Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Year 2150

rated by 0 users
This post has 26 Replies | 8 Followers

Top 150 Contributor
Posts 659
Points 13,990
ama gi Posted: Tue, Jul 13 2010 12:52 AM

Sometimes I wonder what life will be like in the distant future.  Namely, I wonder if our political institutions will be more free, or less so.

I've sort of invented two scenarios of future events.  Some people might say that it is nothing but science fiction.  I would say that science fiction has an uncanny tendency of becoming reality.

So here are two ridiculous sci-fi narratives.  Tell me which one is more likely to occur.

Possibility 1

2015:  Increased environmental regulations and new wage controls, price controls, and caps on profits pushes pushes more industry overseas

2020:  Billionaire capitalists in Japan, China, and India abandon dollar and fiat currencies and replace their savings with gold.  Central banks around the world around the world cannot prevent the value of their currencies from plummeting

2030:  Faced with strikes, boycotts, mutinies in the armed forces, and condemnation from world governments, the U.S. agrees to reduce its military budget and withdraw its troops from foreign territories.  Similar uprisings occur around the world, and foreign nations agree to reduce their militaries

2036:  U.S. and foreign military leaders are tried for genicide and crimes against humanity, due to the spike in mutations and abnormalities caused by the use of depleting-uranium munitions

2050:  General Assembly Resolution 695 bans the use of violence as a means of settling disputes between governments.  Requires that such disputes be settled by arbitration.  Territorial disputes must be resolved by internationally-monitored elections in the disputed territory.  Forbids trading arms, computer systems, scrap metals, or other materials of military value with states involved in armed conflict.  Illicit traders anywhere in the world will be arrested, their assets confiscated, and their corporate charters revoked.

2073:  Chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons banned.  All scientific faciliaties opened to international inspection

2080:  Taxes drop to almost zero as armed conflict becomes a distant memory

2100:  Economic growth unprecedented in the history of the world, due to the abolition of war and fiat currencies

2150:  World peace and freedom

 

Possibility 2

2012:  After the reelection of Barack Obama, the Perpetual War Powers Act gives the commander-in-chief the right to legally kill anybody suspected of plotting acts of terrorism

2016:  Invisible laser weapons allow the user to undetectably kill the target.  These weapons are mass-produced and given to every police officer in the country

2020:  After neutralizing the opposition, President-for-life B.S. Bernanke firmly and decisively ends the problem of unemployment.  All unemployed persons over the age of 18 are required to report to the Department of Labor for mandatory job placement in a federally-owned industry.  Caring and professional career psychologists place people in careers suited for their abilities and interests.  It is now possible for everybody to live the American dream, thanks to the abolition of the evil profit motive

2023:  The Federal Communications Commission bans the use of proxies or encryption on packet-switching networks.  Nobody is allowed to purchase or use a computer or cellular phone without valid identification.  All computers must run an FCC-certified operating system.  The FCC consistently refuses to allow the software to by audited for secutity holes

2040:  All newborn infants are injected with a wireless-enabled tracking device.  The children could be easily located if kidnapped by a pedophile or terrorist.  The device also monitors their vital organs and alerts medical personnel of a medical emergency, and also dispatches the fire department if the child's blood has a certain level of CO2, indicating exposure to a fire

2055:  Secretary of Homeland Security Sasha Obama orders the confiscation of all firearms

2060:  The CEO of Diebold corporation is elected President-for-life with a staggering 100% of the popular vote

2079:  In what appears to be the result of a run-time error on the White House computer, 100,000 Americans instantly lost their citizenship and were summarily executed

2100:  Nuclear war breaks out in the middle east because the Muslims believe that the 12th Mahdi has returned.  Every American male is conscripted, and cannot evade the draft because of the tracking devices

2150:  Fascism

So which is more likely to occur?  Possibility 1 or 2?

"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."

Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,434
Points 29,210

I have to say that was the most well thought-out thing I've read all summer. Although hypothetical, both situations do seem incredibly feasible. I think we're heading towards 2 until the 2012 election when Ron Paul gets elected. But, after that, I say we're on Track #1.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,209
Points 35,645
Merlin replied on Tue, Jul 13 2010 1:12 AM

I tend to see no.1 happening, but not because people will just start to see the right way (pacifism doesn’t survive a loss of income due to competition form foreign countries with better laws), but because nuclear proliferation cannot be stopped. And the day shall come when nukes are so cheap and widespread hat war shall be impossible. Than perhaps a slow tendency to cantonize and secede shall begin.

The Regression theorem is a memetic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. To say that the former precludes the free emergence of fiat currencies makes no more sense that to hold that the latter precludes the natural emergence of multicellular organisms.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 424
Points 6,780
Azure replied on Tue, Jul 13 2010 2:22 AM

You're doing it wrong: No respectable futurist does a piece without fearmongering over intergalactic "sterilizers."

Anyway, Scenario 2 is far more believable. A One-World-Government (Scenario 1) could never succeed in bringing about peace.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,255
Points 80,815
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

I'd say a mixture, with 2 initially leading to successive crises (much like those which plagued the Roman Empire) causing the collapse of the US (and by then, USSE) and gradually culminating in 1.

Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 49
Points 1,220
tfr000 replied on Tue, Jul 13 2010 11:06 AM

nuclear proliferation cannot be stopped. And the day shall come when nukes are so cheap and widespread hat war shall be impossible.

Not until after a massive nuclear war. No weapon has yet been invented without being used in war.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,209
Points 35,645
Merlin replied on Tue, Jul 13 2010 11:20 AM

tfr000:

Not until after a massive nuclear war. No weapon has yet been invented without being used in war.

No weapon that could kill the king the first minute that war begun has ever existed prior to 1945. This is what gives me hope.

The Regression theorem is a memetic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. To say that the former precludes the free emergence of fiat currencies makes no more sense that to hold that the latter precludes the natural emergence of multicellular organisms.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 659
Points 13,990
ama gi replied on Tue, Jul 13 2010 11:58 AM

Anyway, Scenario 2 is far more believable. A One-World-Government (Scenario 1) could never succeed in bringing about peace.

Why not?

Maintaining the standard of living currently enjoyed in the 21st Century requires a large amount of international trade.  If all the nations of the world agreed to stop trading with one country, that country would be forced to disarm.  The threat of being targetted in such fashion would be an economic incentive to prevent aggressions and protect human rights.

Right?

"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 785
Points 13,445

I'll have to go with choice "3"

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline

"Lo! I am weary of my wisdom, like the bee that hath gathered too much honey; I need hands outstretched to take it." -Thus Spake Zarathustra
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 424
Points 6,780
Azure replied on Tue, Jul 13 2010 11:35 PM

Why not?

Maintaining the standard of living currently enjoyed in the 21st Century requires a large amount of international trade.  If all the nations of the world agreed to stop trading with one country, that country would be forced to disarm.  The threat of being targetted in such fashion would be an economic incentive to prevent aggressions and protect human rights.

Right?

Look at the history of embargos. They do nothing but lower the standard of living in every country involved and give power-hungry "leaders" a point of leverage against their citizens. Government is never helpful: It only has the power to destroy.

Furthermore Scenario 1 seems to be "A One-World-Government emerges and forces everyone to play nice together." This view is hopelessly naiive. How well has centralization and monopoly worked with anything?

  • | Post Points: 5
replied on Wed, Jul 14 2010 12:18 AM

I have to say a little of both. Surely the revolution of the internet has increase the amount of exploitation of the wrong-doings of the executive and legislative branch. The people will start to elect leaders that are capable of giving real freedom back. Ron Paul has instigated that and there has been so much support for libertarian ideologies. As long as we have the ability to educate the future generations, the Constitution can be restored until the people change their philosophy of what government should be doing for them!

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,255
Points 36,010
Moderator
William replied on Wed, Jul 14 2010 3:06 AM

Probably a post human world, biology is on the verge of revolutionizing existence.  150 years from now I wouldn't be suprised if were not organic.

"I am not an ego along with other egos, but the sole ego: I am unique. Hence my wants too are unique, and my deeds; in short, everything about me is unique" Max Stirner
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 424
Points 6,780
Azure replied on Wed, Jul 14 2010 3:55 AM

Well it depends on your definition of organic. The first "transhumans" will probably be made out of graphene-based circuits, assuming we don't find some way to make superior ones out of exotic matter first.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 233
Points 5,345
Ultima replied on Wed, Jul 14 2010 1:10 PM

Anyone read "Accelerando"? It's an interesting take on the changes to come.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 659
Points 13,990
ama gi replied on Wed, Jul 14 2010 7:23 PM

Probably a post human world, biology is on the verge of revolutionizing existence.  150 years from now I wouldn't be suprised if were not organic.

Don't be ridiculous.  No scientific advancement in genetic engineering, cloning, or robotics will ever stop people from procreating the fun way.

That's like expressing the luddite fear that machines are going to make human workers obsolete.  Science will never make humans obsolete.

"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 424
Points 6,780
Azure replied on Thu, Jul 15 2010 7:06 AM

Don't be ridiculous.  No scientific advancement in genetic engineering, cloning, or robotics will ever stop people from procreating the fun way.

It is doubtful the first iterations of transhumans will give up sex, but later ones probably will. Once you can physically modify your brain to have complete control over your feelings and thoughts, having an orgasm is as simple as pressing a button. Surely there will be those who will do it for nostalgia but it will no longer serve any practical purpose. Our descendants will probably find something more fun than sex to occupy their time with anyway.

As for procreation itself, "growing" babies within artificial wombs outside the mother (after all the kinks are worked out of course) will be much less stressful for the parents, and much safer for both the mother and the baby. And once it can be done cheaply there won't be much point in having a baby the natural way anymore, with the exception of the nostalgic reasons why some women have births at home today.

That's like expressing the luddite fear that machines are going to make human workers obsolete.  Science will never make humans obsolete.

It depends on what you mean by obsolete. Is a javelin obsolete compared to a gun?

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,592
Points 63,685
Sieben replied on Thu, Jul 15 2010 8:40 AM

Azure:
with the exception of the nostalgic reasons why some women have births at home today.
I thought women had babies at home because if you have the baby in the bathtub its like 70% less painful? And better for the baby b.c. warm water cushions them and keeps them warm. This is what my girlfriend says.

Banned
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,209
Points 35,645
Merlin replied on Thu, Jul 15 2010 8:56 AM

In the bathtub? Wouldn’t that drown the baby?

The Regression theorem is a memetic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. To say that the former precludes the free emergence of fiat currencies makes no more sense that to hold that the latter precludes the natural emergence of multicellular organisms.
  • | Post Points: 50
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,592
Points 63,685
Sieben replied on Thu, Jul 15 2010 9:02 AM

Not FULL of water.... like a couple inches

Banned
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 907
Points 14,795

In the bathtub? Wouldn’t that drown the baby?

Of course not. The baby spent ~9 month swimming, having the lungs filled with liquid since their development. The baby still gets oxygen through umbilical cord until it is severed.

The Voluntaryist Reader - read, comment, post your own.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 282
Points 6,595
nandnor replied on Thu, Jul 15 2010 9:37 AM

actually the bathtub can be full of water. infants know how to swim, they will have no problems getting to the surface and chilling about there.

And the uranium shells causing health damage? Please, that is totally unrealisitc. You could sleep with them in your underpants for what its worth, lol, and still ahve perfectly healthy children.

I have to say that was the most well thought-out thing I've read all summer. Although hypothetical, both situations do seem incredibly feasible. I think we're heading towards 2 until the 2012 election when Ron Paul gets elected. But, after that, I say we're on Track #1.
It is impossible. Every US presidential election in the 20th century(and 21st), the more charismatic candidate has won.  And Ron's pretty bad in that area.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 659
Points 13,990
ama gi replied on Thu, Jul 15 2010 12:55 PM

<i>And once it can be done cheaply there won't be much point in having a baby the natural way anymore, with the exception of the nostalgic reasons why some women have births at home today.</i>

You know, those "nostalgic reasons" are more powerful than capitalism.  Take religion, for example.

Buddha, born 563 B.C.

Confucius, born 551 B.C.

Jesus, born 0 A.D.

Muhammad, born 570 A.D.

Despite the fact that these men were born thousands of years ago, they each have followings of literaly billions of people.  Ideas and traditions really don't change very much over time.

"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,209
Points 35,645
Merlin replied on Thu, Jul 15 2010 12:59 PM

abirkmanis:

Of course not. The baby spent ~9 month swimming, having the lungs filled with liquid since their development. The baby still gets oxygen through umbilical cord until it is severed.

Now that’s screwed up.

The Regression theorem is a memetic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. To say that the former precludes the free emergence of fiat currencies makes no more sense that to hold that the latter precludes the natural emergence of multicellular organisms.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 290
Points 6,115
wolfman replied on Thu, Jul 15 2010 1:15 PM

As a prophet you will never make a living  in both a free society or facism.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 424
Points 6,780
Azure replied on Fri, Jul 16 2010 3:40 AM

You know, those "nostalgic reasons" are more powerful than capitalism.  Take religion, for example.

Buddha, born 563 B.C.

Confucius, born 551 B.C.

Jesus, born 0 A.D.

Muhammad, born 570 A.D.

Despite the fact that these men were born thousands of years ago, they each have followings of literaly billions of people.  Ideas and traditions really don't change very much over time.

The nostalgic reasons ARE capitalism. We are using "capitalism" to mean "everyone is free to do whatever they want within the bounds of their own property" right?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 424
Points 6,780
Azure replied on Fri, Jul 16 2010 3:42 AM

I thought women had babies at home because if you have the baby in the bathtub its like 70% less painful? And better for the baby b.c. warm water cushions them and keeps them warm. This is what my girlfriend says.

I think I've heard of that somewhere before, but every woman I know who's had a home birth didn't do it in the tub, so it's obviously not the only reason.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 80
Points 1,385

And the uranium shells causing health damage? Please, that is totally unrealisitc. You could sleep with them in your underpants for what its worth, lol, and still ahve perfectly healthy children.


Your are not completely right. Yes, "You could sleep with them in your underpants for what its worth, lol, and still ahve [sic] perfectly healthy children" but that is not the problem with depleted uranium ammunition. The problem is when the bullets[DU] strikes against an object at high speeds including when it is shot out of the barrell.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (27 items) | RSS