Gov't Report Predicts Cyborgs, Rise of China for 2030

Skynet by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 11:44 · Score: 0

Skynet will be needed by the Cyborgs.
Perhaps a Cyborg army will be created to deal with the Chinese, but instead will turn against all humans.
That's my prediction for 2030, and no... I most certainly do not welcome any new Cyborg overlords.

Re:Skynet by ackthpt · 2012-12-11 12:22 · Score: 1

Skynet will be needed by the Cyborgs.
Perhaps a Cyborg army will be created to deal with the Chinese, but instead will turn against all humans.
That's my prediction for 2030, and no... I most certainly do not welcome any new Cyborg overlords.
I think the prediction is conservative. Consider the drones we already have deployed and the advances in autonomous devices in the past decade, the hardware is pretty much here, it's just getting the programming down pat. For all we know the programming could be pretty close already, but nobody with it is going to tell you they have prototypes of 'cyborgs' which can fly or amble about, recognise your face and decide the best way to eliminate you if necessary. No lasers needed, bullets are still pretty darn effective.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:Skynet by magarity · 2012-12-11 12:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

I most certainly do not welcome any new Cyborg overlords.
Speak for yourself; if they all look like Summer Glau, I can't wait!
Re:Skynet by deimtee · 2012-12-11 13:05 · Score: 2

Cyborgs are by definition cybernetics combined with an organism. They don't need autonomous or self-aware AI programming, that's what the Org part is for. The needed programming would only be the on-board control of the enhancements, and the interface to the controlling intelligence, ie: the translation from thought to action.
I agree that the hardware is pretty much here, with the major exception of reliable, long-term, non-damaging, high-capacity, biology-to-machine interfaces. That's going to be the hard part.
Messy wetware. Yuck

--
I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
Re:Skynet by Sperbels · 2012-12-11 13:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

Hell, my mother has cochlear implants, she's already a cyborg.
Re:Skynet by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 13:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Anybody with a laptop, tablet or smartphone who relies upon the internet is already a cyborg.
Re:Skynet by The_mad_linguist · 2012-12-11 14:29 · Score: 1

Anyone with an air conditioner is already using 'cybernetics'.
Re:Skynet by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 14:51 · Score: 0

They don't even have to be implants. A cyborg is merely a person or being that uses electronic or mechanical devices to aid them in every day tasks. That is every one of us.
Re:Skynet by Chewbacon · 2012-12-11 15:05 · Score: 3, Funny

My grandmother has bilateral knee replacements. Cyborg. She also has eyes in the back of her head, but I think that's maternal evolution.

--
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
Re:Skynet by nmr_andrew · 2012-12-12 06:31 · Score: 1

I most certainly do not welcome any new Cyborg overlords.
Speak for yourself; if they all look like Summer Glau, I can't wait!
Only on Slashdot would this be modded "Insightful"...
Re:Skynet by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-12 08:52 · Score: 0

Imagine a pair of testicles. Now imagine a gentle bird. Now back to testicles. Bird. Testicles. Malfunctioning Summer Glau looking cyborg holding them. Crush. Tear.
Re:Skynet by g0bshiTe · 2012-12-12 09:51 · Score: 1

I know right she wasn't even a cyborg! -1000000 nerd points.

--
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!

Flying cars? by PPH · 2012-12-11 11:49 · Score: 3, Funny

Not yet? Then fuck it.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Re:Flying cars? by dinfinity · 2012-12-11 23:35 · Score: 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAL-V
Expensive, but at least it's viable.

So... by theRunicBard · 2012-12-11 11:49 · Score: 0, Troll

they watched some science fiction? I cannot believe any of this. I find it very likely that part of the reason the US attacked the Middle East was to get armies right up near China. As dumb as the political side of the US is I doube the military side will roll over and die.

Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 12:37 · Score: 1

We already have a large military presence in Japan and South Korea, but we invaded Iraq to get closer to China? Right...
Re:So... by Squiddie · 2012-12-11 13:16 · Score: 2

Strategic encirclement, yo!
Re:So... by wmac1 · 2012-12-11 14:36 · Score: 1

Exactly.
The presence in Afghanistan (the western neighbor of China), south east Asia and Japan is mostly to contain China.
In the few past decades US and West tried to surround USSR (Western Europe, Scandinavia, Turkey and then Islamic ideologies in Afghanistan and Iran). In my opinion the Islamic revolution in Iran (providing media access to Khomeini including full-time BBC coverage of his speech, providing support and an Air France plane to return to Iran, ...) and the long war in Afghanistan against USSR by Taliban (used to be supported by US) were part of this same plan. The only thing is they went out of control. However, as Kissinger mentioned, you should see the overall picture of what is gained and what is lost. The USSR was brought down and a few Islamic states have gained power.
Now the history repeats about China. West and US have obviously started to contain China.
Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 15:50 · Score: 0

Contain China? Not really... China has a lot better place in the world, and in less than 2-3 hours, can completely neutralize the majority of Western manufacturing. All it would take is getting Kim to shell Seoul, an overrun of Taiwan, some intimidation of Signapore, and maybe a barrage aimed at critical manufacturing places in Tokyo. All soft, relatively defenseless targets except for Seoul... and the sheer amount of guns pointed that way will crater that area quite effectively.
Of course, there are other levers. Sending guns made to Mexican criminals. Arming the Taliban and other places. At the extreme, Al Qaeda mysteriously gets a lot of usable fissile material, all wrapped up in shiny packages with proper detonators.
Think the US would directly attack China even if the above mentioned nations are attacked. Doubtful to impossible, and a nuclear exchange will not happen, and China knows it.
Re:So... by wmac1 · 2012-12-11 16:22 · Score: 1

Containment does not need to be using military. If you control the resources like oil, neighboring countries (i.e. electricity, pipe lines, land transport, land based communication links, trade etc.) you can contain a country.
Plants get their resources from both soil and air. Cut or reduce any of them and it will die or stop growing.
Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 16:34 · Score: 0

Not really true. China is in a better position for access to oil than the US. Iraq is essentially theirs. Iran mainly sells to them for relatively cheap. Saudi Arabia plays both sides. In the war for oil, the US isn't the one with the upper hand. Just a mining of one strait can completely paralyze the US economy.
Of course, there are allies. China and Russia for example. With that trade alliance (technology for resources), that is a very strategic advantage. Then, there is the rare earth issue. Yes, other places have them, but it will take years to get the mining infrastructure in place.
Of course, there is the espionage aspect as well which both Russia and China are champions with.
Re:So... by crutchy · 2012-12-11 19:09 · Score: 1

Of course, there is the espionage aspect as well which both Russia and China are champions with.
just think of all those "made in china" microchips that could be remotely disabled in a western world that wouldn't function without them... sun tzu would be proud
Re:So... by mcgrew · 2012-12-12 05:12 · Score: 1

they watched some science fiction? I cannot believe any of this.
Well, most of TFA seemed to be bullshit, but the cyborg part is right. I'm a cyborg, and many people I know are cyborgs, as well. Most cyborgs are geezers like me, and you couldn't tell them from any other geezer.
Hell, the previous Vice President of the US was a cyborg.
As to the rest of your comment, are you trolling or just on crack?

--
Free Martian Whores!

I predict by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 11:52 · Score: 0, Interesting

Chinese cyborgs farming gold on World of Warcraft's 23rd expansion pack. And South Korean cyborgs pwning Starcraft 7 world tournaments because of their mechanically-enhanced megaclicks-per-second micromanagement skills. ("Kekekekek!") And maybe Cyborg Olympics, competing in the Sports Entertainment Market Meta-Olympics with the Chemically Enhanced Olympics, the Robot Olympics, and the Blood Sport Olympics. (The traditional Olympics will have disbanded due to lack of athletes by 2020.)

Re:I predict by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 12:03 · Score: 0

It took 12 years to release Starcraft 2, so we'll only be to 3.5 by 2030.
Re:I predict by ZombieBraintrust · 2012-12-11 14:36 · Score: 1

We may even get the third half life game by then.
Re:I predict by crutchy · 2012-12-11 19:13 · Score: 1

South Korean cyborgs pwning Starcraft 7 world tournaments because of their mechanically-enhanced megaclicks-per-second micromanagement skills
how do i get outta this chicken shit outfit
Re:I predict by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-14 04:36 · Score: 0

you secure that shit, Hudson

Food and fresh water by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2012-12-11 11:52 · Score: 1

We have plenty of both, and usually the means to get a lot more if pressed. Where you might run into problems is if you were unwise enough to build a few cities in desert areas and then attempt to irrigate them from faraway sources.

Re:Food and fresh water by Herve5 · 2012-12-12 00:32 · Score: 1

"Where you might run into problems is if you were unwise enough to build a few cities in desert areas and then attempt to irrigate them from faraway sources."
Like, say, Los Angeles?

--
Herve S.

'growth of a global middle class.' by flogger · 2012-12-11 11:53 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Damn, We were just getting rid of the American middle class. Now it is off to keep the rest of the world in it's place: Below our corporate regime.
Signed,
Corp. Amerika

--
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
-- The Doctor, "Doctor

Re: 'growth of a global middle class.' by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 12:56 · Score: 2, Funny

Perhaps if we get rid of the grammar nazis there will be room on this planet for more middle-class people.
Re: 'growth of a global middle class.' by marcosdumay · 2012-12-11 13:34 · Score: 1

Not only will the global middle class grow, and everybody will be richer... But also there will be less food and water available for everybody!
I know that kind of report is an assembly of several different scenarios, that obviously have different characteristics. But it is not very usefull to claim that "In 2030 we'll be all rich, well, unless we are all poor or things stay near the way they are now", "also, a famous personality will die".

--
Rethinking email
Re: 'growth of a global middle class.' by crutchy · 2012-12-11 19:21 · Score: 1

the good thing about the english language is that it has become so bastardized with exceptions to the various rules that you can pretty much do as you like and few would question... i'm sure there are plenty of sources that say you are right about the misuse of an apostrophe in a possessive pronoun, but there are also probably as many sources that claim you're full of shit, so at what point does some old rule become so fucked up by exceptions that is't no longer a rule?

"i before e, except after c, except for the exceptions"... or when you don't feel like it or you forget
Re: 'growth of a global middle class.' by TapeCutter · 2012-12-11 20:36 · Score: 1

Put them in a space ship with phone sanitizers and blast them to another planet.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re: 'growth of a global middle class.' by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-12 04:00 · Score: 0

I am sorry to burst your bubble of delusion, but "it's" is a contraction of either "it is" or "it has". There is absolutely no other valid interpretation.
Re: 'growth of a global middle class.' by mcgrew · 2012-12-12 05:19 · Score: 1

Perhaps if we get rid of aliterates there will be more room on this planet who read enough not to need grammar nazis!
(BTW, that is no more serious than your post; I know at least two people who are not only aliterate, but illiterate Few people read books, even when they have the ability).

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re: 'growth of a global middle class.' by mcgrew · 2012-12-12 06:34 · Score: 1

i'm sure there are plenty of sources that say you are right about the misuse of an apostrophe in a possessive pronoun, but there are also probably as many sources that claim you're full of shit
Well, first, there's American English and British English. America spells it "check," Britain spells it "cheque." But the thing is, the rules matter to one who reads a lot. Written language is far more precise than spoken language, and poets have used this fact for centuries (let's all get up and dance to a song. That was a hippie four. Your mother was bourne, though she was born a long long time ago. Your mother should, no?)
Some misspellings completely change the meaning of a sentence. Loosing your mind is a good thing, losing it is not.
Those of us who read regularly don't sound our words out like a first grader, we don't even see the words; we only see what the words are saying. We don't see the words "God, but I love the smell of napalm in the morning," we hear the words spoken, see the man saying them, and smell the napalm. The written word isn't even there if teh writer is any good.
And when we run across something thst just doesn't make sense, like "the shadow's are on the wall" it breaks. When we see "shadow's" we expect the sentence to be about something belonging to the shadow, not more than one shadow. It breaks concentration, frustrates us, and annoys the hell out of us.
We pity those who don't read.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re: 'growth of a global middle class.' by crutchy · 2012-12-12 19:41 · Score: 1

There is absolutely no other valid interpretation.
ahhh but see that's where you're soo wrong.... there are what you would call invalid interpretations everywhere that are actually interpreted correctly (even the OP that was criticized in this thread). a misplaced apostrophe rarely affects the interpretation of what the person is trying to say (which is why i called it a good thing)... as opposed to other languages like japanese where even saying something with the wrong emphasis can completely change its meaning

same as using its (with no apostrophe) in place of "it is"... i doubt its going to confuse anyone :)
Re: 'growth of a global middle class.' by crutchy · 2012-12-12 19:43 · Score: 1

mis-spellings can change meaning, but a misplaced apostrophe or an "ei" instead of "ie" is rarely cause for alarm as far as interpretation goes (except to ye olde grammar nazis of course)

Load of Crap! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 11:55 · Score: 0

Is it just me or is this a load of ... ? How is this possible? In one sentence it claims the report says:

"the report states. 'Megatrends' include an overall reduction of poverty and the 'growth of a global middle class.' "

And in the next sentence it reads:

"... potential world of scarcities as the demand for food and water increase as the world's population swells ..."

Talk about FUD! This thing is trying to freak out the conspiracy theorists and the average Joe!

Re:Load of Crap! by rolfwind · 2012-12-11 12:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

I believe the scarcity line more. Everything we need in terms of material (many metals, oil, etc) is being consumed at a crazy pace. Usually with these mining scenarios, you go from super high grade (ore) scenarios to poorer and poorer ones. Think about all the gold rushes where the miners initially found huge nuggets fairly consistently and up in Alaska I was told it was so rich right off the bat it was $2,000 a shovel full to lesser and lesser grades until we're using several loads from a caterpillar 797s to get a fraction of an ounce while we turn mountains into holes in the ground.
It's not so much that we can't keep getting the same amount of material needed, but it consumes ever more energy to do so.
That wouldn't be so much of a problem if our oil wasn't starting to look like every other resource. The conventional oil is the rich ore, with initally 1 barrel oil needed to get 300 out (say, like the Ghawar oil fields when first found) and now the ones we have are around 8-15:1. As that is dwindling and not meeting our demands, we're going to fracking and tar sands that have lower yields still (and likely a lower field life as well).
And yeah, we have Natural Gas. But that's a lower density energy form. In human history, we always went for higher density stuff, from wood->charcoal->coal->oil. Ever see an NG gas tank? Or the trunk of the car using it?
The middle class may grow but it will have a lower standard of living than a generation or two previous. It will denote more a relative position than an absolute one.
Re:Load of Crap! by Nefarious+Wheel · 2012-12-11 12:13 · Score: 2

We've gotta leave this egg before we run out of food and we die as a chicken.
(Ok, you may think I'm albumin idiot for using this metaphor, but *somebody* had to raise it.)

--
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Re:Load of Crap! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 12:37 · Score: 0

All you need to do is change the definition of the "middle class". Eventually, the middle class will be those between the overlords in their high apartment towers and the dead buried in the ground. Ta-da, the new middle class.
Actually, there is a way to create a new middle class but it requires the removal of a great swath of the current population. A similar event occurred in Europe a few hundred years ago and I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that there's a new event being engineered as we yammer on now.
Re:Load of Crap! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 12:52 · Score: 0

i think a better metaphor is 'leaving the nest' to fly amongst the stars. if we don't leave the nest soon, we will suck the teat of mother earth dry.
Re:Load of Crap! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 15:34 · Score: 0

...or...
Mayhaps we simply clean our act up and take care of what we have?
Re:Load of Crap! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 16:43 · Score: 0

You can take a look at coal. One can look at what most coal plants tend to burn, and that is lignite coal -- the bottom of the heap.
NG for vehicles is pointless without liquifaction technology. It can be compressed, but holds nowhere near as much energy per volume as LP gas, much less gasoline or diesel.
Fossil fuels in general are on par with food/water/not getting shot for the world's top issues. No, they won't "run out", but they are becoming harder and harder to find, get access to, obtain, and ship to where they are consumed.
I'm hoping for a renaissance in nuclear research, because once the world has a whole moves from fossil fuels, to state of the art reactors (and possibly thorium ones), nuclear can easily handle the increased power demands an exploding population can put out. Of course, there is fusion... but with the de-funding of NIF and other places, that seems to be something always 20-50 years in the future.
Re:Load of Crap! by urusan · 2012-12-11 17:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

We already recycle most of our metal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel_recycling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_recycling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper#Recycling
In the future, scarcer metal supplies will probably lead to even better recycling technology and more incentive to save or even recover already disposed of metal.
Fully recycling plastic and producing synthetic oil and oil products is expensive, but quite possible. Once extracting oil becomes expensive, we'll lean on and improve these technologies more and more.
Material isn't the problem, energy is...and really that's not too big of a problem between nuclear, coal, natural gas, solar, and eventually fusion.
The main potentially troublesome thing is our environmental impact (especially if we don't use nuclear and thus end up leaning heavily on coal), as this issue is a textbook tragedy of the commons situation, and we humans are terrible at dealing with those.
Re:Load of Crap! by dasunt · 2012-12-11 17:25 · Score: 1

Usually with these mining scenarios, you go from super high grade (ore) scenarios to poorer and poorer ones
Not always the case. Up by the small mining town of Tower, Minnesota, is a mine. To science geeks, the mine is notable for detecting neutrinos fired from Fermilab (near Chicago) in a long-running physics experiment.
It's rather rich in hematite, with high grade ore, some so high grade a magnet will stick to it.
The mine closed down decades ago. Ores nearer to the surface, even low grade ores such as taconite, were preferred due to lower costs to extract. Open pits are cheaper than deep mines.
Economics leads to some "weird" solutions. Some ores aren't considered viable, even if they are high grade, because other ores are cheaper. The reverse is also true - oil sands and shale are now viable because the cost of oil has risen, even though oil sands/shale are poorer producers.
Re:Load of Crap! by tragedy · 2012-12-11 17:26 · Score: 1

NG for vehicles is pointless without liquifaction technology. It can be compressed, but holds nowhere near as much energy per volume as LP gas, much less gasoline or diesel.
Some progress has been made with carbon nanopore tanks for high density natural gas storage at much lower pressures, which allows for smaller tanks which can also be shaped to fit better without all the wasted space of stacks of gas cylinders.
Re:Load of Crap! by crutchy · 2012-12-11 19:24 · Score: 1

beam me up scotty!
Re:Load of Crap! by crutchy · 2012-12-11 19:25 · Score: 1

nah fuck that... how about "survival of the fittest"

...which means we'll all be speaking chinese in less than 20 years
Re:Load of Crap! by Kelzar · 2012-12-11 20:02 · Score: 1

I'm more optimistic. We reached peak oil in the 19th century, but then we figured out we could also get oil out of the ground. I agree with your point, I just want to point out that the unforseen is... But as far as the middle class having a lower standard of living, could you expand upon that? Are you talking about real estate or what? I ask because I am a relatively poor person, but I think my standard of living is higher than my parents (at my age) simply because of technological innovation. If you want a McManshion and fancy cars, my standard of living doesn't look so hot; if you measure my standard of living based on what I care about, I'm doing great.
Re:Load of Crap! by TapeCutter · 2012-12-11 20:49 · Score: 1

The two worlds are not mutually exclusive, that paradox pretty much describes the general trend in global development since at least WW2.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:Load of Crap! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 21:39 · Score: 0

Go back 50 years and compare their technology to what we've got now. The trend has very consistently over the centuries been for the rate of technology development to increase rather than decrease with time. Now extrapolate over the next 50 years. I think we'll do just fine on the material things. The real problems are political in nature - who will be in charge and will they want to make the earth a hellscape?
Re:Load of Crap! by Phrogman · 2012-12-12 00:34 · Score: 2

Thats whats been wrong all along - its been bugging me. We in the West have been working on "Survival of the Fattest", having missed the typo. Sheesh.
Fittest, who woulda thunk it :P

--
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Re:Load of Crap! by Clsid · 2012-12-12 03:08 · Score: 1

My Ford Ranger truck has a dual gasoline/natural gas system with the tank in the trunk. I can recharge natural gas for free in select stations but then again I don't live in the US and even regular gas is extremely cheap here.
Re:Load of Crap! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2012-12-12 03:34 · Score: 1

So much chin rubbing. Sadly, it's already been analyzed.
In a context of economic freedom, with granularity of 10 uears minimum, life gets better as measured by actual measurements. It's when people don't habe economic freedom, be it from crime or dictatorship or high taxes, such that the product of their ecfort is confiscatorily seized, leading to giving up effort, that quality of life suffers.
Wanna know why the west is failing and Asia is rising like a rocket? It's the same reason we used to be rising like a rocket and they weren't.
Economics doesn't care whether seizure or uncertainty are driven by warlords or dictators or awesome laws and spending hreatening tax increases (and spending to offset negative effects of tax increases on business).
Effort says: sayonara!

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re:Load of Crap! by crutchy · 2012-12-12 19:36 · Score: 1

the tv has been trying... there's all these wellness reality tv shows now like biggest loser and whatnot

someone's gotta be at the bottom of the food chain (pun intended) so that the rest of the world can get rich... i guess western consumers wound up being the poor suckers who fork out their cash for shit that will slowly kill them
Re:Load of Crap! by tehcyder · 2012-12-12 21:17 · Score: 1

High taxes don't stop people working hard. People either work hard because they have some interest in their work, and some form of professional pride, or they don't. A shitty job is a shitty job whatever it pays, and whether it's tax free or not. Most people are fine paying taxes that are used for useful things like schoools, roads, hospitals, social security or whatever.
If you're the sort of person who has to earn twice or ten times as much as everyone else in order to feel good about yourself, it really makes no difference whether some of that extra is taxed. You're still going to get your wish and be able to flaunt your expensive toys in their faces anyway.
Opposition to tax is largely a philosophical position held by those who feel they are entitled to keep all "their" money and contribute nothing back to the society that allowed them to make that money.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

What do you mean by 2030? by Billly+Gates · 2012-12-11 11:56 · Score: 1, Informative

The US has been in decline for awhile since its peak in the 1990s. GDP of China is almost equal to the US TODAY! Once this happens, where bond investors decide the US is no good on its commitment to pay it back ala Greece the decline will surge down FAR similiar to Greece, Spain, and Portugal.

Until Americans are willing to work for less like their asia counterparts and be a creditor nation rather than a debtor nation the slide will continue. FYI the UK was the #1 super power in the 18th and 19th centuries. The depression of 1873 and debt similiar to American style trading today, brought it down where in 2012 they never fully recovered.

The US will join the UK unless it pays its debt and people work for less. 2016 is where CHina will overtake the US. India too I would imagine will overtake it a few years after that and perhaps Vietnam in the next decade?

--
http://saveie6.com/

Re:What do you mean by 2030? by alen · 2012-12-11 12:00 · Score: 1

going to war with france and germany every few decades didn't help the UK at all. losing millions of people in the two world wars along with your money producing colonies and having your homeland bombed isn't good for keeping power either
Re:What do you mean by 2030? by Pseudonym+Authority · 2012-12-11 12:18 · Score: 1

Oh you, theme troll, will you ever get bored of this routine?
Re:What do you mean by 2030? by rolfwind · 2012-12-11 12:33 · Score: 0

Compared to Greece, the saving grace of American debt is that it is denominated in paper backed by nothing that the nation can print.
To hyperinflate will be no fun, for people with savings, and people trying to buy goods (what country will sell to you if your money is getting drastically worth less all the time), but we are not quite Greece.... America has an option, for lack of a better term, to reboot for no initial cost, other than building up it's credit from scratch again.
Re:What do you mean by 2030? by Xyrus · 2012-12-11 13:14 · Score: 2

Work for less pay? Does that include the outrageously exorbitant compensation CEOs and upper level management have, or just us plebs below them?

--
~X~
Re:What do you mean by 2030? by Squiddie · 2012-12-11 13:24 · Score: 1

Being number one isn't worth it if I have to be paid as much as some pseudo-slave in China. Let them be number one. Our standard of living is still the best.
Re:What do you mean by 2030? by atari2600 · 2012-12-11 13:33 · Score: 1

Which delusional place are you from? Unless you meant "better" than China which is a different story, the following countries have
a higher standard of living than the USA:
- France
- Switzerland
- Australia
- New Zealand
- Netherlands
- Norway
- Luxembourg
A couple of those might be debatable and one can bring the population/area into the equation but if you want to go superlative, you better do your homework
Re:What do you mean by 2030? by Billly+Gates · 2012-12-11 13:33 · Score: 5, Informative

My Canadian and Australian friends get paid more and have a much better standard than here. IT wages (just 1 example) have not risen at all in 10 years. In Australia you can net 6 figures like it is 1999 again after only 10 years! I see people with 10 years here who make maybe 65k. They can get homes that are more affordable too.
In Canada you can make up to a huge $40,000 salary fresh out of college! States? Here is your headphone set for your call center job. The pay is $10/hr or $17k a year! I do not know anyone who makes as low as Americans if you do not have experience not to mention the college costs are 1/8th of here so you do not have to live at home with Mommy and Daddy with $900 a month student loans while you work as a doorman at BestBuy to pay for it. ... and they do not have to pay healthcare costs which save another $500 a month too on top of that. The US is crap man unless you are a middle manager to CEO. Everyone else is fighting for scraps it seems since 2002.
I am right now about to take a new job that pays more than my 2000 did. About damn time and yet sad after 12 years. For the average Joe we are certainly in decline and poorer as inflation that is not counted as health care costs, gas, food, mortgage, rent, auto insurance, and other things have gone up a very LARGE margin in 12 years.

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:What do you mean by 2030? by GLMDesigns · 2012-12-11 13:37 · Score: 1

The issue is also return on investment. The US is pricing itself out of the market thinking it is the only market in town: raising capital gains is probably the stupidest thing we can do - but we're doing it. And we don't have to work for less - we have to stop expecting the government to give us free shit (free cell phones to the homeless in California). If we were a rational society we would have raised the age of retirement from 65 - 67 in the 1970s and we would now be talking about when to raise it to 70.

--
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Re:What do you mean by 2030? by DNS-and-BIND · 2012-12-11 13:42 · Score: 1

Almost equal to US GDP TODAY? Are you insane, man? China GDP $7.3 trillion, America GDP $15 trillion. Less than half. China is growing at a rate of 10% per year...let's see, those of us who got passing grades at math figure out when the pass happens (assuming zero American growth).
You know, sometimes I think people just pull things out of their asses just because there is this urgent compulsion to imagine China up and America down. There is this bizarre frisson of pleasure from imagining a world in which they get to bow to another country. I remember the same thing regarding Japan in the 80s.

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Re:What do you mean by 2030? by asmkm22 · 2012-12-11 13:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

The problem is that people *can't* work for less. Inflation has been way ahead wage growth for decades now, and isn't going to change soon. China gets away with it because, as a nation, they seem to be rather accepting of having 98% of the population living in literal poverty. That won't fly here in the U.S. and a lot of the political unrest we've had in the last 10 years is one side effect.
As for bond investors leaving the U.S. market, that's also not going to happen any time soon because, as bad off as we are, there are still no better alternatives for bond investments. It doesn't matter how economically powerful China gets, there's still way too much government corruption, lack of fiscal transparency, and a propensity to mess with their exchange rate to suite their needs. That's not an ideal alternative. The UK failed because the U.S. was right there ready to step in and take over, with an emerging democratic economy and a thriving industrial base.
Simply put, America becoming a stronger economy was beneficial to the rest of the world, including China, partly because is created a strong consumer-driven economy. China becoming a stronger economy won't have that effect because they lack any sort of middle class; the super-rich can only consume so much. Like it or not, as the U.S. economy tanks, the rest of the worlds will follow (and is following) until either we right our ship, or another similar economy is ready to step up and be the dominate consumer-driven economy, or the world economies all start to fracture and become more isolated again, at least for a while.
Re:What do you mean by 2030? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 13:45 · Score: 0

3/7
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index
Re:What do you mean by 2030? by Billly+Gates · 2012-12-11 13:48 · Score: 1, Troll

Compared to Greece, the saving grace of American debt is that it is denominated in paper backed by nothing that the nation can print.
To hyperinflate will be no fun, for people with savings, and people trying to buy goods (what country will sell to you if your money is getting drastically worth less all the time), but we are not quite Greece.... America has an option, for lack of a better term, to reboot for no initial cost, other than building up it's credit from scratch again.
You post mentions the problem.
Check out what happened to the Weimar when the Germans did this? Hmmm look at the price of gold? Chart look somewhat familiar?
THe end result was riots, economic collapse, defaults, runs on the bank, and Hitler! Why did Germany do this? To pay back its debt. Sound familiar again?
The fiscal cliff is not a debate of paying for a new budget. It is a debate whether to pay your existing bill! When you raise the ceiling you say "Mr. Investor I wont pay you!" I will charge you again to pay for the other charge instead. The investor says ok, America is rich and will eventually pay me back so it is ok ... I guess.
What happens is after 130% to 150% debt to GDP is you have a debt so fucking big that you can take every dollar from every man, woman, and child and still owe money! Something has to give and all it takes is for someone to say "Uncle Sam. Your debt is no good. I want out!"
Then everyone freaks out and other bankers refuse and there is no money to pay people back yet cover interest. That is what happened in Greece.
If Bernanke is retarded and signs point to this he will simply print more money to pay it back. Then you have hyperinflation and the banks wont accept them as payments as they wont be worthy anything. Children burned money for fire in Germany as it was cheaper than the wood costs. No one will want to do business and oil will be traded in another currency such as Gold or Yen.
Then the party is over and America is a 3rd world nation or just a poor one like Greece. This is a very serious threat that no one sees and scares the hell out of me. I am not a gold bug as I do not have as much to save as I would like in case anyone is wondering. Japan will probably go next.
This my slashdot friends is why America is poorer and in decline. It is why your wages have remained stagnant yet you do not feel as rich as your parents. It is why health insurance and rent goes up year after year despite stagnant wages. Zero interest rates, free money, and deregulation are creating an environment of rising prices.

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:What do you mean by 2030? by Billly+Gates · 2012-12-11 13:54 · Score: 1

I saw 11 trillion GDP for China just yesterday. I will correct myself if I am wrong as that is how I came to the conclusion in a few more years.

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:What do you mean by 2030? by Billly+Gates · 2012-12-11 14:02 · Score: 2

Look at it this way. There is an island with 3 guys. Each one has its job as they try to survive. The Asian's job is to catch the fish and bring it home. The European's job is to spend just an hour finding bait and consuming the fish, the American's job is to eat the fish.
That is how the world economy is functioning right now. America does not produce. THey only consume and give away their wealth to Asia while charging for it. In time the Asian will say fuck this. I will just get my own boat and eat my own fish.
Consumption is fine if it is equally matched with production. But it is not anymore. The only reason we are not broke now is because of artificial debt. Those who produce will get rich. Unless America produces which would require us to work for less and if we pay back our debt and raise interest rates the cost of living will go down substantially and deflation can give us the affordability required.
That link I did with Peter Schiff correctly predicted the housing crunch and the great recession back in 2003! He looked at debt and production and consumption relationships. Not thing exotic. He is predicting now a bigger crash is yet to come. He mentioned New Zealand has an excellent debt to assets ratio and would be a great place to buy bonds.

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:What do you mean by 2030? by cheesybagel · 2012-12-11 14:26 · Score: 1

Those people still don't get they will be made redundant as well. They think their capital is all important but the Chinese government owns the banks in China. Period.
Re:What do you mean by 2030? by rolfwind · 2012-12-11 14:26 · Score: 0

I agree with you, although I would use total credit market debt (which is around $55 trillion) putting us around 367% gdp. IIRC, no country ever came back from more than 250%, which was Britain from Napoleonic era to Late Victorian era (they had the benefit of shrinking a Navy and going through the industrial revolution).
Ever watch the Chris Martenson talk in Madrid? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WBiTnBwSWc
Re:What do you mean by 2030? by ZombieBraintrust · 2012-12-11 14:27 · Score: 1, Insightful

Not true. Even though American manufacturing is in decline, America is still the world's largest manufacturer. America is the third largest procuder of oil. The second largest producer of natural gass. America is a net exporter of food. (though we have help farming it)
Re:What do you mean by 2030? by cheesybagel · 2012-12-11 14:34 · Score: 1

those of us who got passing grades at math figure out when the pass happens (assuming zero American growth)
Not that simple. You need to use compound interest: (log(15)-log(7.3))/log(1.1)
Seven and a half years.
Re:What do you mean by 2030? by Billly+Gates · 2012-12-11 14:52 · Score: 0

Sadly no one cares as the banks and credit card companies run the government. What is stupid is if they are smart and see this as a problem it would be in their own self interest interest to lobby for better laws. Sure the shareprice goes up a little more each quarter but a crash is inevitable.
Your quote there is what doomed Britian and it was not until after World War II did it begin to recover.
Evil socialism and regulation be damned. There needs to be limits and caps such as 40k for a student loan, no credit cards allowed for someone on the poverty guidelines etc.

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:What do you mean by 2030? by Billly+Gates · 2012-12-11 15:00 · Score: 2

Well Bush redefined McDonalds workers as manufacturers. Until you take out the food industry we do not get an accurate picture. I do not own anything in this room that is made in America. Except perhaps a water bottle and a single book out of many others.
I have not seen a single factory except in the 1980s and I have lived in several states. All I see are are places that are service jobs or offices that are consumption based which make everyone poorer. Not anyone that produces anything of value.
Until I see smokestacks, steel mills, and shipyards I say there are hardly any left and McDonalds employees are skewing the numbers.

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:What do you mean by 2030? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 19:12 · Score: 0

> The UK failed because the U.S. was right there ready to take all of its IP in return for protection from Germany during WWII, and the U.S. was there with an emerging democratic economy and a thriving industrial base.
FYFY.
FYI - I'm not from the UK, never was. Just recognise that the U.S. got where it was with a smidgen of blackmail.
Re:What do you mean by 2030? by crutchy · 2012-12-11 19:28 · Score: 1

actually he made some good points... too bad they all apparently whooshed you
Re:What do you mean by 2030? by crutchy · 2012-12-11 19:34 · Score: 1

the rich merely have further to fall if the economy collapses
Re:What do you mean by 2030? by Pseudonym+Authority · 2012-12-11 19:42 · Score: 1

Hmmm.... Let's see what he said, shall we?

GDP of China is almost equal to the US TODAY!
I'm not sure if my education was wrong, but I'd have to stretch to the point of lying to say that ~$6 trillion was about equal to ~$15 trillion.

Until Americans are willing to work for less like their asia counterparts
Yeah, because less money circulating is a great way to stimulate the economy.

after that and perhaps Vietnam in the next decade
Vietnam, hahaha. You have either been trolled, crutchy my friend, or you are bat-shit insane and didn't read his steaming shitpile of a post.
Re:What do you mean by 2030? by Cimexus · 2012-12-11 19:55 · Score: 1

Wow, that sucks. The minimum wage here in Australia for full-time work is currently $606.40 per week (so, multiplying by 52, roughly $31,532.80 per year is the smallest possible salary you could be given for any job, graduate or not). Note that the USD, CAD and AUD are all within a few percent of each other in value, so while the figures aren't directly comparable, they are close enough that we can get away with not converting currencies I think.
$40k incidentally was exactly what my graduate wage was here in Australia. But that was in 2006. And even then it was probably in the low-mid range of IT graduate salaries. I wasn't on graduate salary for long though - was bumped up to $60k+ within the first 18 months, and similarly large raises in the few years following that. I should point out that this was actually with an American company, too (doing business in Australia).
Also, I used to think "well OK, Americans get paid less but they also pay less tax, so it balances out". But I plugged some numbers into some tax software and was quite surprised - the overall tax burden is pretty similar in the two countries. Australian Federal income tax is higher than US Federal tax, but once you add in social security, state income tax and other things that Australians don't pay ... it's close to equal for typical middle-income people. The wealthy do pay significantly less tax in the US though (as your top tax brackets are lower, and don't kick in until higher income thresholds). The poor end up paying very little or no tax in both countries (though, they get there in different ways - in the US via deductions and in Australia because of low income offsets and the 0% tax bracket up to $18,000).
Having said that, there is one definite difference that partly offsets the effect of lower wages in the US - cost of living. Although our take-home pay for a given income might be roughly the same in both countries, you can buy more with that money in the US as most goods and services are cheaper. Fuel, for example, using today's prices and exchange rates is ~5.90 USD/gallon here, which would seem high to Americans (though cheap for many European countries!)
Re:What do you mean by 2030? by crutchy · 2012-12-11 20:06 · Score: 1

I'm not sure if my education was wrong, but I'd have to stretch to the point of lying to say that ~$6 trillion was about equal to ~$15 trillion.
i've seen sources that say anything between 2015 to 2020... we're already at 2013, so based on predictions he is actually correct that the GDP of China is almost equal to that of the US... why? because of the difference in the rate of increase between the two countries... the rate of increase in the Chinese GDP is much higher than the US... and if you look at GDP by PPP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29), China is actually 11.3b vs 15b for the US, so it depends how GDP is measured. in any case, China is easily catching up to the US and its not a question of "if" it will overtake but "when".

Yeah, because less money circulating is a great way to stimulate the economy.
if the money was circulating in the US you would be right, but if US workers are too expensive the money circulates overseas

Vietnam, hahaha. You have either been trolled, crutchy my friend, or you are bat-shit insane and didn't read his steaming shitpile of a post.
Vietnam is close to China, so while I can't be as sure about this one as the previous points, I wouldn't count it out merely because it seems a little far fetched

...like to try again "friend"?
Re:What do you mean by 2030? by crutchy · 2012-12-11 20:28 · Score: 1

China is actually 11.3b vs 15b for the US
obviously this was meant to be 11.3 trillion, not billion... hopefully it didn't confuse you :)
Re:What do you mean by 2030? by Chrontius · 2012-12-11 20:49 · Score: 1

If the rich won't do it, why should we? Individually, we plebs don't have enough resources to make a sufficiently large impact to save the nation. If we acted together, efficiently, we probably still don't.

1% of America's population owns 40% of the wealth, plus whatever share of that wealth lies undocumented in tax shelters. The percentage could reach as high as 1% holding 80% depending on how pessimistic reality is.
Re:What do you mean by 2030? by Chrontius · 2012-12-11 20:57 · Score: 1

American manufacturing specializes in high-value heavy equipment, and anything you can make with robots. We have the highest per-worker productivity in the world as a result. The problem is that while we export the most in a per-dollar amount, we have terribly few, well-paid people doing all the work. Find me an industry sector capable of absorbing all the workers lost as jobs become obsolete, and we're golden.
Re:What do you mean by 2030? by Gliese+581 · 2012-12-12 02:47 · Score: 1

If I'm not mistaken, the US is the world's top weapons exporter. US agriculture can also be considered a form of manufacturing (genetic engineering). So it's not entirely dismal.
Re:What do you mean by 2030? by ZombieBraintrust · 2012-12-12 04:12 · Score: 1

I suppose it depends on if your looking or not. Where I live we have a car manufacturing facility and a construction equipment manufacturer. In my home town we have tire manufacturer, a place that makes refrigerators, a paper mill, and there is another car manufacturer near by. One town is in the midwest. The other is in the south east. I have a brother who works at a plant making fire places and grills.
Re:What do you mean by 2030? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-12 05:55 · Score: 0

seem to be rather accepting of having 98% of the population living in literal poverty
yup, and sooner than later we're going to see a chinese dawn.
It's coming.
Re:What do you mean by 2030? by TheSync · 2012-12-12 06:16 · Score: 1

Even though American manufacturing is in decline, America is still the world's largest manufacturer
How is American manufacturing "in decline"? We are producing about 7% more than in 2000, and are just 2.8% down from the all-time industrial production high in 2007 (coming up from a 15% drop from 2007 during the recession). (data)
Re:What do you mean by 2030? by TheSync · 2012-12-12 06:27 · Score: 1

Until you take out the food industry we do not get an accurate picture.
All food production counts for only 8.75% of the industrial production total (source).
You might be happier to look at New Orders for Durable Goods (DGORDER).
Re:What do you mean by 2030? by mcgrew · 2012-12-12 09:00 · Score: 1

Until Americans are willing to work for less like their asia counterparts and be a creditor nation rather than a debtor nation the slide will continue.
You sound like a trio of economists that taught an undergrad class I started to take in the late seventies who tried to say that by 1990 we would be earning no more than those in a third world country. I'd just gotten out of the Air Force and had spent a year in Thailand. At the time, Thailand was a third world country, dirt roads, no gas or electric infrastructure.
I could take a cab anywhere in the entire country for a dollar, a bus for a nickle, a tailored shirt for five bucks (including having it taken in/out when I gained/lost weight), dinner for four in a nice restaraunt for a buck. My bungalow was #30 per month, and it came with a woman. I pointed out price disparities, and their answer was "live under a bridge and eat peanut butter."
I walked out of the class to drop it after trying to explain it to these idiots, and half the class followed me out. I guess it must have been required for the other half's majors.
We are a rich nation, and I don't mean dollars, I mean natural resources, including renewables. There are few things that there aren't megatons of under the ground, including oil, copper, other metals.
The problem is the disparity in pay between the rich and the rest of us. We can thank stupid anti-union workers for that (see the linked article).
We have plenty, it's just that it is VERY poorly distributed.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:What do you mean by 2030? by mcgrew · 2012-12-12 09:24 · Score: 1

capital gains is probably the stupidest thing we can do
Bullshit. Capital gains taxes only hit when you sell your assets (stocks, bonds, businesses). When Reagan slashed them, workers suffered -- including me. It promoted an orgy of hostile takeovers by guys like Romney who were buying out businesses and selling the assets. I worked for Disney at the time, and our hours (and pay) were cut 25% to fend off the parasites who wanted to carve up Disney and sell all its assets.
And we don't have to work for less - we have to stop expecting the government to give us free shit (free cell phones to the homeless in California).
I agree that the free cell phones for the poor (not just California) is a poor use of tax money, but I'd far rather have my taxes to go to some poor starving person who works for McDonalds than multimillion dollar grants to multinational corporations who take all their profits to offshore tax havens.
Jesus, dude, you swallowed the 1%'s bullshit hook, line, and sinker... or you ARE the one percent and are trying to feed your lying bullshit to us plebes.
If we were a rational society we would have raised the age of retirement from 65 - 67 in the 1970s and we would now be talking about when to raise it to 70.
Yep, you're either young and stupid or have never worked a day in your overpriveleged life. I'm 60, have been paying SS all my life, and guess what? I ain't as useful as I used to be. Young folks run circles around me. I really pity my friends who do construction, that heavy labor is killing those poor geezers. I also pity older programmers, try getting a programming job at my age! And I'm retiring in 2014 when I'm 62 (NOT 65, you need to be 65 for full benefits).
You're wither a fool or a sociopath. Or both. You make me sick.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:What do you mean by 2030? by mcgrew · 2012-12-12 09:54 · Score: 1

Then the party is over and America is a 3rd world nation or just a poor one like Greece.
How many natural resources does Greece have? Oil? Timber? Copper? Gold? Other metals? We have literally megatons of the stuff buried here, and it's all worth money. Take oil, last year we exported more than we imported.
Greece, OTOH, has what, Aristotle and classic literature? OK, they have some natural gas, we have tons of the stuff. Plus a whole lot of excellent farmland.
Don't count us out just yet.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:What do you mean by 2030? by Chrontius · 2012-12-12 10:23 · Score: 1

Let's not forget mining equipment - we lead in that field, too.
Re:What do you mean by 2030? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-12 13:07 · Score: 0

One of the problems in the US is it seems like almost no entry level jobs actually offer full time work anymore. Additionally, very few are willing to work around your schedule (after all, plenty of warm bodies to employ instead of you), and often calling you on off days, have you cover a different shift during your normal day, etc.
Basically unless you're really lucky, have a car, can afford gas+food+rent+insurance, and can find 2 min wage jobs that don't overlap, you can't life as a single person in America (I base this on suburban central california, so YMMV. However I have friends across the US complaining of similiar, many of whom have been stuck in dead end jobs for upwards of 5 years due to a dearth of jobs, managers doing bogus writeups to keep them from being able to transfer departments (for people who hired into crappier jobs in order to gain seniority towards whatever career path they wished to follow, etc)
This isn't my father, nevermind my grandfather's America, and it sure seems like it's become ever harder to earn a living, nevermind decent, wage while keeping yourself on the up and up. (And how many of you notice the boss not doing so even if YOU are?)
Re:What do you mean by 2030? by climb_no_fear · 2012-12-14 23:33 · Score: 1

Just don't try to buy a house in Australia.

Australia's broken housing system

is WW3 coming? by alen · 2012-12-11 11:56 · Score: 1

prior to WW1 and 2 the US was powerful, but not as powerful as Europe. the two world wars is what made the USA the superpower that it is today. the europeans went to war with each other one too many times. seriously, france/england/germany/russia and a few other countries have been at war with each other almost continuously for the last 1000 years. the sides changed every few decades but the frequency of the wars has been fairly regular.

its one thing when all your people do is farm, but once industrialization came around the destruction of modern infrastructure allowed the USA to usurp world power. the USA was the China of the early 20th century where modern europe outsourced manufacturing to us and we were only too happy to poison our environment for a few dollars.

is the USA going to be bombed into the stone age soon? because that's what it took to kick europe off the world stage

Re:is WW3 coming? by timeOday · 2012-12-11 12:06 · Score: 2

I don't see it. US politics are fractious but nothing like Europe has long been (as you said). And we're not undergoing any dramatic upheavals at the moment or in the near future as far as I can tell. If anything, China seems more likely to erupt into infighting, simply because it is changing so fast that some internal rebalancing might be in order (e.g. the newly wealthy wanting more political power).
Re:is WW3 coming? by loufoque · 2012-12-11 12:46 · Score: 1

War has become useless.
The new "wars" are economical.
Re:is WW3 coming? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 13:29 · Score: 0

You are all missing the point - per CAPITA income between the US and UK is not significantly different and when you take exchange rates into account, this becomes even clearer. The real issue is population. The US has around 5 time the population of the UK and around 5 times the GDP. This gives it significant advantage on teh world stage. China has 4 to 5 times the population of the US so when it's per CAPITA GDP reaches within a cooeee (1/4 to 1/5 will put them level) of the US per CAPITA GDP, then they will be significantly larger. Nothing the US gov can do about it unless they can cause the birth of around a billion US babies....
Re:is WW3 coming? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 13:36 · Score: 0

Or the death of a billion or so Chinese.
Which they could. In 30 minutes.
Re:is WW3 coming? by cheesybagel · 2012-12-11 14:49 · Score: 1

The US does not have any major regional rivals.
Re:is WW3 coming? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 16:35 · Score: 0

We've been in World War III since June 5, 1968. It's just a matter of noticing.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks
http://www.longwarjournal.org/
Re:is WW3 coming? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 18:09 · Score: 0

Doesn't China have nuclear weapons as well?
Re:is WW3 coming? by crutchy · 2012-12-11 19:42 · Score: 1

i'm pretty sure they have a decent swathe of US debt as well... but why let minor facts get in the way of a good story....

"cos weee got the bomb.... ok"
Re:is WW3 coming? by crutchy · 2012-12-11 19:45 · Score: 1

yeah cos Russia, China, India, etc are just full of famers with sticks and stones...

you've obviously never seen the DreamWorks film "Antz"
Re:is WW3 coming? by Chrontius · 2012-12-11 21:00 · Score: 1

Just to be pedantic, I'm assured that the political science crowd considers the Cold War to be the third world war, and the "global war on terror" to be the fourth. I suspect you're right about the start date, roughly - but it only became really obvious to the masses in the last decade or so, if you know what I mean.
Re:is WW3 coming? by niado · 2012-12-12 03:46 · Score: 1

They are the largest foreign investor in US bonds, but still only hold around 8 percent of the US debt....
Re:is WW3 coming? by cheesybagel · 2012-12-12 15:48 · Score: 1

Russia, China, India are on the other side of the ocean.
Re:is WW3 coming? by crutchy · 2012-12-12 19:26 · Score: 1

like that matters with electronic warfare over the interweb (china rules this field) and nuclear ICBMs (Russia and China)

but yeah i guess if you limit your field of view to places like the bahamas, you're probably right.
Re:is WW3 coming? by crutchy · 2012-12-12 19:30 · Score: 1

how fucked up is a country when over a trillion dollars is only 8% of its debt?
Re:is WW3 coming? by cheesybagel · 2012-12-12 19:30 · Score: 1

electronic warfare over the interweb
You use firewalls or cut the pacific fiber optic cables. Done.
Nuclear ICBMs mean they blow up your territory but they don't win the war. They need boots in the ground to win.
Re:is WW3 coming? by niado · 2012-12-13 05:54 · Score: 1

Well, though it's not the best situation, it's not as big of a deal as it sounds, due to our gargantuan economy and stability. Our debt-to-GDP ratio compares quite favorably with most of the large economies of the EU, and with the EU itself.

Russia and China have much better debt-to-GDP, but they have significantly different economic models.
Re:is WW3 coming? by crutchy · 2012-12-13 17:42 · Score: 1

You use firewalls or cut the pacific fiber optic cables. Done.
if the US does that then it is killing its own economy for the Chinese, which is great for the Chinese because they don't have to do anything but make threats of cyber warfare... typical American response though... "oh shit the terrorists are trying to attack us through the interweb... we had better destroy the interweb".

Nuclear ICBMs mean they blow up your territory but they don't win the war. They need boots in the ground to win.
maybe you should google "sun tzu's art of war"
Re:is WW3 coming? by cheesybagel · 2012-12-17 00:22 · Score: 1

Actually I have read Sun Tzu's Art of War. Several times. Perhaps you should enlighten me to the place where he states combat troops aren't required to win a war against the US? You do realize the US not only has ICBMs as well but a whole load more SLBMs capable of second strike capability than China. Only one Chinese ICBM presently has enough range to hit almost the entire CONUS and that is the DF-31A. The DF-41 is supposed to have enough range but it is unknown if it has entered service yet or even if its R&D phase is complete. The US has no such issues with their ICBMs.

Not likely.. by Andrewkov · 2012-12-11 12:00 · Score: 1

Sorry to say, but the way things are going, that sounds overly optimistic.

Yeah but which government? by Trogre · 2012-12-11 12:00 · Score: 0

Which government predicts this? China?

--
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife

Re:Yeah but which government? by fredprado · 2012-12-11 12:39 · Score: 2

If you don't want to read the article, at least read the summary before posting. Answering your question US Government did, 17 US intelligence agencies.
Re:Yeah but which government? by loufoque · 2012-12-11 12:50 · Score: 1

It's funny how Americans are so afraid of losing their place as the most powerful country.
You realize that almost one fifth of the human population is chinese?
Re:Yeah but which government? by Trogre · 2012-12-11 13:29 · Score: 1

Yes, I know. I was being deliberately obtuse, merely as a light-hearted jab at the US-centric nature of Slashdot.

--
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Re:Yeah but which government? by Sperbels · 2012-12-11 13:41 · Score: 2

It's funny how Americans are so afraid of losing their place as the most powerful country.
Why is it funny? Seems like a pretty standard human response to me.
Re:Yeah but which government? by fredprado · 2012-12-11 13:50 · Score: 1

Poe's Law at its best...
Re:Yeah but which government? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 15:42 · Score: 0

Wanna know what I think is funnier? How almost 2/3 of the comments about crap like this comes from a non-U.S. citizen...
I guess the U.S. is still the popular kid in class?
Re:Yeah but which government? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 18:50 · Score: 0

Standard only to those indoctrinated with an ideology that proclaims they are better than the people of all other nations and so have a duty to rule them. A standard response is to say, "good, we had no business telling everybody else what to do anyway. It's a relief to be shot of the responsibility. Now let's start making decisions on a more equitable footing."
Re:Yeah but which government? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-12 05:23 · Score: 0

Oh yes, because all of us US'ers think we're better than the rest and have a duty to rule them. Yep, thats us...damn, you gotta get up early in the morning to fool you, huh?
Re:Yeah but which government? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-12 17:44 · Score: 0

I never said "all". Infact I implied it was a minority view as you'd expect a standard response from the majority of people. The notion of manifest destiny is undeniably a thing that existed and still colors many people's views of the world. The fact that people with views of this shade run the most watched cable news channel in the US does perhaps lend some credence to what I said, no?

Food/Water correlates with technology by Darkness404 · 2012-12-11 12:02 · Score: 1

As technology improves and wealth increases, it is natural that ways to create clean water and grow/farm food would increase too.

You can't both simultaneously predict that technology would rise in all areas and predict that technology will not have risen in regards to food production.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.

Re:Food/Water correlates with technology by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 12:23 · Score: 0

"As technology improves and wealth increases, it is natural that ways to create clean water and grow/farm food would increase too.
You can't both simultaneously predict that technology would rise in all areas and predict that technology will not have risen in regards to food production."
Excuse me, but what you describe is anything BUT natural! It takes human energy and ingenuity to solve the problems you describe neither of which is natural or guaranteed.
Re:Food/Water correlates with technology by rolfwind · 2012-12-11 12:36 · Score: 1

You can't both simultaneously predict that technology would rise in all areas and predict that technology will not have risen in regards to food production.
Nearly all our advancements the last 200 years is tied to oil and/or cheap energy.
Re:Food/Water correlates with technology by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 12:47 · Score: 0

Really?!?! Tell that to all the tid-bits of genetically modified food bouncing around in your belly...
Re:Food/Water correlates with technology by rolfwind · 2012-12-11 14:13 · Score: 2

Our food supply is highly dependent on oil, from the machines plowing/harvesting to the fertilizer made from petroleum byproducts.
Re:Food/Water correlates with technology by Chrontius · 2012-12-11 21:02 · Score: 1

Don't forget phosphate rock.
Re:Food/Water correlates with technology by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 23:01 · Score: 0

It could be done right now, to be honest.
Mass-scale aquaponics and insect farms could feed 10 billion+ people alone. Quite happily at that. (well, some may take a while to get used to insect products, not sure why when they are eating the guts of animals, same thing really)
Our standard farming methods are hugely inefficient and wasteful. Embarrassingly even.
You can build an aquaponics farm in a bath tub with a few pipes and some simple electronics. Hell, there is one guy who used an arduino linked to the internet to send twitter messages if anything goes wrong with the farm.
Waste organics recycling would also help improve the health of land that has been damaged heavily by overfarming, and helps cut the need to use other fertilizer that are equally over-used.
Then maybe we could attempt some of those reversing of desertification projects.
I've seen a few ideas for passive water purification in coastal areas. Initially expensive, they can run almost entirely without electricity and require very basic maintenance such as scrubbing the containers, pipes, etc.
And the upside to this is various stages of the purification can be split to produce water that is Good Enough for cleaning, Good Enough for consumption, etc. very easily.
Meat will likely become more expensive. Red meats especially. More will be done to produce chickens and similar meats since they are pretty easy to manage and are small, and likewise spit out a few eggs from their behinds too.
Vertical farms may happen as space becomes more expensive. Again, initially pretty expensive to produce a building to contain the huge weight, but there are huge benefits to it overall as it cuts costs for lots of farming requirements, you can capture gasses, a 3rd product to sell.
Housing, likewise, may very well become more vertical. The sad problem with this is they will be more horrible towers where the bottom floor becomes a congestion point. Give us our 3D cities already!

Economy by cashman73 · 2012-12-11 12:02 · Score: 1

I disagree that China will be the world's largest economy. First of all, let's not neglect India. Secondly, what we're seeing today is an equilibrium effect taking place, as China and India make gains to catch up and Europe and North America give a little. It will all eventually settle, and we'll have three dominant world economies: Asia, Europe, and the Americas (North and South).

Re:Economy by Kjella · 2012-12-11 12:46 · Score: 2

It will all eventually settle, and we'll have three dominant world economies: Asia, Europe, and the Americas (North and South).
If the wealth really redistributes remember that Asia is well over four billion people, Americas and Europe less than a billion each (in that order). And that's a pretty wide group of countries, depending on whose definition of "western" you use like for example Huntington including the US, Canada, parts of Europe and Australia then the western world is less than a billion put together. Given that, it's not unlikely that the Asian economy will become at least as big if not bigger than the western one. Of course Asia is a pretty big mix of various countries all by itself, far more than China.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Economy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 13:45 · Score: 1

. It will all eventually settle, and we'll have three dominant world economies: Asia, Europe, and the Americas (North and South).
Doesn't seem likely. With global warming coming the three superpowers will be Siberia, Canada, and Antarctica.
Re:Economy by Billly+Gates · 2012-12-11 14:16 · Score: 1

While it is true demand for factory workers will go down in Asia as wages rise. They are already moving some to Vietnam and Thailand as CHinese are asking for more money than they did just a few years ago. However, with 2 trillion plus American dollars sitting in the bank from tax evaders and corporations will go to investment in new companies. Then middle class jobs arise from those as more Chinese have more money to spend.
The US is under debt right now with credit cards, student loans. US treasuries, and a corrupt government who doesn't give a crap. With no production and no money left for investment there is a shortage of middle class jobs. China is still growing while the US reached its max back in 1999.

--
http://saveie6.com/

Hmmm by turp182 · 2012-12-11 12:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

More people + less resources = less poverty

Fail.

Debt will certainly cause decline in the West. It's happening now, and poverty is increasing considerably.

Countries running account surpluses will be the largest economies over time.

--
BlameBillCosby.com

Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 13:57 · Score: 0

Your argument is FAIL.
There won't be less resources. There will be either just as many or (more likely) more resources, and they will be used in a better way.
But more people means less more PER PERSON.
Also, the USA, with its incredible arrogance, once again assumes if it falls, everyone would fall with it, since we're all *soo* dependent and we can't possibly find somebody else.
Well, first of all, nearly nobody is dependent on you, while you are massively dependent on the rest of the world. That's what the import/export statistics say.
And secondly, nobody gives much of a crap about you anymore.
Basically, that means that *you* are in decline and debs, and *only you*. The thing in the EU is grown on your shit, and things like that won't happen like that without your criminal industry (like Goldman Sachs).
We'll just waste until the wasteland that was once the USA is void and overgrown, and start a new country on top of it.
Re:Hmmm by Billly+Gates · 2012-12-11 14:17 · Score: 1

Mod up!

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:Hmmm by khallow · 2012-12-11 16:39 · Score: 1

Basically, that means that *you* are in decline and debs, and *only you*.

Rebuttal: PIGS.

The thing in the EU is grown on your shit
It would have happened anyway. The EU real estate problem was at least as leveraged as its US equivalent. The collapse just started in the US. Ask yourself why Australia got off light when the US and EU got into trouble.
Re:Hmmm by Guppy06 · 2012-12-11 17:46 · Score: 1

More people + less resources = less poverty
Fail.
Less resources + more equitable distribution = less poverty

Debt will certainly cause decline in the West. It's happening now, and poverty is increasing considerably.
The "poverty" you're most likely referring to is the result of short-sighted austerity measures, which are panicked reactions rather than long-term systemic changes.
Larger expenditures + larger revenue = lower deficit when delta-revenue > delta-expenditures

Countries running account surpluses will be the largest economies over time.
Countries running account surpluses are too short-sighted to make long-term investments with those surpluses.
What, don't you think China is running a deficit?
Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 18:26 · Score: 0

And where does technology factor in there? If you have 5% more population, but your tech can use/create/re-use resources 10% more efficiently, then you're actually better off. Read up on the agricultural revolution in Britain.
Re:Hmmm by SillyHamster · 2012-12-12 05:24 · Score: 1

More people + less resources = less poverty
Fail.
1. Poverty is a measure of wealth, not resources. Resources are a part of creating wealth, but it is not the only input. (ex: software products)
2. People are resources. More people is more resources. More people is more minds to innovate and create. More people is more labor.
I don't know that China will live up to the predictions, but that equation you're putting up isn't as "Fail" as you think. (less resources per person is also not necessarily less total resources)

2030 The year of the Linux Cyborg by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 12:03 · Score: 1

In the year 2525, if man is still alive
If woman can survive, they may find
In the year 3535

Ain't gonna need to tell the truth, tell no lie
Everything you think, do and say
Is in the pill you took today

In the year 4545
You ain't gonna need your teeth, won't need your eyes
You won't find a thing to chew
Nobody's gonna look at you

In the year 5555
Your arms hangin' limp at your sides
Your legs got nothin' to do
Some machine's doin' that for you

In the year 6565
You won't need no husband, won't need no wife
You'll pick your son, pick your daughter too
From the bottom of a long glass tube

In the year 7510
If God's a-coming, He oughta make it by then

Maybe He'll look around Himself and say
"Guess it's time for the Judgement Day"

In the year 8510
God is gonna shake His mighty head

He'll either say, "I'm pleased where man has been"
Or tear it down, and start again

In the year 9595
I'm kinda wonderin' if man is gonna be alive

He's taken everything this old earth can give
And he ain't put back nothing

Now it's been ten thousand years, man has cried a billion tears
For what, he never knew, now man's reign is through
But through eternal night, the twinkling of starlight
So very far away, maybe it's only yesterday

Re:2030 The year of the Linux Cyborg by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 12:23 · Score: 1

In the year 2525, if man is still alive
If woman can survive, they may find
In the year 3535
XTC's version was funnier and rather closer to the date in question.
2032
Housewives shock in blue
What in the world is it coming to
What in the world
2033
Cannabis in tea
What in the world
Acid is free
What in the world
If daddy could see today
He'd be turning in his grave
If mummy could see the way
The boys and girls
And the manner in which
They talk to their parents
2034
Women fight the wars
Men are too bored
They're scrubbing floors
Men are too bored
They're staying at home
Doing the chores
What in the world
Do you remember when this life
Was in perspective
And the grownups were respected
They'd give up a seat on the bus
Open your door with no fuss
2035
The whole world's one beehive
Throw us a line you might be in time
Throw us a line
What in the world
Who gets the girl
What in the world

Predict this by sackofdonuts · 2012-12-11 12:04 · Score: 1

What happens when the world economy collapses due to unchecked greed by banks and corporations. Mass rioting and general world wide social upheaval will ensue. What middle class will survive that. And what about the zombies?

Re:Predict this by loufoque · 2012-12-11 12:51 · Score: 1

People will eventually learn that they should work to earn money instead of rioting and asking for the governments to compensate them for their bad business decisions.
Re:Predict this by Squiddie · 2012-12-11 13:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

People will eventually learn
That's where you're wrong.
Re:Predict this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 13:53 · Score: 0

The people don't need to make bad decisions when the banks and corporations do it for them.
Re:Predict this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 13:59 · Score: 0

For the rich, war is good. Right? I mean, get the population to kill itself off. If you have less people, there's a greater ratio of resources, plus it's easier to control less people than more.

That's assuming... by lilfields · 2012-12-11 12:04 · Score: 2

That's assuming that China isn't torn into civil disarray. They "classes" in Chinese society make the American "classes" seem like a tight group. There are cities that sit empty in China...not because there is no demand for them, but because the Chinese government has banned "certain" people from buying anything there; not to mention any attempt to truly criticize the government is crushed and the internet access is strict. China is in for some rocky years, I'm sure they will overtake the U.S. eventually in output, but their civil society has tons of catching up to do after that.

Re:That's assuming... by lilfields · 2012-12-11 12:05 · Score: 1

*the classes
Re:That's assuming... by AHuxley · 2012-12-11 13:04 · Score: 1

The CIA has a few good plans for that :) Recall ST Circus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1959_Tibetan_uprising
If people are wondering what real docs like this read like try the old classic from the mid 1970's
National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interest
http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu/richard.robbins/legacy/memo%20200.htm
What was the view that: poor regions are breeding up, their young will be smart and wont just export raw materials for cents in the US$.
Their gov are now trading outside the US$.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Re:That's assuming... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-12 06:05 · Score: 0

exactly.
First the Arab Dawn, and soon we'll have the Chinese Dawn.
That country is on a hair trigger.

I for one... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 12:04 · Score: 0

I for one welcomed our cybernetic overlords, who built a time machine which brought me back here to tell you not to build the(*^^(&*^ NO CARRIER.

Re:I for one... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 13:14 · Score: 1

And yet somehow, the submit button was still clicked.
Re:I for one... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 18:07 · Score: 0

And yet somehow, the submit button was still clicked.
I hate to be a grammar nazi, but "clicked" is not the proper tense.

Wonderful ... but is it worth paying attention to? by Lord+Strongpants · 2012-12-11 12:06 · Score: 1

This NIC mob have been releasing their "Global Trends 20XX" for some time now. In fact, if you head over here: http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Global%20Trends_2015%20Report.pdf you can see what they were saying about 2015. I'll be wanting to read that report, and see how right they were, before paying any attention to the latest one. Unfortunately they seem to have been /.-ed and that link is downloading VERY slowly.

It must be said. by VortexCortex · 2012-12-11 12:07 · Score: 1

I, for one, welcome our new stronger, faster, older, hungrier cybernetic overlords (made in China).

Decline of labor/rise of automation by AcidPenguin9873 · 2012-12-11 12:07 · Score: 1

I obviously haven't read the report, but does it factor in the massive employment losses that automation is going to continue to produce? How will this global middle class actually be able to afford anything if there isn't enough employment available to pay people a living wage? Are they assuming socialization of food, water, housing, and healthcare?

Re:Decline of labor/rise of automation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 12:14 · Score: 0

Shouldn't be difficult to afford things if the automation has made them dirt cheap. And word on the street is that 2030 will be the year of Linux on the Desktop.
Re:Decline of labor/rise of automation by poity · 2012-12-11 14:04 · Score: 1

I don't think there will be massive employment loss. At most there will be a temporary dip if people can't catch up with the transition, but nothing permanent. I imagine global manufacturing will steadily transition from large companies employing thousands of people to individuals or small groups of individuals. As automation increases, more and more people will take up service roles like design and engineering. One person or a handful of people will make their living designing products for a niche of a few thousand customers, manufacturing with robots and 3D printers, kind of like YouTube but for things instead of videos. And just like YouTube, there will be people who get famous and rich overnight with a smart or sensational product, but most will get by with an average income like they do now. Of course large companies won't entirely disappear, but will decline as automation capability grows more sophisticated.

--
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll

Obviously new jobs arise by SuperKendall · 2012-12-11 12:10 · Score: 1

does it factor in the massive employment losses that automation is going to continue to produce? How will this global middle class actually be able to afford anything if there isn't enough employment available to pay people a living wage?

You are totally ignoring the ripe wages the robot repair people will make.

Also the prosthetics yielding super-human abilities will give rise to a class of vigilantes that earn money through rewards for stopping crime.

People will figure out how to make money, I'd not worry about that...

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:Obviously new jobs arise by Lord+Strongpants · 2012-12-11 12:15 · Score: 1

People will figure out how to make money, I'd not worry about that...
Indeed. It seems much of the economic analysis in the report (and in the comments here, for that matter) is labouring under the misconception that the exchange of money is the cause of human interaction, rather than a symptom of it.

I wish you luck. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 12:12 · Score: 1

Hello from England, and welcome our american cousins to the world of 'first amongst equals' where you will learn first hand the meaning of the words 'special relationship' and I look forward to hearing your opinion of it when you are the ones bending over.

Re:I wish you luck. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 13:58 · Score: 0

I'm not sure what you're talking about but it sounds like it has something to do America treating England like its bitch. But hey, things could be worse. You could be speaking Russian now.

Japan by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 12:29 · Score: 0

25 years ago we thought Japan would take over. The reality is that China would desintegrate into smaller entities and their piano robots will continue to fail playing Beethoven's Appasionata. And then there is conflict and tension within Asia. Fortunately the United States have no real idea what they want in Asia. My bet is on Europe, the cradle of the occident.

Re:Japan by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 12:47 · Score: 0

I'd wager that the United States will also breakup into smaller countries. There's a trend starting even now with some states creating sovereignty legislation to make sure that what they were told was under their control when they became a state remains under their control as the federal government tries to exert more control over everything in the country. One even barely missed passing a law that would give themselves the right to create their own currency and standing army under certain conditions.
Re:Japan by cheesybagel · 2012-12-11 14:56 · Score: 1

Japan population: 128 M, per capita GDP: $46K USD US population: 312 M, per capita GDP: $48K USD China population:1344 M, per capita GDP: $5K USD
There is no comparison possible. The Chinese have a lot of room to increase worker productivity just by boosting their population to a fraction of US levels and the Japanese don't have that possibility.

I'd like to read the report from 20 years ago by peter303 · 2012-12-11 12:33 · Score: 2

Most of the time its an extrapolation of trends from that time and missing the Black Swans (unpredictable events). 1992 was a just before the first World Trade Center bombing. There are been other islamic terror incidents before then. But I wonder if anyone would predict US in major wars on that topic.

Also there were lots of protypes of the web around, none dominant. I would not have predicted it would have grown that fast into the public world.

Re:I'd like to read the report from 20 years ago by Lord+Strongpants · 2012-12-11 12:44 · Score: 2

The report from 15 years ago is here:
http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Global%20Trends_2015%20Report.pdf
I found that link to download VERY slowly, and the PDF appears to be rasterised pages? Ick ick ick ick.
Anyway, suffice it to say that they missed a fair few very important trends. Like the social network platforms and social media that would emerge. The upheavals in the petroleum market, the shift towards gas, etc.
Re:I'd like to read the report from 20 years ago by cheesybagel · 2012-12-11 15:01 · Score: 1

Black swan events are just fluff for being fatalistic. Stupidest pseudo-theory I ever heard. Car bombs had been used before. It was just the scope that was somewhat larger. You ignore the fact that the US entered WWI because of the sinking of the Lusitania passenger vessel. Wars have been started for less.

Vietnam? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 12:45 · Score: 0

Vietnam?
The country listed as the 56th largest economy by nominal GDP in 2010?
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29)

The country listed behind the economic powerhouse of Kuwait?
The country listed just ahead of PUERTO RICO?

The internet age has made everyone into 'medical experts', 'economic experts', 'legal experts', and of course 'trolling experts'.
How can I subscribe to your newsletter?

Re:Vietnam? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 13:30 · Score: 0

The internet age has made everyone into 'medical experts', 'economic experts', 'legal experts', and of course 'trolling experts'.
People have always been this way. The internet just allows us to communicate our "expert opinion" to a bigger audience than just our friends.
Re:Vietnam? by Billly+Gates · 2012-12-11 13:37 · Score: 1

... and 10 years ago Vietnam was near the rock bottom.
China too was crap at 56th percent as well 20 years ago. Look at it now? Vietnam is growing rapidly because of cheap labor, infrastructure, and its close location to China. As cost accountants find ways to cut costs from the greedy CHinese who are demanding $1.60 an hour a Vietnamese man will do it for $.65 an hour!
That adds up and helps boast the share price for these companies as it can be easily shipped to China next.

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:Vietnam? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 14:36 · Score: 0

Within the next decade, you think that Vietnam can pass the United States in GDP.
You are certifiably insane.
Re:Vietnam? by crutchy · 2012-12-11 19:33 · Score: 1

i bet that's what the morons in charge of the US treasury would think too... ignorance really is bliss

No... that's too soon. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 12:49 · Score: 0

The prediction of cyborgs being commonplace is off by about 2 decades.

Don't ask how I know... you wouldn't believe me anyways.

Re:No... that's too soon. by Chrontius · 2012-12-11 21:13 · Score: 1

Are you suggesting that 2010 was when it started, or that I'm going to have to wait until 2050?

Will the cyborgs ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 12:55 · Score: 0

come equipped with bad accents like someone from Austria?

idiotic predictions by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 13:01 · Score: 0

Why the hell do humans need to live longer? China should've kept its general public on bicycles. The west is a lousy role model. Now everyone and their sister wants a car. That isn't progress. Its accelerating the demise of the remaining natural world. Humanity really needs the natural world to remain intact. Instead, the public receive these idiotic predictions.

No civil war in China? by erice · 2012-12-11 13:07 · Score: 1, Insightful

It is widely believed that China needs 8% growth in order to maintain domestic stability. There is no way they can maintain this through 2030. They got this far by draining Western economies through aggressive exports. The Western economies are already faltering and internal consumption is heavily dependent on a real estate bubble.

Re:Wonderful ... but is it worth paying attention by fredprado · 2012-12-11 13:10 · Score: 1

Obviously their former predictions weren't 100% accurate or nowhere near it, as it always happens when you try to predict the future. That said, the article you linked isn't that far off. There are at least as many rights as there are wrongs.

Great track record. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2012-12-11 13:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

It is the same guys who have predicted 200$ barrel of oil by 2010, or the onset of depression when Bill Clinton enacted the biggest tax increase in the history of the USA in 1993. They seem to completely ignore the demographic time bomb in China. Several generations of strict enforcement of one child policy has aged its population very very quickly. Children grew up without brothers/sister, their children did not have aunts or uncles, now the grand children have no grand uncles or grand aunts. One working couple supports all their surviving ancestors. Their government pensions have dwindled in value to nothing. China could be the first country to go from agrarian/developing country to a geriatric country short circuiting the usual industrial/developed country phase.

China is running a trade deficit with most other countries supplying it with raw materials. It runs a surplus only with a few western countries. And Japan-China hatred goes back several centuries. These complex interactions do not lend themselves to extrapolation on a graph sheet easily.

Anyway, even if it does come to pass, it is just reversion to pre 18th century world power balance. Till about 1750s, 25% of world GDP came from India and another 25% from China.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact

Re:Great track record. by DarthVain · 2012-12-13 07:43 · Score: 1

Not to mention the whole thing about the preferance of boys over girls and some going to extreems to do it. Leading to not only what you say, but also the fact that you have not enough girls and too many guys trying to reproduce.
Incentivize baby factories or slutty behavior perhaps....

Re: ...by 2030? '...and people work for less' by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 13:23 · Score: 0

...You first!

Dyslexia's a bitch by Grayhand · 2012-12-11 13:31 · Score: 1

I thought it said Chinese cyborgs rise in 2030

Re:Dyslexia's a bitch by Biff+Stu · 2012-12-11 16:46 · Score: 1

I thought it said, 'Successful prostitutes probably will be directly integrated with the user’s body," but then maybe that was just wishful thinking...

the Singualarity will be here in 20 years? by GLMDesigns · 2012-12-11 13:39 · Score: 1

Ok. Maybe not *here.* But the cybernetic augmentation comes pretty dam close.

--
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond

In other trends, by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 14:04 · Score: 0

By 2030 there will be 57 U.S. intelligence agencies.

FUD by minijedimaster · 2012-12-11 14:18 · Score: 1

Typical government report. Making grand statements and predictions all whilst ignoring the fact that it all ends in 10 days. I call FUD.

Cyborg does NOT define... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 14:58 · Score: 0

...which side of the combination is dominant!

The machine portion could very well be the part that's "in command" of the whole.

The original Terminator T-101 model was still a cyborg in every sense of the definition, but the biological portion was purely there for only disguise reasons and was not necessary for primary functionality.

Re:Cyborg does NOT define... by deimtee · 2012-12-11 20:57 · Score: 1

Good point, it is still a cyborg. But given the relative difficulties of production, and hardiness of the components, I consider a mechanical thinker wandering around in a meat body to be very unlikely.
It would only make sense as an infiltrator (as in the movie) and would be easy to detect anyway.

I do think add-on mental components are eventually likely though, eg I would consider buying mods for fast calculation, perfect memory, improved senses, faster reflexes, etc.

--
I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...

pfishing for Trolls by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 15:23 · Score: 0

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=troll+bait&start=130&hl=en&sa=X&tbo=d&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&biw=1024&bih=560&tbm=isch&tbnid=OAjnyGWXpNUfgM:&imgrefurl=http://www.warriorforum.com/main-internet-marketing-discussion-forum/674151-rant-what-up-all-signature-spamming-2.html&docid=a_tGXsRbp2tPlM&imgurl=http://media.moronail.net/images/stories/dg_pictures/1204/4B4B915B4322-1.jpg&w=450&h=385&ei=VvjHUM-LHcLFyAHIxIHADg&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=172&sig=105367369633762901895&page=6&tbnh=157&tbnw=204&ndsp=23&ved=1t:429,r:49,s:100,i:151&tx=130&ty=90

Environement? by manu0601 · 2012-12-11 15:33 · Score: 1

TL;DR, but did they consider the scenario where government reports downplayed environmental issues, causing no action to be taken by nation state, and making the planet unsuitable for human presence?

Every prediction more than 5 years ahead by Hentes · 2012-12-11 15:49 · Score: 2

is almost certainly bullshit.

Re:Every prediction more than 5 years ahead by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 17:46 · Score: 0

Every prediction more than 5 years ahead is almost certainly bullshit.
I agree. The cyborgs will turn against their human overlords, and we'll never see it coming.
Re:Every prediction more than 5 years ahead by Chrontius · 2012-12-11 21:17 · Score: 1

Close, but not quite - the cyborgs will tempt their human overlords to join them, and eventually the human race will be extinguished. Nobody will mind too much though, because the whole "narrowly escaped their own mortality by becoming cyborgs" thing tends to put things in perspective.

No, no, ALTERNATE worlds by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 16:22 · Score: 0

You missed the title. This is "alternate" worlds. As in, you have to go through some kind of dimensional portal to get there.

National Geographic's 7 Billion Series by guttentag · 2012-12-11 16:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

Last year National Geograhic posted a nice video on YouTube to talk up their theme for the year: there are 7 billion people on the planet. A few highlights:

It would take 200 years to count from 1 to 7 billion.

7 billion steps would take you around the globe 133 times.

It took thousands of years to get to 1 billion, but just 130 years to double that, and just 44 years to double that. In the last 12 years, we've added a number of people equivalent to the entire global population in 1800.
1800: 1 billion
1930: 2 billion
1960: 3 billion
1974: 4 billion
1987: 5 billion
1999: 6 billion
2011: 7 billion
It's leveling off, but we may still hit 9 billion in 2045.

Every second 5 people are born and 2 die. There are over 100 more people on the planet now than when you started reading this post.

In 1960, the average person lived to be 53. In 2010, the average was 69.

In 2008, for the first time ever, more people lived in cities than in rural areas.

In 1975 there were three cities in the world with populations of over 10 million: Mexico City, New York, and Tokyo. Now there are 21 cities that size.

By 2050, 70% of us will live in urban areas, but we don't take up as much space as you'd think. Standing shoulder to shoulder, all 7 billion of us would fill an area the size of Los Angeles.

So it's not space we need. It's balance.

5% of us consume 23% of the world's energy. 13% of us don't have clean drinking water. 38% of us lack adequate sanitation.

Re:National Geographic's 7 Billion Series by lorinc · 2012-12-12 07:55 · Score: 1

You can also compare the predictions of TFA with that of the famous "limits to growth" report and updates.

--
Video of some good progressive thrash music

The megatrends are missing critical issues... by Genda · 2012-12-11 20:38 · Score: 1

There are going to be powerful influences impacting human population over the next 20 years, including growing resources for education, contraception, health resources and changing levels of autonomy for women. Add to this interesting problems in the first world involving fertility and questions about crowding causing a rise in homosexuality (there is significant evidence suggesting that mammals in crowded environments experiece increases in the percentage of homosexual offspring.)

Direct neural links will demand a comprehensive synthetic immune system because of the danger of wetware attacks and brain hacking. In theory a wetware virus could kill millions. Of course its possible that the neural link would be fire-walled in such a way that a hack neural link would automagically die. As technology expands and proliferates, the stress on Chinese culture and government will grow exponentially. It is not designed to endure the kinds of pressures that exploding technology will impose on it. I expect that nations in many case will begin tearing apart into smaller regional republics with diverse cultures and ethnicities.

Over the next decade as American government continues to run headlong into its failure to deal with our economic and social issues responsibly, Americans will be forced to address the breakdown in leadership by resolving cultural and economic issues on a local/regional basis. If the American people overcome our own problems, circumventing the failure of central government, we can expect interesting legislation to separate state and both corporation and church. If we a really lucky, we will return to our Constitution and reinstate checks and balances while pruning the Executive branch right back to the President's eyebrows.

We need to consider a new kind of currency and we need to eliminate banking institutions. Perhaps some form of meritocracy? Or maybe a society based on communities, aggregate wealth and financial power, making granular communities fit to compete effectively against corporation whose personhood must be repealed.

Go to France by Digital+Vomit · 2012-12-12 01:07 · Score: 1

Joe: "I'm going to France."
Abe: "You should go to China."
Joe: "I'm going to France."
Abe: "I'm from the future. You should go to China."

- Looper (plot holes like a block of swiss cheese, but a fun movie nonetheless)

--
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.

I think I'm turning Japanese, I really think so by paiute · 2012-12-12 03:27 · Score: 1

Are these the same guys who predicted 10 and 20 years ago that we would all be working for Japanese companies by now?

--
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine

Cyberpunk by MatrixCubed · 2012-12-12 05:28 · Score: 1

China #1? Cyborgs prevalent? Cyberpunk fiction has known this for years.

Re:Cyberpunk by GoonDuIO · 2012-12-13 19:03 · Score: 1

Except it's China this time and not Japan. So instead of the Zaibatsu, what should the new term be? Zhizhaoye?

What does "US Power" mean? by TheSync · 2012-12-12 06:03 · Score: 1

People keep talking about the US losing its "power".

What the heck does that mean?

And frankly, do we really want "power"? I thought we wanted peace and prosperity.

Deus Ex by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-12 08:07 · Score: 0

Sounds like someone has been playing a little too much Deus Ex.

But what? by Maury+Markowitz · 2012-12-12 08:46 · Score: 1

"Advances in health technologies will help people live longer, but 60% of the world's population is expected to live in an urban environment."

Why is there a "but" in that statement? Shouldn't it be a period? Did I miss something? It doesn't seem like the report has any linkage between health and urbanization, so it seems the two are unrelated.

Prefer a government link to Scribd? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-12 10:49 · Score: 0

http://www.dni.gov/index.php/about/organization/national-intelligence-council-global-trends
http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/GlobalTrends_2030.pdf

Slashdot Mirror

Gov't Report Predicts Cyborgs, Rise of China for 2030

219 comments