weather (flood, drought), and the threat of a world wide disease pandemic...or epidemic. The world is overdue for a real superbug.

No need to dream up high-tech threats when it will most likely be the low

Re:Thay read too much bad science-fiction

[TodMinuit]

This strikes me on par with the typical predictions made 30 years ago. Allmost none of them have come to pass.

Can someone dig up those predictions, compile a list, and publish it on their blog? I'd really like to see how many predictions from 10, 20, 30, and 50 years ago have come true.

Re:Thay read too much bad science-fiction

[DukeLinux]

I am not so sure. In the 80's movie themes about the big International corporations running governments and the citizens were roundly laughed at. Nobody is laughing now as we see this unfolding before us. A government that is paid for and owned by the mega-corps and citizens beholded to them for their pathetic materialistic lifestyle. I can see the middle-class becoming revolutionary due to poor economic conditions in the future. I can see the Western governments using Orwellian tactics to stay in power over the masses.

Re:Thay read too much bad science-fiction

[Citizen of Earth]

Or perhaps it's because people like this wargame worst-case scenarios that such have been avoided for the most part?

They don't mention Iran/Islamic radicals getting nuclear weapons at all. Phew! I guess this means it doesn't happen.

Re:Thay read too much bad science-fiction

[InsertCleverUsername]

I agree. At this point you might as well take your speculation and make an entertaining sci-fi movie while you wait for the Singularity. After that the future will be predicted with 99.627815% accuracy.

Re:Thay read too much bad science-fiction

[cunina]

Minor quibble: even the birthrate among native-born Americans is at the replacement level (approximately 2.1), so the US would maintain its population without immigration. In Europe, the fertility of the native population is less than 2 (much less in some countries like Italy).

Re:Thay read too much bad science-fiction

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Funny, I thought they weren't reading enough bad science-fiction. Maybe a little more 1984 would have stopped the CCTVs. Oh well...

Re:Thay read too much bad science-fiction

[Anonymous Coward]

France has a replacement level of ~2.3 last I saw. Ever since WW2 they've had an unexplainable fertility boom.

Re:Thay read too much bad science-fiction

[fyngyrz]

Ever since WW2 they've had an unexplainable fertility boom.

Oh, it's explainable. Fashionable French women still wear stockings instead of pantyhose. They still wear dresses instead of pants. They still wear lace bikinis instead of "boy panties." They still wear perfume. Finally, they spend a lot less time being repressed, sexually speaking, than many other countries. What is more attractive? Some awesomely sexy woman, dressed to knock you off your feet, or some woman in her jogging sneakers, jeans and "hoodie"?

There was a social error made by the ladies in the 60's...70's where they decided that in order to be "equal", they had to look and act like men. Unfortunately, all that did was make them unattractive and lose the social training that taught them how to deal with attracted males. They could have been equal all along without giving up the sexually charged plumage they had; there is no question that "equality" is about performance, not plumage.

There is, of course, a silver lining to all of this. Those females who understand what has happened can completely trounce those who don't in any situation where performance is relatively equal - because hiring, or simply hanging with, a lovely, sexy woman who can handle the task at hand is a lot more desirable than hanging with an equally capable woman who dresses like a guy on his way to a pickup game.

The consequences for reproductive rates are obvious.

Politically correct? No. True? You bet - every word.

Re:Thay read too much bad science-fiction

[ShieldW0lf]

You're wrong.

Women do a just fine job of getting a man to have sex with them. It's being a good mother and mate that they have lost the capacity for.

There was a time when a man had to be afraid that other fierce men would steal his family. There was a time when a man had to be afraid that animals and weather would steal his family. There was a time when a man had to be afraid that strangers would come and make him a slave and isolate him from his children.

The person most likely to do that to him now, more likely than not in fact, is the woman he chooses to love.

Thus, women from the age of 14 to 55 are out there dressed like little tramps, and getting fucked all the time for it, but still alone.

They've retreated to the superficial because every rational reason to allow them into your life has been systematically eradicated, and appealing to our primitive side is the only thing they're good for anymore.

They're a bunch of uselesses bitches.

Re:Thay read too much bad science-fiction

[fyngyrz]

They're a bunch of uselesses(sic) bitches.

Sounds to me like you've got a problem with relationships. How people dress in no way qualifies them as "useless bitches"; how people dress is a statement of how they see themselves, how they see their relationship to the opposite sex and to their peers, and how they wish to be perceived in terms of income, independence, sexuality and individuality. Without the ability to see through people's dressing habits to who they are, you're forever crippled, all the more so by today's sexual identity confusion. Clothing is plumage, beyond the fact that it is coverage. If exotic plumage puts you off, you're emotionally crippled.

As for your allusions to primitive behaviors and subsequent attempt to ascribe them to today's social milieux, no. That sounds like the pontificating of a 1st year psych student; no one is looking to take your kids away for the sake of hurting you. Those things happen when poorly built and maintained relationships crash - and that is very likely the fault of all parties.

Re:Thay read too much bad science-fiction

[lilomar]

I thought one of the implications of the singularity was that the future would be harder to predict, not easier.

Re:Thay read too much bad science-fiction

[DiamondGeezer]

Thirty years ago, we were worried about global cooling, nuclear winter and nuclear proliferation. Now its global warming and nuclear proliferation.

Oh yes, and none of the above came to pass.

Re:Thay read too much bad science-fiction

[Mo Bedda]

I haven't been to Europe lately, so I no idea if French women wear skirts more often than other European women. But, I certainly see no shortage of sexually charged plumage in modern western society. What you are experiencing is diversity and freedom. If you are not finding enough of what you like, you are probably not looking in the right places.

I think the women you perceive as acting like men may be doing so precisely because they don't want to deal with attracted males. Increasingly since the 60's and 70's, young women have been free to consider other priorities. Given the ease with which most of them can attract males, it is not surprising that you might notice a lack of focus in that area.

Having babies and attracting males are two different things. There are many unattractive women who seem to have not trouble reproducing. I suspect tax policy, social spending, and economic opportunity have more to do with it.

Re:Thay read too much bad science-fiction

[asninn]

What is more attractive? Some awesomely sexy woman, dressed to knock you off your feet, or some woman in her jogging sneakers, jeans and "hoodie"?

The latter, since she comes across as an honest person who's not trying to manipulate me by replacing reality with hyperreality. I might lust after the former for a short while, but if I was considering a serious relationship, I'd always prefer the latter (a priori, anyway; it might still turn out that the former's an intelligent, honest, and all-around nice person while the latter is the exact opposite, but my initial bet would be that that's not the case).

Of course, I'm bi with a slight preference for guys, anyway, and I've often found that I'm drawn to effeminate men and tomboyish women, so I'm probably not representative in any way, but I think that your conclusion that is not all "true - every word". Different people like different things, and saying that women must wear dresses, stockings, lace bikinis and perfume in order to be attractive is simply not true - and implying that attracting males, bearing children and caring for the family is all women are supposed to do in life is outright misogynistic. If you reduce feminism, demands for equality and the like to "women want to dress 'like a guy on his way to a pickup game'", you've completely missed the point.

Re:Thay read too much bad science-fiction

[fyngyrz]

The latter, since she comes across as an honest person who's not trying to manipulate me by replacing reality with hyperreality. I might lust after the former for a short while, but if I was considering a serious relationship, I'd always prefer the latter

I didn't put it in every sentence, but I was very specific within that post that I was comparing women of equal capabilities; I said "Those females who understand what has happened can completely trounce those who don't in any situation where performance is relatively equal" and "because hiring, or simply hanging with, a lovely, sexy woman who can handle the task at hand is a lot more desirable than hanging with an equally capable woman who dresses like a guy on his way to a pickup game."

...so it's really not fair to tar me with the misogynist brush. I simply don't discount sexuality, and that, I maintain, is a healthy attitude.

I've often found that I'm drawn to effeminate men

You made my point for me right there. If you like guys, if you're as "even-handed" as you seem to want to portray, then any guy should be as attractive to you as any other. But by your own account, you prefer an effeminate man; why is that any more inherently respectable than my preference for a feminine woman? You should really think that through!

and implying that attracting males, bearing children and caring for the family is all women are supposed to do in life is outright misogynistic.

Again, I didn't imply any such thing. Women (everyone, for that matter) can do anything they like. But choices have consequences, and as men are by and large more directly interested in women who are attractive, have particular body shapes, and certain facial features (science backs this up in spades, by the way), those ladies that demonstrate those characteristics have visually selected themselves into the first ranks for consideration. If there is nothing there mentally, or no competence for the job at hand, then they lose their place, of course (unless the guy is foolish.) But as my original postulate goes, all other things being equal, the lady with the better plumage is naturally positioned to win any such contest.

Different people like different things, and saying that women must wear dresses, stockings, lace bikinis and perfume in order to be attractive is simply not true

The thing is, we do know what the general population likes. You can see it any number of ways. For instance, when we go for magazines that use sexuality to motivate, you don't generally see women in pictorials with sneakers, no makeup and ghetto clothing. No. Instead, we see them in lace, stockings and garters, decent makeup, posed so as to appear inviting to the guy in the fantasy, IOW the reader / viewer. This is true for nudes, like playboy and its ilk, and it is true for non-nudes, like Maxim and its ilk. I'm not saying that there aren't people out there with likes of every kind, of course there are, but the mainstream has spoken and it hasn't changed its tastes since the 1920's. We like, and are preferential towards, feminine women - it is just that simple.

If you reduce feminism, demands for equality and the like to "women want to dress 'like a guy on his way to a pickup game'", you've completely missed the point.

I don't do that at all. I simply point out that when women interpret feminism as requiring that kind of loss of sexual plumage, they have missed the point, because feminism isn't about sexuality, and it never was. It was about parity in the workplace, in compensation, in opportunity. Which is what I said in the first place: "They could have been equal all along without giving up the sexually charged plumage they had; there is no question that "equality" is about performance, not plumage."

Population in middle east increasing?

[Anonymous Coward]

pssseesssseeeeessseeeessssssseeseeeeeseooowwwww

KABOOOOOOOM!

Problem solved.

Isnt the world going to run out of oil any day now, though? When that happens, what threat would the middle east be? They have absolutely nothing else.

Re:Population in middle east increasing?

[CRCulver]

Dubai is building itself up as a major economic and tourism hub. Even if oil's gone, much of the world would still do its banking and resort holidays there.

Re:Population in middle east increasing?

[m4g02]

[i]Isnt the world going to run out of oil any day now, though? When that happens, what threat would the middle east be? They have absolutely nothing else[/i]

They have youth, and that's probably the most powerful resource in the world. You can claim to have all kinds of natural resources and technological industry in Europe but if there is no one to press the button, to trade goods and to make economy works sooner or later the middle east will become the big player, and not necessarily in their homeland, have you seen how many muslims have gone to Europe recently? The government allows it, discretely, there's really no choice when the country economy and workforce depends on it.

Re:Population in middle east increasing?

[Finuance]

No.

Peak oil is coming. But that just means the peak rate at which we can extract it, you know, x millions barrels / day.

Oil will be around for a long time. So will coal.

Don't worry.

Re:Population in middle east increasing?

[dlt074]

"When that happens, what threat would the middle east be? They have absolutely nothing else."

exactly! you think their pissed and don't play well with others now when they have something we want and will give them money for... wait till they have nothing and we are sick of their temper tantrums.

And this is why we need Trident?

[Anonymous Coward]

So Britain's answer is to spend more money on nukes? I'm no hippy, but I think some innovation is needed here by the folks at the MoD

Re:And this is why we need Trident?

[general scruff]

Then there's always the MoSW(Ministry of Silly Walks). I'm sure that would solve everything! You can't fire an AK if you are laughing your a** off! =)

Re:And this is why we need Trident?

[xmedar]

Exactly, Trident is there to nuke all those little Marxists from Goldman Sachs who live in the Surrey commuter belt!

This is a Dup from 1986

[prgrmr]

William Gibson wrote about much of this in Johnny Mnemonic

Re:This is a Dup from 1986

[Floritard]

William Gibson wrote Johnny Mneumonic?! Is the book better than the movie?

Re:This is a Dup from 1986

[prgrmr]

It's a short story that's part of his Sprawl Triology. It's been too long since I've read it to remember the differences, I'll have to see if it's in one of the issues of Omni I still have around somewhere and reread it. I'm actually in the middle of reading Count Zero, and just going by Gibson's quality of writing, I'd say that the story almost has to be better than the movie.

Re:This is a Dup from 1986

[PresidentEnder]

Story, actually; it's not long enough to be a book by itself. Yes, it is better. Much, much, better.

Re:This is a Dup from 1986

[nacturation]

William Gibson wrote Johnny Mneumonic?! Is the book better than the movie? For starters, the book doesn't star Keanu Reeves. I leave that up to you as to whether that qualifies for an "Excellent!" or a "Whoah!".

Re:This is a Dup from 1986

[maxume]

Zip Zap Zingle:

http://project.cyberpunk.ru/lib/johnny_mnemonic/

Re:This is a Dup from 1986

[fyngyrz]

William Gibson wrote Johnny Mneumonic?! Is the book better than the movie?

Yes he did, and yes it is. The collection of short stories it is contained within is uniformly excellent as well. Go find it, and enjoy. :-)

Re:This is a Dup from 1986

[mfrank]

It's also in his collection of short stories "Burning Chrome". Good stuff. Have you read Richard Morgan's "Altered Carbon"?

Re:This is a Dup from 1986

[prgrmr]

Nope, I'll have to add it to the list. I'm currenlty working my way through Gibson's catalog.

Re:This is a Dup from 1986

[Gilmoure]

Only good part of the movie was when he called for his shirts to be laundered like at the Tokyo Hilton. That really spoke to me.

Re:This is a Dup from 1986

[Magada]

The Imperial, actually. But it did speak to me too, seeing as he was standing on a pile of junk at the time. Reminded me of another excellent book - "Stand on Zanzibar"

Sigh...

[Black Parrot]

The middle classes becoming revolutionary, taking on the role of Marx's proletariat. You can preempt that by running the country for the benefit of the people in general rather than for the billionaires.

The population of countries in the Middle East increasing by 132% And the threat in 2035 will be from an unseen quarter.

Information chips implanted in the brain. Electromagnetic pulse weapons. ... Flashmobs" -- groups rapidly mobilised by criminal gangs or terrorists groups. At least they've kept up on their pop reading.

Re:Sigh...

[UbuntuDupe]

You can preempt that by running the country for the benefit of the people in general rather than for the billionaires.

Yeah. One trick is to nationalize all the businesses and turn them over to the lowest-level workers at those businesses. That'll stave off those Marxist revolutionaries!

Re:Sigh...

[kubrick]

You can preempt that by running the country for the benefit of the people in general rather than for the billionaires.

Name one state that has ever worked that way.

Re:Sigh...

[Corbets]

You can preempt that by running the country for the benefit of the people in general rather than for the billionaires. Anyone who believes that, unfortunately, has their head up their ass. You simply can't please everyone. Even if you try to please the majority, you'll have a vocal - and dangerous - minority attempting to subvert the system.

I'm not defending any particular system of government, but simply saying that this "running the country for the benefit of the people in general" that you envision is impossible.

Re:Sigh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of northern Europe.

Re:Sigh...

[mstahl]

You can preempt that by running the country for the benefit of the people in general rather than for the billionaires.

That's one of the single best things that any country could do to prevent long-term instability and internal conflict, but politicians (at least here in the US) typically work for short-term benefit—usually their own short-term benefit.

You can actually extend that concept to the entire world. The income and quality-of-life disparity between, say, the US and Afghanistan/Iran/Iraq/etc. is enormous. Someone needs to tell Bush that they don't hate us because they hate freedom, a growing number of them hate us because they want a piece of the pie.

Re:Sigh...

[hey!]

You can preempt that by running the country for the benefit of the people in general rather than for the billionaires.

I'm not sure that's quite right. Or at least it needs more precision. As conservatives like to point out, the level of physical well-being in western societies has reached a point where even most of the poor are better off than the middle class of a generation ago.

It's interesting to think what Marx would have thought if he had access to twenty first century science; his viewpoint is distinctly 19th C. But stripped of its utopianism, Marx has some interesting points about the tendency of power relationships to become exploitive and the stability of that situation when the powerful are completely dependent on the exploited.

The way the power inequalities between the super wealthy and the middle class could lead to stability would not be based on the powerful enjoying profits at the expense of the middle classes material well being. Wealth today after all is largely gotten and maintained by selling luxuries to the middle class. But it is also clear that the middle class is not happier than the middle class of a generation ago, despite being much more abundantly supplied with luxury goods.

I think there is a potential for revolutionary instability in the middle class, but it won't come from their being unshod, unhoused, or unfed. It will come from their feeling that their lives are not in control, and that that control lies more in than hands of others inimical to their interests. It will come from anxieties and the feeling of powerlessness.

Will my job be offshored? Can I ensure entry of my children into the middle class? If somebody gets sick in my family (supposing I am American), will I lose my job or be unable to change my job? Will I lose my house because interest rates drive my mortgage too high? Will my pension fund go bust because my employer borrowed from it?

Arguably, some of these problems are due to bad planning by Mr. Middle Class. You should have considered international labor competition when you chose your job. You should set money by for your kids education, and not worry if you can't afford a private university. If you're worried about losing your health insurance you should work for a company that is large enough to absorb the cost of illness. You should not buy more house than you could afford within the historical ranges of interest rates (or go fixed rate). You should not count on your pension for you retirement.

But whatever the strength or weaknesses of these arguments, if there is enough middle class insecurity is there, and if enough of the middle class feel that others, who have an exploitive interest, have more control in the outcomes of these anxieties than they do, then the middle class will become revolutionary. And despite having a lot more education than the workers of the early twentieth century, they won't be too picky about the intellectual pedigree of the revolutionary theory they follow.

In the end, that is what FDR style big government liberalism was about. FDR was an American aristocrat, the kind of blue blood who could have the King of England to dinner and feed him hot dogs without being the least bit anxious. His policies are basically "hair of the dog" socialism: not actual socialism, but an enlightened self interest in limiting the appeal of the whole socialism package.

Re:Sigh...

[WindowlessView]

"people in general" != "everyone"

just as

"common good" != "always good for me"

Re:Sigh...

[kubrick]

I can't imagine you're counting places like Monaco or Switzerland among that...

Re:Sigh...

[kabocox]

The middle classes becoming revolutionary, taking on the role of Marx's proletariat.
You can preempt that by running the country for the benefit of the people in general rather than for the billionaires.

You just make your PSPs, iPods, wifi/cell phones, internet, and TV cheap enough for the poor to afford and then the poor and middle class generally won't care about the divide.

Re:Sigh...

[Anne Thwacks]

You can preempt that by running the country for the benefit of the people in general rather than for the billionaires.

You have not been to Britain lately have you? Its run for the benefit of the illegal immigrants. The billionaires all left long ago. The middle classes are mostly emigrating to Spain.

Re:Sigh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Monaco or Switzerland

You can hardly say those are in nothern europe, I mean, Monaco is almost as south as Europe goes, and Switzerland is more in the middle. Not to mention that Monaco and Switzerland are 2 very special isolated cases.

Re:Sigh...

[Skreems]

As conservatives like to point out, the level of physical well-being in western societies has reached a point where even most of the poor are better off than the middle class of a generation ago.

Yes, but they like to claim that living under crippling debt is a fair trade off for getting to drive an SUV. Poor is poor. Telling them to shut up and be happy they aren't losing fingers in the auto plants doesn't do a thing to change that.

Re:Sigh...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're talking about REAL northern Europe -- Baltic Sea stuff -- the reason they aren't run for the benefit of billionaires is because it's so cold that no billionaires want to live there anyway.

Re:Sigh...

[J.R. Random]

Will my pension fund go bust because my employer borrowed from it?

What pension fund? One of the major changes over the past 30 years is that it is no longer the norm for middle class people in the private sector to get defined benefit pensions. They have damn good reasons to feel anxious about the future. And if you think your 401k plan is going to compensate for that you were either very lucky in your investments or are very naive in your expectations. The very reason companies were so eager to ditch pensions and replace them with 401k plans was because it saved them a lot of money. That savings had to come from somewhere. It came from what you'll have to live on in your 70s and 80s (and forget about retiring in your 60s).

Re:Sigh...

[Omestes]

Well then replace this with "running a country for the benefit of the largest group of people", there we replaced our privileged group form the top 2% to the middle 70%. Seems rather non-objectionable to me. Hopefully soon, in America, we will have a dangerous, vocal, majority attempting to subvert the system. Not only do the bottom 70% control the means of production, and much of the economy, but they can make up for the lack of billions of ill-gotten gains with pure numbers (lets hear it for the middle class Zerg rush).

I prefer a country with eyes towards social-justice, and equality, instead of keeping the top 2% happy at the expense of the 98%. Any solution would, necessarily, make someone unhappy, but we must subscribe to a utilitarian solution ("the greatest good, for the greatest number), and a spirit of compromise.

Re:Sigh...

[Gilmoure]

We should freeze the planet so all the billionaires move to Venus? Some like it hot?

Re: Sigh...

[Black Parrot]

You can preempt that by running the country for the benefit of the people in general rather than for the billionaires. Name one state that has ever worked that way. Not sure what you mean by "that way", but in case it answers your question, I suspect it was the New Deal and the other Socialist or socializing programs implemented in the West that dampened the westward spread of Soviet-style Communism 70-80 years ago.

Re: Sigh...

[Black Parrot]

You can preempt that by running the country for the benefit of the people in general rather than for the billionaires. Anyone who believes that, unfortunately, has their head up their ass. I beg to differ.

You simply can't please everyone. Even if you try to please the majority, you'll have a vocal - and dangerous - minority attempting to subvert the system. I wasn't suggesting it as a mechanism for pleasing everyone; I was commenting on the specifically identified threat of Marxist radicalization of the Middle Class. You'll have people making different levels of effort to subvert the system no matter what the system is.

I'm not defending any particular system of government, but simply saying that this "running the country for the benefit of the people in general" that you envision is impossible. Is it? Or by "impossible" do you just mean you don't think it will work?

Re: Sigh...

[Black Parrot]

I think you basically have it right. How well the Middle Class fares in absolute terms isn't relevant; if they're driven toward Marxism it will be due to a sense of unfairness and growing inequities between them and the people on top. They'll see on the news that their CEO got a multi-million dollar bonus and the shareholders got a dividend, and wonder why they had to give up their health and retirement benefits and live in constant fear of outsourcing, if there's so much money to go around for the people who need it the least.

It's about psychology and human nature, not some objective measure of how well people are doing.

Re:Sigh...

[Corbets]

Seems rather non-objectionable to me As long as you're in that 70%. ;-)

What did you do, Ray?

[Azathfeld]

Information chips implanted in the brain. Electromagnetic pulse weapons. The middle classes becoming revolutionary, The population of countries in the Middle East increasing by 132%, "Flashmobs" Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes! The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria!

Re:What did you do, Ray?

[Anonymous Coward]

Another two for the current mass hysteria... Global Warming! Peak Oil!

Re:What did you do, Ray?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahaha, Yes!

Hey, I can do that too.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Well, let me quickly write a scenario for my boss. What will happen in 10 years if they dont immediately fund my division with an additional 3 million bucks and 22 new engineers. Can I say our customers will come to the corporate headquarters and sack and pillage it and carry away the fetching executive assistant the CFO has hired? Nah, wont work. Our management is not as dumb as the UK DoD.

Re:Hey, I can do that too.

[kabocox]

Well, let me quickly write a scenario for my boss. What will happen in 10 years if they dont immediately fund my division with an additional 3 million bucks and 22 new engineers. Can I say our customers will come to the corporate headquarters and sack and pillage it and carry away the fetching executive assistant the CFO has hired? Nah, wont work. Our management is not as dumb as the UK DoD.

What about a scenario where an entity be it aliens/government/natural turns off/absorbs electricity for the planet Earth and we need to prepare our business to run and thrive without using any forms of electicity! Our first order of business is buying all our employees bikes and relocating them all close enough to work so that they can use them to commute. Then we need to buy crossbows/swords for all our employees and train them in how to use them so they'll be armed during the transition period. We need to either buy all our local cafeteria food from the nearest farmer and make sure he can bring it to use by horse or ox drawn wagons. Taking these steps may seem alittle paranoid, but you never know if that magic substance electricity will just stop working so we need to prepare now while we still have it for the day when we might not have it to depend on!

V for Vendetta ...

[0racle]

... was just a movie people.

Re:V for Vendetta ...

[jimstapleton]

No

It was also a comic book!

Re:V for Vendetta ...

[lixee]

Yet, Britain is following its inexorable fate. Loud-speakers are being added to CCTV cameras. http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/04/04/uk. cctv.reut/index.html

Trivia: A Londonian is caught around 300 times on camera each day.

Re:V for Vendetta ...

[vertinox]

Not to side track your argument, but both Animal Farm and 1984 actually happened in an actual country between 1917 and 1937.

It struck me odd after reading Edvard Radzinsky's book on Stalin how Stalin's life really mirrored Orwell's stories.

The point of the Television devices in 1984 weren't actually that technology controls society, but to rather to show the prevalence of informants amount the people. During the "Great Purges" of the 1930's everyone turned in everyone to the state for thought crimes. There was a statue built for a young boy who turned his parents in for plotting against Stalin.

Not to mention Stalin actually had government apartments for government officials with built in audio devices to listen for treason.

There were accounts of people on trial that confessed with tears they loved Stalin and admitted to every insane crime they were accused of and begged to be punished for their crimes.

So it is safe to say 1984 did happen and it wasn't about the CCTV issue but rather an allegory to that era.

Re:V for Vendetta ...

[ghostunit]

it's "graphic novel" you insensitive clod!

Re:V for Vendetta ...

[jimstapleton]

But does it run Linux?

Marxist revolution

[AxemRed]

Since when is Marxist revolution a sci-fi item?

Re:Marxist revolution

[gfxguy]

The fiction is for anybody who thinks Marxism is actually a good thing. I don't know where the science part comes in.

Re:Marxist revolution

[AndersOSU]

The science part comes from social science. Where social is synonymous with not-a-real.

Re:Marxist revolution

[CRCulver]

Well, there has been much sci-fi written about how changing technology or the difficulties of human space colonization could make a Marxist revolution more likely or more succesfully. Probably the best example I could think of is Kim Stanley Robinson's trilogy beginning with Red Mars , where the author has the revolutionaries who seek to break free from Earth speak at length about how certain Communist concepts may be applicable to their situation.

Re:Marxist revolution

[jimstapleton]

He had a few good ideas on the financial aspects. The socialpolitical aspects though... Makes me wonder if he was deaf, dumb and blind.

Two words are needed disproove the main keystone of the social idea that holds up the sociopolitical aspect of his theories...
Baroom Brawl

The working class does not inherantly get along, and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to cut down on the recreational narcotics.

That being said, crises of overproduction, business taking as much money as they can get, and abusing the lower classes (read: less wealthy), who cannot fight back in an organized manner (which would be needed with large corporations), are quite valid points that he made.

Re:Marxist revolution

[Lemmy Caution]

I have doubts about the possibility of the production of a classless society, but the fact that the working class is "rough" is no refutation of Marxism. He explicitly argued that the working class is rough because it is an oppressed, alienated class - and seeing what is happening to English society when the sense of social alienation grows, I'd have to say that it's a fair call.

Seeing the way that the autonomous workshops organized in Catalonia during the Spanish Republic gives some credibility to the idea that a working class that has political power doesn't act like the working class that doesn't. (It still doesn't act like the bourgeois, though.)

Re:Marxist revolution

[Caffeinate]

Since when is Marxist revolution a sci-fi item? Because /. doesn't have a poli-fi icon.

Re:Marxist revolution

[xmedar]

Since when is Marxist revolution a sci-fi item?

They mis-spelt Matrix.

Re:Marxist revolution

[cyphercell]

The socialpolitical aspects though... Makes me wonder if he was deaf, dumb and blind.
Are you saying "he sure played a mean pinball"?

Re:Marxist revolution

[PzyCrow]

Maybe Kevin Carsons "A Subjective Recasting of the Labor Theory of Value" would make it better?

http://www.mutualist.org/id47.html

Re:Marxist revolution

[Lemmy Caution]

When asked what the "dictatorship of the proletariat" looked like, Marx suggested that it was what was happening during the Paris Commune.

Re:Marxist revolution

[cyphercell]

It was a joke, http://users.cis.net/sammy/pinball.htm

One interesting speculation

[kripkenstein]

in TFA is the following:

Tension between the Islamic world and the west will remain, and may increasingly be targeted at China "whose new-found materialism, economic vibrancy, and institutionalised atheism, will be an anathema to orthodox Islam".

This is really the most interesting bit of speculation in TFA (aside from the technological and scientific guesses, perhaps, but these are probably also the least credible, if the past is any indication). Indeed, the rise of China will eventually bring it into possible tension with Islam. If the US is a state of 'infidels', then China is far more so, from a fundamentalist Islam point of view. At least the US has some religion, allowing interfaith talks, in theory at least; China is something else completely.

Islamic fundamentalists currently fume against the shower of western culture entering their lands - TV, movies, etc., and the presence of US soldiers. Fairly soon they will face (or already face) a torrent of goods and products from China, which will surely bring with it some cultural impact. Perhaps this will not be of critical impact until Chinese soldiers are stationed outside of China, but that too may occur, as China becomes the main consumer of middle-eastern oil and other resources, prompting it to secure those resources, if only by token military presences in various locations.

Re:One interesting speculation

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Nah, Already chinese imports are flooding the Arab countries. But all China exports are material goods. Islam has no problem with the goods. Infact the Arabs have been taxing goods flowing through the Silk Raod via Samarkand deep into China, into Turkey for a long long time.

The problem Islam has with the West is that we export our culture. We impact their way of life and embolden the youth to question their authorities. For every suicide bomber you hear about in Iraq, some 5000 of his brothers are standing in line to get a visa to USA. China, OTOH, loves authoritarianism and knows how to placate the rulers so that it can continue to make money. So I dont expect any serious confrontation between China and Islam. Only if Islamists decide to attack China and try to take it over there will be a problem. And China will react with violence which the Islamists understand very well. Fundamentally there is no difference between Arab rulers and Chinese rulers. Both are authoritarian. Both control their masses with a mixture of ideology and ruthlessness.

Re:One interesting speculation

[dave420]

Islam's problem is more that we export our influence to Muslim countries. Usually it has nothing to do with the countries being Muslim, and more to do with their location. Oil is a big example - many of the countries it's under are primarily Muslim in belief, so if we are interested in Oil, we seem to be interested in Islam and its followers. Couple that with the west's previous desire to make the middle east nothing but a colony (thanks Britain, France, and the US), and we have a history of us fucking with the middle east. No-one can expect anyone anywhere to behave or react rationally to such pressures, and many people may attribute the causes incorrectly - and it appears that the middle east is taking our "interest" in their oil as us wanting to fuck with them, just to fuck with them. Then throw in the cases of us fucking with non-middle-east Muslim countries (in Asia), and their paranoia increases. People who feel threatened, in any way, get insecure, and group together. It doesn't help that Islam has a notion of brotherhood between all Muslims in all countries (hard to believe when you look at Iraq, but it is the case for other Muslims not so severely threatened), which means any perceived "attack" on any Muslims in any country, by anyone, is an attack on ALL Muslims who feel fraternity with those "attacked" Muslims. I personally can't blame anyone for feeling insecure after their country has been plunged into chaos for reasons not explained, with motives that are rarely, if ever, altruistic in nature towards the indigenous population.

People are the same all over the world - when they get, or even feel, threatened as a people, they group together and fight back. It feels like the only thing to do - and it's not a purely Muslim trait. Northern Ireland saw Christian terrorists fighting each other, killing the shit out of innocent people, and each other. It's pressure, with no way to stop it peacefully, that causes terrorism, not one particular group of people.

Re:One interesting speculation

[greginnj]

So I dont expect any serious confrontation between China and Islam. Only if Islamists decide to attack China and try to take it over there will be a problem.

Don't forget the Chinese repression of their Uighur (Muslim) minority in western China. The Islamists tend to get very upset about forced deconversion and other forms of repression of Muslims.

And China will react with violence which the Islamists understand very well.

The American military reacted with violence in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that didn't seem to cool the Islamist's jets any. what makes you think the Chinese are any more prepared for asymmetric warfare now than the American army was four years ago?

Re:One interesting speculation

[Caffeinate]

I think the main difference here is that the US has some restraint when it comes to an attack; they don't actually intend to conquer and occupy the nation, just subjugate it/install a puppet government. If the Chinese were to be given sufficient cause to invade a Middle Eastern nation, with an army of over a hundred million IIRC, I don't believe they would have any trouble with a total occupation and assimilation (for example, Tibet - for counter-example-ish, Taiwan).

Re:One interesting speculation

[kamapuaa]

If the Chinese were to be given sufficient cause to invade a Middle Eastern nation, with an army of over a hundred million IIRC,

8% of the total population? The actual number is around 1.7 million. The US has about 1.4 million people in the army, and its army is much better funded, equipped, trained, and deployed. If China attempted an invasion of the Middle East, it would be an insane suicide mission that would at least result in Xinjiang breaking off, and probably the collapse of the Chinese government and economy.

Re:One interesting speculation

[kabocox]

Fundamentally there is no difference between Arab rulers and Chinese rulers. Both are authoritarian. Both control their masses with a mixture of ideology and ruthlessness.

That shows we are better than them because our leaders save their ruthlessness for foreigners. Our leaders control us through various means of ideology as well.

Re:One interesting speculation

[Caffeinate]

Actually, my numbers were off, but I really wasn't clear about what I meant.

The number of troops in China is somewhere in the vicinity of 7 million. However, China could amass an army of up to 100 million able bodies.

I'll confess that I don't remember the date of the article, but it was in Time magazine - talking about the rise of China as a superpower and the inevitability of China becoming the #1 superpower in the next 50 years or so; I'll look for the article online and see if I can get the exact figures.

Re:One interesting speculation

[greginnj]

I see your point ... but just as the intent of the US is relevant (i.e., not intending total subjugation), so is the intent of the Chinese. No one is interested in having the mideast turn into a smoking crater, least of all the Chinese, who need the oil too. And the logistics of getting those 100 million soldiers anywhere outide of China are pretty daunting -- look at the difficulties the US had logistically inside Iraq. This may lead them to decide against a 'full subjugation' objective.

I appreciate your even-handedness re Tibet and Taiwan -- note also their willingness to use the client-state model (various flavors) in Vietnam, N. Korea, etc., during the latter half of the last century.

Re:One interesting speculation

[Caffeinate]

It's true, the supply chain to keep millions of soldiers in an unconnected part of the world is almost unfathomable.

As for the ROC situation, my personal opinion is that China really doesn't see them as either a) a threat or b) worth invading. The only thing that Taiwan might be doing is stirring up the seeds of rebellion in mainland China, but other than that, there's really not anything the PRC desperately needs.

You're also quite right on the smoking crater; large scale bombardment and/or annihilation is not the aim, control is. China is actually doing a good job maintaining good relations with the Third World in that regard, even if the First World has their misgivings. I lived in Uganda between 1990-2001 and China was a MAJOR importer of things that the Western world wouldn't sell them - namely, military hardware. By doing this, China not only secures goodwill but essentially has the right of first refusal on exports from the country (and really the region - the ties with Tanzania are still strong from their Communist days - Kenya is still too Anglicized for any really strong ties to form). China is much more likely to keep ties strong with the West African nations to secure fossil fuels rather than trying to secure the goodwill of the OPEC nations - the Middle East invasion would really be an option of last resort (sort of like it was for the US - zing!)

Pretty offtopic as far as the article, but interesting nonetheless.

Re:One interesting speculation

[noidentity]

"The problem Islam has with the West is that we export our culture. We impact their way of life and embolden the youth to question their authorities."
Hmmm, I wonder if they could send some of that "question authorities" product back to the U.S.

Re:One interesting speculation

[MCTFB]

Never forget that China is a totalitarian regime that won't hesitate to deal with trouble makers using the most efficient and brutal methods available to them, which includes killing of the entire family tree of a trouble maker or genocide itself. After all, Tibet is not the only victim of ethnic cleansing, but East Turkistan is well as the Muslim minority there has been brutally oppressed by the government of the CCP, meanwhile the major Muslim nations of the world say and do nothing because they know China's government means business when it comes to dealing with dissenters.

It is kind of like feminists in the western nations. They furiously attack Christians, conservatives, and anything they deem patriarchal, yet they are totally silent when it comes to criticizing Islamic nations for how they treat their women. Just look at the total duplicity of the ardent feminist Nancy Pelosi going to Syria and how she didn't even bother mentioning the plight of women in that country. You could even say the same thing about Hillary Clinton (another ardent feminist).

Simply put, just as feminists are cowards in confronting irrational Muslims who believe in honor killings and stoning adulterous women, irrational Muslims are cowards when dealing with the Chinese because they know the Chinese don't mess around when suppressing dissidents.

Don't expect the radical Islamicists to engage China in any hostile way until the low-hanging fruit of the west has been displaced and Europe itself is under Sharia law.

Re:One interesting speculation

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

America is not using full force. It is trying very hard not to hurt the civilians. I am not saying America does not hurt civilians. But they dont do it deliberately. Abu Gharib happened and some of the military personnel were roasted and punished. If China was running Abu Gharib, the torture would have been worse, no pictures would have come out, even if pictures came out no Chinese army officer would have been called into account.

War is about Can I hurt you more than you are willing to tolerate before you could hurt me more than I am willing tolerate? Till about WW-II all nations have similar high level of tolerance to death/destruction/loss. Russia lost 20 million people including civilians. Germany about 8 mill, and USA about 0.5 mill. Presently the level of tolerance for loss in America is very low. The threshold the Islamic militants have to reach to "hurt" America is as low as killing one single solitary soldier. The level of tolerance to loss by Al Quaida is very very high. It is impossible for America to hurt al-Quaida enough before it kills one soldier. On the other hand, the level of tolerance to loss is very high for China. Islamists will lose badly to China.

Re:One interesting speculation

[Rich0]

I dunno - the US used to sell arms all over the world too. That buys you goodwill initially, but long-term I'm not sure what it gets you except more of a mess if you eventually need to occupy. Who do you think armed Iraq to begin with? Actually, Iran too to some degree, although that was under a different regime.

Re:One interesting speculation

[Semptimilius]

You assume China won't be exporting its culture in a couple decades? I think it already has been actively exporting it more and more. I'm certainly seeing more Chinese films (as an example) being shown here year after year. Hell, they're opening "Confucius Institutes" all over the globe.

I see China being in a similar position where segments of another society point to it as a source of their woes. However rightfully or wrongfully. (Happens in the West right now.)

Re:One interesting speculation

[Caffeinate]

I don't think it's just "used to". To the best of my knowledge, the US is still one of (if not THE) largest arms exporters in the world.

There is a certain amount of good to be said for not interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation, but selective interference doesn't get you any friends.

China's approach seems to be "we'll sell you whatever you want", without any moral implications whatsoever. It may not fit in with Western sensibilities, but as you said it does get the short term desired effect.

To be perfectly clear (in case I wasn't before) I don't think China will ever invade Nigeria et al; simply look to them (and former satellite states of the CCCP) for oil rather than the Middle Easta and OPEC.

Re:One interesting speculation

[Rich0]

For the most part though the US only exports to fairly stable nations (at the moment) - not too many petty dictatorships. (If I'm wrong please be sure to point it out - I'd be curious to learn...)

Most US arms are probably going to Europe, which isn't all that controversial (the mobs in France aren't that bad :) ). Probably the most controversial beneficiaries are Israel and Taiwan, but both are stable democracies that are unlikely to need an invasion anytime soon (whether they will actually have one anyway is anyone's guess though).

Re:One interesting speculation

[asninn]

But they dont do it deliberately.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "not deliberately" here. Do you mean that they always try to make sure to the best of their ability that no civilian is ever harmed and that the only times when it happens are genuine, unfortunate accidents? Or do you mean that they don't hurt (a pretty broad word, I must say) civilians *intentionally*, and that while they try to not cause unnecessary deaths or other harm, they also accept harm to civilians as a cost depending on what they want to achieve?

Consider the case of a hypothetical bank robber: as he's storming into a bank, gun drawn, a customer steps into his way and screams at him to stop; the bank robber forcefully pushes the customer away, who falls and breaks his arm. Did the bank robber "deliberately" "hurt" the customer now?

I mean... he didn't just walk up to the customer and break his arm for the fun of it. For that matter, he didn't even break the customer's arm because the customer was trying to stop him; it just happened as a result of his pushing the customer out of his way. But he didn't try to make sure it wouldn't happen, either.

If that's the best thing you can say about the USA's conduct throughout the world - that they don't hurt civilians just for the sake of hurting them -, then I'd say things really need to change. FWIW, where exactly do you draw the line, anyway? Even the inquisition didn't torture and kill people just for the fun of it: they had a very good reason, too, but that doesn't make what they did OK.

The ends do not justify the means, you know, and the families of people who die as a result of US foreign politics aren't going to be consoled when you tell them that you didn't "deliberately" kill them and that they only died because you didn't care too much about casualties (that is, because you cared only to the extent that those casualties would cause bad press for you).

Re:One interesting speculation

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

You are comparing America's behaviour to an ideal behaviour and you find it wanting. I was comparing its behaviour to other countries, specifically China. I find America's behaviour much better. There is really no contradiction here.

There is much truth to what you say, and we can not rest on our laurels and say "the others would have been much worse". We should question, challenge and continue to demand America to move towards ideals. But at the same time, forgetting to realize that what America is doing is better than what other countrues (would) have done is also a disservice to America.

Human Trafficking

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a lot of Human Trafficking there, too.

The problems with "probability" in this case...

[khasim]

They have absolutely NOTHING to base these predictions upon. Probability is based upon either analysis of the possible options (how many cards in the deck) or analysis of past events with similar features (45% chance of rain tomorrow).

The events they're commenting upon have not happened in the past (45% chance of rain) and are just one possible option of an effectively unlimited number of options (how many cards in the deck). And many of them seem self-contradictory.

An increased trend towards moral relativism and pragmatic values will encourage people to seek the "sanctuary provided by more rigid belief systems, including religious orthodoxy and doctrinaire political ideologies, such as popularism and Marxism".

So we see more extremism. But ...

Iran will steadily grow in economic and demographic strength and its energy reserves and geographic location will give it substantial strategic leverage. However, its government could be transformed. "From the middle of the period," says the report, "the country, especially its high proportion of younger people, will want to benefit from increased access to globalisation and diversity, and it may be that Iran progressively, but unevenly, transforms...into a vibrant democracy."

So the democracies become extremists and the extremists become democracies.

What the fuck ... ?

Re:The problems with "probability" in this case...

[coder.keitaro]

That would just be an updating of the political cycle described by Machiavelli.

chaos - despotism - democracy - despotism - chaos - etc.

I have more hope for the intelligence of some middle class wannabe revolutionaries though.
I think they will just use an embrace and extend style tactic to push their ideals on the greater proletariat while using FUD in the blogosphere against opposing ideologies.

After all this is the Web2.0 world we live in.

Re:The problems with "probability" in this case...

[Anonymous Coward]

How does that cycle continue? So far we've got (abbreviated):
c-ds-dm-ds-c

My guess is c-ds-dm-ds-c-ds-dm-ds-c-ds-dm-ds-c... but I'm not sure that's what you mean. Why would despotism which comes after chaos lead to democracy, while despotism that comes after democracy leads to chaos?

Re:The problems with "probability" in this case...

[fyngyrz]

Because one is an upswing in values, and the other is a downswing. These situations don't exist in a vacuum; they proceed from the previous state and they have inertia. Such inertia leads to the next state until the system collapses entirely.

Re:The problems with "probability" in this case...

[Vitriol Angst]

I think the government might be predicting the response of the people -- to continued bad government.

The only cure for the feisty middle class would be to start having an accountable government that responds to the people's needs, rather than enforcing things they don't want in order to profit some Corporation.

Since they don't envision being a Democracy in Britain's future, they see finding ways to coerce the populace into a situation they don't want, as good planning.

Re:The problems with "probability" in this case...

[Vitriol Angst]

Meaning Guilded ages brought on by laissez-faire Conservative and Business minded politics, that inevitably leads to an economic crash. Followed by hardship. Followed by true Democracy and enlightened principles (aka, FDR), followed by Peace Movements (liberal anarchy) followed by establishment types who work to get everyone to forget how the whole mess started and who tell everyone things like; "Deficits don't matter." Yet we find the populace bailing out the Banks -- but never the other way around.

But that pattern isn't necessarily a constant.

Germany went from Totalitarian in WW I, to anarchy with the Weimar, to Totalitarian again -- only after a war and total collapse was order restored with the Marshall Plan and Democracy. They have yet to move to anarchy after Democracy, as they slip quietly towards Corporate Conservatism -- though not to the extent that the US and Britain have. And I have a feeling that it might be circumvented as secrets get revealed in the US. So it isn't a matter of society -- but a matter of social conscience that these patterns repeat. We continually forget the lessons learned in the past - -because the wrong issues always get blamed.

>> Really, this is more a history of the elites, who game countries that get a Middle class that becomes too powerful. The rivalries between nations is to keep everyone from getting too empowered. Today, I think much of he power lies in offshore banks, for instance, and governments are getting weaker.

Pakistan vs. India. Iraq vs. Iran. Russia vs. China vs. US. All those threats designed to afford those governments the power to "protect the people."

Re:The problems with "probability" in this case...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the report isn't about probability. In fact, it's the failure to think outside of a probabilistic frame-work that led to discounting pre 9-11 intelligence about Osama. See also, Hurricane Katrina. The demographic and social trends are generalized...from the same trends we've seen in other countries and other decades. Iran becomes a democracy? Almost as strange as China the capitalist titan.

The report's discussion of the middle class is less extrapolation and more a snapshot of contemporary life--at least in the U S of A. American Fundamentalism? Many of its adherents are firmly middle class. Who's to say that in the future western middle classes won't turn to other, political fundamentalisms?

Using extrapolations for contemporary or historic statistics suffers from exactly the myopia you attempt to pin on the report. I understand the urge to look on this kind of stuff as "out there" or crazy...because this report describes an incredibly chaotic world that no one really wants. But in large measure isn't that exactly the kind of world we've come to live in?

Re:The problems with "probability" in this case...

[fyngyrz]

Meaning Guilded ages

Did you mean guilded as in unions and master/apprentice conventions, or "gilded" as in plated on the outside while pot metal in the center? The latter is a common construction in this kind of porch-step cultural analysis, but "guilded" has interesting connotations as well. ;-) Guilds certainly have an effect in this domain.

Re:The problems with "probability" in this case...

[Magada]

Err... No. The only cure against a feisty middle-class is a gulag. In Soviet Russia, it worked a treat. In BB Britain, it might work again.

Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[essence]

I'm in favour of radical systemic change, but let's not make the mistake of 20th century revolutions. The main problem was creating an all powerful state that owned everything, including the people. In one word: centralisation.

The new goal should be the total opposite: decentralisation, community sovereignty, individual freedoms. Instead of creating a centralized state to control everything, lets create global networks of autonomous local communities and workplaces. No central authority, no presidents, effectively no nation-states. Democracy works best when people can meet in real life, face to face. Direct democracy, or horizontal democracy (no hierarchy) means everyone can have a say on issues that effect them. That means small scale is best.

A.K.A: Anarchism.

The system I've just described is not unlike the Opensource community. So we have an example already that works.

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[kubrick]

Let's prove Bakunin right, in other words.

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in favour of radical systemic change, but let's not make the mistake of 20th century revolutions. The main problem was creating an all powerful state that owned everything, including the people. In one word: centralisation.

The new goal should be the total opposite: decentralisation, community sovereignty, individual freedoms.

You mean like what the USA had when they started out. :P

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[0olong]

Have you viewed any Debian mailing lists lately? :-> But, yeah I agree... at least anarchy is more "fun"!

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

What's in that for the power elite? Nothing, and that's exactly why anarchy won't be happening anytime soon.

I do agree with you 100% -- in fact I am a peaceful anarchist myself -- however it's impossible that it would happen in our lifetimes. Why? If a peaceful, productive anarchy were ever to emerge, it would be immediately destroyed by the current world superpower government. It would probably be attacked by several governments, probably with UN support, the whole nine. Centralized power has incredible momentum at this point in history, perhaps more so than ever before, and there is no way the power elite are going to to sit back and watch as a voluntary society discredits every single lie that the champions of organized coercion feed us.

No, the voluntary society won't have a chance until the majority of the world's governments move towards libertarianism, where centralized power is restrained enough -- both in revenue and power over the people -- to prevent imperialism. The world isn't even close to that today.

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[OldeTimeGeek]

And then what happens when my autonomous collective needs a some of resource that another autonomous collective controls, but is unwilling to share?

Without some supra-collective authority, who mediates the dispute? One can assume that all parties will deal rationally with each other, but that would fly in the face of thousands of years of human history. You only have to examine the ongoing disputes over water in the American West to see how badly groups of people allocate "shared" resources when left to their own devices.

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[Citizen of Earth]

Democracy works best when people can meet in real life, face to face. Direct democracy, or horizontal democracy (no hierarchy) means everyone can have a say on issues that effect them.

Um, laypeople are stupid. This is why direct democracy is not feasible.

That means small scale is best.

It also means that large-scale is impossible. I hope you don't need a road that extends beyond your own block.

the Opensource community. So we have an example already that works.

I suspect that most if not all Open-Source projects are either authoritarian regimes or highly-centralized pseudo-democracies.

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anarchy only means the lack of a special "right" to employ coercion. In other words, a voluntary society, where coercion has no place except for self-defense. A society where the only mandate (so to speak) is voluntary association, and the only prohibition (so to speak) is coercion. Nothing more, nothing less.

Anarchy does not mean "chaos" as government teaches you. It does not mean lack of morals, lack of rules, or lack of compassion. They have to tell you that. If the majority of the subject class believed that life without government was possible, let alone preferable, that wouldn't be very good for the people who built their fortunes on centralized power, would it?

The Amish are an example of anarchy (however small) which happens to lean towards socialism. Coercion has no place in their society: they are there because they choose to be there. They help each other because they choose to help each other, not because of a centralized power telling them what to do under the threat of force. The Amish are allowed to exist by the superpower government surrounding them, only because they pose no economic threat to organized coercion. You can bet that if the Amish started to practice anarcho-capitalism instead of anarcho-socaialism -- building actual economic presence -- they would be immediately destroyed by the US government. For now, organized coercion simply points and chuckles, "how cute".

In fact, if we pretend that government wasn't there for a minute, you practice anarchy every day of your life. Your relationship with just about everybody but government is anarchist in nature: your friends, your family, your employer, your mechanic, your waiter at the restaurant. You do operate on the principle of voluntary association, rather than coercion, don't you? ;)

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[Luke Dawson]

Sounds rather like the original democracies of ancient Greece.

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[dominion]

One can assume that all parties will deal rationally with each other, but that would fly in the face of thousands of years of human history.

Actually, no, thousands of years of human history fly in the face of your supposition that people aren't capable of that.

For instance, the Iroquois Confederation

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[ArcherB]

The new goal should be the total opposite: decentralisation, community sovereignty, individual freedoms. Instead of creating a centralized state to control everything, lets create global networks of autonomous local communities and workplaces. No central authority, no presidents, effectively no nation-states. Democracy works best when people can meet in real life, face to face. Direct democracy, or horizontal democracy (no hierarchy) means everyone can have a say on issues that effect them. That means small scale is best.

You mean where tribal leaders control everything. How's that working out in Pakistan and Afghanistan? Do the people there have a high quality of life?

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you don't need a road that extends beyond your own block.

The people who live on that block will fund/make that part of the road.

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. He can, however, be trusted with the government of others.

You know, something smells fishy, but I just can't put my finger on it.

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[VaticDart]

The new goal should be the total opposite: decentralisation, community sovereignty, individual freedoms. Instead of creating a centralized state to control everything, lets create global networks of autonomous local communities and workplaces. No central authority, no presidents, effectively no nation-states. Democracy works best when people can meet in real life, face to face. Direct democracy, or horizontal democracy (no hierarchy) means everyone can have a say on issues that effect them. That means small scale is best.

A good idea... funny, Marx has the exact same idea! If you actually read Marx, and most people who are willing to voice opinions on Marx have read nothing, or only the Manifesto (which he was asked to write, and really didn't want to), you realize that most of the problems with the attempts at Marxist systems, regardless of what other flaws exist in Marx's thinking (and there are lots!), was the way they went about trying to get to a Marxist system. Sovietism is a perfect example: the word "Soviet" literally refers to small, worker controlled, local governmental bodies. The original idea, if you read Lenin's writings, was that the USSR was going to be a loose confederate of these Soviets, working together for the common good. Obviously, that's not what happened.

The real problem with all of the 20th century attempts at Marxism is no one ever figured out how to fundamentally change the way people thought, or at least attempt it, without a strong centralized system. The original thinking was that once that strong, centralized government achieved its goal, it could simply melt away, leaving a fully functional Marxist society behind with little or no centralization. I don't think there has ever been a strong government that just decided its work was done, folded up shop, and went home.

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[OldeTimeGeek]

A single shining instance of human rationality doesn't necessarily a complete refutation make.

Yes, it worked - until the Europeans came. But the native population had virtually unlimited land and resources to work with. They also had a very small population as a starting point.

Maybe it's 'cause I'm getting old and cynical, but after having participated in neighborhood and other (larger) groups, I can't see more than five people working in a collective manner, let alone every human.

Try getting three people to agree where to go for lunch...

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[Caffeinate]

. . . anarchy is more "fun"! No, WoW is the superior game!

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[DavidShor]

That incentive structure is fucked up, certain roads are more valuable than others, and should be given more resources to build. What mechanism controls resource allocation?

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[alexgieg]

Anarchism doesn't work for a single reason: because there are four basic kinds of human personality with four different life goals. They are:

a) Intellectuals: driven by knowledge;
b) Rulers: driven by power;
c) Entrepreneurs: driven by profit;
d) Workers: driven by stability.

An Anarchist society cannot work because it doesn't address the needs of all the people that have the Ruler or Entrepreneur personality. And even if you fine tune it to allow for free market, as the anarcho-capitalists do, thus filling the needs of the Entrepreneurs, the Rulers still stay out of it (with lots of Workers, who lose much of their cherished stability).

A working society must allow for all new born persons to have a place. And so far, a government with well known powers under a constitutional framework offers a good place for Rulers to battle their battles without disrupting (much) the life of the other three kinds.

It's either this, or back into utopic profilings and pre-emptive killings of any person who showed traces of non-compliant personalities. As revolutionary marxists used to do with anyone showing signs of Entrepreneur behavior.

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then we go towards anarcho-capitalism and kill the Rulers. Problem solved.

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[dominion]

But the native population had virtually unlimited land and resources to work with. They also had a very small population as a starting point.

The urban centers that the Iroquois lived in were as large as most major European cities at the time. Population density was very high, almost 200 people per acre. Every place that has a cultural history of direct democracy is able to handle it. There have been consensus meetings of 3000 people in Mexico City's UNAM. The encuentros and assemblias popular in South America will sometimes number in the thousands.

It's hard to imagine, from a western standpoint, and especially a USian standpoint, that people can work together in large groups without a single central authority. But many examples of such exist through human history, and still exist today.

The cultural importance people people put on direct democracy and participation is what makes it possible. Even though most USians seem completely incapable of this, doesn't mean that cultures and perspectives don't change.

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[dominion]

because there are four basic kinds of human personality with four different life goals.

  "There are four kinds of business: tourism, food service, railroads, and sales...and hospitals/manufacturing...and air travel." - Michael Scott

Human is way more complex and nuanced than you're positing. Sorry your attempts at sounding academically informed have failed, but I'm going to have to ask for some sort of reference or series of studies which corroborate your assertion.

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[Citizen of Earth]

What mechanism controls resource allocation?

War.

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[Viceroy Potatohead]

I can't believe that the parent was modded insightful. The description/categorization is cruder than Astrology. That really gets my humours out of whack!

However, to go with the ridiculous simplification: There is a place for the (gag) ruler type of person in an Anarcho-syndicalist system, just as there is a place for the entrepreneur type in an Anarcho-capitalist system.

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[alexgieg]

Human is way more complex and nuanced than you're positing.

Yes, they are. There are lots of types and subtypes of each kind of goal: knowledge, power, profit and stability. And yet, there isn't a 5th category beyond these. Try to find one and I'll show you why and how it's actually part of one of the basic four.

Sorry your attempts at sounding academically informed have failed, but I'm going to have to ask for some sort of reference or series of studies which corroborate your assertion.

But who said anything about academic study? But now that you mention it, I believe you'll find a lot on the subject at the Department of Religious Studies of Paris University. Not sure whether you'll like it though. Or maybe on the original Academy, not its follow ups.

20th and 21st centuries psychologies are so down. Minus 4th is way more on the spot. ;-)

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[alexgieg]

Show me a 5th type and I'll agree. :-)

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are correct that anarchy could never work (on a large scale) in today's world. But otherwise you are barking up the wrong tree.

Objectively, there is nothing impossible or invalid about the voluntary society. Philosophically, what could possibly be accomplished through coercion -- besides injustice -- that couldn't be accomplished through voluntary association? Logically, and with respect to human nature, voluntary association can accomplish anything. That should be self-evident, even after years of indoctrination.

After all, the Amish have been doing it (anarchy) for years -- to the extent where they haven't been impeded by the surrounding superpower government.

The real reason why anarchy would never work (in today's world) is this: If a peaceful, productive anarchy were to emerge and draw economic interest, it would be immediately destroyed by the current world superpower. It would probably be attacked by multiple governments, probably even with UN support. The excuse could simply be picked out of a barrel: drugs, free (truly free) trade, political enemies taking refuge, whatever. But at last, the real reason is that it would threaten the world order which is, at the heart, founded solidly on organized coercion. There is no way the power elite would just sit back and watch as a voluntary society discredits everything government stands for. There are literally trillions invested in organized coercion across the globe, and you can bet your house the power elite are going to protect that order with everything they've got.

As I mentioned, the Amish have been doing it for years. They are an example of anarcho-socialism. The special "right" to employ coercion, which defines government, doesn't exist in their society. So why haven't they been destroyed by the superpower government yet? Simple: they pose no economic threat. The superpower government simply points and chuckles, says "how cute", and gets back to counting their billions in revenue. However, if the Amish decided to adopt a more anarcho-capitalist approach -- and started creating real wealth and an economic system based on voluntary association -- their voluntary society would be destroyed faster than you can say the word "conquered".

Sometimes the truth ain't pretty.

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[Viceroy Potatohead]

There could be thousands, but I'll give two. One that breaks things up into your simplified categories, and one which I think better represents the complexity of people:

e) Hedonists: driven by sensualism.
f) All of the above.

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[alexgieg]

e) Hedonists: driven by sensualism.

This is a subtype of "stability". The person for whom his self pleasure is the most important things is afraid of anything that might disrupt the fulfilling of these pleasures. Contrary to those who pursue power or profit, he won't take risks that might have as a possible consequence he not being able to enjoy these pleasures anymore, unless the enjoyment is the risk itself. But even so, it's a very specific kind of risk, and he won't depart from the routine of experiencing this specific kind of risk if he can avoid it. Provided the means for his pleasure attainment are permanently available, he will want to keep things unchanged for as long as possible, and this is all there is to his goal in life: for things to stay exactly as they are.

So, your first attempt didn't work. But feel free to try again.

f) All of the above.

I didn't say a person couldn't have more than one goal. But one is prevailing. A ruler, for example, will usually do everything he can to avoid losing power, except maybe breaking some moral code he follows. Thus, in this sense he also seeks stability. But the goal of having power forever won't prevent him from risking this same power if, by being successful in this pursuit, he could end up with even more power. On the other hand, he can shape his pursue of power in a way that also yields economic gains. But the main factor continues to be power. Everything else is secondary.

Instead of thinking on these four goals as static wholes, which it seems to me to be what you're doing, you consider them to be axis, with one of them being the main and the other three secondary, with the person staying on differing positions on each one, it'll become clearer. It's a tool for understanding complexity, not a way to avoid it.

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[oblivionboy]

and:

e) Artists: driven by art.
f) Conservationists: driven by conservation.
g) Teachers: driven by the need to educate and help others enhance themselves
h) Mechanics: driven by the need to hot rod their car.
i) Geeks: driven by the need for the latest video cards and photos of Nathalie Portman's hot....

etc. .o.

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[BatMacumba]

"The person for whom his self pleasure is the most important things is afraid of anything that might disrupt the fulfilling of these pleasures. Contrary to those who pursue power or profit, he won't take risks that might have as a possible consequence he not being able to enjoy these pleasures anymore, unless the enjoyment is the risk itself...etc."

You wouldn't happen to be a philosophy undergrad, would you?

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[istewart]

All right, we will assume the truth of your proposition. Next question: what gives rise to these personality types?

Actually, you know what, fuck it. Just admit it: You pulled that out of your ass, didn't you?

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[Viceroy Potatohead]

Contrary to those who pursue power or profit, he won't take risks that might have as a possible consequence he not being able to enjoy these pleasures anymore

People have been taking incredible risks throughout all of history just to get laid. Whether the risk is two underage kids getting grounded, screwing the biker neighbour's wife, losing status in a prudish environment, going to jail for homosexuality, not having a condom and having sex with a stranger anyways, paying a prostitute while the wife and kids are at home...... people take all sorts of risks for pleasurable sensations. Not to mention the risks involved to snort a bit of coke, drop a couple of tabs of acid, drink underage, or smoke an occasional joint. People do this stuff all the time. I suspect much more regularly than they cheat on their taxes for the sake of profit.

Anyhow. You have an interesting understanding of human beings.

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[Kirth]

I wouldn't count the Amish as anarchists, but anyway, anarchist societies DID exist, and they were all destroyed from the outside, from some other power like the roman empire or francos fascists.

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do following people fit in your four types?

Sociopaths: cannot follow or impose law, ignores obligations, engages in poor planning, remorseless, reckless, and ill tempered.

Psychopaths: antisocial behaviour without compunction, lack or loss of insight, inability to follow any life plan.

Schizophrenics: driven by hallucinations or delusions, demonstrating a strong need to sort items into categories while demonstrating largely disorganized thinking or behaviour.

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[alexgieg]

Where do following people fit in your four types?

People whose minds are damaged obviously don't fill any of the four roles. They aren't part of society, they are something with which society must deal. How to deal with them is one of attributions of Intellectuals and Rulers. Intellectuals, by setting frameworks upon which proposals can be developed, and developing the proposals themselves. Rulers, by selecting among these proposals those that are actually doable and applying them. Everything set so that the wealth generating abilities of Entrepreneurs as well as the stability craved by the Workers don't get damaged.

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[alexgieg]

People have been taking incredible risks throughout all of history just to get laid. Whether the risk is two underage kids getting grounded, screwing the biker neighbour's wife, losing status in a prudish environment, going to jail for homosexuality, not having a condom and having sex with a stranger anyways, paying a prostitute while the wife and kids are at home...... people take all sorts of risks for pleasurable sensations. Not to mention the risks involved to snort a bit of coke, drop a couple of tabs of acid, drink underage, or smoke an occasional joint. People do this stuff all the time. I suspect much more regularly than they cheat on their taxes for the sake of profit.

Yes, but this enters another topic, complementary and related to the four psychological types, but not directly deriving from them. The four types are -- let's put it like this -- long term, external-oriented, objective driving forces that don't change much or at all through the life of the individual. But there are also four somewhat unstable, changeable, internally-oriented, subjective driving-forces that couple to the previous four: "sensualism", "material well-being", "social role accommodation" and "meaning seeking". Note that neither these nor the four types I've been talking about are rational choices, but psychological orientations. Thus, if the person is at a moment in his life where seeking sensual pleasures of many kinds are at a high (what usually happens in youth), this can and usually will make his psychological type less noticeable. But other than this, the other three subjective forces fall within the clear scope determined by the psychological type the individual has.

So, the material well-being of an Intellectual, his possible social roles, his eventual seeking of meaning, won't be the same or even similar to those of a Ruler, or of a Entrepreneur, or of a Worker. And even when the sensual force is at its peak the four types won't show it in quite the same way. The Intellectual would be more of an aesthetical sensual seeking, even when it comes down to sex, while the Entrepreneur might focus more on the "conquest and show to all" aspect of it. And so on and so forth.

Of course, nothing on this apply to people whose mind is or become damaged. These cases are exceptions that must be dealt with so that they can someday, maybe, reenter society, not parts of society per se. This isn't a "psychology of the abnormal". It's a psychology of normality. And it works in contradistinction to more common psychologies which, don't having a theory of normality, at best tried to describe what normality is through statistics or, at worst (more common in the first half of the 20th century), tried to understand normality by observing tons and tons and tons of cases of abnormality.

Anyhow. You have an interesting understanding of human beings.

It's not mine. Billions of people share it. I only articulate it as well as I can. Common sense sounds good when expressed in an intelligible way. ;)

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[alexgieg]

You wouldn't happen to be a philosophy undergrad, would you?

Yes, I am. :)

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[alexgieg]

I have answered a reply similar to yours on another point in this thread. Please read the whole thread and reply there if you so wish. :)

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[alexgieg]

All right, we will assume the truth of your proposition. Next question: what gives rise to these personality types?

Sorry, but I'm neither a geneticist nor a neurologist. These are the people tasked with answering this question. My job is simply trying to describe what happens. "How" and "why" it happens like this and not like that is and entirely different matter, but for it to be pursued someone must first show the "what".

Actually, you know what, fuck it. Just admit it: You pulled that out of your ass, didn't you?

Nope, sorry. I don't admit it and the answer is "No, I didn't." :)

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[alexgieg]

Objectively, there is nothing impossible or invalid about the voluntary society. Philosophically, what could possibly be accomplished through coercion -- besides injustice -- that couldn't be accomplished through voluntary association? Logically, and with respect to human nature, voluntary association can accomplish anything. That should be self-evident, even after years of indoctrination.

Philosophically nothing can be accomplished, since Philosophy isn't about accomplishing things, but about understanding things. Anyway, the point is simply that, people being different, there are people for whom voluntary association works, and there are people that are different from these in that for them merely voluntary association doesn't work. Thus, this isn't an absolute refusal of the idea of voluntary society, but a relativization of it. It is indeed possible, for some people. For others, it isn't. It's simple as that, and profound as that.

Let's take the case of the Amish, wich you mentions. They, as everyone else, have people with the Ruler psychology. But Rulers, as everyone else, are born and risen in a given cultural framework, incorporating these values, and Amish rulers are no exception. Thus, they will pursue power according to the limits established by his deep belief in the Amish faith, self-limiting themselves. What kind of self-limitation? The self-limitation of relying almost exclusively on rhetorically-induced compliance. He still commands, but his commandments are in the form of carefully crafted words that cause their fellow Amishes to act in the way he wants, while still believing they themselves have chosen what to do. In other words, he still rules, but his rulership isn't self-evident. And any kind of real-world, historically existing anarchy is exactly like that. You still have a system of rules and rulers. What you don't have is a visible, institutionalized system of rules, and visible, appointed (or self-appointed, that makes no difference for this argument) rulers. But they are still there, always present, always acting, always being what they must be.

A system of pure anarchy, where everyone has the same amount of power is utopic for the sole reason that only a small handful of people in any human group has the Ruler psychological type and abilities. In the extremely rare cases where there's no one with the Ruler psychological type present, either Entrepreneurs or Intellectuals take the load (and by not being tailored to it they also aren't very good at it, but they manage). In any case however, there's simply no situation where everyone is equally enabled to rule. This simply doesn't happens, and at a minimum there's always someone, or a small group of persons, whom everyone else listens to and whose "suggestions" they almost always obey to the letter. Including, yes, on how to coercively deal with non-cooperative members.

So, if you want to change how the Rulers act, your only option is to act as an Intellectual by changing the cultural framework inside which they work, so that this new cultural framework both limits and orients them. This is a very long process, and please note that attempts at socially engineering it usually fail due to unintended consequences. Also whatever results you might expect from it, whether they'll happen as planned or (more likely) not, will usually be noticed only many, many years after you're dead. Any belief that this can be done fast, or that is suffices to replace a group of rulers with another, or worse, that is suffices to kill all rulers, is delusional. Any new group will still work under the same or at least a very similar cultural framework, thus gravitating towards its consequential forms of power practice.

Regarding the remaining of your text, I don't know whether I agree or not. It's possible that yes, a voluntary society would be crushed by the currently existing powers. But this is by no means certain. Some attempts are being done at such a destruction in, I

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

[alexgieg]

I've replied to the OP. Give it a look! :)

Global Circumstances

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't intend to poke fun at the British peoples or anything, but I am inclined to express my concern. I began to toy with this idea after watching Children of Men, which caused my concern really started to reach its pinnacle, with this report solidifying it.

Can all of these circumstances be viewed as a cry for help?

What I mean is, so many movies out of Britain really paint a dismal picture of the future with urbanization and then the fall of society. That with near daily Orwellian reports about the copious amounts of surveillance the British citizens put up with, and it starts to feel like we, be it the United States or whomever else as a third party should be taking some cues here to help.

Re:Global Circumstances

[ltjr]

Hrmm.. you're right. We need to free them from their oppressive regime and inflict democracy on them. Do they have oil?

Re:Global Circumstances

[Chemicalscum]

Yes - They do have oil, North Sea oil.

Re:Global Circumstances

[DavidShor]

And weapons of mass descruction too! This is a slam dunk case.

2035 == no oil

[xmedar]

When the military has no oil for its war machine what is it going to do? I guess they missed the elephant in the room there.

Also -

and even what it calls "declining news quality"

Maybe they shouldnt be letting their personnel sell their stories then... pot, kettle, black.

Re: 2035 == no oil

[wes33]

oh ... I wouldn't worry about the *military* getting oil supplies in 2035; I'd worry about the rest of us.

Re: 2035 == no oil

[NDPTAL85]

You are living in a dream land if you think there won't be an oil around in 2035.

Re: 2035 == no oil

[couchslug]

"When the military has no oil for its war machine what is it going to do?"

The military will have fuel or make fuel. There will still be coal in 2035 so there will be some oil. Biodiesel is another option (though not a replacement) since most military vehicles run on diesel.

Don't let them distort the term!

[Rinisari]

The media, regardless of whereabouts, cannot be allowed to distort the term "flash mob" like it has so many other terms, i.e. "hacker" and the like. A flash mob is a group of people that rapidly assembles with a minimum amount of preparation which generally is done via the Internet and with the intent of a peaceable prank or bragging rights. I did some research on this term while working on my college graduation project.

Re:Don't let them distort the term!

[nacturation]

Right... and "war" is a term where two armies line up on opposite sides of a battlefield in single lines and then march towards each other, trying to kill as many on the opposing side as possible.

Re:Don't let them distort the term!

[Peter Trepan]

The media, regardless of whereabouts, cannot be allowed to distort the term "flash mob" like it has so many other terms, i.e. "hacker" and the like

What are you, some kind of "liberal?"

Re:Don't let them distort the term!

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting. The flash mob idea must have really scared someone high up.

Bright side?

[Applekid]

But on the up-side, at least by 2035 my mortgage will be paid off. From the tune of TFA, a lot of good THAT will do me.

Time to blow it all on hookers and blackjack, I guess.

Karl Marx? Quick!

[Centurix]

One final question Karl and the beautiful lounge suite will be yours... Are you going to have a go? (Karl nods) You're a brave man. Karl Marx, your final question: who won the Cup Final in 1949?

Re:Karl Marx? Quick!

[Rob the Bold]

The workers' control of the means of production?

Re:Karl Marx? Quick!

[zentinal]

No. It was in fact, Wolverhampton Wanderers who beat Leicester 3-1.

Re:Karl Marx? Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

N'oh shit!

So you say you want a revolution?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

If you want a revolution, you're a dumbass. Forget communism, with the implications of violent overthrow of the ruling class. We've already had that, and it didn't work. Meanwhile, in other parts of the world, we HAVE thrown off the ruling class, and we're letting them back into their old jobs by small measures, through tax cuts and corporate welfare.

This is how socialism and eventually communism will happen - by default, naturally, no revolution. The cost of capitalizing a new activity will eventually drop to near zero for everything. I don't know if this is going to happen through a universal nanotech assembler, or through ubiquitous robotic slaves building shit for us in exchange for duracells, but it's going to happen. Everything is going to eventually be so cheap that it won't be worth selling. When you can get your robot to build you a car of your own design, and all you have to do is plug it in, you won't be going to Ford to buy a piece of shit Tempo-like ugly box. No, you'll design your own, or you'll download a GNU car schematic of something cool like the Linux-go-cart and tell your robot slave to build it for you. Richard Stallman will finally become relevant to everyone when his ideas move up a level of implementation from computers to the real world. It'll be just like Second Life where you use a computer editor to change your house - and your REAL house changes into a castle. Plus you can edit the length of your own cock to keep up with the Jones's. Hell, your wife could edit the length of her cock too!

That's my fantasy. Now, who's written a nice sci-fi novel about that?

Re:So you say you want a revolution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rudy Rucker - *ware series. Read em.

Re:So you say you want a revolution?

[delt0r]

Iain Banks in his Culture series would be at the mark. The Culture have everything you want, you just ask and poof, you receive.

Re:So you say you want a revolution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stephenson -- Diamond Age, Snow Crash

Re:So you say you want a revolution?

[CRCulver]

In The Diamond Age there was a ruling class that was more powerful than ever. Its protagonist was an urchin or sorts, for pete's sake. The novel isn't at all like what the OP describes.

Re:So you say you want a revolution?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

I read them. Not the same. I think if you've got a world where anybody can make anything they want for essentially no cost, you won't need enclaves like Wong's. Why would you be a criminal when it's easier just to have your robot make you all the bling bling bling you could want? The only thing in short supply would be pussy, and that's a separate topic. I went into the pussy shortage conspiracy in one of my old journal entries. I don't see any kind of socialism fixing that.

Re:So you say you want a revolution?

[happyemoticon]

OP's discussion did not say anything about where the material and power comes from.

Basically, the world of the Diamond Age was intensely stratified because those at the top had a stranglehold on resources, just like they do today. Sure, a lot of the people seen in the book make their living by selling nanoscale designs and software, but as seen in the very first pages of the book, the Victorians control the Feed, which provides everyone with both the matter and energy necessary to live. It's like the power company, if the power company also provided you with food and material goods, and if it were a global hegemony ruled by stockholders so rich and static they adopted feudal titles.

Part of the book's overall thrust was about Seed technology, which China (which looks much like China following the Opium wars of the 1800's) really wants and those who currently control the economy want to stamp out. With Seed technology, you just plant this little thing in the ground, and it siphons off minerals from the bedrock and trash, elements from the air and earth, and uses the energy of the sun and ambient heat or even small-scale fusion to produce a car, which sprouts a dozen other Seeds so your neighbors can plant their own cars.

Re:So you say you want a revolution?

[OldeTimeGeek]

A shortage of cats? Can't the replicators make those, too?

Re:So you say you want a revolution?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Goddamn, I WISH. I'd replicate them already inside of little cages, saving me the trouble of chasing them around the house with a hardon.

Re:So you say you want a revolution?

[smchris]

You want sci fi: A for Anything, Damon Knight

When you can effortlessly duplicate all goods, the only status comes from the number of human beings you own as a feudal master.

Don't confuse ease of manufacturing with equality of rights. We already have adequate ease of manufacturing. The problem is finding the people to buy the stuff after it is created.

Marx remains completely relevant in his observations as a political scientist. State communism does not. What is created will be interesting to see. But that there will be an uprising is quite sure. I've been telling everybody I know since at least 2000 that the end of the 20th century is the second (information) age of the robber barons as the end of the 19th century was the culmination of the industrial age of the original robber barons. No great insight there. Less popular is saying that the mainstream media will be unable to maintain hegemony and the desperation of immense inequality will force people into the streets in a neosocialist movement around 2020-30 as it did in the 1920s and 30s.

Just a reasoned prediction, not a wish. Hegelian, if you want, based on past cycles which we apparently don't have the wisdom to control yet. Not my choice to have the coming "interesting times" coincide with my becoming old and frail like some Kris Kristophersen in a bad goth cyberpunk movie.

Re:So you say you want a revolution?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Don't confuse ease of manufacturing with equality of rights. We already have adequate ease of manufacturing. The problem is finding the people to buy the stuff after it is created.

Excellent point, but I would suggest that if everything is easily manufactured for almost no cost, you couldn't sell anything anyway. Why would I buy a car from you when my robotic slave can make it just as cheaply as your robot can? Prices would collapse. It would be impossible to sell finished goods to anybody as a result.

So what would we do? Start with a simple case. Imagine if programmers had a mysterious wealthy benefactor that paid all their bills for them and brought groceries to their houses, without demanding anything in return, not even work. We'd sit around and write GPL software all day long and give it away. I could happily do that every day for the rest of my life.

Now, imagine if you could sit around and DESIGN CARS all day long, under the same conditions. There'd be an amazing market of open source cars which your robot slaves would build for free.

Nanotech universal assemblers and robots would do all the work, and we humans would just sit around and do cool stuff. Robots would build other robots, and their population would double in a single generation overnight if necessary. They would mine the minerals, grow the food, and deliver the raw steel that your robots would turn into open source cars, at your whim, according to your design.

The GPL and GPL software disproves your idea. We all have the ability to make use of machines which don't cost anything to replicate right now. We can make as many copies of Debian Linux as we want to, and nobody's getting enslaved by it. RMS and Linus haven't divided the world between them, and we don't consider them to be our feudal masters. Yet, they are both responsible for creating billions of copies of their complicated machines which we call computer programs.

A world in which creating another car is as simple as typing "cp mycar yourgarage" is not one that would support feudal masters. I'll just do a "cp myguns *" and watch the overlords fall.

Re:So you say you want a revolution?

[Eli Gottlieb]

But everyone would still need raw materials and energy.

Re:So you say you want a revolution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Accelerando

Charlie Stross

It's free as in beer.

Go get it RIGHT NOW!

http://www.accelerando.org/

What are you waiting for?

Re:So you say you want a revolution?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

The robots mine the stuff for you. The robots build energy plants. The robots run them. Imagine today that you're living on welfare, except your welfare is something good, like a half mil a year. And meat robots do everything for you. Those meat robots are called people.

Same thing, except instead of meat robots, I propose metal and plastic non-people robots, and every human being is on welfare, supported by robots. I won't have to mine anything. The robots will do that. If I need more robots, I'll just have my robots build some more robots.

Re:So you say you want a revolution?

[Eli Gottlieb]

So basically, Asimov's Solaria with human contact?

Re:So you say you want a revolution?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Absolutely. I've never claimed to be original.

Missing prediction...

[Notquitecajun]

It talks about the declining European population, but NOT the rising population of muslims in Europe (particularly France). Plenty of kowtowing is going to Muslims in Europe as well, with little pressure to become "westernized," and therefore allowing more extremist sides of Islam to enter Europe. We're already seeing pockets where Sharia law is allowed in England, France, and Germany, and we're probably not to far from seeing an "Islamicization" of Europe, which will be an interesting mix. Australia is taking a different approach - it seems like they're making sure that Sharia law is not going to be imposed, but Australian law. America is going to be an interesting bag - most muslims here are VERY westernized and stay within urban areas or college towns; however, it is very difficult for them to use Sharia law unless it is done somewhat "off the books." I think that we're going to see some try and impose Sharia law within a community here in the states, but at some point there is going to be a backlash.

Re:Missing prediction...

[Anonymous Coward]

America is going to be an interesting bag

America will watch europe go through her death throes and learn from it. Good luck to those in francistan.

Re:Missing prediction...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is such transparent bullshit racist propaganda, I can't believe it got modded up.

Did you know that French Muslims are, on average, less anti-Semitic than Americans? One of the things I don't get about you Reich-wingers is on one hand you criticize Yurp for being so godless and secular and then on the other you talk about it going Islamic. Do you really think the decadent godless fags of Europe will stand by idle in the face of theocracy?

Re:Missing prediction...

[Notquitecajun]

Which continent is the one that allows Sharia law courts? Which is the one where Muslims nearly riot over a CARTOON?

I also believe it was France that had a ton of Muslim youths rioting all over the place. I don't recall massive Muslim riots in America.

The reason that parts of Europe are going to go Islamic is because of the attitude that all ways of life are equal - even to the point that it allows views as extreme as Sharia law which takes away basic civil rights.

Re:Missing prediction...

[stubear]

"Do you really think the decadent godless fags of Europe will stand by idle in the face of theocracy?"

Yes. Much like WWWII with the Third Reich, France will roll over (they've already started) first and allow theocracy to gain a foothold in Europe makign it much easier for the Jihadist invasion to follow.

Re:Missing prediction...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Do you really think the decadent godless fags of Europe will stand by idle in the face of theocracy?"

You, sir, are completely and utterly clueless about Europe. You have no idea, it is like you are from a different planet. If you in spite of being an AC find a way to offer compelling evidence that you are living in Europe and have so for at least ten years (and hence would know Europe first hand) then I'll gladly transfer you a thousand pounds, as I consider it extremely utterly unlikely.

I would expand on this, but every European who reads this will either 1) know exactly what I am talking about, or 2) label you the racist for somehow construing that the diverse and undeniably steadily growing group of muslim individuals are somehow acting in concert towards a linguistic construct of theocracy, or even that _you_ would be the cause of anything bad happening by implying that it could. But again, however intellectual you may consider yourself, you have absolutely no clue or knowledge of Europe.

Re:Missing prediction...

[Anonymous Coward]

> One of the things I don't get about you Reich-wingers is on one hand you criticize Yurp for being so godless and secular and then on the other you talk about it going Islamic.

A group of people is likely to have more than one opinion on a subject, and no one speaker's opinions are necessarily representative of the rest of the group's. That's probably where you're confused. (Don't take this as an argument that there aren't people who do indeed hold contradictory positions.)

It would be just as uncritical to say that on one hand left-wingers constantly bash Christianity, but on the other hand call anyone racist who speaks out against Islam, the biggest religion after Christianity.

Re:Missing prediction...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Do you really think the decadent godless fags of Europe will stand by idle in the face of theocracy?"

You, sir, are completely and utterly clueless about Europe. You have no idea, it is like you are from a different planet. If you in spite of being an AC find a way to offer compelling evidence that you are living in Europe and have so for at least ten years (and hence would know Europe first hand) then I'll gladly transfer you a thousand pounds, as I consider it extremely utterly unlikely. This is quite clever, a subtle ad hominem and a meaningless challenge which together serve to distract the reader from the utter lack of any sort of genuine argument on your part. Well played.

I would expand on this, but every European who reads this will either 1) know exactly what I am talking about, or 2) label you the racist for somehow construing that the diverse and undeniably steadily growing group of muslim individuals are somehow acting in concert towards a linguistic construct of theocracy, or even that _you_ would be the cause of anything bad happening by implying that it could. But again, however intellectual you may consider yourself, you have absolutely no clue or knowledge of Europe. 1) On behalf of every European who does not know what you are talking about: Please expand on this!

2) How is it racist to point out that the Reich-wing propagandizes the "threat" of Muslims in Europe? Or that they tend to do it in a completely disingenuous manner, on the one hand they criticize the lack of religious values (read Christianity) and the secularism of the governments of Europe and on the other hand they claim that somehow Europe will give up its secularism because of Muslims. It is an absurd abuse of language to claim that this argument is racist, although it appears that you completely misinterpreted it as me alleging some sort of conspiracy of Muslims whereas I was in fact mocking such arguments.

Re:Missing prediction...

[Caffeinate]

The reason that parts of Europe are going to go Islamic . . . I'm glad you added the word parts, so I can't totally shut you down here.

France has taken away ALL visible displays of religion on a person in any state building; no crosses, headscarves, krises, turbans, yarmukas (sp?) etc. This includes schools. This has, quite expectedly, created an uproar from many religious groups. This (at least in my mind) is not kowtowing to outside religious pressure. It's a radically different way of approaching the issue than the North American way, but it is very much in line with separation of church and state. You can practice whatever you like, but not in my school. And personally, I'm all for it.

Re:Missing prediction...

[Anonymous Coward]

1. It is funny that you consider it clever and subtle and well played when I called you clueless. In my view it was rather obvious and prominent and standing out. You could hardly miss it. Did you almost miss it?

2. I have no intention of discussing with you. Through your choice of words (Reich-wing? What?) and arguments you already make it completely clear where you are standing and which corner you are in here to defend.

Discussion may have three meanings. Enlightening yourself, enlightening the other person, or enlightening the audience. Going by what you are already saying there is nothing you could say that could enlighten me, or offer me any new perspective. You also appear a highly unpleasant person to discuss with. Going by what you are already saying you have already made up your mind, and whatever I say makes no difference to you. The only potential party that could benefit would be the audience - but again, every European who reads this will either 1) know exactly what I am talking about and why your statement ('Europe would not stand idly by in the face of a theocracy') indicates utter cluelessness about Europe, or 2) consider you racist and alarmist for even formulating the possibility of a theocracy.

Again, this is not an "argument", it is a statement, and I can't see how me, your or the audience would benefit from any expansion on it. A good day and a productive life to you.

Re:Missing prediction...

[DavidShor]

"Which continent is the one that allows Sharia law courts? Which is the one where Muslims nearly riot over a CARTOON?" Show me a single case in Europe where a man's hand was chopped off. You can't, because that is against European law (I don't think it is done through the EU, but there is a common treaty of human rights in Europe with reasonable enforcement). What you are referring to is devolving small claims Authority to voluntary community courts, where they deal with petty disputes as dictated by Sharia law.

As a Jew living in America, I can say that we have the same thing: Jews who choose to can have a court of Rabbi's deal with divorce cases and small civil claims. This is similar to arbitration organizations, and the case can always be brought to real court if either party is dissatisfied. [And to pre-empt, Rabbinical law can be just as strict, archaic, and cruel as Sharia.]

This is the same system that exists and Europe, and frankly, I don't see anything wrong with it.

"I also believe it was France that had a ton of Muslim youths rioting all over the place. I don't recall massive Muslim riots in America."

The riots had no religious overtones, had massive non-Muslim participation, and several investigations showed that there were no links to terror groups. I would say that extremely high unemployment (40% in this particular demographic) and France's inefficient labor law were far more responsible for the riots than religion.

"The reason that parts of Europe are going to go Islamic is because of the attitude that all ways of life are equal - even to the point that it allows views as extreme as Sharia law which takes away basic civil rights."

No, the reason is demographics, average birth-rates for white people are falling faster than for Muslims (though they are falling pretty quickly too). It will eventually stabilize over the next couple decades.

Re:Missing prediction...

[Anonymous Coward]

I say, good day sir!

I apologize for my crass use of the phrase "Reich-wing" it's a play on words and seems to have offended your delicate sense of propriety. As you are by now fully aware, I believe that the right-wing demagoguery on the "Islamification" of Europe is not so different than previous racist political movements. I am criticising the belief that Europe will become an Islamic theocracy, not alleging it as a likelihood.

Re:Missing prediction...

[cruachan]

"1) On behalf of every European who does not know what you are talking about: Please expand on this!1) On behalf of every European who does not know what you are talking about: Please expand on this!"

Actually I'm a European, keenly interested in politics, and I'm totally clueless as to what you are on about or trying to imply.

An explanation would indeed be appreciated.

Re:Missing prediction...

[Anonymous Coward]

Was that a question to me, or to the person quoted?

The claim is that Europeans would not accept a theocracy.

There are, to use the widest brush possible, two avenues of thought in contemporary Europe: A) that we are heading towards a situation called 'lots of Islam everywhere you look', or B) that we are not heading towards 'lots of Islam everywhere you look'.

What everyone (at least, everyone I know and speak to on a regular basis) is however aware of is that the notion of "stopping theocracy", "not accepting theocracy", "preventing theocracy", "being opposed to theocracy" is absurd.

A theocracy is, how I define it, simply a government (at any level, whether local or national) that is run with a clear eye towards religiously founded laws and principles, with plenty of weight given to the opinion of religious persons (the more 'religious' the more weight) and with active government support for promotion and partaking in religion, coupled with a very heavy hand (by policy or in practice) used against anyone not belonging to the main religion(s), or opposing either that religion or religion in general.

What everyone fully knows is that in order to _get_ a theocracy, all you need is _a lot of people who want a theocracy_, or rather a society run on these terms. If 7000 out of 10000 inhabitants in a city wants their local government run according to the above principles, then the notion of the rest of Europe stopping them from doing this is absurd. It would violate literally hundres of principles in every declaration ever signed, and is completely unthinkable.

It's like saying "The American public would never permit the Oort cloud to contain comets with ice in them!" - what are you going to do about it? What can you do about it? If someone starts a debate as to whether America "should" or "should not" stomach the Oort cloud containing ice-filled meteors you would consider them crackpot because the discussion is meaningless and whatever your opinion is doesn't matter.

When it comes to Europe, it is again plain to every European I know, whether adhering to group A or group B of the above, that the opinion of Europeans as to a theocracy is completely irrelevant so long as there are enough individuals here who _want_ a theocracy. Telling them that 'no, we are sorry, we don't like this, we are going to use the means at our disposal to ensure that you do not govern yourself in that way' is an absurd thought. It would take a galaxy wide leap in European popular thinking, philosophy, ideology, government and public discourse to consider that. If so it would be hailed by the rest of the world as something like a resurgence of Nazism. The question thus isn't normative ("are we going to accept a society like this?"), but positive ("what % of people are going to want a society like this?").

Discussing whether Europe would accept a theocracy inside itself is like discussing whether Europe would accept it outside itself, e.g. our opinions about whether we are going to expunge Islam from Iran any time soon. Are we "godless Europeans" "going to accept" a "Theocratic Iran"?

The racism comment was because many consider even the raising of the word 'theocracy' to be indicative of a scaremongering, phobic and subconsciously racist mindset, as it evidences what you consider _might_ be possible. If you belong to this group you would simultaneously hold the opinion much like group A that theocracy isn't something you can oppose and that it will happen if there are enough who want it, and that it is not going to happen. Again, everyone knows that it couldn't be avoided if enough wanted it, while a subset thinks that just raising the possibility is racist.

I am of course highly interested in and would find it a joy to read discussions about in which specific way Europeans would "refrain from accepting an internal theocracy", and which actions (speech, movements) they would take to act that out. Also naturally any criticisms of the above - it's rather simplified, as written descriptions neccessarily have to be, but the broad strokes are in my view all accurate.

Sounds great

[Anonymous Coward]

Better than what I would have predicted given the fascist tendencies of Blairs government.

• Mass Surveillance
  
• Police state
  
• Criminalized society
  
• Centraliztion and resale of citizens personal data - without their permission
  
• Fortunately, the inner-party elite that did this to us are about to be expelled
  

Even low-brow right-wing garbage like the Daily Mirror are flat out stating the truth, not that their readership (the proles) give a shit. Anyway, the MOD predictions sound great, can they provide me with assurances so I'll sleep a little better at nights?

Re:Sounds great

[guruevi]

Well, I guess Pascal Sauvage (movie: Johnny English) had a good idea after all, you could just make England one big prison for all the criminals in the world. Heck, you have the infrastructure already in place.

Re:Sounds great

[Anonymous Coward]

You're obviously a moron, not British, or both, if you think the Mirror is right-wing.

"likely"

[radtea]

The key falsehood in the summary is the word "likely". No one sane thinks any of this is likely ("having a high probability of occurring or being true: very probable").

Only someone as ignorant and dishonest as a journalist would suggest that strategic planners engaged in this kind of process of exploring the nooks and crannies of the future think the scenarios they are spinning are "likely." Possible, yes. Worth contemplating as worst-cases, certainly.

Likely? Only to an dishonest, ignorant journalist. But I repeat myself.

Well it was a really good movie

[wolff000]

If you are wondering which one just pick any of the multitude of movies that predicted such dire consequences to our current actions. I agree things are probably going to get a lot worse before they get better but people that make these predictions should really have a firm understanding of reality not just statistics and apparently an active imagination. If all the doom sayers were right the world as we know it would never have come to be.

Don't Worry About Iran, Though

[MarkPNeyer]

Nothing to see here folks. They kidnapped a bunch of our soldiers and our response was an embarrassment to the once proud history of the British navy, but real danger we have to look out for is communists...

I think the Chinese are smarter than that.

[khasim]

If the US is a state of 'infidels', then China is far more so, from a fundamentalist Islam point of view.

Not really. Remember that religion is the excuse, not the reason. The reason is power.

There are only four paths to power:
#1. Political
#2. Economic
#3. Family/Tribal
#4. Religion

As long as there is flexibility in those, only the hard-core nut cases will become extremists. Once you start blocking access to any of them, you start creating more extremists.

Islamic fundamentalists currently fume against the shower of western culture entering their lands - TV, movies, etc., and the presence of US soldiers.

And look at that. The goods represent economic issues. The soldiers represent political issues (political power flows from the barrel of a gun). Crack those and the fundamentalists become just more street lunatics who don't bathe regularly.

Perhaps this will not be of critical impact until Chinese soldiers are stationed outside of China, but that too may occur, as China becomes the main consumer of middle-eastern oil and other resources, prompting it to secure those resources, if only by token military presences in various locations.

This is where I believe the Chinese will learn from our mistakes.

DO NOT make your presence visible in the volatile areas. Have them travel to see you.

DO NOT make your economic advantage visible in the volatile areas. Adopt their appearance.

Work with their family/tribal structures.

Keep your religious practices subdued. We have a big problem because of the Crusades. China doesn't have that issue.

Re:I think the Chinese are smarter than that.

[superpulpsicle]

I honestly believe China will become a superpower because of that fact. They are a rather introvertic nation, they don't brag much, they don't say much, they are self sustained. And they will go under the radar by ignoring everyone else's problem. For the last time, Taiwan is a political game, it ain't a real threat.

We make enemies with too many people. Damn republicans have to slow down. We rely on everybody. Without China, I would bet 50% of our lower-middle class become poor-lower-class overnight. Every economic item will escalate 2 to 3x in price.

Re:I think the Chinese are smarter than that.

[Semptimilius]

China relies heavily on the world. When China tried to not rely on the world it was poor and becoming poorer for it. (Also, China is set to become a net importer of food soon, I believe. It already is dependent on the world for energy.) China is heavily addicted to the US as well.

Re:Missing prediction... - please mod down

[Anonymous Coward]

Any european will recognize this as plain extreme right tainted speech. French will recognize Philippe de Villiers. This is absolutely false.

The UK needs some Anarchy

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow what a waste of article space. Who cares what out of touch government official from the worlds most spied upon nation think?

When was the last time a politician knew anything about technology? (beside Al Gore)

If the Ministry of fucking idiots wants to play science fiction, that's fine, but the issues of 2035 aren't going to be vastly different from those of today. Humans and technology aren't really changing that fast. The computer is not exactly the revolutionary device that people see it as. If we keep going at this rate by 2035 we will have some awesome CPU power, but we will still not have intuitive interfaces or well written software. If anything more interpreted languages and less binary thought will result in the current trends of low performance bloated crap ware. Just like how everything is made out of plastic because it's cheaper even though metal lasts longer most of the time. The modern programmer is already less talented than programmers of 30 years ago. Without good quality programmers developing nations like China ane India are going to produce the next generations of great software because their cultures do vastly better in math.

and.. flashmobs... cmon. What makes that a reality in 2035 and not today? Are you guys sure it wasn't the Minister of Defense's grandchild that thought up this stuff? Technology dictates itself. The year 2035 will be shaped by the technologies of that year and that's all. Predictions beyond that are useless. Look at all the great leaps in technology that humans were supposed to have made by now. We should at least have fusion power and Star Wars lasers in space right. Well that's why you don't try to create technologies through some kind of funded prophecy like Reagan did for Star Wars, which in case you didn't know was a complete failure.

Obviously we already have implanted microcomputers in people so we are hardly waiting till 2035 for that.

Do these people have nothing better to do but make laughable predictions of technology and terrorism in the future.

They can't know the path of terrorism. Are they fucking retarded or what?

These people still think that terrorism is just like a season thing that just what started happening and now will require constant military attention ?

That's what they are hoping for. They hope that in 2035 they can convince the people that terrorism is a threat and warrants continued military spending.

They STILL don't realize that terrorism doesn't happen by chance, but for obvious and exact reasons. We can't plan for social movements like terrorism without planning the social happenings for the next two decades. All we can assume is that the current situation with arabs will not resolve itself by 2035.

30 years ago terrorism wasn't really a threat that scared Americans. No more at least than the common criminal happenings all throughout the world.

Until people learn that terrorism happens for a reason not random unpredictable chance we are fucking doomed.

Their long term plan is to blindly fight terrorism. How fucking retarded can you be people.
I mean HELLO... flashmobs. That doesn't sound like terrorism anymore. It sounds more like the government planning against citizens who want to protest and using terrorism as an excuse. You can't quickly assemble mobs because.. that's terrorism.

If they want to battle terrorism the first step would be to stop constantly contributing to it. For Briton the first step should be to DISTANCE yourself from America anytime we have a conservative as president because CONSERVATIVES = WAR. Now, this is nothing new. I mean even conservative college level professors will tell you when describing cons and dems that cons will be the ones who take you to war almost every time. It's not even something that cons have yet to see as a bad attribute of their party. They are proud to be the war party just ask them.

Anyway it's sad to see such government propaganda being displayed as news even on Slashdot. If you want put up a

Re:The UK needs some Anarchy

[Anonymous Coward]

"CONSERVATIVES = WAR."

Yup, Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson all proud conservatives!

Teach the Failures of Marxism, Get Rid of Envy

[geoffrobinson]

That will reduce the amount of Marxists running around.

Re:Teach the Failures of Marxism, Get Rid of Envy

[xero314]

Teach the Failures of Marxism... I think that has been tried. Eventually people become educated enough to realize that the so called "failures of Marxism" are either a fallacy or of little consequence when compared to the benefits. Civilization is the ongoing conflict between the Oligarchy state and the Anarchy state, Marxism is one of the proposed reconciliations of those states. Modern civilizations that hope to remain stable tend towards socialist policy.

...Get Rid of Envy The Marxist ideal is exactly what is needed to remove the consistent Envy that plagues modern societies. Until the destruction of the concepts of private property there will always be envy, or at least the potential for envy. And yes I concede that we would need to give up ones self as private property before envy could be truly eradicated, but giving up externals as private property would be a long way towards the reduction of envy.

I am not actually Marxist, but rather tends toward one of two different philosophies, being Fascism (because people are too stupid to govern themselves) and Classical Libertarianism(because people are too stupid to govern others), both of which I happen to views as branches of Socialism.

Re:Teach the Failures of Marxism, Get Rid of Envy

[operagost]

And yes I concede that we would need to give up ones self as private property before envy could be truly eradicated

You mean human rights? No thanks!

Re:Teach the Failures of Marxism, Get Rid of Envy

[AndersOSU]

I think it is important to separate the failings of Communism (Marxism in practice) with the failings of Marxism (the theory.)

My take is that the theory fails to account for human nature competitive nature, while in practice this fatal flaw is compounded with the inevitability of power to corrupt in a system without checks on the ruler or party.

I also think that private property arises from envy, not the other way around. The prohibition of private property has been shown not only to be futile, but even were it to succeed envy would cause people would to naturally separate people into haves and have-nots based on some other attribute.

Finally, I find it interesting that you consider facism a branch of socialism, I
consider it a branch of corporatism, which is essentially capitalism run amok, and as such is squarely at odds with socialism.

Re:Teach the Failures of Marxism, Get Rid of Envy

[xero314]

You mean human rights? No thanks! Yes human rights is what I meant, and I also agree "No Thanks!" I was just trying to point out that you can't ever eradicate envy, but there are certainly things that can be done to minimize it. It's kind of like how not all crime is caused by income equality, but certainly a large amount of it is, and removing that causation would be good even if you can't remove them all. People will always have potential for envy as long is there is something out there that that do not or can not have, such as someone else's looks or capabilities.

Re:Teach the Failures of Marxism, Get Rid of Envy

[xero314]

Wether envy is cause or effect of private property is a "Chicken and Egg" argument but no mater how you look at it Envy is the desire to have that which one perceives they have not. But from my limited knowledge of history it appears that very few people seek to create the inequality necessary for Envy to thrive and that the majority would be content in an equal, and improving, society. I say improving because we all seek to have better lives and as long as out lives are improving, and the social atmosphere where not the current capitalist one, then people would be content.

Although I am not alone in my association of Fascism as a branch of socialism I do realize that I am in a minority. But I think I can explain it fairly clearly and let you decided if you think the association is correct or not. According to wikipedia "Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community." Regardless of the source, this is a fair and broad description of socialism. Socialism can be simply summed up as the complete removal of the right to private property (notice that Socialism doesn't mandate how property is controlled or that their be equality). It is true that this is not the way Marx, Engels and others used the term in prior years but it is the current general understanding of the term. So inside Socialism there are a number of different was to implement the specifics. Anarchy for one is a specific branch of Libertarian Socialism, which can be summed up as Self Governing society where no one controls property or the means of production. The Economic system of Fascism can easily be categorized as Authoritarian Socialism, where property and the means of production are controlled by the state. Fascism differs from Communism (not to be confused with Sovietism) mostly on the grounds of who controls property. Marx expressed that government was a necessary evil and merely a means to communism and should be held in check by the people. Mussolini believed government was responsible for doing what was best for the state, which he believed was also best for the people.

Just to clarify there is no argument that Collectivism is an aspect or form of Socialism, and sometimes the terms are even used interchangeably. If this is true then Mussolini's statement in The Doctrine of Fascism "If the nineteenth century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State" clearly shows that he envisioned Fascism is as form Collectivism. So on the socialist scale there is a far right authoritarian Fascism, the far left libertarian Anarchy and a more centrist Communism, just to name the few major factions. Interestingly enough that these were the three major systems that the Spanish Civil war was fought over.

The Fact that you equate Fascism with Capitalism by way of Corporatism and I equate it to Socialism only goes to show that any political system taken to it's extreme becomes, or appears like, it's diametrically opposed system. For example the extreme Neo-Libertarianism would be giving up the right to govern any ones actions other than your own, but in doing so you also give up the right to govern that none shall govern your actions, since the moment one demands that someone else not govern them they are taking away some of that persons Liberties. Just as unchecked Capitalism taken to the extreme must eventually end in Monarchy as a single person will eventually maintain all power.

Re: Teach the Failures of Marxism, Get Rid of Envy

[Black Parrot]

Finally, I find it interesting that you consider facism a branch of socialism I think that's a new meme that has developed among the USA's right wingers in the past decade or so. You never used to hear such a confusion, but it's now nigh universal among people with a certain political orientation. You can hardly have a political discussion on the internet without it coming out, these days.

I suspect it's a result of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, so that the traditional Incarnate Evil had to be replaced with a More Generic Evil. (Of course, after the '30s the USSR was only a threat to us as a competitor on the world stage; their internal economic policies weren't the threat. But the Right has been taken over by pseudo-Libertarians who think anything that stands in the way of economic might-makes-right is pure evil, so the rhetoric is now directed against socialism.)

I consider it a branch of corporatism, which is essentially capitalism run amok, and as such is squarely at odds with socialism. Yes, that's my tentative conclusion as well, though I haven't looked into formal definitions. People may be surprised to learn that German arms manufacturers were still producing tanks according to a USA-style system of product competitions between corporations as late as the second half of 1944, when Speer could see perfectly well that the war was lost.

Re: Teach the Failures of Marxism, Get Rid of Envy

[Black Parrot]

That will reduce the amount of Marxists running around. Maybe so, but that "get rid of envy" is something religious leaders and moral philosophers have been trying to do since the dawn of recorded history, with no noticable progress. I think envy has deep evolutionary roots that aren't easily trained out.

Re: Teach the Failures of Marxism, Get Rid of Envy

[AndersOSU]

the Right has been taken over by pseudo-Libertarians

If only that were so... I know that rightwingers on slashdot and rightwingers in general are two very different things, but it is my opinion, that in general anyways, the right is still firmly controlled by the neo-cons, who apparently couldn't care less about any economic theory. I am, by no means a libertarian, but at least in an argument with a libertarian I can attempt to appeal to logic - logic holds no sway over neo-cons.

Re:Teach the Failures of Marxism, Get Rid of Envy

[AndersOSU]

I agree that their are marked similarities between the means employed by the fascists and the means employed by the communists (who called themselves Marxist, which confuses the matter because Marx said he couldn't even call himself a Marxist. So to clarify, when I say Marxist, I mean pertaining to the philosophies espoused in Das Kapital, and the Communist Manifesto.)

Either way while the means employed by socialists and fascists are superficially similar, I fail to see how anyone could bring their two philosophies together. While Lenin, Mao and co. at least claimed to value the proletariat, Mussolini, Hitler and co. made no bones about the state being of supreme importance. In realty of course communist societies trample all over the rights of the proletariat for the benefit of the party, but the stated goal is very different. For example, you say, "Mussolini believed government was responsible for doing what was best for the state, which he believed was also best for the people." I'd be interested if you have a quote, because it is my understanding that Mussolini didn't give a damn about the people - his philosophy was predicated on it - so long as an abstraction known as the state survived, the people were expendable.

So maybe that is where you draw the similarity, both Marxism and Fascism, consider a human life insignificant compared to a collective. The break down, in my opinion, occurs here: "Libertarian Socialism, which can be summed up as Self Governing society where no one controls property or the means of production." I think that is a misrepresentation of libertarianism. It is my belief that libertarianism posits that one controls whatever one is able to exert force over. So, rather than removing property rights, libertarians allow any property rights to be seized by whomever can exert greater force.

An example. Where I live there is a field. Under Marxism the collective determines that the best use for this field is growing wheat. I'm obligated to look after the field so that it produces wheat which can be distributed "fairly" - in practice this probably means turning it over to the party. Under libertarianism, as long as I can prevent others from doing otherwise, I'm entitled to grow whatever I want and hoard it, let the field lie fallow, or sell the whatever I can to the highest bidder, all as I see fit.

Ignoring any abstract concept of ownership, the difference between the two systems is that under Marxism I have to grow distribute wheat. Under libertarianism, I can do whatever I want, even to the detriment of myself and/or my neighbors.

Re:Teach the Failures of Marxism, Get Rid of Envy

[xero314]

First I want to clarify that I was not comparing Communism and Fascism, I was stating that Fascism is a form of Socialism. It so happens that Communism, as well as Anarchism are also forms of Socialism, but try not to think I confuse Communism (Marxist or Soviet for that mater) with Fascism. Second do not confuse Neo-Libertarianism, which is a product of the last 20 to 30 years with Classical Libertarianism or more specifically Libertarian Socialism.

Fascism, and its bastardized brother Nationalist Socialism, are rooted in concepts that are most definitely socialist. Even though the founders of Fascism did not specifically speak of the proletariat, or class systems at all for that matter, does not change the idea that Fascism was for the benefit of all people. By seeking what is best for the State, Fascist would necessarily seek what is best for the people since with out people there is no State. If we are to believe The Manifesto of the Fascist Struggle we see there are even more similarities between Socialism and Fascism in theory that in actual practice. The Manifesto claims, in far more specific ways than Socialist theory, that there should be steps towards equality including, Universal Suffrage (including voting rights for Women), The participation of workers' representatives and Labor Unions in the functions of industry commissions as well as other issues of labor meant to relieve the worker from the threat of exploitation. The idea that individual people are expendable is certainly not unique to Fascism, and can be seen in all Political Philosophies, even Neo-Libertarianism.

You are correct to say that some of the "break down" in understanding Fascism as a form of Socialism, does come form a "misrepresentation of libertarianism" but not in the way you are thinking. When I speak of Libertarianism, which in my previous post I actually didn't, I am speaking of Classical European Libertarianism, such as was theorized in the 1800s through late-mid 1900s. Classical Libertarianism is much different than the modern western usage of the term, which is also why I previously only spoke of Libertarian Socialism specifically. Libertarian Socialism is a term that covers Anarchism, Anarcho-syndiclism and any other collectivism without government, which in theory includes Marxist Communism. Neo-Libertarianism, the modern, and incorrect, use of the term, is more a bi-product of western Narcissism than any sound political theory. The only similarities between Neo-Libertarianism and Libertarian Socialism are in social freedoms, where as they are in direct contrast when it comes to economic freedoms. Libertarian Socialist believe that to be free to do as the will socially, people would need to be relieved of the need to worry about economic issues. Explaining both Libertarian Socialism and Neo-Libertarianism would take alot more space than I'm willing to take up on slashdot but I'm sure a few goggle searches would reveal the answers fairly quickly (even faster if you trust wikipedia).

Middle-class

[frisket]

Almost none of them have come to pass.

You fuck with the middle classes at your peril. A large, prosperous middle-class is the best guarantee of social stability -- unfortunately in the past it has accompanied appalling treatment of classes below, and neglect of the classes above.

If you can somehow engineer middle-class contentment along with opportunity and encouragement for those less fortunate, and keep the rich or aristocratic in their place at the same time as letting them use their wealth, you'll have solved it. But somehow I don't see either a surveillance UK or a fundamentalist USA as the places for this Brave New World to arise.

Re:Middle-class

[ArcherB]

You fuck with the middle classes at your peril. A large, prosperous middle-class is the best guarantee of social stability -- unfortunately in the past it has accompanied appalling treatment of classes below, and neglect of the classes above.

If you can somehow engineer middle-class contentment along with opportunity and encouragement for those less fortunate, and keep the rich or aristocratic in their place at the same time as letting them use their wealth, you'll have solved it. But somehow I don't see either a surveillance UK or a fundamentalist USA as the places for this Brave New World to arise.

We have such a world now in the US. It's called the public school system. The rich can afford to send their kids to private schools, where discipline is enforced and kids are motivated, almost guaranteeing entry into college, which they can also afford. All the kid has to do is put forth the slightest effort.
Meanwhile, public schools suck. There is no discipline and if a kid falls behind, they get left there. The kids that "get it" have to sit there and wait while the teacher has to explain it over and over to the kids that don't understand or don't care. Teachers have no choice but to teach to the lowest common denominator in every class, ensuring the entire class learns at the pace of the slowest minds. Granted, if a students wants it bad enough, he or she can learn. They do more than is required of the class and learn all the material before the class is even held. For these kids, the class itself is a waste of time, but they still have to be there. These kids graduate high in their class and score well enough on standardized tests to get admitted to college on scholarship or loans. This is where the middle/lower class opportunity comes in. It's rare, but it happens and it allows for poor kids to climb out of their "class".

Of course, you have the occasional entrepreneur that makes it as well, but even Gates dropped out of Harvard. Not a whole lot of community college drop-outs make it to the billionaire club.

Re:Middle-class

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

"There is no discipline and if a kid falls behind, they get left there. The kids that "get it" have to sit there and wait while the teacher has to explain it over and over to the kids that don't understand or don't care. Teachers have no choice but to teach to the lowest common denominator in every class, ensuring the entire class learns at the pace of the slowest minds."

So if a student falls behind, he gets left behind. But the class is being taught at the rate of the slowest learner - how would the slowest learner ever be left behind? It appears you have contradicted yourself.

Re:Middle-class

[ArcherB]

So if a student falls behind, he gets left behind. But the class is being taught at the rate of the slowest learner - how would the slowest learner ever be left behind? It appears you have contradicted yourself.

Good to see you're paying attention!
OK, if a student falls WAY behind, they get left behind, usually in the "special learning" classes. Those that don't fall far enough behind to get removed from the class are left to slow down the rest of the class. I guess I should have put this way:

Those that want to get ahead, can't. They are left in a class where to learn at the level of the slowest student in the class.

Better?
Thanx for the catch!

Re:Middle-class

[sycodon]

Public schools are a reflection of the surrounding community.

Upper middle class communities usually have good public schools for several reasons:
1. A good tax base. This means good school buildings and equipment, higher paid teachers, extra-cirricula activities.
2. Ususally involved parents. You can't be middle class and be irresponsible, drug addicted, violent, etc...not that there aren't exceptions.
3. Low crime rates. Kids that don't have to worry about getting shot on the way to school usually do better at scool.

Lower class...I mean "economically disadvantaged" communities usually have bad schools for the inverse reasons stated above. However, there are many examples of communities that fall into this category who's public schools are exceptional. This is almost exclusivly because of dediated teachers and parents.

Of course, this issue can only be superficially be discussed in this kind of forum. Hell, you can get a doctorate in this stuff and hundreds of books address it.

Re:Middle-class

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

Perfect! I knew what you meant but it was Monday morning when I posted that so, you know...I had to be a jerk. I went to a public high school and was able to double up on classes in order to graduate at 16. I think that that is what these kids who think they get it should do. Too often smart kids get disillusioned and just sit in the back for four years making snide remarks and being bored. Instead of wasting that time they should work within the system to find something to do. I think parents should push for that and school administrators should facilitate it.

Re:Middle-class

[ArcherB]

-->Those that want to get ahead, can't. They are left in a class where to learn at the level of the slowest student in the class.

I went to a public high school and was able to double up on classes in order to graduate at 16. I think that that is what these kids who think they get it should do.

First you point out a hole in my logic and then you prove me wrong! Thanx alot!

Seriously, it's good to see your school would let you get ahead. The only way I could double up on work or even doing school-work from home (not homework) would be if I were to get pregnant. That would be quite a trick since I don't have the plumbing for that!

However, I could have signed up for community college classwork that would have transferred to a "real" college or used it toward a high-school degree. Still, these options were limited to a few classes that would have saved me a semester at best.

Re:Middle-class

[Vitriol Angst]

Of course, you have the occasional entrepreneur that makes it as well, but even Gates dropped out of Harvard. Not a whole lot of community college drop-outs make it to the billionaire club.

--
"Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world." Christine Stewart


>> I think that very few Billionaires are actually college graduates. Lots of shipping magnates and such... most jumped onto opportunities rather than waiting for someone to tell them "how it's done."

>> I agree that Public shools are failing -- but I hardly see many private schools as any better. Seems most of them are getting awfully religious. Also, if you can have entrance standards at a school -- the outcome is already decided; A student in, A student out. On that measure, there is no proof that private schools do a better job at all.

Of course, "No Child Left Behind" is creating an army of mind-numbed test takers.

I remember school as being a place where people were actually offended if you had some original ideas -- I suppose that would be the most typical characteristic of a SlashDot refugee -- that we experienced social stimatism for thinking. We'll -- at least from my experience that is true.

Re:Middle-class

[SonicSpike]

You make a great case for abolishing government schools. Where I come from (Florida) my school district spent more money per year per student than it cost to attend one of our premier local private prep schools. By the way the prep school's students tested higher on average compared to government school students.

Nevertheless, the government shouldn't be involved in the business of education.

Re:Middle-class

[Sgt_Jake]

Nevertheless, the government shouldn't be involved in the business of education.

You can't have a democracy unless the public is educated, and the only way to guarantee an educated public is through public schools. Explain your solution.

Re:Middle-class

[Magius_AR]

Meanwhile, public schools suck. There is no discipline and if a kid falls behind, they get left there. The kids that "get it" have to sit there and wait while the teacher has to explain it over and over to the kids that don't understand or don't care. Teachers have no choice but to teach to the lowest common denominator in every class, ensuring the entire class learns at the pace of the slowest minds.

First of all, you appear to contradict yourself. "If a kid falls behind, they get left there" implies that the classes are moving at the speed of the smarter people and that the teachers aren't bothering to pander to the "lowest common denominator".

Secondly, this is by far not restricted to public schooling. I had the exact same experience with my significantly expensive private schooling in high school. And my parents were far from rich. They struggled to put me through an expensive high school and didn't have the money to put me through college. So after paying for private college by myself, I'm now in the job market, laden with debt, making the same salary as people that had roughly equivalent educations at cheaper (or free) public schools.

So no, this isn't a public school problem. In fact, I'd claim they're better off than people who drive themselves into debt to go to "name colleges"

Re:Middle-class

[SonicSpike]

First off the US isn't a democracy, never has been, and (legally) never will be. It's a "constitutional republic in which the representatives are democratically elected". Please note that is NOT the same thing as a democracy.

When the government educates people, the schools teach the government agenda. If the government happens to be in a conservative phase (as it is now) then conservative ideas will tend to dominate. When the government happens to be in a liberal phase, liberal ideas will often dominate.

And if government schools (specifically K-12) were abolished that doesn't mean that people would not educate themselves or their children. College isn't mandatory but millions are still attending because they see that education has value.

Not only do I not want the government raising my children for me, but I should not be forced to pay to raise other people's children. Non-governmental schools offer more choice, more freedom, and in most cases a higher quality education. The average middle/working class family would be better off financially if all levels of the government refunded all the tax money spent on education.

...futurama ref?

[arcite]

Classic

Re:...futurama ref?

[maxume]

Try again, but this time, clear your mind.

Re:...futurama ref?

[sconeu]

Nope. Ghostbusters.

Re:...futurama ref?

[painQuin]

Modded: +1 for effort, -2 for failure

Gotta go with Marx on this one

[lawpoop]

I think the whole Islamic fundamentalist terrorism has little to do with religion and has everything to do with economics and power. Religion is just a cover for deeper issues.

I don't think the fact that China is a communist nation will make a bit of difference in generating the hostility . What will matter is that if China becomes powerful and influential in the Middle East, the average Mohammed will see China exerting its power, while the lives of his fellow countrymen aren't improving. Religion then becomes yet another justification for hostility and aggression directed towards someone else.

I think that religion is used in two ways as a justification for scapegoating and hostility. One, political leaders who are trying to motivate their populations to go to war will use religion as a justification, while the real reason is economic. Two, people who are having problems in their personal/economic life will rely on religion more, and see the world in more religious terms. When they perceive a threat, they will perceive it in religious terms. Of course, the real threats to our lives are military/terrorist and economic.

Not such a worst case

[goombah99]

Well at least the EMP will take out the brain implants, solving one problem.

Re:Not such a worst case

[fyngyrz]

Probably not. The skull and subsequent membranes that surround the brain serve as excellent EM shielding. It is very difficult to induce a voltage of any magnitude inside a container made of conducting materials. EMP, despite its reputation as a killer of "everything electronic", will not generally kill devices stored in sealed, conductive containers.

Marxism!

[Canthros]

Wait, didn't we already do that? Last century?

Wait, wait: I got it. He means the Marx Brothers, not Karl Marx. Clearly, Groucho will lead us into a new age of enlightenment. And cigars.

Re:Marxism!

[Anne Thwacks]

And lots of fat women. He got that bit right!

If by "help" you mean "annihilation," sure.

[Kadin2048]

That with near daily Orwellian reports about the copious amounts of surveillance the British citizens put up with, and it starts to feel like we, be it the United States or whomever else as a third party should be taking some cues here to help.

Seeing how we "helped" the Iraqis, I'd say that countries should probably be very careful about crying for help from the U.S., lest they end up getting some.

translation from NewsSpeak ..

[rs232]

Translation: We'll reinvent the Red Menace to scare them enough to have a new pretext to introduce a police state them Stalin could only have dreamed of.

They talk about a 'vibrant democracy' and in the same breath explain how the middle classes, of all people, are a threat in this here democracy. If this is such a wonderous 'vibrant democracy' then why is its own middle classes threatening revolt.

You're right, there is a potential threat to the social order and it's you who has caused this by creating a society run by and for the benefit of trans-national organizations. Government being reduced to peerforming police action against its own people. Watch out for the Marxist-Islamo-Fascist-Middle class revolution.

"I want this country to realize that we stand on the edge of oblivion. I want everyone to remember why they need us!"

Adam Sutler, Lord High Chancellor of Greater England.

Parent AC leftwing radical fundie, please mod down

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent AC is a fundamentalist leftwing extremist doing leftwing liar speech. Please mod him down.

Population growth?

[jenesais]

From the article: "The massive population growth will mean the Middle East, and to a lesser extent north Africa, will remain highly unstable, says the report."

Spengler from Asia Times has repeatedly argued that Middle Eastern countries face a different type of population problem, namely a large increase of the number aged. For example, Spengler says that "although the Muslim birth rate today is the world's second highest (after sub-Saharan Africa), it is falling faster than the birth rate of any other culture."

The demographics of radical Islam: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GH23Aa01.h tml

Crises of Faith in the Muslim World: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GK01Aa01.h tml

Oo! Oo! I've got one!

[Peter Trepan]

In the year 2035, we'll have an IT and energy infrastructure that harnesses the well-understood properties of tachyons. Star Trek starts explaining away unscientific phenomena with Higgs bosons instead.

That's the $64,000 question, though.

[Kadin2048]

You can actually extend that concept to the entire world. The income and quality-of-life disparity between, say, the US and Afghanistan/Iran/Iraq/etc. is enormous. Someone needs to tell Bush that they don't hate us because they hate freedom, a growing number of them hate us because they want a piece of the pie.

This, I think, is the crux of the disagreement. On one hand, you have people -- usually but not always social liberals -- claiming that the source of the world's problems are mostly economic, and that terrorists are produced by folks envious of our plasma TVs, SUVs, and 40-hour-workweeks.

On the other hand you have others -- usually but not always social conservatives -- claiming that the source of terrorism and related global instability is philosophical, religious, and dogmatic: e.g., what the terrorists hate isn't our conspicuously consumptive lifestyles per se, but really they hate the concept of a secular society in general, and really only hate McDonalds, etc., as a symptom of this essential problem.

I don't think the differences between these views can be overstated, because they lead to vastly different ways of visualizing and dealing with the threat of Islamic radicalism and terrorism generally. If the problem is economic imbalance, then you could theoretically correct it through trade and economic-aid programs. But if the problem is philosophical, then by fixing the wealth disparity, you're just enabling terrorism; giving people whose motivations are fundamentally opposed to secularism the means with which to really attack us.

I've seen little convincing evidence and lots of rhetoric on both sides. The fact that people like Bin Laden came from wealthy families, not poor ones, would seem to at least partially substantiate the theory that you can't just give radicals a house, a car, and a front lawn, and suddenly transform them into happy little proto-Americans.

I would much prefer to believe that the problem is economic rather than religious or philosophical, because that to me seems like a tractable problem. However, I'm not particularly upbeat on that being the case.

Re:That's the $64,000 question, though.

[cyphercell]

The fact that people like Bin Laden came from wealthy families, not poor ones, would seem to at least partially substantiate the theory that you can't just give radicals a house, a car, and a front lawn, and suddenly transform them into happy little proto-Americans.

I tend to think that people like Bin Laden are politicians and will garner the interests of the people no matter what. If his people were financially stable, I think his line would either be considered extremist or his tune would be different. At the end of the day most people just want the best possible future for their children, the religious aspect will be there, but we in the US have reached a very high degree of apathy, I don't see why that can't be done elsewhere.

Re:That's the $64,000 question, though.

[xmedar]

You missed the 3rd option, they don't like us because our governments keep killing them for their resources and for Jews, just as we didnt like the Nazis when they were killing us for our "leibensraum" and for Aryans. Yes, I know, I just Godwined the thread, but remember what Benito Mussolini said "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.".

Re:That's the $64,000 question, though.

[Anonymous Coward]

Benito Musollini, of course, used to be the leader of the Italian Socialist party, before it broke up due to WWI. When a Facist dictator talks about "merger" between the State and anything else, you can bet that State will be calling the shots (e.g. managing the economy), rather than sharing power. Gee, that reminds me of a certain political ideology...

Re:That's the $64,000 question, though.

[InsertCleverUsername]

This, I think, is the crux of the disagreement. On one hand, you have people -- usually but not always social liberals -- claiming that the source of the world's problems are mostly economic, and that terrorists are produced by folks envious of our plasma TVs, SUVs, and 40-hour-workweeks.

Dude! You have 40-hour work weeks?!! Is your company hiring?

Seriously though, you're right about terrorists not being poor dregs with nothing better to do than blow themselves up. The more common profile of a suicide bomber is actually someone college educated and idealistic to the extreme. However, perceived economic (including land, etc.) injustice to their fellow Muslims is certainly a huge motivator. Poverty creates an atmosphere of unrest and suffering that fuels their righteous rage.

Re:That's the $64,000 question, though.

[xmedar]

It's called Blairism...

Re:That's the $64,000 question, though.

[JavaLord]

I would much prefer to believe that the problem is economic rather than religious or philosophical, because that to me seems like a tractable problem. However, I'm not particularly upbeat on that being the case.

They hate us for our foreign policy. Stationing our troops in their holy land, proping up leaders that are friendly to us, and interfering in their internal affairs is why most islamic terrorists hate the west.

I'm sure the fact that the west is seen as 'secularized, feminized, crusaders, infidels, etc' doesn't help, nor does the poverty gap. Still, people don't fly planes into buildings because they hate McDonalds, they do it because they hate our Military.

That doesn't excuse their actions, nor does it mean we should get out of the middle east. We should be clear about what the root cause of their animosity is though.

Re:That's the $64,000 question, though.

[Eli Gottlieb]

and for Jews Congratulations! You're an anti-Semite.

Re:That's the $64,000 question, though.

[AndersOSU]

First, Bravo, very succinctly insightful post.

Second, while I agree that there is very little evidence on either side, I'm tempted to say that people who possess some wealth, and therefore have something to loose, are much less likely to take up arms to try and change the system.

People like Bin Laden and other wealthy people who are proponents of social upheaval likely have their interest protected in a way that an average (middle upper class and below) person never could. Basically, Bin Laden will be fine regardless of what the government looks like, his foot soldiers have so little to lose that they aren't even concerned with what they have to gain. Which is a situation that strikes me as similar to when the Russians overthrew the czars - they didn't care who they were getting so long as the status quo changed - it turns out it was possible for things to get worse.

I guess what I'm saying is that even if the problem is philosophical, if we elevate their standard of living the violent symptoms are likely to go away.

Re:That's the $64,000 question, though.

[xmedar]

I should mention that anti-Semite != anti-Jew as you seem to be infering, perhaps a little education is in order -

Semitic Semantics

Actually I have nothing against Jews, or Aryans, I do however have something against Nazis and Zionists and anyone else who would use violence against any group of people for no reason other than a spurious claim to be Gods Chosen People(TM), perhaps that's the difference between a Humanist and a Psychopath.

Re:That's the $64,000 question, though.

[PzyCrow]

You know... It could be that they just hate being raped by America...

Re:That's the $64,000 question, though.

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the 3rd option, they don't like us because our governments keep killing them for their resources and for Jews,...

Just as white supremacists are not really acting on behalf of white people generally, Jewish supremacists (Zionists) are not really acting on behalf of Jewish people generally. Having said that, I agree that the issue of fair treatment of the Palestinians is the central cause of resentment against the United States in Muslim countries.

Whether it's because of Christian religious beliefs (e.g. Israel is where the Jews live) or post-WWII propaganda (e.g. the USA went to war with Nazi Germany to rescue the Jews and the creation of Israel was a necessary part of that effort), people in the USA are profoundly ignorant of the mistreatment of the Palestinians. I have a close friend from Indonesia who is shocked and appalled at US policy with respect to the Palestinians. People in other countries that have ties to the Palestinians (e.g. predominantly Muslim countries) are pervasively outraged by US policy towards the Palestinians.

If you ask someone in the US about the Palestinians, you'll hear something about terrorists who want to destroy the American way of life. If you ask someone in a predominantly Muslim country about the Palestinians, you'll hear something about the people who used to live where Israel is now - people who were tragically driven from their homes in a brutal campaign of ethic cleansing over the last hundred years that was, and continues to be, funded and supported by the USA. You'll hear about how, even now after the civil rights movement and the demise of Apartheit South Africa, the USA is funding and supporting an attempt by the Israeli government to destroy the last remnants of the long suffering and brutally oppressed Palestinian people.

"They" are not jealous of America's wealth. "They" do not hate America's freedom. "They" hate America's racist oppression of the Palestinians.

Re:That's the $64,000 question, though.

[Anonymous Coward]

Kadin,

  What you are referring to is the difference between a materialistic world outlook (economics) and an idealistic world outlook (philosophy). These, indeed, and intractable differences, and neither can disprove the other in the sense that both start from fundamentally different premises: either ideas create the world, or the world creates ideas.

  As you are aware, the idealist viewpoint suggests that people can be "convinced" and "enlightened". Thomas Moore believed this in his Communistic book "Utopia", for example. On the other hand, the materialist viewpoint stipulates that one must change the living conditions of people before their ideas can change; and Karl Marx wrote about this, for example. Capitalism and Socialism can both have idealistic or materialistic philosophies; so in this sense you are incorrect to ascribe these philosophies to the right or left. Keynes, the capitalist for example, used a materialist philosophy.

  Before one can look for an answer, it is important to properly understand the question. Namely, what is the problem you are trying to solve, and why? Inequality is problematic or not for highly different reasons -- not based on materialism or idealism, but instead based on your fundamental view of humanity. What some call the spectrum of left to right. For some, the needs of the individual are paramount, therefore such disparity or inequality is generally not much of a concern. For others, the needs of society are primary, therefore inequality is greatly upsetting to the greater good.

  Finally, your reference to Bin Laden: materialism is not so superficial, it is a science. It is about the material conditions of life, this includes wealth, but also culture, heritage, family, society, history, etc. Bin Laden is an exception in a materialist explanation -- and this is substantiated by the overwhelming evidence that the vast majority of terrorists are terribly impoverished people. While science has the luxury of allowing for exceptions derived from different parameters, ideals often are not so flexible.

Brian Basgen

Re:That's the $64,000 question, though.

[Omestes]

I'd take the middle route. I'd say that both the economic distress, and religious zealotry are very real causes of geopolitical problems, and both feed off of each other. The economic distress forces people to cling to religion, and the zealotry precludes various social controls that would help generate wealth (education, democratic government, any form of social stability). They feed off of each other.

As to the rich funding, and planning, the effects of religious zealotry, this is because the hyper-religious are easily controlled. Just look at fundamentalism in the united states, a majority of them are uneducated, and poor, but mobilized by the rich, for the riches own ends. You remove the zealotry and the economy will benefit, you fix the economy and the zealotry will diminish. (Using the U.S. again as an example, notice how the more affluent areas of the U.S. are the most religiously moderate, which the poorer "heartland" is bathed in religious extremism?)

Just because you want it to be tractable does make it true, I think the problem is going to be a hideously complex between economic, social/religious, and historical factors. Always fear anyone offering a simple solution.

Re:That's the $64,000 question, though.

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking as someone from the disenfranchised back of beyond:

I, personally, don't hate America as such. I don't hate its people either; I reserve my hatred (and contempt) for its leaders. The reason has nothing to do with its secularism; there are many other secular nations. The reason also has nothing to do with how well off it is in comparative terms; wait until the dollar continues its fall, and that won't even be true.

The source of hatred is the underhanded, blood-stained, conscience-free, predatory behaviour of America's leaders with respect to the rest of the world. They play it like a huge game of monopoly, and where their gamepieces have been, you can tell by the trail of destabilisation, poverty and blood.

So I think it would be very funny if, say, India turned out to be seeding the USA with secret agents who will undermine its elections, overturn its leaders, and milk its industries to emptiness. Sick, but funny.

Re: That's the $64,000 question, though.

[Black Parrot]

On the other hand you have others -- usually but not always social conservatives -- claiming that the source of terrorism and related global instability is philosophical, religious, and dogmatic: e.g., what the terrorists hate isn't our conspicuously consumptive lifestyles per se, but really they hate the concept of a secular society in general, and really only hate McDonalds, etc., as a symptom of this essential problem. I don't disagree with that. (Notice that my comment about egalitarianism was specific to the identified threat of marxification of the Middle Class, and not about anti-Americanism in the Islamic world at all.)

However, I don't think the philosophical/religious/dogmatic thread can be entirely separated from the economic. Thus while I agree that "what the terrorists hate isn't our conspicuously consumptive lifestyles per se", I do think the p/r/d radicalism is fueled in part by the reality (or perception) that we've long taken an arrogant colonialist overlord's attitude toward their societies, nations, and natural resources. (Think Suez Crisis, broken promises after both world wars, British and French colonialism... the British tried to put their man on the Afghan throne nearly 200 years ago. There has been a long time for bad blood to boil.)

Re: That's the $64,000 question, though.

[Black Parrot]

Speaking as someone from the disenfranchised back of beyond: ... The source of hatred is the underhanded, blood-stained, conscience-free, predatory behaviour of America's leaders with respect to the rest of the world. They play it like a huge game of monopoly, and where their gamepieces have been, you can tell by the trail of destabilisation, poverty and blood. As an American, that's my conclusion on the matter as well. I think our leaders have traditionally played the game to keep us as near the top of the heap as possible, tough shit for anyone who gets trodden underfoot.

For that matter, I suspect that every nation's leaders play it that way, to the extent that they can. And a certain fraction of the trodden try to get even however they can, tough shit for any innocents that get blown up for symbolic purposes.

Re:That's the $64,000 question, though.

[Anonymous Coward]

"They" hate America's racist oppression of the Palestinians.

You know what I've always wondered about the Palestinians? Why is it that all of these other country hate Israel for what they're going through, yet never seem to offer to let them immigrate?

It will not happen.

[master_p]

China vs Islam will not happen, because the tension between the west and Islam is not religious, but political. Islamists are against Americans, British and others because it is Americans, British and others that exploit their resources, have encouraged or directly supported corrupted governments and leaders (The Saudis, Saddam) etc.

If the tension between the west and Islam was religious, the first target would have been the Vatican, which is the largest Christian Church in the world. And after the Vatican, we would see Muslims turn against Orthodox Christians, which are quite a lot in Eastern Europe.

The conflict between west and Islam is not even a conflict between west and Islam. It is a conflict between USA, UK and specific Islamic groups. Of course the media from either side tend to exaggerate and project the conflict as something big like 'good vs evil', 'east vs west' etc.

Finally, the Chinese are not the people that have conquered the world, in the past. They might have some conquests around their country, but nothing spectacular. On the other hand, most of Africa, south east Asia, central and south America have been conquered by Europeans or European descentants. So there is little reason to hold a grudge against the Chinese.

Re:It will not happen.

[Caffeinate]

If the tension between the west and Islam was religious, the first target would have been the Vatican, which is the largest Christian Church in the world. See, here's where I disagree. Admittedly, the Holy See does oversee (see what I did there?) the largest Christian denomination but it is done in a mostly discrete and relatively respectful way (certain recent comments regarding Islam notwithstanding). The right-wing American Christianity however is very in-your-face, we're-right-you're-not, all-sinners-deservce-to-die, killing-abortionists-is-OK, etc. It's very much front-and-center for many Americans, and is displayed in almost every form of media published in the Western World.

If you look at predominantly Catholic nations (take Italy for example) the people are still fiercly religious and a slight against their religion would likely get you killed. The difference is that they aren't pushy about it. It's subdued and simply a matter of fact. If you think about the Catholic Church in the news (again, excluding the all-too-frequent child molestation cases), it's mostly "Pope says too much violence in the world", "Gay marriage still wrong, says Pope", "Mother Teresa to be canonized before a full century: Vatican insider", etc. It's not the more typical American sensationalist "All Muslims should die for acts of violence: Pat Robertson", "Gays are not citizens, says congressman", etc. They still have strong (and wrong, IMHO) views about current issues, but it's not overbearing.

Don't take this as a promotion of the Catholic Church; they've been responsible for some horrific chapters in our history as well. In the 21st century however, it's the Bible Belt religion that is the worst.

Disclaimer: Atheist pastor's kid - potentially not NPoV.

Re:It will not happen.

[Anonymous Coward]

If the tension between the west and Islam was religious, the first target would have been the Vatican, which is the largest Christian Church in the world. And after the Vatican, we would see Muslims turn against Orthodox Christians, which are quite a lot in Eastern Europe.

I winced there.

According to Wikipedia:
- Pope John Paul II was also one of the targets of the Al Qaeda-funded Operation Bojinka during a visit to the Philippines in 1995.
And:
- After Pope Benedict XVI was criticized by the Muslim world following the 12 September 2006 Regensburg speech, [Mehmet] Ali Aca [the Turkish gunman who was Pope John Paul II's unsuccessful assassin] wrote a letter to the Pope from jail warning him to cancel his planned trip to Turkey in November 2006.

The Vatican is most certainly a desired target. But what really concerned me was when you said "we would see Muslims turn against Orthodox Christians, which are quite a lot in Eastern Europe" as if this has not already happened! The bitter, bloody and often barbaric history of South-Eastern Europe (mainly the Balkans, Greece and Turkey - which isn't yet a part of "Europe") comes about from Islamic conquest (i.e. "Turkey" was originally Greek and was called "Anatolia"), subjugation (i.e. the enslavement and forced conversion of all young boys - and "marriage" of the young girls - in what hence became Muslim "Albania") and wholesale slaughter (i.e. the Armenian genocide). But this is the "ancient" stuff. These deeds are now counteracted in a tit-for-tat with situations such as Bosnia, Kosovo, Srebinika.

This particular theater of operations is ancient and ongoing. It's very much already here.

Re:It will not happen.

[master_p]

An attempt to assasinate a Pope is not a strike against the Catholic Church...let's not forget that the Vatican is suspected to be involved in many "strange" cases involving dealing various "thing"s (*cough* guns *cough* drugs *cough*) etc...A major terrorist act, like blowing up St Paul's church would be more persuasive.

As for the Balkans, it was not Turkey that had a conflict with Greece, it was the Ottoman Empire, and there was no Greece back then. And the conflict had nothing to do with a war between east and west. And Greece is a traditional friend of Arabs, especially Palestinians.

Neutron Bombs

[Peter Trepan]

The development of neutron weapons which destroy living organs but not buildings "might make a weapon of choice for extreme ethnic cleansing in an increasingly populated world".

We should do everything in our power to prevent these weapons from being used. Or, failing that, we should probably buy stock in ReMax and The Maid Brigade.

Obvious FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

1. The MoD needs government funding.
2. The government needs proof for MoD funding.
3. MoD provides FUD that scares the citizens, businesses, and politicians
.
.
.
Profit! (Funding)

They just don't get it ...

[jc42]

"Flashmobs" -- groups rapidly mobilised by criminal gangs or terrorists groups.

Oh, man; talk about clueless. What "flashmob" really means is that the PR guy at a local commercial outlet has hired a viral ad guy, who spread the rumor that Britney or Paris or a member of the latest hot local indie band has been spotted at said outlet.

Of course, one could classify the ad agencies as criminal gangs or terrorist groups, and then maybe you'd have a point.

(I live in the Boston area, which recently had a fun example of advertising being mistaken for terrorism. So I'm not surprised to read nonsense like this. And I'm looking forward to further entertaining mistakes along this line. Anything to make the Homeland Security people look even more foolish.)

Should read..

[delire]

"This is the world in 30 years' time envisaged by a Ministry of Defence team responsible for FUD mongering to the ends of securing their jobs for those same 30 years."

Reccommended reading.

Did it occur to anybody...

[devman32]

...that the role of the british armed forces should NOT be to fight off marxist revolutions in 3rd countries, just as it's not in Britain's rights to say how those countries should be governed?

This seems like we're living 1948 all over again... and that we never learn from our mistakes.

The danger of terrorism

[StreetStealth]

TFA:

Terrorism

Casualties and the amount of damage inflicted by terrorism will stay low compared to other forms of coercion and conflict.

What? Terrorism is a comparatively minor threat? Help! My worldview is collapsing!

Re:The danger of terrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Terrorism is a comparatively minor threat?

It is, compared to Government is a major threat, as it always has been. Only Governments can cause more damage, unbelievably more damage than Terrorism. They generally gloss over it but while making some other argument, this fact must have slipped out of their perspective.

Hmmm.

[FuturePastNow]

Sounds like a job for Ministry of Security Section 9.

Re:Hmmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

Awwww, man! Beat me to it. I was going to post "Sounds like a Standalone Complex" :)

Ministry of Defence always against British people

[br00tus]

MI5, MI6, the MoD etc. have always seen their number one enemy as the British people. This goes from the forgery of the Zinoviev Letter up to the miners' strike in the 1980s and beyond. Former assistant MI5 director Peter Wright goes into this a little bit in Spycatcher.

While most wage slaves are watching TV, porn, or praying to Jesus, the powers-that-be are deathly afraid people will one day "shape transnational processes in their own class interest". Actually, Marx's Capital has a pretty good history of the English working class - it slowly lost its feudal rights over several centuries with the onset of industrialization, but began organizing and began expanding its rights again.

It looks like your drones...

[CCFreak2K]

...are rebelling. You can nerve staple them to quell the riots. (Warning: doing so is considered an atrocity!)

There is no SINGLE cause of extremism.

[khasim]

In your comment, both sides tend to view the "problem" through their political / economic / religious filters.

Then they discard any examples that doesn't match their model while over emphasizing the ones that match.

A rich guy can turn extremists because he sees how poor people he identifies with are.

The models you describe do not account for empathy or other forms of social awareness. They are purely mercenary.

Terrorism is linked to extremism. You cannot eliminate extremism so you cannot eliminate terrorism. But you can can reduce the appeal of extremism by increasing the accessibility of political and economic power.

One nut case is just one nut case. If there isn't a ready pool of converts, that nut case will eventually take care of himself. The problem is when that nut case finds a pool of potential converts and those converts usually do result from political / economic / family / religious inequalities.

Re:There is no SINGLE cause of extremism.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

A rich guy can turn extremists because he sees how poor people he identifies with are.

Not only that, but the recent converts tend to be the most radical - it's a brand new world to them and they haven't got to the point yet where they start to notice all the problems with their new ideology and eventually realize that new boss is just like the old boss.

That's not something unique to terrorism either - you see it with many religious converts of all faiths and on the secular side you see it in things like joining a fraternity or even just spending a lot of money on a car - certain personality types just have to justify their decision by being as gung ho as they possibly can, it keeps them from examining the situation too closely and finding any flaws once they have committed. Like they are trying to avoid "buyer's remorse."

Re:There is no SINGLE cause of extremism.

[blahplusplus]

"Terrorism is linked to extremism. You cannot eliminate extremism so you cannot eliminate terrorism. But you can can reduce the appeal of extremism by increasing the accessibility of political and economic power."

The crux of the issue is that...

People want what they want, and when they can't have it or are prevented from doing what they wish or believing, they will begin to feel trapped and suffocated until they embrace "extreme-ism" or a method that allows them some reprieve from the tyranny of other groups ideas, ethos or way of life. The world CHANGED because of people embracing extremism, people once thought slavery was 'natural' and to not believe in slavery was "extremism", anything can be extremism. Extremism is a tool to change society when all your other options cut off. People don't embrace extremism for nothing, they embrace it because the cannot solve their problems or get access to resources in a timely manner. Or are prevented by cultural racism from living a civil life. Most people in the world today are uncivilized, slaves to their animal nervous systems prejudices. i.e. think of the last time you told someone to get away from you because "you didn't like him" for no justifiable reason, just 'because' he offended your senses.

Indeed it has scarcely been 100 years since moving away from racism and slavery and we STILL haven't moved away from racism and slavery, we're still at war with them both, corporations want to re-institute slavery under the guise of capitalism but the truth is: A good war is better then a tenuous and suffocating peace.

You can't win idealogical or philosophical battles that people are programmed to believe. This is why capitalism, communism and socialism are such politically hardening terms. You can scarcely have a discussion without the the ideology of the dominant group mocking any dissent. This is especially apparent in our market society.

Re: There is no SINGLE cause of extremism.

[Black Parrot]

Indeed it has scarcely been 100 years since moving away from racism and slavery and we STILL haven't moved away from racism and slavery, we're still at war with them both, corporations want to re-institute slavery under the guise of capitalism I would have said serfdom rather than slavery, though perhaps the point is moot.

Re:There is no SINGLE cause of extremism.

[asninn]

think of the last time you told someone to get away from you because "you didn't like him" for no justifiable reason, just 'because' he offended your senses.

What's wrong with that, though? It's natural to like or dislike some people, and not wanting to have anything to do with those you dislike is a good way of avoiding trouble - it's when you're FORCED to deal with them that fights (of whatever kind) arise.

A good war is better then a tenuous and suffocating peace.

That's only true if you're on the winning side, and only if you've actually got a decent chance of surviving. And of course, how would you be able to tell whether a war is just, justified, good or anything like that? Unless you're one of the high-ups who're actually in charge, you won't even be able to tell whether what you're being told is truth or propaganda.

I'm not sure what a "tenuous and suffocating" peace is supposed to be, either. The real solution to problems is not war (or, more generally, fighting); it's sitting down on your goddamned asses, putting your irrational, emotional anger aside for a moment, talking to each other and trying to find a solution. It may be necessary to defend yourself when the other party decides that it's had enough and starts a war with YOU, but you shouldn't go around starting any.

Re: 2035 != no oil

[Anonymous Coward]

Rest assured, there will still be enough oil left for the various militaries to fight over by 2035.

The less there is, after all, the more valuable it will be, hence the need to fight over it.

in this twilight

[Anonymous Coward]

Public schools are there to teach the intelligent non-wealthy their place. You figure out that you are living in a dystopia and must dumb yourself down so that your peers don't attack you and you must submit to arbitrary authority so the teachers don't attack you. Public schools are cultural-factories producing a compliant population of unthinking consumers. Learn not to question power. Learn to obey.

Re:in this twilight

[fatduck]

You should read Ivan Illich.

Re:in this twilight

[fyngyrz]

Public schools are there to teach the intelligent non-wealthy their place.

And religion is there to teach them to like it.

Re:in this twilight

[Brad Eleven]

While I'd never waste mod points on an AC post, I'll reply...

My kids are in public school, and (sigh) this pretty much sums it up. Add to this the fundie teachers who use the classroom to echo superstition, e.g., they have Time For Kids (a Time Magazine joint) handouts, meant to provide talking points in a Letter to the President--but instead, give their own twisted narratives, e.g., "The Iraqis want to blow themselves up so they can be with their false gods," and "It would be a sin not to finish God's War." Add to this the attendant anxiety that my nerdy kids are already experiencing in elementary school, and...

My approach is to get the entire curriculum up front, and to review it with the teachers every six weeks. I teach my kids most evenings, and every weekend. I teach them what I believe, and I explain where and why it differs from what is said at school. We play a game whose object is to master the proffered subject matter and regurgitate appropriately at school on tests and in class--while realizing that it's only one of many possible views.

So I'm essentially home schooling inside of the state's educational structure. It's actually way more fun that I thought it would be. I have an extraordinary relationship with my kids, and I get to see what they're being sold as The Truth. The major benefit is that the one child who has the high IQ with low performance has blossomed beyond anyone's expectations. He gets the game better than I do, and he spontaneously extrapolated how children-oriented TV is the same con game. He's the oldest, and has taken to finding more perspectives.

The trade-off is that I don't get enough sleep. I'm hoping that their summer vacation will make this easier, but they seem to expect the game to continue. I also notice a smugness about them, but I think this would have been inevitable in, say, middle school or high school when they realize or at least see evidence that they're more intelligent than some of their teachers, and all of their administrative staff. Maybe the summertime is for non-school subjects, like building and testing PCs.

To the AC's point: I want for them to understand that there are those who believe that my children should know their place, and I want for them to know what that is--in order for them to know the workarounds.

Re:in this twilight

[Anonymous Coward]

My kids are in public school, and (sigh) this pretty much sums it up. Add to this the fundie teachers who use the classroom to echo superstition, e.g., they have Time For Kids (a Time Magazine joint) handouts, meant to provide talking points in a Letter to the President--but instead, give their own twisted narratives

I'm sure the 'fundie' teachers would argue that time for kids comes with its own twisted narratives.

Re:in this twilight

[fyngyrz]

"flamebait" :-) Yes, the truth can be incendiary. Censorship, however, doesn't change the facts.

Re:in this twilight

[ArcherB]

My kids are in public school, and (sigh) this pretty much sums it up. Add to this the fundie teachers who use the classroom to echo superstition, e.g., they have Time For Kids (a Time Magazine joint) handouts, meant to provide talking points in a Letter to the President--but instead, give their own twisted narratives, e.g., "The Iraqis want to blow themselves up so they can be with their false gods," and "It would be a sin not to finish God's War." Add to this the attendant anxiety that my nerdy kids are already experiencing in elementary school, and...

Wow! Where are your kids going to school?!!? I'm in Texas and the teachers are teaching that war is ALWAYS wrong and that the kids should be praying... I mean hoping (can't pray unless you are a Muslim)... hoping that the evil war ends by bringing our troops home, I guess because troops at home=peace.

Then they go on to teach about the heroes of the Boston Tea Party, Revolutionary War and The Alamo and pass out candy flavored condoms.

Re:in this twilight

[Vitriol Angst]

by Brad Eleven (165911

Good post. I'm hoping I have the energy to do exactly the same thing; teach my kids the alternative to the school view, and how to "regurgitate" information without needing to absorb it. That was definitely my coping school but I was two years into college before I figured it out.

Re:in this twilight

[Vitriol Angst]

Wow! Where are your kids going to school?!!? I'm in Texas and the teachers are teaching that war is ALWAYS wrong and that the kids should be praying... I mean hoping (can't pray unless you are a Muslim)... hoping that the evil war ends by bringing our troops home, I guess because troops at home=peace.

Doesn't sound too bad a starting point. Most wars I know about have been wrong. There have been only two that made some sense; the Revolutionary War (getting rid of kings) and perhaps WW II. And I'm starting to suspect WW II because we seem to have many of the financial backers of that war's decendents, running things here in the US.

Troops at home does = peace. Apparently, I missed the history lesson where Persia (Iraq) EVER, attacked America.

We have a lot bigger things to worry about. I doubt there is much of an issue with America being too afraid of going into pointless wars. $.40 of every $1 going to the government goes towards our military right now. Think about that when you pay taxes and buy "cheap" gasoline. http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesVie w/sid/22108/

Re:in this twilight

[fyngyrz]

Ok, now we're up to 2 flame-baits, 1 underrated, and one insightful. It's a mod-fight!

FWIW, it wasn't flame-bait; it was an observation of fact. Let's see... Timothy 6:10 "For the love of money is the root of all evil" This clearly is repressive, money being the root of nothing in particular but prevention of starvation and enabling any number of other choices, ranging from charity to warfare. It is the choices we make that root us in evil, or elsewhere. James 4:6-10 "Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble." Here again we find the not too finely veiled admonition to know one's station, and the implication that reward will come in the afterlife. This theme re-appears again and again, and in this guise serves as factual basis for my statement above that religion literally teaches the low-stationed to like their lot. Peter's got something to say about it, too: Peter 1 2:18 "Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse." That one's a bit of a kicker. Not only are you supposed to be a good little slave, but you are to remain so even in the face of perverse handling. I wonder if George W. Bush is descended from Peter. Well, no matter. You can't actually discuss these things. Flame-bait, you know.

Re:in this twilight

[ArcherB]

We have a lot bigger things to worry about. I doubt there is much of an issue with America being too afraid of going into pointless wars. $.40 of every $1 going to the government goes towards our military right now. Think about that when you pay taxes and buy "cheap" gasoline. http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesVie w/sid/22108/

As a former soldier, I see the need for a strong defense. You don't have to look very far beyond Rwanda or Darfur to see what can happen when good people either can't or won't act. That said, I don't see how you can be good and not act in such a situation. Still, someone has to maintain the might to fight off bullies and thugs. Having met and talked with those who felt the wrath of Saddam (and seen the stubs and scars), I have a unique perspective on tyranny and mid-eastern politics. I've also seen first hand how the media distorts or ignores the news, sometimes for the better, but most of the time, not.

Troops at home does = peace. Apparently, I missed the history lesson where Persia (Iraq) EVER, attacked America.

Persia is Iran. I don't know if Persia included modern day Iraq or not. (OK I looked it up and at its height, the Persian empire did encompass all of Iraq)
And yes, Iraq did attack America. They attacked US warplanes enforcing UN mandates and attempted to assassinate a former US president. However, none of that matters to me as much as what he did to his own people. UNICEF reports that over half a million children under the age of five died due to preventable diseases. Over half a million!!! I don't consider the life of an American any more or less important than that of someone who happened to be born somewhere else in the world, especially when they are as innocent as 5-year-old. Of course, that half a million number was just the Iraqis under 5. It does not take into account the adults or children as young as six. So THAT's why I support the war in Iraq. Not to, IMHO is either racist, elitist or just plain ignorant... again, IMHO.
Also troops at home!=peace when the war is at home.

Doesn't sound too bad a starting point. Most wars I know about have been wrong. There have been only two that made some sense; the Revolutionary War (getting rid of kings) and perhaps WW II. And I'm starting to suspect WW II because we seem to have many of the financial backers of that war's decendents, running things here in the US.
Most wars start with noble intentions but get corrupted along the way. However, any level of corruption would be worth overthrowing Nazi Germany and Japan. The US got hood-winked into WWI. As far as more local history, the War for Texas Independence was just :-)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this stuff.

Re:in this twilight

[ChromeAeonium]

Religion has nothing to do with it. Religion is rarely used in that manner in this day and age. There is, however, an entire set of values, collectively referred to as the hidden curriculum, shoved down students' throats in public school. Religion, however, does make a nice scapegoat, but it's really nothing more than a red herring.

Re:in this twilight

[Magada]

"UNICEF reports that over half a million children under the age of five died due to preventable diseases."
How many of those died during the embargo?

Re:in this twilight

[ArcherB]

-->"UNICEF reports that over half a million children under the age of five died due to preventable diseases."
How many of those died during the embargo?

All of them. The "Oil for Food Program" was not the problem. It was corruption within the Iraqi government and the UN itself that was the problem. While children were dieing from lack of medicine, dirty water and malnutrition, the Iraqi government was building palaces and buying off government officials around the world.

Had we not invaded Iraq, the program would have ended, as would have all sanctions against Iraq, leaving the government that allowed its people to starve more powerful and entrenched than when the whole thing started. I have a hard time calling that justice.

Can I just say that this article is a carbon copy.

[madhatter256]

This article is almost a carbon copy of the recently released DVD movie, Children of Men. Where fertility drops to the point where everyone is infertile and all hell breaks lose. This article is the basis of that movie. It is as if they had nothing else to think of. but it is possible, very possible.

If this were to occur, then make sure you live in seclusion; grow pot and food; fall in love with a female revolutionary; get sucked into a shitty plot; save humanity by rowing a pregnant black girl, who doesn't know who the father is as always, and supposedly save human kind from self-extinction to some freaking fishing boat.

Original Report

[PhiberKut]

Since we all know /.'ers love digesting complex information and not taking data at second hand, I've included a link to the 106 page report:
Strategic Trends 2007

Elijah Chancey
www.elijahsadventure.com
nomadic IT consultant, bicycling across america
"all that you touch / and all that you see / is all that your life / will ever be"

What about the next 45 minutes?

[Flying pig]

We the British have the best intelligence services in the world. After WW" we spooked you about Communism so you didn't link up with the USSR and gobble up the remains of our empire. For our own devious reasons we put together a dodgy dossier that got the US embroiled in Iraq (Saddam and WMD). We sent out a patrol boat and nearly got you to declare war on Iran but you seem to have spotted that one in time, especially now you start to realise the involvement of Rupert Murdoch (of the Sun and Fox un-News.) Now we're planning to get you to start locking up your own dangerous left-wing middle classes and spending all your R&D dollars on EMP weapons.

We'll have our revenge for 1776 yet.

love, the MOD

the middle class is shiftier than you think

[haaz]

much change in the U.S. has come from the wills and wants of middle class people. the women's rights movement was in many ways a product of the antebellum (pre-Civil War) middle class. Wives of men who worked could organize and work for change. how many middle class people voted for Ronald Reagan thinking he could ensure their continuation of middle class okayness after President Carter's apparent fumbles, or for that matter, enough to give the current 'resident a close enough margin to fudge the vote?

this is a messy way of saying "we have money, mobility, and means to organize." disrupting middle class comfort leads to disruptions of the incumbent regime in America. granted, you'd have to really do something big to disrupt people out of the suburbs and into action. everyone can be motivated to do something, is what I'm saying. I don't know how you'd motivate the suburban middle class to have an organized revolt, but it's happened via the ballot box, with religion to a certain extent. it's all about the marketing I guess.

"Marxism, NOW EXTRA CRUNCHY!"

but then... if Marxism is hypothetically about evening distribution of wealth... the middle class has just enough (sometimes quite a lot) wealth to be materially comfortable. It seems contradictory with contemporary consumer American middle class.... hmmm... hmm..... ::beard-sipping, latte-stroking::

No problem

[rlp]

Bird flu, global warming, gray goo, super-volcano explosions, and collisions with near-earth asteroids will have killed everyone by then. :-)

Also

[Sycraft-fu]

Supposing that economics IS the major or prime cause the question is what to do about it? The answer "give them money" doesn't work. One of the largest problems trying to get aid of any kind to people in impoverished countries is that by and large the extremely impoverished areas are extremely corrupt, extremely authoritarian, or both. In either case, the money you give will get taken by those in power and not distributed to those in need, thus accomplishing nothing.

You have this problem even with simple things. The opening sequence in Blackhawk Down is a rather realistic depiction of the kind of shit that happens. Food aid (not even money) comes in, warlord seizes it, nothing changes for the impoverished. This, of course, only gets worse as the value and luxury of the goods goes up, with money being the worst of all.

So even if you believe the answer lies in economics, the real issue isn't getting people to redistribute wealth, the real issue is how to get the wealth to those that need it. That is the real, near impossible thing. Only if you can get that worked out, and start getting the wealth, however small it may be, that already is aimed at going to the poor actually in their hands effectively does it make sense to talk about wealth distribution on a wide scale.

Re:Also

[Kelbear]

Parent is right on the money and deserves to be modded up.

Middle-eastern countries have a handy chunk of money in the form of OPEC. That oil can fetch them quite a bit of money but where is it going? The economy relies heavily on oil exports, but what about the other industries? That oil money can be used as capital to get other industries juiced up and making jobs that pay wages to their average citizen. Spend a little money on some serious educational infrastructure rather than anti-western dogma.

In the same way that the war on terror has helped mask important internal national issues. Perhaps the same can apply for the middleeast. When they all they've got is sand(I'm being facetious), it's easy to get pissed over something as superficial as a cartoon drawing. If they have economic opportunity, they have increased opportunity costs.

They can still get pissed if they have money, but they can just change the channel, take some night classes, go out to the club and party, or turn on the Xbox360 and frag some american n00bs while insulting their moms through the headset. Or heck, maybe read some exciting non-forbidden books.

I don't doubt that "The West" has created issues for them, but I find it hard to believe that "The West" could possibly be responsible for ALL the issues they face. Why aren't they mad at the ones in their country who control all their money, just like westerners are mad at the ones in their country who control their money?

Can someone explain to me

[e-scetic]

What the threat is with information chips implanted in the brain? What does this have to do with flashmobs? Right now flashmobs are possible with cell phones, pagers, etc.

If information chips are a threat because they permit people to organize quickly, presumably using communication, and cell phones and pagers make this possible too, also through communication, then any means of communication would be seen as a threat to security?

What's so special about information chips in the brain?

It's like something is missing here...the author might have skipped something.

Re:Can someone explain to me

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is this: according to the report, people having information is in itself dangerous.

Anarchy in the UK

[billcopc]

This is Britain, they always think everyone's out to get them. They also think they have any skill at dealing with such problems. Say, how's that worthless CCTV system doing ? :P

If anyone ever bombs the UK, it's purely because we can't get that pitifully small unproductive nation to shut up.

Why would the defence department...

[XenoBrain]

Be making predictions like this? Aren't they too busy removing people's fences?

Problems with Islam outlined (long)

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree somewhat and disagree somewhat. Not really about the severity of your claims or any similar to them, but about the reasoning behind. I think that the combination of Islam and middle eastern culture in general isn't fully understood, especially in the US where people are used to seeing/encouraging migrants to keep their mouth shut about their personal idiosyncracies and work (as in employment), and if they really need to recognise their culture then they do it in private with likeminded people.

I think the summaries from the report are actually extremely sober. If you take the "omg flashmobs lolz" comments first - they are the technologically based possibilities, based on the argument that IF these technologies become reality, THEN this is how they may be used. Compare it to a prediction fifteen years ago about flying cars - IF flying cars had become a reality, which it looked like to some, THEN assassinating pretty much anyone would be extremely easy, as Joe Sixpack could have an explosive loaded remote controlled flying car fly into them as they stepped off the bus, and the potential for damage would be massive. Similarly,

The nontechnological predictions on the other hand are sober enough. Higher child survival rates and high birthrates in developing countries with a corresponding lack of economic development at the same (high) rate leading to urban shanty towns, and migration leading to the same thing in developed countries, with conflicts arising based on feeling of community belonging rather than on country of citizenship? Is that crazy to predict? And Marxism? It looks to me like if every marxist in history including most recently Hugo Chavez hadn't blown three to five mental fuses, then a sustainable marxist state could have existed, which would have given enormous momentum to all forms of commun-ism. There were even plenty of "former marxist" politicians in my home country of which there are quite a few going very strongly for giving Venezuela extra development aid (cash) and urban/planning/technological advice to help the society succeed, and I can't see them being rooted out as "red-handed commies" any time soon.

But over to Islam. And to counter the accusations that already appear here, that this is "tained rightwing speech", I have a few hammer blows to bring. It is a fact that birth rates amongst muslims in Europe are substantially higher than for the population in general. It is also a fact that employment levels are lower, crime rates are higher, and pretty much every social indicator is worse than both 1) the original ethnic population and 2) the majority of nonmuslim immigrant groups. These differences persist even if you control for poverty, age and gender, although controlling for poverty in itself could be debated. It is also a fact that the muslim population when polled give some pretty extreme and radical answers (e.g. the majority wanting Sharia as a source of law), and that in pretty much every country with substantial numbers of both muslims and nonmuslims there are deep-seated and brutal conflicts.

What is Islam? A religious system of beliefs, consisting of several key tenents (similar to Christianity having Jesus as a key tenent). These include Muhammed, the Quran, and Hadith (being the tales from companions). The Hadith may be weaker or stronger depending on the source, while the Quran was penned by Allah himself through Muhammed. The equivalent is maybe that the Hadith equal the writings of the Apostles, while the content of the Quran equals the contents of the Ten Commandments.

To sum the problems I can see up briefly:

1. Muhammed as an idol conflicting with western notions of criticism and lampooning of authority figures. The degree to which muslims uphold Muhammed as an inviolable person is many times greater than most "Christians" uphold Jesus - as the cartoon row indicated. In any society with muslims around Muhammed will also be talked about a great deal. The problem is that the actions Muhammed took are in many cases so bestial, despica

Fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

Very forward thinking. This explains why a third-rate navy in the Persian Gulf can overtake and imprison sailors from what is commonly thought of as a first-rate navy--and then parade their prisoners in front of the worldwide press with total impunity. It also helps to explain why a backwards state that is basically run by men from the middle ages can construct "old technology" weapons capable of wiping out much of the EU with little more than a muted protest from the same EU country with that first-rate navy. I hope Tony Blair will waste no time in issuing tinfoil hats to British servicemen and citizens, and he will watch them carefully with his unrivalled domestic surveillance technology to make sure that they all wear their hats.

My vision of the future: creating your own reality

[John Jorsett]

I don't know by when it'll happen, but my assessment of human nature tells me that when we're able to drive inputs to our senses via computer, and are able to create completely real universes to drive those inputs, people will check out of the real physical world in favor of worlds they can construct for themselves. We've already got that to a large extent with some gamers who spend every possible minute in alternate realities like Second Life, World of Warcraft, or Everquest. Imagine how many more people would never emerge if the alternate reality were completely immersive and they could arrange it to their liking? And it wouldn't necessarily just be the furniture: if you didn't want the nuisance of real people occupying it it with you, you could create artificial people who would always be pleasureable to be around and keep you from being lonely.

I can't decide if this would be good, bad, or somewhere in between. It would essentially be creating a Heaven for yourself. Your body could physically reside in the worst hellhole on earth, you could be crippled or handicapped beyond repair, yet you'd be able to live the lifestyle of a god. Might be nice.

Khan

[Anonymous Coward]

The muslims remember Genghis Khan. He was a lot worse to them than the Crusaders, who spent more effort fighting each other than fighting Islam. Don't bet a lot that they won't connect the dots back to China. Whenever it's in the best interests of the current or hopeful power structure to do so, they will.

Dupe from 1984

[Cloud K]

Knowing the way this country's going, the brain implants will be there to monitor your thoughts... once upon a time I might've even been kidding!

Wha.....??

[IHC Navistar]

Marxist revolution already is here. It's called Berkeley. And they both suck.

Islam is not the issue

[MrSteveSD]

Tension between the Islamic world and the west will remain...

Imagine that by chance the Middle East had turned out to be mostly Hindu, and Islam was confined to poor resourceless areas of Africa. Do you still think that Islam would be a problem? Do you think that for some reason those Islamic people in the depths of Africa would have some irrational hatred of the US?

Of course not. We would instead be asking why Hindus hate the west so much. The fact is that there has been so much western meddling in the Middle East over the oil resources that a large number of people there are against the west. Back in the 50s Eisenhower wanted to know why there was a campaign of hatred against the US by the people of the Middle East. He was told that there was a perception that the US was supporting dictators and stifling democracy. He was also told that it was a difficult opinion to counter because it was correct.

Even now, some 50 years after Ike asked the question, we find ourselves occupying Iraq with a million Iraqis on the streets telling us to get out. This was after kicking out a dictator that we had supported for many years in full knowledge of the crimes he was committing. We even supported/encouraged him in his war on Iran as punishment for kicking out the dictator we had installed there. Aside from Iraq (which I'm sure everyone is tired of) we are still supporting a brutal regime in Saudi Arabia. Imagine how the Saudi people feel about the US and UK. We are actively supporting the people who are oppressing them and they are well aware of it. Do you think that for some reason they might be angry with the US and UK? If so, do you think it is because they are Islamic, or because we are supporting their dictators?

Thanks to John Bolton (as much as it pains me to thank him) there is now no doubt why the US kept blocking a ceasefire in the Lebanon conflict last year. While the conflict was going on and the carnage was clear on all our TV screens, the US was resupplying Israel with new weapons via UK airports and blocking any ceasefire so that Israel could "win". Do you think that this will have generated much anger in the region, and will that anger be due to the fact that they are Islamic or rather due to the events that occurred?

My point is that it's not Islam that is the issue, it's really the people of the Middle East, who just happen to be mostly Islamic. It is their anger over the things we have done and the things we continue to do. If you have a whole region that's quite angry at the west, it stands to reason there will be a fair number who are insanely angry with the west. Those are the people we are now (supposedly) fighting and in the process generating more of. If you want to reduce terrorism you have to stop generating so much anger. That means no more invasions, coups, support for brutal dictatorships or other aggressive interference in the Middle East.

Just one thing

[franksands]

Where the fuck is my flying car!?!?!1one

Ick.

[Fantastic Lad]

I can't decide if this would be good, bad, or somewhere in between. It would essentially be creating a Heaven for yourself. Your body could physically reside in the worst hellhole on earth, you could be crippled or handicapped beyond repair, yet you'd be able to live the lifestyle of a god. Might be nice.

I always thought 'The Matrix' didn't need the McGuffin of robots enslaving humanity through force. I figured there'd be plenty of people who would be happy enough to build the darned cage on their own and that the robots would only be servants filling the feed-tubes and maintaining things. --And stopping the boat rockers who wanted to wake up and disrupt the status quo. --While the real overlords would be the life forms who benefit from suckering humans into such a pitiful state of affairs and who feed from their easily manipulable 'chi' energies which most humans remain unaware they even possess.

But I think that might be a little too close to reality as it currently stands.

-FL

2035?

[Fantastic Lad]

My guess is that those humans surviving in this reality will be huddling in caves while the cold wind blows over the icy, blasted remains of our current ridiculous population.

Flashmobs and Islam?

Seems like wishful thinking to me.

-FL

Marxist ideal doesn't reduce envy, it gives in

[geoffrobinson]

If it bothers you that someone has more than you, that's envy. Getting rid of envy through Marxism is like getting rid of racism by ethnic cleansing.

Re:Marxist ideal doesn't reduce envy, it gives in

[xero314]

Getting rid of envy through Marxism is like getting rid of racism by ethnic cleansing. It's more like getting rid of racism by removing the concept of race. Socialism (and my extension Marxism) does not remove property, only the concept of property owned by individuals. By making all property shared by all people you no longer have anything to be envious about, at least as property is concerned. The same would be true if we could remove the concept of race without actually removing people. Equality or race, gender or other sub culture (sub meaning "part of" not "less than") is actually a common aspect of many socialist factions. Gender Equality specifically has always come about earlier in Socialist countries (Communist and Fascist alike).

Re:Marxist ideal doesn't reduce envy, it gives in

[geoffrobinson]

I'm still disagreeing with this assessment. I think a lot of Marxism is based on envy since they feel the need to solve the "problem" that some people have some stuff and others have more stuff.

Practically, it usually involves having everyone having very little.