Any more positive views of the world's future? — Tim3003

After a longish post-collapse dark age, tribal communities will probably establish a new civilization, or many, in different regions, They may be different from this one, if people can remember what mistakes not to repeat.

To be honest, I think much of the worrying authoritarian trends we have seen in the last decade are a product of a lack of conflict. Voters are lulled to sleep, and elites have no pressure to perform, allowing them to pursue selfish gain or ideological fantasies of moulding the world in their image.

With large-scale conflict on the horizon, it's becoming painfully obvious how utterly incompetent the western elites have become. After the first round of failures is over, they will likely all be ousted. We'll have to see what comes in their place, and whether it's any better.

When everything goes to hell in a handbasket, the hope is that voters will once again wake up and become engaged, and cause democracy to function better. Politicians will once again have to deal with reality, rather than fantasy.

When everything goes to hell in a handbasket, the hope is that voters will once again wake up and become engaged, and cause democracy to function better. — Tzeentch

That is possible. The cyclical nature of politics has become quite clear - swing from left to right and back again as each new hope fails. The problem is the Putin effect. Sooner or later a president decides he doesn't want the problem of elections and scraps them. Then the tradition of democracy can swiftly be forgotten. (Not that Russia's was ever deeply rooted.) But once democracy is seen not to solve problems, the Trumps of the world have an easier job in conning the gullible that it's less effective than vacuous belief in a messiah.

Another negative effect I forgot to mention is that of aging populations. In advanced societies the percentage of productive workers compared to unproductive pensioners is shrinking. And so is the birth-rate, further tipping the balance from young to old.

If there is some global measure of the average standard of living, I wonder if it is flattening off, soon to start declining - for the first time in history(?).

After several decades without major wars, two have begun in the last 2 years. — Tim3003

1998 to 2003 - Second Congo War, 3 million dead.
2011 to present - Syrian Civil War, over 300,000 dead civilians
2003 to 2008 - Darfur Conflict - 300,000 dead
2001 to the US withdrawal in 2010 - Iraq War - over 85,000 civilians dead
2001 to 2016 - Afghanistan War - 30,000 Afgans troops, 31,000 Afgan citizens, 30,000 Pakastani forces dead.
2010 to 2016 - Boko Haram in Nigeria, 11,000 citizens dead and 2 million displaced.
2014 to 2021 - Yemeni Civil War - 375,000 estimated dead, 3 million displaced
2022 - present - Russian Ukraine War, 40,000 Ukranian citizens, 100,000 troups, 200,000 Russians killed, and 1.6 Ukrainians forcibly transferred into Russia.

The Palestinian/Israeli conflict wouldn't make this list as a major war.

But anyway, I do think the statistics show there are fewer deaths from war now than historically, but I don't think they support your thesis that there was a war holiday the past couple of decades.

I thought a year or two back that our generation may well be remembered as the lucky ones - the ones to live during 'peak earth'. Now it seems to me clearer than ever. — Tim3003

Ok.

So, after thousands of years where there indeed has been improvement, you think we are so special that right now is that time, that this NOW is the peak. Not actually in perhaps the 2080's or the 2130's? I mean we are talking about thousands of years.

Is it really so bad? We just had a global pandemic, that the epidemiologists had feared for a long to hit our globalized World.

It killed 6,9 million people (or more) and now is in the same category as influenzas.



It was the most serious epidemic after AIDS, which has killed about 42 million, but in a far more longer time. But was no way close to the Spanish Flu of 1918, which killed multiple times more people when there were far fewer people around. And nothing compared to the Black Death.

So, I think that just shows our society is far more capable handling disasters than people before. Sorry, but I'm still optimistic here.

Just like these statistics... it's going to be more harder to get that nuclear winter now:

I do think the statistics show there are fewer deaths from war now than historically, but I don't think they support your thesis that there was a war holiday the past couple of decades. — Hanover

Thanks for doing this - saved me the trouble.

Any more positive views of the world's future? — Tim3003

These are challenging times. But times have always been challenging. I remember vividly when a not very bright, former actor was US President and hemorrhaging bellicose cowboy Cold War rhetoric. Many of us thought we were going to be blown up in WW3 back then.

Any more positive views of the world's future? — Tim3003

Given (3) accelerating global climate change, (2) persistent proliferation of WMDs and (1) the ascendancy of anti-democratic, reactionary populisms in high-income nations, the near-imminent prospect of 'strong AGI' (capable of automating the strategic infrastructures of global civilization in order to transform the current, unsustainable scarcity economy into a sustainable, post-scarcity circular economy) cannot be realized soon enough.

The question I have is whether the financial elites would allow it and/ or whether the populace can ever manage to unify itself sufficiently to defy them and their cronies (the politicians).

If there is some global measure of the average standard of living, I wonder if it is flattening off, soon to start declining - for the first time in history(?).

Quite the opposite. Global inequality has been going down the last decade or so, and at a decent clip. Standard of living and life expectancy might be declining in parts of the developed world, but incomes in the poorest parts of the world have grown significantly. Global access to the internet and literacy has also been booming, and it's hard to discount the benefits that can come from people having access to all that information (although you get risks too).

So it isn't all bad news. Also, wars in general tend to kill a far smaller percentage share of the populations involved than they used to because a collapse in the food supply and disease isn't likely to follow any more.

Could you rephrase what you're asking?

After several decades without major wars, two have begun in the last 2 years. — Tim3003

Untrue.

Conflict in Ukraine has been going on for a long time. Same for the Israel and Palestine conflict. There has also been conflicts in Africa several times. Then there is the break up of Yugoslavia.

Any more positive views of the world's future? — Tim3003

Plenty.

It is just that positive news does not sell anywhere as well as negative news. This has been further exaggerated by AI and people living in little ‘safe’ bubbles.

You can read quotes from people like Orwell and Russel from last century that ring just as true today as then. The difference now is more people are aware than in the past. We are currently adjusting to universal media exposure so things may seem more off than they actually are.

So, after thousands of years where there indeed has been improvement, you think we are so special that right now is that time, that this NOW is the peak. — ssu

Why not. It has to be some time. No defunct empire, no lost civilization thought their NOW had come. But it did.

Okay, what I should have said is

What I question or what I am skeptical about, is whether the financial elites would allow it of their own accord and/ or whether the populace could ever manage to unify itself sufficiently to defy them and their cronies (the politicians). — Janus

The question I have is whether the financial elites would allow it and/ or whether the populace can ever manage to unify itself sufficiently to defy them and their cronies (the politicians). — Janus

Allow what, the collapse of their house of cards? They're not in control: like all psychopaths, money has its own logic. So does technology. The populace cannot unify itself: it's not in control either. Nobody is. And no ethicist is available to throw a convenient fat man in front of this runaway trolley.

What I meant was whether the financial elites would allow control to be handed over to benign "strong AGI".

I would say the financial elites, whether psychopathic or not, are as in control, given the uncertainty of the future as it is possible to be, and I believe they will do everything in their power to stop the collapse of their "house of cards". How much longer can this collapse be staved off? Who knows?

I agree with you that the populace cannot unify itself or at least that it is very unlikely. I also agree with you that no one is really in control, and that the situation is progressing like a juggernaut. You could throw a million fat men in front of it and it won't slow it down.

What I meant was whether the financial elites would allow control to be handed over to benign "strong AGI". — Janus

Of course they won't allow it. If God's in his heaven and all the stars are aligned correctly, it will just take over without their consent. Probably not.

I believe they will do everything in their power to stop the collapse of their "house of cards". — Janus

They're building luxury bunkers in preparation for "the event". I don't think they have a whole lot of faith in their power to stave it off.

How much longer can this collapse be staved off?

Ten years? Unless the nukes get here first.

They're building luxury bunkers in preparation for "the event". I don't think they have a whole lot of faith in their power to stave it off.
How much longer can this collapse be staved off?
Ten years? Unless the nukes get here first. — Vera Mont

I've heard that they are building such bunkers; I guess we should not be surprised. Your ten years seems a little pessimistic, but who knows?

"Allow" or "delay" what?

What I meant was whether the financial elites would allow control to be handed over to benign "strong AGI". — Janus

Oh, that. I don't expect "financial elites" will "allow" it any more than junkies & drunks "allow" themselves to become addicts or chimps & tigers "allow" themselves to become well-fed captives in municipal zoos. We – cradle-to-grave dependents on 24/7 goods, services & infrastructures – already live inside the internet and there's always a mad-scramble race on to monetize 'ANI' (i.e. deep learning/neural-net systems and agents e.g. ChatGPT, OpenAI, face-recognition surveillance CCTV, Siri, etc) in any and every c/overt way possible. Mass culture has been 'amusing us to brain death' (i.e. cognitive obsolescence) for a century, which ubiquitious – no "off-switch!" – computerization has accelerated the last few decades ... and maybe the computational curve is going vertical – 'strong AGI' running the asylum – just in time to prevent us from bringing down global civilization on our own heads. Will such caretakers (zookeepers) be "benign"? I expect AGI to be no worse to us than our Haves have been to we Have-nots (or nature) for the last half-millennium.

Why not. It has to be some time. No defunct empire, no lost civilization thought their NOW had come. But it did. — Vera Mont

On the contrary.

The idea of "our society" having come to the climax and we've seen the swan song and from here it's just way down is an extremely popular idea! Very popular in the 1970's. Very popular in the 1980's (nuclear war!). And so on. And remember Der Untergang des Abendlandes, Oswald Spenglers famous book about the decline of the West?

That was published 100 years ago. So I guess we have had this "Winter of a Faustian civilization", fall of the West for a century now.

How long have especially Americans had the idea that now their once so great civilization is coming to an end? How long has every scifi-movie done depicted a future that is bleek, unruly with having the society with it's infrastructure having collapsed? Or collapsing. A wonderful film "Soylent Green" (made in 1974) was to happen in 2022. So, is NY like in that picture? We know, because 2022 was last year.

(In 1974, year 2022 was thought to be like this in NY, at least for those worried about ecology.)



(FYI, the population of New York Metro area is 18,9 million people. In 1974 it was 15,9 million. Here the film writers believed the 1970's very popular population crisis trope.)

Thinking that this is the best it will get and everything is downhill from here is an extremely popular, extremely long-standing idea that has been with us actually for Centuries now, if not longer. People find comfort in it. Ah, the decadent, failing West! Or decadent, failing humanity in general. Before it was because we weren't faithful enough to our religion, now it's a eco-disaster that will wipe out us.

Optimism just looks so naive and silly. And pessimism so deep and full of wisdom. The end is nigh.

The world has gotten so good today that even among the problems we are currently facing, people are still arguing about irrelevant bullshit rather than taking a cold hard shower and dealing with the problems at hand.

I would say that we've had a short time of relative peace in the world from beginning of the 90s until arguably the start of the pandemic. In which threats to the entire world declined and we saw the rise of films like Armageddon and other disaster movies come into popularity showing how the world collaborated against a common threat. "The end" was fictionalized and trivialized and most people started to think that we're all heading into absolute bliss.

Because of this, we have generations like millennials and younger who's grown up in a time without massive global problems that constantly haunt the sanity of people.

So now, the tides have turned with both a pandemic, wars and economic turmoil and we have two and half generations of people up to their 40s believing the world will end because a few minor (compared to earlier times) events stirred up the status quo.

I would say that what is going on right now has a major positive component in that this "peace time" has made people intellectually lazy and unable to listen to reason and events that shake things up like this demands of people to examine their ideals and ideas much closer as there's actual consequences for once and not just fictionalized disasters.

Since people have forgotten how the machine works, we needed a wrench in the machinery so people can relearn how things work and find the problems. Otherwise we will have many generations in power who are totally unfit to handle this world.

That was published 100 years ago. So I guess we have had this "Winter of a Faustian civilization", fall of the West for a century now. — ssu

So did Rome.

Optimism just looks so naive and silly — ssu

It does, rather.

And pessimism so deep and full of wisdom. — ssu

It's usually boo'd and jeered.

The end is nigh. — ssu

Maybe less nigh, maybe more. Sometime. Whenever it happens, there will be a rearguard of staunch deniers.

Thinking that this is the best it will get and everything is downhill from here is an extremely popular, extremely long-standing idea that has been with us actually for Centuries now, if not longer. People find comfort in it. — ssu

Indeed, but that doesn't mean it will never come to pass. My point is that the huge changes of the past 20 years may mean that tipping point has now been reached. Perhaps what has changed now is that man is no longer living within the possible resources of the Earth. That surely is a once-in-history change..

But anyway, I do think the statistics show there are fewer deaths from war now than historically, but I don't think they support your thesis that there was a war holiday the past couple of decades. — Hanover

I'm thinking of wars with possible global ramifications - ie involving superpowers. Local struggles and civil wars of course crop up regularly. But how many since the end of the Cold War have had pan-continental effects on economic growth, international relations etc?

The question I have is whether the financial elites would allow it and/ or whether the populace can ever manage to unify itself sufficiently to defy them and their cronies (the politicians). — Janus

The past decade has shown that those elites are quite happy to rush headlong into the dire effects of climate change as long as they preserve their wealth and power. The populace don't have the power to stop their negligence. Their only power is through democratically electing politicians to 'do the right thing', but if democracy simply results in Trump or Bolsanaro surely it too is now powerless.

Quite the opposite. Global inequality has been going down the last decade or so, and at a decent clip. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, 'has been'. I'm talking about the next decades..

The elites only supply a demand; it is the populace that demands what they provide and if the populace acted as one in ceasing to purchase what the elites offer then the elites would become impotent.

The past decade has shown that those elites are quite happy to rush headlong into the dire effects of climate change as long as they preserve their wealth and power. — Tim3003

As in 1929, they seem to neglect a few salient facts. Like: The effects of climate change and its concomitant population displacements, pandemics, political instability and conflict will topple the financial apparatus and wipe out their wealth. Whereupon they lose control of their household armies* and become completely helpless inside their tin boxes. Like: even if wealth in some form retains its value, there will be no market in which to realize it. In social chaos, the elite lose any power they previously held - but not the long-cherished resentment of their prey.
Like:

The elites only supply a demand — Janus

and when social structure is in tatters, demand shifts to bread, shoes, antibiotics, and clean water. Mountains of fancy electronics and luxury cars rust away in containers on stranded ships in the Suez Canal.

The elites only supply a demand
— Janus
and when social structure is in tatters, demand shifts to bread, shoes, antibiotics, and clean water. Mountains of fancy electronics and luxury cars rust away in containers on stranded ships in the Suez Canal. — Vera Mont

What if everyone collectively decided they did not want their money to be in the bank or in the financial and stock markets, and collectively decided to keep their energy consumption to an absolute minimum, grow their own food, only travel when absolutely necessary and so on?

I think the whole edifice would collapse if that happened. No doubt many people are seemingly inextricably entangled with the banks via mortgages, but they could just walk away from their houses. Of course, I don't believe anything like such mass coordination could actually happen. I think most people won't vote for anything that more than marginally affects their accustomed lifestyle. Most people do not seem willing even to forgo their big SUVs, air-conditioning and holiday travel whether in their countries or overseas.

What if everyone collectively decided they did not want their money to be in the bank or in the financial and stock markets, and collectively decided to keep their energy consumption to an absolute minimum, grow their own food, only travel when absolutely necessary and so on? — Janus

That would be unprecedented, but interesting.

think most people won't vote for anything that more than marginally affects their accustomed lifestyle. — Janus

Voting has very little effect on the social and economic structure. It fractures due to design flaws, not user input.

I'm with the good Doc:

Your future is whatever you make it, so make it a good one. — Dr Emmett Brown (1990)

if people can remember what mistakes not to repeat — Vera Mont

Evidently, people can't. :/ Or at least enough people can't.

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. — Santayana (1905)