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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.