What might the world look like in 2200?

[Nikephoros]

Geopolitics please.

[Chris]

Truthfully, it depends on too much to make anything, but a vague prediction.

Chris

[Straha]

Based on various long-term trends(western decline since 1914, india's um diversity)

Western civilization is as gone in Europe as the western empire was in the late 6th century. The west's remaining enclaves are a restored Rhodesia, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, where Europeans fled to once the continent began being wracked by massive civil wars between natives and muslims, and the US became too broke and poor to be an attractive destination.

The US is a full part of latin american civilization and no longer a world hegemon. Over two centuries of rising inter-marriage combined with most immigration being from latin america has rendered the US rather less racially diverse than present(lots of light tan people with dark hair/eyes though).

India is long gone as a nation. The states that formed post-Indian breakup likely are either occasionally puppetized/colonized by Russia, China or if Persia is a coherent nation occasionally persia.

China has rebuilt itself after decades, or up to a century disunity following the collapse of the Red Dynasty. Japan, Korea, the states of indochina and much of the pacific rim are Chinese vassals.

Turkey is likely a failed-state and ex-empire that emerged in the wake of the fall of the US. The Turkish state had great amounts of influence in the middle east and north africa.

Russia has recovered from a second round of collapse(first was in the late 1980s and the second one was in the 2080s), and is once again a rising power in Eurasia.

[MNPundit]

Haha, Nik' made Straha blow his wad.

[general_tiu]

Hmm...assuming that there is no some stupid Earth government...

The US had its share of decline in the 2100s but eventually recovered. It was essentially the US as it was in 1850s, but letting the other nations influence the world. No Mexican annexation beyond Baja. US is at least 50% White, 30% Hispanic, and the rest, including blacks, take up the slack. Military is still good and recovered the early 20th century traditions. US politics much like today, but there are now five competing major parties: Democrat, Republican, Progressive, Libertarian, and Nationalist.

Russia recovered like in Straha's scenario. For some reason they never regained Belarus and Ukraine, which went their own way and looks to European countries for protection.

India exploded and never recovered. It was the scenario in Africa in the 1980s today, with a rump India, alongside Pakistan and Bangladesh the only space-travel capable nations and even then that was limited.

East and Southeast Asia was divided by Chinese-influenced East Asian Zone, and a Japanese and Korean Pacific Co-Operation Belt. These three countries are practically lording over Asia. Australia and NZ essentially control the Pacific states. China was only keeping the name of People's Republic of China for nostalgia. Japan, Korea and the Pacific Co-Operation belt are the main porn producers on Earth, as a reaction to ultra-feminist attempted influence in the West. Yes, Asian porn was still alive and kicking well. The PCB was now the animation-center of humanity, after the eventual triumph and victory of the Japanese-Korean-Chinese cartoon style over the American ones. Even US comics like Batman are no different from a Japanese manga or a Korean manhwa save language and setting.

Mexico declined but eventually recovered by 2200 by a jingoistic though benevolent military dictatorship. Said dictatorship restored Mexico's economy and pride. Latin America remains much the same as ever with some minor border adjustments. Also more militaristic; all Central American states had re-instated their armies by 2200, and slavishly loyal to Mexico. Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina are still the powers of Latin America.

The European Union was a failure though it still exists today, it was just viewed like the Holy Roman Empire; neither European or a Union. Euro the currency of off-earth European colonies. Britain regained its teeth, no longer a EU member and took Ireland back to a revitalized Commonwealth, albeit with only Britain, Ireland, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. But the Germans, French, Italians, and Spaniards are never to be left behind. The real darkhorse is Poland. The Muslim and black populations are assimilated, but not with great violence. Religion, especially Catholicism, revived in Europe as a reaction.

Africa has been stabilized under South Africa's hegemony in the South, Nigeria's on the west, and Kenya on East Africa. The real WTH part is that France re-annexed back its former colonies, and the DRC being partitioned into Belgium [Wallonia], Flanders, France, and Germany. Brutal European re-colonization, but then who remembers the Rwanda Genocide these days?

The visions of a pan-Islamic caliphate are attempted and failed. Egypt now annexed Libya and North Sudan. Saudi Arabia exploded and divided into two, a rump Saudi Arabia and Hejaz under the Jordanian Kingdom [and was still called Jordan by 2200] and included Palestine. Israel still exists with still a strong space presence, but now its economy is tied to Jordan. Saudi Arabia was doomed. Iraqi Kurdistan seceded long ago but Iraq remained stable, as Afghanistan which controls the independent state of Baluchistan for the simple reason of getting access to the sea.

[general_tiu]

And I forgot. Peak oil was in the 2040s. Later than they thought. But the environmental crowd had at least prepared them in time to wean them away. Or mainly in time in the west.

[subversivepanda]

I'm tempted to argue that, contra the stereotypical view of the future holding that there will be 3-5 continent-sized superpowers with boring names (Asian Union! African Union! South American Union!), there will actually be more nations in the future than there are today. That's been the trend for the past fifty years, at least, and I don't see it ending anytime soon. Nationalism remains a powerful force, for good or ill (I'd say ill, but you can make a good case either way), and in this day and age it's hard to simply invade and annex another country.

However, 200 years is far enough in the future that it's really impossible to extrapolate from current conditions. Doubtless the trend that I've described will be eclipsed by counter-trends, some of which may be unimaginable to us. What if sea levels rise precipitously due to global warming? What if the Martians invade? And so on.

[Nikephoros]

Good point subversivepanda.

I hate the "One World Governments" in SF, mostly because it's a sign of laziness.

[67th Tigers]

And I forgot. Peak oil was in the 2040s. Later than they thought. But the environmental crowd had at least prepared them in time to wean them away. Or mainly in time in the west.

That late? I remember the peak occurring about a decade back....

[Nikephoros]

My thoughts:

Some shuffling in the Caucasus and maybe the Balkans.

The US shrinks in global influence as China and India rise. The US is still a great power, some may argue superpower, but it is not a hyperpower.

The EU has shifted around quite a bit, but I'm not sure if it will last that long or not. Turkey had given up it's bid for the EU by 2020.

Israel doesn't exist anymore. Palestinians and Israeli Arabs overtook the Jewish population by about 2090. The new Palestinian state retains most of Israel's administration. Long before that, Israel gave Jewish settlers in the West Bank the choice to leave or become Palestinian citizens. Whenever Israel was "abolished" it absorbed the West Bank and Gaza, and returned the Golan Heights to Syrian control.

There is talk of a Pan-Arab state, but Egypt refuses to take part in any plan because they still seek ever closer ties to Europe.

There are colonies in the Solar System. The US was the first country to land on Mars, but the Moon was first developed by the ESA. The US was forced to play catchup, but managed to set up the first settlement on Mars. By this time, resource extraction is well underway on the Moon and Mars, and some forays are working tirelessly on mining asteroids.

The resulting resources have completely changed the world. Most countries that we consider "developing" today have solved much of their economic problems simply because there became more resources to spare.

The move to other sources of energy made continued oil production much less profitable, so that market has ceased. Saudi Arabia is a wreck, along with the other Gulf states. Foreign aid is a major source of income for them.

Fusion has finally been developed sometime during the 21st Century, and most first-world nations use it much to the exclusion of other sources. For poorer nations, Fission reactors are still a common sight.

[WKL]

A bunch of great powers jockeying for influence. No big wars happen except for the small ones in third world countries as it's too expensive to wage war. Make money, not war is the new motto of the world.

Now, just like all predictions in the far future, I get the feeling every one of us will be wrong unless we be very vague.

[Das Legio]

Does either India or China have enough nukes to blow a path through the Himalayas using them like giant super-dynamite?

[Straha]

I'm tempted to argue that, contra the stereotypical view of the future holding that there will be 3-5 continent-sized superpowers with boring names (Asian Union! African Union! South American Union!), there will actually be more nations in the future than there are today. That's been the trend for the past fifty years, at least, and I don't see it ending anytime soon. Nationalism remains a powerful force, for good or ill (I'd say ill, but you can make a good case either way), and in this day and age it's hard to simply invade and annex another country.

However, 200 years is far enough in the future that it's really impossible to extrapolate from current conditions. Doubtless the trend that I've described will be eclipsed by counter-trends, some of which may be unimaginable to us. What if sea levels rise precipitously due to global warming? What if the Martians invade? And so on.

The reason that we keep gettin new nations is the west holding to 20th century memes of 'self-determination' AND having the military power to make it stick. As the west's decline continues expect that to end, once we're too broke due to trillions of dollars in dodgy money being made by financiers or the pensions bomb to enforce it. We'll see a return to national borders being decided by force.

[Grand Admiral Cho]

First of all this is a "dull" future assuming no really course-changing developments in the next two centuries.

The world is rather more united than it was in the XXIst Century but nothing approaching a true world government or EU levels. An evolved, enlightened version of the UN oversees a true global market unhindered by protectionism (with a few exceptions), a global court system for international criminals, and peacekeeping efforts. The global economy bares some discussion here: neoliberalism and free-trade has peaked and talks of a global currency are in place as stable rates have been established for the great regional currencies (the Euro, the US-Pacific Dollar, the Yuan, the Rupee, etc.).

The United States is still the most powerful country on Earth thanks to its dominance in space. In addition to having the largest and greatest aerospace and naval forces on Earth it has massive space forces that is equal to that of the next two largest (the Chinese and EU) combined.It was the first to return to the Moon and land on Mars. Later on it sent probes to neighbouring star systems and began establishing bases and permanent settlements on the Moon and Mars. Martian colonization has been extensive with a multinational terraformation project currently taking place. The US has space bases all the way from Mercury to beyond Pluto. The US has a slim white majority with a large Hispanic minority and the Asians are in number almost equal to that of blacks. After the bottoming out of theological liberalism, New Ageism, and cultic movements in the mid 21st Century the American religious scene is a strange combination of theological conservatism and strong rationalism/skepticism. Most American Christians are evangelical and with a strong Calvinist undercurrent with Pentecoastalism largely dead. Catholics form a strong minority in addition to "pure" Asiatic religions as opposed to New Age Hari Krishna type movements. However almost a quarter of the population is nonreligious and on a secular level most people are accepting of atheism. Most people favour restraint in moral matters with homosexual marriage legal in most states and abortion largely a dead question with the existence of artificial wombs.

Canada and most of Latin American are part of the Pan-American Economic Union which uses the dollar and has strong political integration. In fact Cuba and some other Caribbean islands have become part of the USA. Latin America is quite prosperous, stable, and democratic although still not equal to the United States. Brazil is a strong power in its own right and maintains a space presence.

China is one of the Big Four superpowers that dominate the world (along with PAEU, EU, and India). It is democratic now although with someone of an authoritarian streak (think present day Japan or South Korea). It has the world's largest economy and army and has extensive interests in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. The yuan is a staple currency in most of SE and Central Asia and also Russia. Korea and Japan however are part of PAEU and remain strong American allies. Australia and New Zealand also are PAEU members.

India is another Big Four and is the world's most populous nation. Caste discrimination is largely out and India has reconciled with Pakistan. The Rupee is a regional currency for South Asia including in Pakistan. Indian economy continues to boom thanks to it being one of the two remaining large pools of cheap labour.

Russia is the nation to suffer the worst since 2010. It's economy and population collapse bottomed out by the late 21st Century but it never again recovered its posession of power. Russia is largely the junior partner with China in the Eurasiatic Economic Union. It maintains a decent military and economy but with Siberia now majority Chinese it is at best a great power.

The European Union is heavily integrated from Iceland to Iraq. The Euro remains a strong currency and after birth-rates picked up in 2060 in the Pan-European Awakening movements managed to keep a stable population (though the population is hardly booming). Turkey, Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, and Libya are all EU members and it maintains a large space presence along with a good, advanced military.

The Middle East's Islamic extremnism is largely gone and it has successfully transitioned to a post-oil economy although there were rough patches. Many of its nations as noted above are members of the EU and the rest are considering membership. Most of the nations are what can be called authoritarian democracies.

Africa although still the poorest region in the world is not so behind as compared to 2010. It is relatively stable and prospering and as in the Middle East are dominated by rather controlling democracies. AIDS bottomed out Africa in the mid 21st Century but since then has largely been exterminated with the existence of vaccines and treatment.

All in all the world is heavily developed and highly optimistic. Almost two centuries and a half of relative peace has occurred and its been a century and a half since a major war. Most wars that remain are largely brushfire conflicts. The main sources of energy is nuclear fusion and most ecological problems have been controlled. The world population is stable at around 10 billion with a more equal birth rate of around 2.2.

[Straha]

GMB, can I adapt your scenario into a map?

[Nikephoros]

Honestly, I think general_tiu and subversivepanda are closest to what will happen.

Not that I agree with general_tiu entirely...

[Grand Admiral Cho]

GMB, can I adapt your scenario into a map?

Yes feel free to do so. In fact I'm delighted someone has suggested that.

[Grand Admiral Cho]

Honestly, I think general_tiu and subversivepanda are closest to what will happen.

Not that I agree with general_tiu entirely...

What would you say are problems in my projection?

[MNPundit]

What would you say are problems in my projection?See, we knew you could be a valued poster.

I think the problem is assuming the Space militarization. Sure it could be militarized but that stuff is really expensive. I also can't see how the EU can survive unless it gets over the issue of German economic policies.

[Grand Admiral Cho]

See, we knew you could be a valued poster.

I think the problem is assuming the Space militarization. Sure it could be militarized but that stuff is really expensive.
Well this isn't just one but two centuries into the future so think back to 1800. To almost everyone the militarization of the air was considered a wild fantasy and even in 1910 most powers would have been bankrupt had they tried to build a large air force.

I also can't see how the EU can survive unless it gets over the issue of German economic policies.

Well I'm not an EU expert so what economic policies do your precisely mean?

[evilmittens]

We have too many people named General and Grand Admiral on this board. Fuck.



I will be emperor in 2200.



Look at the change from 1910 to now. way too much to really get any true idea. Technology will determine it more then anything.

[MNPundit]

Well I'm not an EU expert so what economic policies do your precisely mean?German fiscal austerity demands (to be fair helped along by a lot of others) puts lots of pressure on the southern countries because what they most need right now is NOT fiscal austerity. This increases the chances that the countries will leave the Euro.

[The Kiat]

You people are real optimistic, you know that. I mean, you all assume we won't be extinct by then.

[bobc]

However, 200 years is far enough in the future that it's really impossible to extrapolate from current conditions. Doubtless the trend that I've described will be eclipsed by counter-trends, some of which may be unimaginable to us. What if sea levels rise precipitously due to global warming? What if the Martians invade? And so on.

Exactly. Also either developing technology or global collapse will make any trend lines meaningless. Without global collapse, technology will be unimaginably more advanced by 2200, perhaps based upon scientific breakthroughs not yet thought of.

[Das Legio]

German fiscal austerity demands (to be fair helped along by a lot of others) puts lots of pressure on the southern countries because what they most need right now is NOT fiscal austerity. This increases the chances that the countries will leave the Euro.

It's a damn good thing they leave it too.

The best thing for the EU would be to just hand over absolutely all of the financial authority to Germany and just accept that German dominion over the continent is fro the best.

[Pascal]

That thread rather has an inherent problem: Its completly impossible to merely discuss geopolitics, while blending everything else out. Its like trying to predict 1900 from 1700 while blending out the Industrial Revolution - worse, even. In the coming 200 years I think we surely will reach transhuman conditions, and this will completly change geopolitics as we know it.

[Grand Admiral Cho]

That thread rather has an inherent problem: Its completly impossible to merely discuss geopolitics, while blending everything else out. Its like trying to predict 1900 from 1700 while blending out the Industrial Revolution - worse, even. In the coming 200 years I think we surely will reach transhuman conditions, and this will completly change geopolitics as we know it.

Hopefully people will consider the ethical side of transhumanism and prevent extreme abuses of it (ie genetically altered humans, humans uploaded into computers) and there will be nothing like the Transhuman Space future.

[American God]

Hopefully people will consider the ethical side of transhumanism and prevent extreme abuses of it (ie genetically altered humans, humans uploaded into computers) and there will be nothing like the Transhuman Space future.

Hopefully, people will consider that enforcing laws based on a non-universal view of ethics is not always a good idea.

[Grand Admiral Cho]

Hopefully, people will consider that enforcing laws based on a non-universal view of ethics is not always a good idea.

I think most people would think for instance mixing the genes of humans and say cats to produce cat-like beings is ethically questionable at best.

[Pascal]

Why? Who is harmed? Of course such stuff shouldnt be done for the hell of it, and I doubt it will - but there are several instances where genetic engineering,c ybernetic enhancments, "uploading" or whatever will improve life quality, while OTOH there is just no good ethical argument against it.

[Ran Exilis]

I think most people would think for instance mixing the genes of humans and say cats to produce cat-like beings is ethically questionable at best.

As Pascal already said; why?

Even if these ethics would be universal or near-universal, if the best argument behind them is the "is-ought to" logical fallacy, then it'd still be a rather bad idea to enforce them with laws.

[Straha]

People with transhuman tech will be powerful enough to ignore the petty objections of moralizing reactionaries who are still merely human.

At least it'd solve the old question of whether there is a god or not with "there are gods *now*".

[Bulgaroktonos]

The reason that we keep gettin new nations is the west holding to 20th century memes of 'self-determination' AND having the military power to make it stick. As the west's decline continues expect that to end, once we're too broke due to trillions of dollars in dodgy money being made by financiers or the pensions bomb to enforce it. We'll see a return to national borders being decided by force.

The only reason we don't have more nations is our steadfast dedication to border-fixity, designed to discourage wars of conquest.

So, instead, we refuse to acknowledge state-death, and treat lawless lands as international entities, while ignoring de facto states.

[Straha]

Without western inteference, we'd see lawless zones conquered by outlanders and secessionist movements wouldn't recieve any more recognition than now.

[Admiral Canaris]

I still don't think the "transhuman" stuff will stick. Even if that becomes *possible*, will people *want* it? The great crowds of ordinary people most likely won't want thinking computers -- especially if they are "more intelligent" than human beings.

In the end I think the mobs of people will burn "Doctor Frankenstein" and Eddie his transapient computer at the stake, and then institute His Holy Ordo Malleus to ensure that such things will not be created, and destroyed if they are.

Of course I might be too optimistic. Though it's much more likely human technological civilization will have destroyed itself before that happens, anyway, IMO.

And of course, my lingering hope is that the Second Coming will be in my lifetime. If that is so then everything will be changed dramatically either way.

[Admiral Canaris]

Assuming technological development mostly stopped in about 2011 like most people seem to:

The USA, better known in this day and age as the Estados Unidos, is no longer a global great power. Force projection capabilities have been lost and the economy has gone to shit. The country has roughly 300 million inhabitants, the majority Hispanics. Whites are stable at perhaps 10-15 % with most having emigrated or been outcompeted by demographics and Darwinian selection. Effectively, what used to be called "America" is now the largest and leading Hispanic power, and crumbling under corruption and decay. THink Mexico and Colombia mixed with Kratman's dystopic Caliphate but without Islam. Everything is slowly falling apart as infrastructure is worn out and nothing is replaced.

Canada in turn has grown quite dramatically in populaton and economy as white America fled northwards. It is essentially early 21st century America in microcosm, except more rigidly conservative and much more militaristic, ever fearful of the unpredictable giant to its south.

The EU lingers on through rationing and taxation with a steadily more draconian control of the average citizen's everyday life. It's pretty close to the old 1984 dystopia in economic life and social control -- a bit like a state with Britain's surveillance technology and the GDR's surveillance budget, ruled from Strassburg (in this TL known as Strasbourg after the French conquered it) by an unelected elite of bureaucrats and oligarchs. These people tend to be native speakers of French, and if not born such rapidly become so in the system. Its economy is uncompetitive but sufficient for the most basic needs of most of its citizens. Soylent Gray for everyone! It remains majority European but with the addition of a large and permanent underclass of Mahometians, descendants of immigrants in the late 20th/early 21st centuries.

As for Britain itself, it unexpectedly revitalized under the presidency [sic] of Suhail Akbar of the BNP. Leaving the EU and taking drastic measures to integrate its immigrant population, England recovered from its urgent economic problems, and its population was swelled by refugees from Europe and the United States. With a population of 120 million and still growing, economy booming from overseas demand in Asia, it appears to be looking forward to a bright future.

Russia on the other hand failed terminally in the late 21st century. Its economy proved incapable of recovering from the general collapse following the destruction of the Soviet Union, and demographics did in the rest. It fractured into a dozen minor states, most in oil-rich Siberia under de facto Chinese control. Lately though there has been a reunification movement working out of Muscovy, the strongest of the states, and it is growing.

India burst under the strain of its various ethnic and religious groups, which came to the fore in the economic hardships that accompanied its abortive ascension towards status as a modern industrial/post-industrial economy. It's still formally a federation, but in practice its fifty-something member states are independent of the central government in Bombay (called Mumbai in this TL). It also provides the majority of China's slave and cheap labor pools.

The Mid-East is a worse Hell-hole than ever. Its oil reserves mostly exhausted, it's a backwater without any relevant resources and producing nothing. It has in some places degenerated straight back into the Dark Ages, technologically as well as socially. The two exceptions are Israel, which now has its Biblical borders back and is the regional great power but is slowly being eaten up by overstretch and a growing, radically regressive element of ultra-orthodox Fundamentalist Judaism, and Iran, a socially and economically progressive country since after the Glorious Atheistic Revolution of the late 2090s.

China controls most of Asia directly or through intermediaries, and is the global great power. Chinese, or at least a bastardized melange of Chinese and English with some Korean thrown in, is the language everyone of any education speaks throughout these domains, Chinese culture is the major influence even in the former "Western" world, and in most of the non-Western world Christians (such as still exist) read their Bible in Chinese. THe country's population has decreased to around 400 million due to demographics decline (which phenomenon effectively crushed its historical competitor, Japan some hundred and fifty years ago) but the Chinese population enjoys the highest standards of living in the world (excepting some refuges of the rich, such as New Zealand and Rhodesia). Some scoffers dare whisper that it is at the same point as "the West" was in perhaps 2010 -- at its high point and on the way down. The government is neo-medieval, run by an oppressive bureaucracy that makes the one in the EU appear libertarian by comparison. But as long as you don't get squished to jelly between the cogs, it's a good life if you can pay for it. Everything has its price, including and especially including human life. Human or civil rights are unheard of. Slavery is permissible.

Africa never got its act together. It remains a resource colony of whoever pays the warlords the most -- in this day and age that almost universally means Chinese megacorps, though in some countries (notably the former colonies of France) old ties to Europe still run deeply. Humanitarian aid, however, has almost vanished as everyone looks after his own house. Whether this is a good or bad thing depends on whom you ask. The one success story on the continent remains South Africa, to a narrow majority white after decades of immigration from Europe (back when such was still permitted) and the USA. This country has even expanded, to annex the old Bechuanaland and South-West Africa. Rhodesia is another rich country, run by a dictatorial regime as a resort for the rich who, around the "Western" world in particular, feel restricted by rules and taxation elsewhere.

Australia is much akin to Canada in most respects except in climate. It is however more liberal -- most of the poorer (and hence more conservative) Americans went for Canada. As an example, this country accords legal validity to homosexual marriages, although this is still a hotly debated topic of current politics.

[American God]

Assuming technological development mostly stopped in about 2011 like most people seem to:

The USA, better known in this day and age as the Estados Unidos, is no longer a global great power. Force projection capabilities have been lost and the economy has gone to shit. The country has roughly 300 million inhabitants, the majority Hispanics. Whites are stable at perhaps 10-15 % with most having emigrated or been outcompeted by demographics and Darwinian selection. Effectively, what used to be called "America" is now the largest and leading Hispanic power, and crumbling under corruption and decay. THink Mexico and Colombia mixed with Kratman's dystopic Caliphate but without Islam. Everything is slowly falling apart as infrastructure is worn out and nothing is replaced.


:facepalm:

Wow. Racist much? The entire post depends on the premise that Hispanics are incapable of maintaining American power if or when they become the majority.

You do understand that in most respects, Hispanics who have been here a couple of generations are just as assimilated as any other immigrant group, right?

Some of them even are educated and use the internet. Like me.

[Admiral Canaris]

I do believe that Hispanic immigration will be among the causes of doom for America. There are areas in the US today where you can live your entire life without speaking a word of English, that should tell you something about how well integrated many immigrants are.

Regardless of that, of how well people adapt, hugely massive immigration over short timespans will break pretty much any society -- There simply isn't time to integrate them, and a minority can't integrate a majority anyhow. And this TL assumes that the current immigration trends don't just continue, but increase. (Which is probably unrealistic, given that an economic downturn would scare away Mexicans as well.)

Then again it was not just the Mexicans that did in the US. The debt balloon finally blew, and it lost most of its markets in China and Europe when they became protectionistic. These details did not make it into the write-up though.

More relevantly to the post, you obviously don't recognize a scenario that's written to be deliberately hilarious and over the top. Am I "racist" for portraying Europe as a shithole too? Should I have included the Islamic Caliphate of al-Andalus instead?

[Straha]

The USA, better known in this day and age as the Estados Unidos, is no longer a global great power. Force projection capabilities have been lost and the economy has gone to shit. The country has roughly 300 million inhabitants, the majority Hispanics. Whites are stable at perhaps 10-15 % with most having emigrated or been outcompeted by demographics and Darwinian selection. Effectively, what used to be called "America" is now the largest and leading Hispanic power, and crumbling under corruption and decay. THink Mexico and Colombia mixed with Kratman's dystopic Caliphate but without Islam. Everything is slowly falling apart as infrastructure is worn out and nothing is replaced.

Interesting. You consider spanish blood to be an impediment in being able to run an industrialized state. You are aware that spain is a first world EU member and that Chile is getting close to first world status these days despite problems with their pension system, right?

Essentially your scenario for the US is 1) beyond ASB 2) barkin mad loon fearmongering. And I say this as someone who listens to Michael Savage and agrees with him on alot of things(I don't particularly like being robbed by people who've been forced into the underclass because of illegals taking jobs or pressing 1 for english)., I think your projections for a latin-majority US are utterly mad. What we would see would be 1) a 'whiter' and less diverse nation(intermarriage plus 'white' status getting given to latins) 2) spanish last names being more common than now 3) spicier food 4) more populistic, nationalistic politics. We wouldn't see "Mexico and Colombia mixed with Kratman's dystopic Caliphate but without Islam. ".

[Straha]

I do believe that Hispanic immigration will be among the causes of doom for America. There are areas in the US today where you can live your entire life without speaking a word of English, that should tell you something about how well integrated many immigrants are.

Regardless of that, of how well people adapt, hugely massive immigration over short timespans will break pretty much any society -- There simply isn't time to integrate them, and a minority can't integrate a majority anyhow. And this TL assumes that the current immigration trends don't just continue, but increase. (Which is probably unrealistic, given that an economic downturn would scare away Mexicans as well.)

Then again it was not just the Mexicans that did in the US. The debt balloon finally blew, and it lost most of its markets in China and Europe when they became protectionistic. These details did not make it into the write-up though.

More relevantly to the post, you obviously don't recognize a scenario that's written to be deliberately hilarious and over the top. Am I "racist" for portraying Europe as a shithole too? Should I have included the Islamic Caliphate of al-Andalus instead?

Yes. Areas like a few border counties in Texas, New Mexico and the island of puerto rico. That's far less of a problem than Europe with it's increasing presence of muslim-occupied no-go zones. Also, latins culturally assimilate just as fast as past immigrants. It just doesn't look that way because of the sheer volume. For every latins who moves out of the barrio and either assimilates into working class white culture or in the worse cases gangsta culture, another one or two arrive.

True. Mass immigration is never without it's tensions, but at least the US is getting people who 1) could pass for the US definition of 'white' 2) are christian. Europe's importing muslims and has no tradition integrating newbies comparable to the US's long traditions. Yes, mass immigration is bad for the poorer segments of the US's population due to lower wages and endless strikebreakers, but the US won't be imploding because it has more brown people. If europe's nations had the same percentage of muslims the US does latins(15-20% citizens, 25-30% counting both legal/illegal immigrants and citizens) we'd see admirers of hitler taking power from Lisbon to Moscow to Oslo. The fact that the US is managing a demographic shift from a white, protestant nation, to becoming an anglo-latin nation is a minor adjustment, compared to the one Europe is likely to make(this is all assuming they don't decide to go barking mad).

I agree that the debt issues and other fiscal issues will likely take the US down several notches, but I don't see us falling to mad max land, or even your scenario of nearly 200 years of things decaying without fixing. What we'd see is an isolationistic US that withdraws from the world and is no longer the debt-based consumer empire of the world.

[Admiral Canaris]

...

You did read the final paragraph of the post you quoted, right? The story is purposely over the top. Its content by itself should tell you that.

[Rick Deckard]

http://samods.org/staff/magic/articles/bw_campaign/FederationFlag.jpg

[Nikephoros]

So, instead, we refuse to acknowledge state-death, and treat lawless lands as international entities, while ignoring de facto states.

Somalia, among others.

[Tony Jones]

Hopefully people will consider the ethical side of transhumanism and prevent extreme abuses of it (ie genetically altered humans, humans uploaded into computers) and there will be nothing like the Transhuman Space future.

How is being voluntarily uploaded into a computer any kind of abuse? I'd do it now were it possible!

I think most people would think for instance mixing the genes of humans and say cats to produce cat-like beings is ethically questionable at best.

Depends what the intention is. If it's for a slave race then yes, it's bad. If it's to (for example) increase sentient diversity by creating what would effectively be a new type of human, raised as part of society, as our children, well then, that's an entirely different thing...

[Admiral Canaris]

How is being voluntarily uploaded into a computer any kind of abuse? I'd do it now were it possible!

The machine that thinks it's you would insist on bein entreated to your privileges as a citizen and legal person.

It is also arguably traumatic abuse to make a machine think it's human.

[Straha]

...

You did read the final paragraph of the post you quoted, right? The story is purposely over the top. Its content by itself should tell you that.

Being deliberately over the top doesn't excuse one from being called out.

[Das Legio]

:facepalm:

Wow. Racist much? The entire post depends on the premise that Hispanics are incapable of maintaining American power if or when they become the majority.

You do understand that in most respects, Hispanics who have been here a couple of generations are just as assimilated as any other immigrant group, right?

Some of them even are educated and use the internet. Like me.

No, it's highly optimistic. It doesn't have white Identity politics make a come-back and it doesn't have the USA go into a Civil War that devolves into a glorified race war. In such a future, it would be a wonder if in 200 years the US had not re-taken its status as superpower at the very least, it would be even more odd that afterwards the border wasn't locked down and the Hispanic minority is below 10% with 20-40 million people dying total in the civil war. Maybe more.

Besides, the system itself has gone corrupt and there is nothing preventing a overwhelming majority from exploiting the system for evermore hand-outs. That and while South America and Central America aren't exactly Africa, they still don't have the shiniest record of keeping law and order with corrupt or ineffective govt. That and if we don't stomp on Mexicos issues with the drug lords, they might just try to get their friends up here elected.

[Straha]

Given ongoing black/spanish conflicts in our cities and political disputes, if we were to fall into extremist White Identity Politics(White Identity politics is emerging now, but the form it's taking is thankfully based on culture(read: act american, be patriotic) and not on biology), I suspect alot of the people on the "white" side of the hypothetical race war scenariowould be brown and have spanish last names. Remember, alot of native-born or legally arrived spanish-speakers don't like illegals(competition for crappy low-end jobs).

Remember, it's the upper-class, quite americanized, often half-anglo academic types who are the ones obsessing about protecting illegals, bilingual education and other attempts by the left to try (and fail) to turn the southwest into a second Quebec. Latins culturally americanize as fast as many other immigrant groups(Italians kept their language longer than alot of spanish-speakers), the issues stem from 1) the sheer volume 2) multiculturalism dividing America into competing cultural blocks(see: black/spanish troubles, continuing black/white problems) 3) Open borders makin it an issue beyond just the usual immigrant/native tensions.

[Das Legio]

Given ongoing black/spanish conflicts in our cities and political disputes, if we were to fall into extremist White Identity Politics(White Identity politics is emerging now, but the form it's taking is thankfully based on culture(read: act american, be patriotic) and not on biology), I suspect alot of the people on the "white" side of the hypothetical race war scenariowould be brown and have spanish last names. Remember, alot of native-born or legally arrived spanish-speakers don't like illegals(competition for crappy low-end jobs).

Remember, it's the upper-class, quite americanized, often half-anglo academic types who are the ones obsessing about protecting illegals, bilingual education and other attempts by the left to try (and fail) to turn the southwest into a second Quebec. Latins culturally americanize as fast as many other immigrant groups(Italians kept their language longer than alot of spanish-speakers), the issues stem from 1) the sheer volume 2) multiculturalism dividing America into competing cultural blocks(see: black/spanish troubles, continuing black/white problems) 3) Open borders makin it an issue beyond just the usual immigrant/native tensions.

Nah, it would start as three-way between Blacks, whites and latinos. The SouthWest and SouthEast would bathe in blood. Other than that, its likely that it ends up just being against Hispanic immigrants. the Neo-Nazis and KKK types aren't numerous or cared for much anymore to have their numbers swell to any meaningful degree. However, the Cartels might be stupid enough to attempt some minor invasions northward and then all hell would break lose.

shits sucks, man.

[Straha]

I don't see a three-way like that. Most likely conflict IMO is elites, bulk of black population and illegals/'chicano' academic types against everyone else. It'd be a bloodbath.

[Das Legio]

I don't see a three-way like that. Most likely conflict IMO is elites, bulk of black population and illegals/'chicano' academic types against everyone else. It'd be a bloodbath.

It's a three-watish plus what you said.

Bloodbath!?

Yeah, that's like saying the Eastern Front was difficult. Even most of Stormfront never wanted an open race war.

[Bulgaroktonos]

Wow......

In this thread, closeted racism gets to air itself out......

[Straha]

Wow......

In this thread, closeted racism gets to air itself out......

Valid fears about the elites doing it's best to try using the lumpenproles against the majority wouldn't really count as "racism", since I predict a conflict started on grounds of 'social justice'(read: taking from the majority) and not one motivated by race.

[Grand Admiral Cho]

I doubt any any racial war or even a majority Hispanic USA will happen. The US system is simply too stable for anything like the former.

[American God]

*IF* we have a majority Hispanic USA, look for it to happen in decades, not years, and expect that by then Hispanics will be voting Republican and living in the suburbs at about the same percentage as any other demographic.

Read a little history. This fearmongering about the non-white scary 'other' coming and 'taking over' is the same BS we had with the Irish, the central/eastern Europeans, the Italians, the Japanese, ad infinitem.

In fifty years, Cinco de Mayo will be no more objectionable than Columbus Day or St. Patrick's Day. Just another day to drink beer, LOL.

[Bulgaroktonos]

Cinco de Mayo

It's objectionable now?

[Matt]

I do believe that Hispanic immigration will be among the causes of doom for America. There are areas in the US today where you can live your entire life without speaking a word of English, that should tell you something about how well integrated many immigrants are.



That is one of the most retarded things I have ever heard. The pattern of immigration that we're facing in the United States is nearly identical to patterns we faced when Irish, Italians, or Jews came here. First generation immigrants tended to ghettoize themselves, and surprise(!) spoke their native language. It wasn't uncommon to walk the streets of lower Manhattan (!) and not hear a word of English. In parts of the country German, Italian, Yiddish were all linga franca. Hundreds of domestic newspapers were published in Non-English. It is nothing new.

Furthermore the vast majority of illegals aren't here for the long hall. Most tend to stay here for a few years and eventually leave. Only a percentage stay. Again, this pattern isn't new. In the 19th Century, for example, something like 60% of Italian immigrants returned to Italy.

Second generation Hispanics tend to learn more English than their parents, though Spanish is the language they grow up with and speak at home. What we're finding with the 3rd Generation Hispanics is they are be coming more and more Anglicized and English has become their language of choice. Again this repeats historic immigration patterns in this country.

[American God]

It's objectionable now?

Judging by the sound and fury in some quarters, I'd have to say it bothers some people. Apparently people who think nothing of waving an Irish flag or drinking green beer on St. Patrick's Day are terrified of anyone waving a Mexican flag on May 5th. Silly; and like I said, in 50 years no one will think twice about it.

[American God]

What we're finding with the 3rd Generation Hispanics is they are be coming more and more Anglicized and English has become their language of choice. Again this repeats historic immigration patterns in this country.

That would be me. I could barely order a beer in Latin America, let alone talk to anyone. And that's only because I took two years of Spanish long ago in high school... :chuckle:

[Alex]

I'll just say this: Latina women are hot. And let that be the end of the debate :)

[Rick Deckard]

I'll just say this: Latina women are hot.

That's worth a repeat!

[Nikephoros]

Alright. Can someone lock this thread?

I think the closeted racism has gotten WAY out of hand.

Even better, can someone just delete the racist posts?

[Matt]

That would be me. I could barely order a beer in Latin America, let alone talk to anyone. And that's only because I took two years of Spanish long ago in high school... :chuckle:

I think it will have one long term effect: America in 50 years will be alot more Catholic. I don't know how devout we'll be, but the Church will be bigger.

[Tony Jones]

Trying to go a bit closer to the OP...

The machine that thinks it's you would insist on bein entreated to your privileges as a citizen and legal person.

Speaking as a (biological) machine that already thinks it's me, then obviously I wouldn't want to suddenly become a non-citizen and non-person just because my mind is now running on a different type of computer. But not denying a sentient entity its legal rights is bad because?

It is also arguably traumatic abuse to make a machine think it's human.

Traumatic to who? If I was uploaded to a computer I would be there because I wanted to be. So at worst it would be self-abuse. And that's assuming it was as bad as you think it would be, which I disagree very strongly would be the case.

[Straha]

I think it will have one long term effect: America in 50 years will be alot more Catholic. I don't know how devout we'll be, but the Church will be bigger.

True. Assuming they follow the pattern of the 19th century catholic immigrants expect a decent chunk to become catholics in name only/cultural catholics along with a non-trivial portion converting to protestantism. We already have had 1/3 of our latins convert so that's proof of how it could work.

[American God]

It only took two generations for my family to go from devout Catholic (my grandfather, born in Brownsville, 1901) to certainly agnostic and leaning atheist and never been in a Catholic Church in my life (me).

Things do change. Extrapolating the present into the future only gets you so far.

[Straha]

Most likely outcome of the whole latin bit is the definition of 'white' is expanded to once again include latins and to now include biracials. 50 or 100 years from now, people will regard it the same way we regarded the worries about irish and germans of old. They are caucasian-looking(mostly) christians or post-christian secularists so assimilation will work just fine in the long run.

[Nikephoros]

Judging by the sound and fury in some quarters, I'd have to say it bothers some people. Apparently people who think nothing of waving an Irish flag or drinking green beer on St. Patrick's Day are terrified of anyone waving a Mexican flag on May 5th. Silly; and like I said, in 50 years no one will think twice about it.
You won't see me waving an Irish flag around. I ain't no plastic paddy.

[American God]

You won't see me waving an Irish flag around. I ain't no plastic paddy.

And I certainly won't be waving a Mexican one. I just don't get riled up about other people doing such things.

[Chris]

The World in 2200

Assuming no massive breakthrough into super-science…

The war against Islamic Fundamentalism winds down over 2010-2040, aided by stricter controls on immigration and greater nationalism in Europe – and, most importantly of all, the development of fusion power as a workable alternative to oil. The demonising of fission power ensures that fusion spreads rapidly, solving the energy crisis and prompting a massive lunar colony mission for H-3. By 2050, the Europeans, Russians, Japanese and Chinese will have joined the Americans on the moon, with several military bases on the lunar surface.

The sudden collapse in the price of oil causes massive economic shockwaves across the Middle East, resulting in absolute chaos. Every Middle Eastern state gets radically altered over the coming fifty years. With no further need to appease the Arab vote, there is no longer any pressure on Israel to compromise, leading to further chaos. Eventually, the Middle East will be effectively abandoned by the West, with heavy punitive strikes from orbit being used to punish any terrorist attacks. Access to orbit and space will separate the most powerful states from the weaker ones.

The US will remain the predominant power in space for some time to come, but it won’t be alone out there. China and Russia will make their own grab for land on the Moon and Mars, while the Europeans and Americans will concentrate on mining the asteroids. This will, in turn, fuel an economic boost in space and start the development of a separate space-based culture. Space will become the new America and people who don’t fit in too well back home will be heading out to the new frontier. This will, in turn, result in something of a brain drain back home, prompting a renewal of the educational system. This in turn will weaken the ‘threat’ of an Hispanic America by 2100; although large parts of the US will be ethnically Mexican, they will be Americans by culture. Mexico itself will remain a failed state until the US puts in peacekeepers and eventually annexes the country.

I can go on if anyone is interested.

[Grand Admiral Cho]

I for one would like to see more please.

I think there's a positive change coming in the Middle East starting with Iraq which is becoming something of a democracy. Without being overly optimistic I see the North African states, Iraq, Lebanon, and maybe Iran might become relatively free by 2050.

[Straha]

Liberal democracy appears to be a transitional stage in muslim nations with the end result being some flavor of islamist state, whether it's relatively mild as Iran or the likes of Malaysia or Turkey(states in transition) varies based on local culture.

[Grand Admiral Cho]

Liberal democracy appears to be a transitional stage in muslim nations with the end result being some flavor of islamist state, whether it's relatively mild as Iran or the likes of Malaysia or Turkey(states in transition) varies based on local culture.

You consider Iran's Islamism to be mild? Maybe compared to the Taliban or Saudi Arabia but its still pretty strict compared to Egypt or Lebanon for instance.

[Straha]

Compare it to Saudi Arabia, pre-2001 Afghanistan or Sudan.

[Das Legio]

In any case, it wouldn't START as a race war and if it could could be stopped in the first month or so it won't be that bad or even have a chance to become a total clusterfuck.


But that's all I have to say in public places......

Anywho, I would guess that if the US can get its head out of its butt and recover some of its industry, it should do alright. Russia will remain a Great power while China is already a Economic Superpower. A Naval Great Power it can become. However, if the US decide to stay absolutely dominant on the Seas, there is nothing China can do to stop it. They can neither out build us quick enough nor out-train us quick enough.

[Grand Admiral Cho]

In any case, it wouldn't START as a race war and if it could could be stopped in the first month or so it won't be that bad or even have a chance to become a total clusterfuck.


But that's all I have to say in public places......

Anywho, I would guess that if the US can get its head out of its butt and recover some of its industry, it should do alright. Russia will remain a Great power while China is already a Economic Superpower. A Naval Great Power it can become. However, if the US decide to stay absolutely dominant on the Seas, there is nothing China can do to stop it. They can neither out build us quick enough nor out-train us quick enough.

Yeah I don't see any repeat of the British-German naval arms race a century ago.

[Das Legio]

Yeah I don't see any repeat of the British-German naval arms race a century ago.

I agree. China will want some Force Projection, but it never really has wanted an open non-guerilla(What's that word?) military confrontation with America in..ever... Then again, who in the last fifty years actually did want that to happen?

Economicly, I'm betting that Germany will end up running the EU with Britain giving up on it entirely. The rest of the continent won't care about the implications until their checkbooks get balanced by ruthless German efficiency. Then they won't have a say in the matter anyways. The German Dominated EU will, in the greatest of historical ironies, form a partnership with the Russian Federation in exchange for cheap fossil fuels with Russia getting a boost in modernizing their economy and a go-ahead if they wish to bring the Stans inline personally. I'm seeing a few Middle Eastern countries being gobbled up by either Russia or Turkey. China will level off in the 2010's-2020's. A large amount of political shake-up but nothing major.

America will remain a superpower, as it always has. However, its military muscle will not decrease at all. Instead, Mexico and much of Central America imploding with it will cause an urgent demand for a stronger military. It will be totally updated and very much increased in size. For the first time in decades, the draft will be used to make up short falls. Most of the Great Societies programs are abandoned and gone. Only Children are guaranteed medical care now(Except for Emergency Rooms+Broken Limbs). Most of Central America falls in a massive invasion with "Peacekeeping" forces. The reason for this is that the brutal civil war finally spilt full-force into the border states. The first mission was the ruthless securing of the border and the second was the diverging of attention away from the homeland and into the enemies homelands. This is the main reason for the Draft. And the main reason the draft is largely unavoidable. Both borders were secured and Marijuana was dropped to the Schedule III and finally Schedule four. The wars in Central America started officially in 2015 and lasted well into 2052. More than 3,000,000 US Americans lost their lives. Tens of millions of enemy combatants and civilians lost theirs in the fighting. 90% of enemy and civilian casualties were incurred between 2021 and 2028 when Nationalist sentiment and angry resentment coalesced into the Latin Uprising. 95% of total US casualties were produced from this. The rest was from the longest insurgency ever fought by a modern power and won. Unlike Vietnam and Iraq, most, if not all, of the rhetoric spouted about fighting them there instead of here and for national security was not only easily provable, it was, at least in the first few decades, true. It ended with the annexation of all of Central America minus Panama, which helped evacuate nearly 100 million refugees and helped repatriate 65 million. Economically, the war would have bankrupted the US had it not had a massive political and fiscal shake-up in 2014. It actually ran an average of 200 billion dollar surplus for the duration of the war. The revived military industrial complex and the National Renovation Project proved to be the best stimulus possible to get the economy back on track. That and a negotiation with China for a return of some of its industries in exchange for modernization and other technology.


PS-Many of the fighters came from South America and some from around the globe.

PSS-Numbers too high or low?

[Grand Admiral Cho]

Actually outside of exploding drug violence in Mexico's border states the Central American states are fairly stable.

[Das Legio]

Actually outside of exploding drug violence in Mexico's border states the Central American states are fairly stable.

Yeah, but retreating armies, retreating civilians telling horror stories, resentment(jealousy), the US 'asking' permission to interdict naval craft used for escaping Cartels, nationalism, what have you.

Well, as far as Mexico getting facestomped, that is looking more and more inevitable.

[Matt]

True. Assuming they follow the pattern of the 19th century catholic immigrants expect a decent chunk to become catholics in name only/cultural catholics along with a non-trivial portion converting to protestantism. We already have had 1/3 of our latins convert so that's proof of how it could work.

I did not know that. Interesting, and it certainly goes along with the continuing trend of Anglicization.

[Straha]

I did not know that. Interesting, and it certainly goes along with the continuing trend of Anglicization.

http://www.hispanic5.com/more_hispanics_leaving_catholicism_for_evangelical _protestantism.htm

Notice that they tend to be leaving for churches like evangelical, charismatic and pentecostal churches and not more mainline ones.

[Admiral Canaris]

Speaking as a (biological) machine that already thinks it's me, then obviously I wouldn't want to suddenly become a non-citizen and non-person just because my mind is now running on a different type of computer.

You assume that the computer copy of yourself is "you". At the very theoretical best it is a comic-book clone that has your memories. You are still dead while your clone inherits your property, etc.

But not denying a sentient entity its legal rights is bad because?

Equal rights are based on essentially equal ability (within a range of variation). Even in most transhumanist fantasy a human and a machine intelligence do not have the same abilities. "Sentience" is a poorly defined criterion at best and does not imply equality between all "sentient" beings.

Traumatic to who? If I was uploaded to a computer I would be there because I wanted to be. So at worst it would be self-abuse. And that's assuming it was as bad as you think it would be, which I disagree very strongly would be the case.

Isn't it traumatic to make a computer think it's human when it can never be? You're still assuming the computer with your copied memories is "you". It's not. It's a separate individual (if it ever becomes an individual in the first place, rather than a sophisticated recording/simulating device).

[cumbria]

See Haiti today and you will see the world in 2200.

[Nikephoros]

You assume that the computer copy of yourself is "you". At the very theoretical best it is a comic-book clone that has your memories. You are still dead while your clone inherits your property, etc.

That's what Mike Wong has argued happens with teleportation:chuckle:

[Tony Jones]

You assume that the computer copy of yourself is "you". At the very theoretical best it is a comic-book clone that has your memories. You are still dead while your clone inherits your property, etc.

Well, if the computer version behaves like me, and to others and itself is indistinguishable from the biological version in terms of what it says and thinks, in what sense is it not me, other than in terms of hardware and physical location? And why does the biological me have to be dead for this to occur? I don't see that that's necessary. Though it does throw up questions of who owns my stuff!

Equal rights are based on essentially equal ability (within a range of variation). Even in most transhumanist fantasy a human and a machine intelligence do not have the same abilities. "Sentience" is a poorly defined criterion at best and does not imply equality between all "sentient" beings.

Not implying that it does, but I am saying that sentient beings deserve at the very least some baseline level of rights, even if they may vary with the type of intelligence and so on. I admit that this may not happen in reality, but that would be the best outcome IMO.

Isn't it traumatic to make a computer think it's human when it can never be? You're still assuming the computer with your copied memories is "you". It's not. It's a separate individual (if it ever becomes an individual in the first place, rather than a sophisticated recording/simulating device).

What do you mean by human? Someone that thinks and experiences as a human regardless of the hardware it's running on, or just the biological type? Obviously I consider the former to be the case while I suspect you're of the latter...

And I would make the case that a computer version of me is as much me - assuming it's not just a recording device, which is, after all, the assumption this whole disucssion is predicated on - as my biological self is.

Your talk of it being a separate individual is certainly true, but seems to include assumptions that the original somehow has precedence, which is not something I would agree with either.

[Chris]

We'd probably need a legal definition of human, I guess.

Chris

[Pascal]

Well, if the computer version behaves like me, and to others and itself is indistinguishable from the biological version in terms of what it says and thinks, in what sense is it not me, other than in terms of hardware and physical location? And why does the biological me have to be dead for this to occur? I don't see that that's necessary. Though it does throw up questions of who owns my stuff!
Well, its an easy thought experiment. Indeed, suppose you are not dead. Suppose a perfect copy is made (by magic - hey, its a thougt experiment) of you - but YOU also still exist. Now, obviously you cant be both original and copy at once. Youll still be the original, while the copy is an own being - if one that is 100% identical to you.

[Admiral Canaris]

Well, if the computer version behaves like me, and to others and itself is indistinguishable from the biological version in terms of what it says and thinks, in what sense is it not me, other than in terms of hardware and physical location? And why does the biological me have to be dead for this to occur? I don't see that that's necessary. Though it does throw up questions of who owns my stuff!

"Uploading" of memories is very likely to require the dismantling of your physical brain if/when it ever becomes possible. This necessitates your death.

More broadly, since no plausible technology can make the human body as durable as a machine built to last, it will in any case outlive you if given the time to.

It is not "you" in the sense that "your" personality is not continued, merely copied. When you die, "you" are still dead. But there is a perfect copy of you left behind.

Even if no one else notices the difference and you are replaced with a replicant in the style of Invasion of the Bodysnatchers, the original individual that was you will no longer exist.

Not implying that it does, but I am saying that sentient beings deserve at the very least some baseline level of rights, even if they may vary with the type of intelligence and so on. I admit that this may not happen in reality, but that would be the best outcome IMO.

If the computer was truly sentient one might agree with that from a humanistic standpoint. Of course, if it was that capable I would be seriously worried about the human species being outcompeted by evolutionary pressures, which opens up another range of problems.

But as for "baseline sentience rights" -- what would those implicate? Say, the right of computer programs not to be erased? Since computers can last forever if updated and converted to avoid the lifetime limits of the storage media, we'd run out of room for them. Just one example. Rights that are devised for human beings will not necessarily work for machines. In fact I'd say it'd be strange if they did, given how different we are from any would-be artificial intelligence.

What do you mean by human? Someone that thinks and experiences as a human regardless of the hardware it's running on, or just the biological type? Obviously I consider the former to be the case while I suspect you're of the latter...

I don't think it will ever be possible to perfectly copy human thought and memories. (Although building sentient or pseudo-sentient AI is another matter.) But assuming it could be done, how could one ever test its "humanity"? An uber computer like we see in much sci-fi could very easily fake a totally appropriate human response to a given situation while not actually "being" remotely human in its thoughts. Kind of like how sociopaths can fake emotions but to the Nth degree.

And I would make the case that a computer version of me is as much me - assuming it's not just a recording device, which is, after all, the assumption this whole disucssion is predicated on - as my biological self is.

You seem to think that "you" can be copied and the copy would be "you". That's not how I see it. If I have a perfect copy of me, it's still not me -- it's someone else that looks and talks like me. I'm an individual, not a template. I assuredly wouldn't think everything was good for "me" if, say, I was down and out in Gaza while clone "me" lived my ordinary life.

Your talk of it being a separate individual is certainly true, but seems to include assumptions that the original somehow has precedence, which is not something I would agree with either.

The original doesn't have precedence?? So anyone could copy you and then you'd be perfectly fine if the copy threw you out in the streets because it thought your house (or apartment/whatever) was its to claim?

[bobc]

"Uploading" of memories is very likely to require the dismantling of your physical brain if/when it ever becomes possible. This necessitates your death.


I suppose it depends if you regard "you" in a material sense, or in an algorithmic sense.
In terms of a spiritual sense, would the spirit follow the algorithm?

[Bulgaroktonos]

"Uploading" of memories is very likely to require the dismantling of your physical brain if/when it ever becomes possible. This necessitates your death.


A very large jump in logic.

[Tony Jones]

"Uploading" of memories is very likely to require the dismantling of your physical brain if/when it ever becomes possible. This necessitates your death.

As others have said, not necessarily. There are a number of proposed ways of doing it without it resulting in a dead original.

More broadly, since no plausible technology can make the human body as durable as a machine built to last, it will in any case outlive you if given the time to.

Yep. That's kind of the point!

It is not "you" in the sense that "your" personality is not continued, merely copied. When you die, "you" are still dead. But there is a perfect copy of you left behind.

The original personality is not continued certainly, but the copy, which subjectively is you carries on. So from the point of view of the copy - which from its PoV is as much you as the original - life continues.

Even if no one else notices the difference and you are replaced with a replicant in the style of Invasion of the Bodysnatchers, the original individual that was you will no longer exist.

Yes, but subjectively I will live on in my copy.

If the computer was truly sentient one might agree with that from a humanistic standpoint. Of course, if it was that capable I would be seriously worried about the human species being outcompeted by evolutionary pressures, which opens up another range of problems.

Well yes, but that's a whole different matter!

But as for "baseline sentience rights" -- what would those implicate? Say, the right of computer programs not to be erased?

Certainly for sentient ones, yes, as much as biological humans are protected by law from murder and injury. And you could make a case that less than sentient ones on the level of animals should be accorded the same protections as animals too for the same reasons.

Since computers can last forever if updated and converted to avoid the lifetime limits of the storage media, we'd run out of room for them.

Perhaps. But things like quantum computing could overcome that, at least to some extent. And we're running out of room and resources for biological humans too, so that's not an entirely separate argument, and certainly no more relevant to this than arguments about (biological) human population control...

Just one example. Rights that are devised for human beings will not necessarily work for machines. In fact I'd say it'd be strange if they did, given how different we are from any would-be artificial intelligence.

They might not apply to machines as such or in total, but human rights would form a good baseline from which AI rights could be extrapolated/derived. After all, is there anything else half as good to start from?

After all, if we intend to have AIs that we can live with, and vice versa, some (many) points of commonality are required between the biological and computer intelligences, so I don't think that's unreasonable.

I don't think it will ever be possible to perfectly copy human thought and memories. (Although building sentient or pseudo-sentient AI is another matter.) But assuming it could be done, how could one ever test its "humanity"?

Presumably in much the same way as it would be possible to run a human mind in a computer in the first place and be pretty sure it was actually a sentient human mind. That is, to do so you would have to have a sufficient understanding of how the human mind works to be able to examine the emulated human mind with software tool of some kind and see how it compares, in terms of the functionality and so on it has, to a biological version of a human mind (preferably, I guess, to the original person it was copied from). That would be a reasonably unambiguous way of doing so.

And if you could use the same sort of tools on biological humans, then that would be very useful for psychological testing and treatment. And possibly for really scary governmental mind-tampering too, in the wrong hands...

As for the lack of perfection in the copy, it may not be perfect, in the sense that it does not emulate the action of every neurotransmitter molecule and nerve impulse, but it could certainly be close enough to original that no external difference could be detected. After all the human brain is by no means a perfect machine anyway - my fading memory as I get older is one sign of that! - so a software version of a person whose range of mental states lies within the bounds of those of its original in terms of changes in mental functioning with tiredness, emotional state and so on would, in my opinion, be more than good enough.

An uber computer like we see in much sci-fi could very easily fake a totally appropriate human response to a given situation while not actually "being" remotely human in its thoughts. Kind of like how sociopaths can fake emotions but to the Nth degree.

Well yes, but as you say, so can biological humans! After all, how can any of us - and in particular over a medium like these forums - be sure anyone else if not faking like that?

And as I say above, developing AIs and uploading at all probably involves a sufficiently good understanding of the human mind to detect and avoid this.

You seem to think that "you" can be copied and the copy would be "you". That's not how I see it. If I have a perfect copy of me, it's still not me -- it's someone else that looks and talks like me. I'm an individual, not a template. I assuredly wouldn't think everything was good for "me" if, say, I was down and out in Gaza while clone "me" lived my ordinary life.

Physically, yes, there would be two versions of the original. And from the perspective of the original of course the other one would be a different copy. And the reverse would also apply. But subjectively both would be the original. And that is, again, the point.

I think that with this technology (assuming it's possible of course) the original would have the potential to become the template for a whole 'family' of individuals all descended from them. And all of which would diverge from it and from each other. This might be considered a good or a bad thing depending on the individual, as I think we can see from this argument!

Divergence from the original isn't necessarily a bad thing, however. After all I am not the same person now as I was 10, 20 or however many years ago, and that is fine. Copies of an original will inevitably diverge by the same process, which again is not a bad thing.

I agree that if one of 'you' suffers while another is fine then that is a bad thing. But in that case the OK version might reasonably try to help the one in a bad state. That is, after all, what families do, and you could make a case that you might feel closer to your other instances than to your biological relatives (though you might not, too, depending on how you get on with yourself!).

The original doesn't have precedence?? So anyone could copy you and then you'd be perfectly fine if the copy threw you out in the streets because it thought your house (or apartment/whatever) was its to claim?

Why should it? Subjectively both are equally valid individuals. By the same argument the original should have no right to throw the copy out without any means of support.

I guess it's similar to the case with having a child - creating a copy means the creator is responsible for it, even if only to the extent that a parent is responsible for looking after an adult child.

The situation of anyone copying me is a different thing. Then we're getting into discussions of who has the right to copy a person. Do you have copyright on yourself? I'd say you should, but in the real world, who knows...

[champion]

I've give a huge amount of thought to what the world might be like in the future, up to 2200 and beyond.

I have detailed time lines that I've developed for writing projects and games.

Can't really post enough of it in any reasonable sized post to do justice to even one such scenario.

A lot of the other posts here seem to lack seriousness and there does seem to be a bit of racism around. I only just joined this forum and I'm already considering quitting.

[Ran Exilis]

I've give a huge amount of thought to what the world might be like in the future, up to 2200 and beyond.

I have detailed time lines that I've developed for writing projects and games.

Can't really post enough of it in any reasonable sized post to do justice to even one such scenario.

I, for one, would love to see one of those timelines - properly worked out future history that doesn't devolve in political flaming and soapboxing is a rare thing indeed.

A lot of the other posts here seem to lack seriousness and there does seem to be a bit of racism around. I only just joined this forum and I'm already considering quitting.

Rest assured, this thread was just an unusually bad case of trolling and racism, and the fact that one of the worst offenders in this thread has been banned for racism et al not that long afterwards should be an indicator of that.

[Chris]

One of the problems with FH is that timelines can change based on random events, like 9/11, yet such events are hard to predict. I'll try though...

Chris

[Chris]

Bearing in mind that this is an incredibly difficult thing to do…

2010-2020

The economic crisis leads to massive cutbacks in all walks of life, particularly in the West. This leads to considerable social unrest in Europe and even in America, although the two trends are actually separate. Regardless of the riots, public spending must be cut and a number of governments successively bite the bullet and start cutting. With a series of exposes about greedy MPs and other political disasters, it becomes harder for MPs to get away with it.

The crisis in Europe spells the end of further EU integration. As the richer countries try to escape the dead weight of poorer countries, there is increasing defiance of the EU and its regulations. Germany eventually forms what is, in effect, a power block covering most of Eastern Europe, one effectively controlled by German’s bank. The EU doesn’t exactly vanish, but the funding is cut back so sharply that it becomes nothing more than a talking shop. The cuts eventually lead to more riots and terrorism on the streets, leading to the election of various right-wing governments and a more robust attitude towards illegal immigration and multiculturalism.

Russia continues to expand its control over the former USSR states. Although both the US and the EU are opposed to this process, no one is prepared to do what is necessary to intervene. The Russians win by default.

In America, President Obama’s re-election campaign is derailed by a crisis within the Democratic Party and a massive upswing in independent/tea party candidates. The Republicans coast to victory as the Democratic Party collapses into civil war, only to discover that there are still major problems with the country’s position. Even so, spending has to be cut badly. The new President gambles and cuts taxes as much as possible, giving the economy time to breathe.

In the Middle East, the shortage of charitable donations leads to yet more hardships for the Palestinian people. Their leaders, however, are unwilling to compromise with Israel, something that comes back to bite them when the new US president is elected and chooses to take Israel’s side.

2021-2050

The discovery of a practical form of HE3-powered fusion system boosts interest in space exploration, with the US investing far more money in NASA and bringing in a very tough ex-USAF officer to run the institution. Private corporations are also offered tax breaks and incentives to develop SSTO systems and private work in space. Europe – slowly recovering – Japan, China and Russia also seek to get in on the act, although they cannot invest as much as the US. By 2030, the Americans have set up a mining station on the moon and started to send processed HE3 back to Earth. The fears concerning fission power are so great that there is massive public support for fusion power. The US is more than happy to sell the fuel to its allies.

This combines with another social trend, power conservation. By 2020, technology has developed to allow power to be conserved, creating batteries that can power cars for long periods of time. Combined with fusion power, petrol/gas/diesel cars start to go out of service, replaced by battery cars. As power becomes cheaper, the cars start to spread. This not only reduces pollution, but has another effect as well.

The oil from the Middle East had been growing more expensive for years. Now the bottom falls out of the market. States that were dependent on oil for their funds start to totter and collapse, starting with the Saudis. Some wiser states, such as democratic Iraq, have invested in other facilities, but others have not. Their castes built on sand start to fall apart as investment dries up, quite literally. Islamic states form from the ruins, but rapidly lose their lustre as they discover they needed the infidels after all. Iran eventually becomes a weak democracy after the government falls; Saudi suffers massive population collapse after the water supplies fail and die.

This provokes a massive rush for Mecca. Egyptian, Iraqi, Iranian and Turkish forces rush for the holy city, challenged by a witch’s brew of fundamentalist forces. Eventually, Turkey and Iraq form an alliance and secure most of Saudi for themselves. Over the next forty years, the area will become a limited democracy.

Africa convulses as the mass die-off from AIDS and the spin-off from the Middle East finally erupts. Race war breaks out in sub-saraharen Africa, while millions of refugees start trying to flee to Europe from North Africa. The European forces start sinking refugee boats on sight.

2050-2100

The Americans are joined in space by Europe and Japan, leading to the construction of additional lunar bases, asteroid mining facilities and colonies off-world. There is a great trade in retirement homes in orbit for the elderly, while large amounts of industry are being pushed into orbit to prevent further pollution. The pledges not to militarise space have come to nothing when there was something up there to protect, so there are three major sets of armed satellites floating around the Earth. The development of space cables and beanstalks only expands the space industry, with ships heading out to Mars and further towards the outer system. A British team lands on Titan and claims it for Britain, giving the British an advantage over most other parties.

The Demographic crisis in the USA is starting to bite as Hispanic immigrants and their descendents start pressing for a more Mexican slant, even including secession and rejoining Mexico. The US is immensely more powerful than Mexico, but faces a massive insurgency in its southern cities, or so it seems. Eventually, a second civil war, far different from the first, breaks out. The fighting lasts upwards of ten years before the backbone of the Mexican insurgency is finally broken, with immense damage to both America and Mexico.

American colonies on the moon combine into Armstrong and demand representation in the US senate. They don’t get it.

The Middle East is becoming more democratic now that the mullahs have been thrown out of power. The population relocations – splitting up antagonistic groups – have dimmed the fire of jihad. The Middle East is still poor, but growing stable.

2100-2200

The massive population growth off-world (aided by political chaos in America) leads to a growing demand for autonomy. Mars, populated mainly by Americas, Europeans, Japanese and Chinese settlers, has a growing underground movement seeking independence and terraforming, despite heavy political and corporate repression. Several teams of asteroid miners have effectively gone underground, setting up hidden colonies and creating a black market in the belt. Some of the asteroids have been settled by groups seeking political and religious freedom, including Mormons and other such groups. There is very little true law and order in the outer solar system.

The political system on Earth is unwilling to grant further autonomy, as the off-world voters are fewer than the ones on Earth. Eventually, there is a major uprising on the moon, with lunar-born children taking control of Armstrong and – eventually – most of the other bases on the moon as well. They also took control of the mass drivers used to push lunar rock towards the Earth. Their demand for independence, based on the American declaration of independence from Britain, does not amuse Earth. However, actually fighting the lunar rebels isn’t easy. The war might destroy systems that Earth depends upon to survive. After a brief attempt to land troops and recover the lunar bases, the governments of Earth reluctantly concede lunar independence in exchange for continued supplies of HE3. Secretly, they invest heavily in cloudscoops for Jupiter and the other gas giants.

This sparks off a second rebellion on Mars. This one is less lucky because there was fewer communications between the different settlers, with less of a common culture. Mars, being largely worthless compared to the asteroids, ends up a divided planet, although the terraforming project gets underway as a joint effort. Various asteroids declare independence and form the Rockrat Cartel, a government dedicated to the asteroid miners and their society alone. The various corporations lobby hard and hire private soldiers to wage war on the Rockrats, but it is a futile struggle and, eventually, they concede defeat. Ironically, the various independence movements and their successes galvanise the solar system and a minor golden age begins.

By 2200, AI, human clones and genetic engineering is common. Humans live longer and healthier lives than their forefathers. Now, with free power and advanced tech, the first asteroid ships set out across the heavens, intent on finding new worlds and boldly going where no human has gone before…

[Straha]

lol at chris's post.

The US's situation with latins isn't the same as europe's situaiton with muslims. Going from percentages alone we're where Europe will be by the mid/late 21st century and we're not running into problems even like what they have now.

[champion]

I, for one, would love to see one of those timelines - properly worked out future history that doesn't devolve in political flaming and soapboxing is a rare thing indeed.


I'm thinking about it. Maybe it would be good to get some criticism and feedback on it.

[Nikephoros]

lol at chris's post.

The US's situation with latins isn't the same as europe's situaiton with muslims. Going from percentages alone we're where Europe will be by the mid/late 21st century and we're not running into problems even like what they have now.

Even better is the German "Empire."

[Nikephoros]

I, for one, would love to see one of those timelines - properly worked out future history that doesn't devolve in political flaming and soapboxing is a rare thing indeed.



Rest assured, this thread was just an unusually bad case of trolling and racism, and the fact that one of the worst offenders in this thread has been banned for racism et al not that long afterwards should be an indicator of that.

Honestly, I wanted this thread closed long ago.

[Chris]

lol at chris's post.

The US's situation with latins isn't the same as europe's situaiton with muslims. Going from percentages alone we're where Europe will be by the mid/late 21st century and we're not running into problems even like what they have now.

If you find mine so objectionable, why don't you write your own?

On the Germans, the Germans tend to attract power towards them in Europe. If the EU were to fall apart, the Germans would be one of the most powerful states in post-EU Europe and would certainly have a major effect on the surrounding countries.

Chris

[champion]

One of the problems with FH is that timelines can change based on random events, like 9/11, yet such events are hard to predict. I'll try though...

Chris


I wouldn't describe that as "random" and I predicted that something like that would happen in a published article in 1986, fifteen years before the event.

[champion]

I, for one, would love to see one of those timelines - properly worked out future history that doesn't devolve in political flaming and soapboxing is a rare thing indeed.


Here's the problem. The main timeline is about 45 pages long and goes from 1950 to 2850 with some events and trends filled in that go past the year 3000. Not only is that too large to just post on a forum, but it's not 45 pages of readily understandable narrative, it's 45 pages of cryptic notes and abbreviations where I understand exactly what it means, but a lot of it would be very unclear what I'm talking about to most other people. A very few events have detailed explanations, but they are typically not the most important events, but rather events that I don't have detailed explanations of elsewhere. For example, at one point I wrote:

Eurasian War - EMU & US & Japan vs. SCO

I didn't explain what the EMU or the SCO is. I didn't say what the war was about, who won or that nuclear weapons were used. Yet in that timeline, it is one of the most important events in the 21st century. Meanwhile, I went on for almost a page about some events in Israeli politics that really aren't all that important to the rest of the world. The reason is because the Israeli thing was complicated and I don't have any explanation of it anywhere else. The Eurasian War I have several documents on including a half finished novel that portrays it in detail and another partly written novel that also describes it briefly and shows some of its aftermath in considerable detail.

For me to write explanations of this timeline to make it clear what it means and why it's plausible (often that's not self-evident) would make something that was hundreds of pages long.

Also, this thread is about the future to the year 2200. That would leave out this timeline's most interesting events and the ones that are easiest to predict and most likely to come true. This is because those events are from about the year 2300 to about 2500. Normally more distant events are harder to predict, but not these, or at least not the broad outlines, because they are driven by fundamental facts of the "geography" of space, economics and human nature.

So I can't just post it and I really don't know where to begin explaining it. I tried several times to write something that would at least summarize it, but gave up each time.

As much as it does seem implausible at first glance, I'm already having strange things happen where I write about fictional events and then read news stories that are eerily similar. This sort of thing has been happening to me since at least 1982 when I was running a multi-player simulation of the Falklands War and the war in El Salvador and in both cases the simulations were so realistic that events in the simulation were reported hours later as real news because identical events occurred in real life at the exact same time as the events I dreamed up for the simulations.

I originally thought my scenario for the Eurasian War was far-fetched and even now I am tempted to rewrite the timeline without it. But I have run it by an expert on Russia (studying for a doctorate in the subject) and she said it was plausible. Then I found that the political factions in Belarus that I invented out of thin air in connection with the origin of the war really exist and are backed by the same major powers in real life that back the fictional ones in my timeline. But what are the chances that the Russians would launch nuclear weapons over the border dispute between Poland and Belarus as my timeline forecasts? My study of Russian military doctrine indicated that their military doctrine would call for a massive nuclear strike in such circumstances. Hard to believe they would really do it, though. Yet my favorite Russia expert says it is plausible and spelled out under what circumstances.

Then I found a news article that in real life the real Russian military conducted exercises based on exactly this same war scenario and that their exercises included simulated Russian nuclear weapon strikes.

Huh? They're actually training for the war I imagined for my fictional timeline invented for a sci-fi novel.

When you study the world and the future enough, this kind of thing happens.

But how do you explain this stuff briefly in a way that will make any sense? I could write a hundred pages just on the issue of Russian military and political strategy in the early to mid 21st century and another hundred pages on how European and American military and political strategy interacts with it in dangerous ways that could lead to exactly this sort of war breaking out almost by accident. That's just to say how the war could start, not how it would go or the massive consequences. And that's all about one war that is just one very brief abbreviated entry in the timeline.

In this timeline, by the year 2100 all of the major powers on Earth are countries that don't even exist today.

Some of the entries on technology and even fashion are even more obscure. Under technology I wrote "tethers in space". Do you guys know what that means? It's a real thing that impressed NASA enough they actually devoted at least one shuttle mission to experimenting with tethers, but if you don't know about that, it's just meaningless words. If you do know that it involves two objects in space being attached to each other with some kind of cable or "tether", that tells you nothing about why NASA would care or why it would matter. Yet actually this would make it possible to get from Earth orbit to the surface of the moon and back without firing a rocket engine. That one and the "elevator to space" sound like really stupid, totally unworkable ideas that only someone who knows nothing about space would even think of. Yet both of these are real technologies that are being actively pursued by companies and NASA and probably can be made to work at some point. I've read detailed technical documents on both of these and lots and lots of other stuff most people never hear about.

Maybe ask me questions about the timeline and I could answer them.

[Chris]

It sounds very interesting. I'd love to read more.

Chris

[Chris]

I wouldn't describe that as "random" and I predicted that something like that would happen in a published article in 1986, fifteen years before the event.

True, you could say that something like that will happen, if you have a long enough time period. My point is that it will be random and unseen (by the public, at least) prior to the disaster. If we assume that 9/11 was delayed by 2/3 years, the world might be a very different place.

What would have happened to Bush without 9/11? Would there have been a confrontation with China, or Russia, or Iraq? The attack would fall during his campaign for re-election in the US - how would he react when he is struggling to remain President? Would he have become a lame duck and do nothing more than airstrikes, or would he order Afganistan nuked? Would Kerry still be his challenger? If so, would he take a stronger line against Bush with the memory of burning buildings still fresh in the American mind.

Chris

[champion]

It sounds very interesting. I'd love to read more.

Chris

Okay. You asked for it.

I started a new thread for it and when I tried to write up even a summary explanation of the main events, it ended up being so long just to cover the period from 2000-2050 that I posted that by itself. As I mentioned earlier, though, the timeline goes past the year 3000. I posted the first part for comments here:

http://www.counter-factual.net/upload/showthread.php?p=120997#post120997

[RBC]

I suspect that most of the large nations today would still eist in some form, but that smaller nations will have disappeared in some places. The Chinas and the Koreas will be reunited. There will be fewer distinct European countries, but how many fewer I know not. Efforts at continental unions in Africa and South America will falter unless the European project has endured and integrated well beyond 2011 levels. Much or all of the Arabian Peinsula may have consolidated. South Asia may also undergo some amalgamations.

[CaliBoy1990]

If I may be allowed to revive this topic, I'm going to try for a plausible look at 2200:

The 21st century was kind of a mixed bag; on one hand, there was no global democracy like Trekkies had dreamed of and hoped for, and climate change caused more damage than 20th Century thinkers had postulated. On the other hand, humanity did not go extinct, nor did WWIII occur.

Here is a look at 2200's Nations:

The United States has undergone many major shifts over the past 200 years: It's no longer the world's only superpower, as India, the E.U., Russia, and Australia now hold that distinction as well, but remains a great power. The U.S. is about 54% white, though a significant number of mixed-race Americans do exist, especially in the West, the Great Lakes(excluding Pa. outside of Philly and Ohio), and in Hawaii. Puerto Rico became the 51st state in 2024 and has provided the U.S. with at least 5 Presidents so far. Canadian-style social democracy took root in the mid-2020s after the disastrous Rand Paul administration(and subsequent impeachments of him and his V.P. Scott Walker), and has since prevented several would-be depressions.

India went thru a number of terrible problems in the first half of the 21st Century, including a famine that killed over 70 million people, widespread terrorism after the implosion of Pakistan, and an AIDS epidemic in the south that lasted over 40 years and killed 30 million people, as well as a sometimes deep, 20-year long recession from 2017-2036. After this, however, India began a fundamental transformation, all for the better, with sweeping financial, environmental, and social reforms. The country spent the next 30 years reinventing itself and by 2100, was truly a place far better than it had started out as. India is now one of the primary powers in the world, and a very open one, at that.

The European Union faced some very tough times in the first half of the 21st century and nearly collapsed on a few occasions, most notably during the widespread food riots in Germany in 2022 and the military coup led by the Golden Dawn movement in Greece in July 2017. Many people demanded swift and vast reforms, and they got them. The system was remodeled to better fit that of the Nordic Countries and Canada, particularly at the behest of two-time French President Hollande and the Socialist coalition in Italy. It took over a decade and a half since the Milan Conference in 2024, but by 2040, the revived E.U. was ready to face the world anew. And when humanity landed on Mars in 2057, it was an Ariane XI rocket that got us there. In 2200, the E.U. is the world's primary tourism spot and hasn't lost a bit of its character. And the social fabric has changed a lot as well, as huge amounts of interethnic intermarriage has happened, especially in France, Germany, Switzerland, and the Low Countries.

Russia, too, has been on a roller coaster ride. After Vladimir Putin was forced out of office due to serious corruption problems, Russia would suffer an identity issue for over a decade. On top of this, the Iranian gov't acquired nukes in 2016 and in September 2020, the radical Islamist PM threatened to destroy Moscow, St. Petersburg, Yekatarinburg, and Krasnoyarsk if their demands for releasing the Muslim Brotherhood terrorists who bombed, amongst other targets, a school in Tel-Aviv, and an apartment building in Ramallah in the West Bank where a chief Palestinian leftist MP was staying, were not met. It was only thanks to Russian President Kasimirov(a Just Russia member, btw), and U.S. President Martin O'Malley, that the confrontation didn't go down the abyss. In April of that next year, Iran underwent a total revolt, middle-class Iranians throwing out the right-wingers with full force(Ayatollah Khamenei was shot by a 16-year-old girl while trying to flee Tehran. He died the next morning).
Amero-Russian relations slowly began to heal again, and this time for good. The Russian government uncovered and prosecuted thousands of crooks, and spent the next 20 years remaking their country. And by 2100, Mikhail Gorbachev's old dream had finally come to pass; social democracy for Russians, all Russians. Now, in 2200, Russia, a highly diverse nation of 370 million people, looks even higher, to the stars, to expand its horizons.

China, after years of bubbling, finally imploded in 2038; the Civil War lasted 7 years and killed over 80 million people. The region hasn't fully recovered since, and only the Democratic Republic of China, based in Hong Kong, and the Republic of Manchuria, have been able to coalesce into significant entities. Shanghai is its own city state, and the headquarters of the Triad gang, still going strong after all these years....and the former Beijing has splintered into several cities, located in the part of China ruled by the authoritarian corporate entity known only as the "Great Dragon Company"(Tianjin was fortunate enough to have been annexed by Manchuria, though). There is some hope, though, that Manchuria and the DRC may work together in absorbing the still Byzantine mid-sections of the former PRC and finally reuniting China into a single cohesive entity by 2240 or so.

Australia weathered the 21st century rather well, though it had to deal with water shortages as well as two rather large wars with Indonesia. In 2060, a plan that would consolidate it, New Zealand, and New Guinea into an entity not unlike a mix between Canada and the E.U. was overwhelmingly approved, though N.Z. and New Guinea were allowed to remain semi-independent. The new Union? Oceania. In 2066, the new nation was admitted to the UN and in 2081 became a key member of the Security Council.

In 2200, the country has about 100 million people and is a place with a very high standard of living; very diverse as well, with people with ancestry from over 100 different countries calling it home.

I can post more if you like......this is just the basic stuff, though.

[Straha]

So exactly *how* do you make social democracy work in an environment with 1) massively declining energy/resource reserves 2) a population that is literally less productive and civilized*.

Western Europe in our mid and late 20th century kept a social democratic welfare state going because 1) they outsourced all their defense spending 2) China, India and Brazil were dirt poor and couldn't afford oil.

It's bad enough that you handwave all the issues that make even just retaining social democracy in Europe shall we say unrealistic. Your decision to have "canadian style" social democracy arrive in the US is ASB for the reasons I mentioned above along with the US's decline**.

* I'm not even getting into whether it's cultural or genetic, but there's clearly been a decline.
** Just wait until the US has to go from getting 25% of the world's oil or other resources to 5% or less.

[Straha]

Another objection I have is of the EU surviving as a cohesive bloc, instead of as an economic zone and in the process being a superpower.

That said, I could see Germany and a few others forming a kind of "cool kids only" version of the EU, and having a two-tier structure. Of course, such an entity wouldn't be militarily on par with the US and PRC. Hell, even a cohesive bloc EU probably wouldn't be able to pull it off.

Remember old 80s predictions of Japan as the Coming Superpower based on massive growth rates? The difference between those and predictions of a centralized EU superpower, is that outdated predictions of Japanese superpowerdom are actually refreshing.

Speaking of that, I really should do something based on Friedman's "The Coming War" with Japan, which I obtained recently.

[CaliBoy1990]

Another objection I have is of the EU surviving as a cohesive bloc, instead of as an economic zone and in the process being a superpower.

That said, I could see Germany and a few others forming a kind of "cool kids only" version of the EU, and having a two-tier structure. Of course, such an entity wouldn't be militarily on par with the US and PRC. Hell, even a cohesive bloc EU probably wouldn't be able to pull it off.

Remember old 80s predictions of Japan as the Coming Superpower based on massive growth rates? The difference between those and predictions of a centralized EU superpower, is that outdated predictions of Japanese superpowerdom are actually refreshing.

Speaking of that, I really should do something based on Friedman's "The Coming War" with Japan, which I obtained recently.

So this was all part of one universe, huh? Such a pity if true. :(

[Straha]

These are more generic commentaries relating to both economics and a recognizable, social-democratic EU in long-term predictions.

[archangel]

These are more generic commentaries relating to both economics and a recognizable, social-democratic EU in long-term predictions.
Regarding the EU, it's likely going to be at a certain period, a progressively enlarging core of nations following a federal model, and others connected in an economic and political way but without the same level of integration (but also with less influence on decisions in comparison with the more federalized nations). The current crisis is a growth crisis exacerbated by the current depression (which fuels populisms without real solutions).
IMHO, the problems regarding Europe's social model are solvable with more competitiveness and cutting on waste* (and also developing as soon as possible clean alternate sources of energy, so that it gets less dependent to energy prices - oil and gas will be around for most of the century, but in a reducing share). This should allow the continuation of said model, which is more conducent to a higher quality of life, a desire of most people, but that requires a developed economy, which takes time to develop and implies many transformations in the economy and society to get there.
*exorbitant spendings in useless works, bad public-private programs, support for small lobbies interests, etc

[NomadicSky]

Its impossible to know...Lost in Space was set in 1997...1997 so...ya know we don't know nor ever will be able to speculate.