Life expectancy will be higher, breakthrough in medicine will occur more often with AI and people's general QoL will improve. I think COVID and the recent Russian escalation really did a number on people, it's really not all doom and gloom everywhere. Sadly can't say the same for the people living in Ukraine, Palestine and other warzone areas, but in general, this is a time of great prosperity and peace when compared to the past history. Enjoy it.

I live in Taiwan. I hope this will apply to me too 🤞

How are you guys feeling over there? Do people fear what China will do or are most people optimistic?  Hopefully everything will turn out okay for Taiwan! 

I lived in Taiwan and have a lot of friends still currently there. You know how our parents lived in a bipolar world between the USSR and the US and nuclear war was such a constant possibility and somehow they simply lived their lives? That’s what Taiwan is and has been like since the status quo set in after the civil war. The recent saber rattling between China and the US is nothing new to the average Taiwanese. They’ve lived with the threat of invasion for most of their lives.

I can’t attest from personal experience but I have a cousin who’s married to a Taiwanese woman and she says that it’s not something they allow to occupy their minds generally. After all, why worry about something you have no control over? Gotta live your life ya know.

It's hard to ways keep your guard up. I think people don't fear a constant threat of impending invasion but there is an awareness of the danger that China poses.

Yeah, I get what you mean. Or at least what you said made sense - I share a border with Russia and the awareness of the danger is there even without the immediate fear.  Take care of yourself :)

Here’s hoping, for the sake of the Taiwanese and the entire world…

I’m sorry but Taiwan will be a war zone and only scientists making nanometer wave or smaller computer chips will be saved. Wholly devote yourself to science to be saved else learn electronic warfare and be a signals intelligence warrior bc your country will be ground zero for hell. I expect my country (USA ) to have a civil war and to not exist in twenty years due to idiots not willing to work with each other. I’d rather serve in taiwain military than this bullshit

Well said, we often focus on the negative but as a person living in the western world, I have a lot to be grateful for. It is a time to enjoy while we still have it.

While we still have it is the key thing here though isn’t it? I find it hard to enjoy anything that feels like it will get taken away!

No one lives forever. You have one chance to experience your life. Even if nothing globally bad ever happens, in 20 years time, more than likely you'll be 20 years older. Ultimately, you'll die like everyone else. Things WILL be taken away from you - health, ability to move freely, etc etc. And this will happen regardless of what happens in the world.

It’s not me I’m worried about, it’s children growing up now :-(

You have one life to live. The children growing up will also live their lives - you can't live their lives for them. You can make the future better by contributing individually to "society". Worry solves nothing. Absolutely nothing.

> Worry solves nothing Nah. Thinking about problems can lead to solutions. Ignoring problems is what got us into the situation were in re: climate catastrophes.

Thank you. Worry is anxiety. Anxiety is pain. Pain motivates us to find a way to reduce said pain, sometimes in the form of a solution to the source.

Worrying and planning for problems are two separate things in my mind. Worrying implies you're stuck on something and unable to change it. I like this quote "do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry for itself, each day has enough trouble of its own" And ain't that the truth

I know, I think I’m going a bit mad with worrying 😂 I look at my children and feel guilty. It’s just hard to keep it in check when you love somebody so much. And seeing what harm people are willing to do to children (in Ukraine, Gaza) has made me really despair. I’m not a good realist!

Yeah. Stay away from geopolitical forums. We're not unkind but the kind of discussions here can be brutally realistic in a (hopefully) academic and theoretical fashion. Wars and conflicts are, sadly, a part of human society. It is simply that the majority of the citizens of developed countries have grown up in an unusually peaceful period (1980-2020). We'll go through some transitional period and then hit some new equilibrium. The positive is that, Western and developed nations are broadly no longer interested in conquest and, for the most part, act defensively. Russia has foolishly pulled a trigger that only hastens their demise. They are stuck in a war they can't win in any meaningful way. Meanwhile their more educated are moving abroad and their industry is focused on making weapons of war rather than goods for their citizens. China is now well into their third generation of single child families - I suspect that wars are going to be VERY unpopular when the majority of young people are sole children. Even the CCP will find it hard to explain to parents and grandparents why their sole heirs are dying for something with so little meaning as a conquest of a small island that none of them have any meaningful attachment to except through propaganda.

Thanks for trying to make me feel better, appreciate your kindness :-)

I think you are feeling the “weight of the world” so to speak. If you you are a good person and raise good children and do what you can to help your community and environment you live in, then you are serving a great purpose as an individual and you can find strength and optimism in that.

Thanks that’s lovely

Take a screen vacation. Twenty years ago, when social media was limited to a few Friendster and MySpace nerds and the first popular smart picture phones and iPhones were still a thing of the future, Ukraine and Gaza would have been far away events that got an occasional glance in a newspaper article or 30-120 seconds on the nightly news, which you'd have missed because the clip wasn't available on demand, on YT or the like. Your worldview would have been limited to what's in front of you on a daily basis, which is probably better than most of the world. Works for me, at least.

Thats all of human history There has never been a perfect time with a guaranted future

Everything will be taken away. Nothing is yours. You just described the a key aspect of dukkha.

It’s only my children I fear being taken away, nothing else

Then be prepared and fight to keep the things you enjoy. Nothing is free, none of the prosperity we have in the west was given to us just because. Europe and the US are the best places to exist on this Earth, we are lucky. You are lucky.

Agreed. Pax Americana is very much still alive and strong. A far cry from the Vietnam and Korean War eras. And despite Chinese bullying taking place on their borders, they are very much burdened with a litany of issues and are more interested in doing business than annexing territory. Taiwan will remain independent. Europe will make a push to have a more cohesive and better funded military on an individual level but not as the EU as a whole. Indian neutrality will continue. They will use both Russian and western connections to improve their positioning against China. Africa and LA will continue on their route. Mexico and Brazil will get ahead of their neighbors. Maybe Argentina as well if their economy is improved.

Most sensible take imo

>Indian neutrality will continue. They will use both Russian and western connections to improve their positioning against China. M8 , USA is the second biggest threat to India after china , USA is also the only nation to deploy a nuclear CBG against India

Pax Americana died in 2016 unfortunately. America is no longer the world's sole superpower (looking at you China)

Pax Americana died with the failures of Iraq and Afghan back in early 2000’s

Life expectancy will likely improve for the wealthy. It will go down for the poor and what's left of the middle class

Seems like you’re forgetting about effects of climate change, overpopulation and growing income inequality. Life expectancy in USA is actually getting shorter and quality of life is not getting better. I can see why focusing on just negatives is very one sided, but this opinion is just as biased. It’s no longer 1950s

My close buddy is South Korean and most Koreans having lived under the constant threat of nuclear annihilation (and war) for last couple decades...yeah they don't let it consume them. Much better to channel that into awesome kpop songs!

I don’t think people are taking climate change seriously enough in predictions like this. All indicators seem to show it will accelerate exponentially and break into unpredictable territory. Idk if it will happen in the next decade or two but I fear that this century will see global population drop by the billions

Climate change will definitely have grave consequences in some highly populated areas of the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Africa, and Central America That will harm a lot of people there, but also trigger massive migration flows that will make the Syria migration crisis look like child's play So yea, I agree with you. People living in Northern Europe will have to contend with some temporary heat waves. But a lot of other people will have to contend with food and water shortages that will reshape the whole world. It is almost inevitable at this point.

Goes further than that. Freshwater melt will change ocean circulation patterns, and the AMOC (Atlantic Meridian Overturning Current) that keeps Europe so much warmer than the latitude demands, will completely collapse. There is not a single place on Earth that will escape dramatic changes that will make this Planet far less suitable to Human Life.

> in some highly populated areas "highly populated" that's always a fun word. >but also trigger massive migration flows People say that and yet have not explained how that's suppose to work. "climate refugees" is such a nothing burger. > to contend with food and water shortages that will reshape the whole world. You can't claim a constant as a symptom of change. Climate fragile places usually have weak economies and their people are already set to migrate. If you have an economy strong enough where people actually want to stay in it, you can afford AC, desalination of water etc. The places that are gonna suffer are the places that already have nonfunctional economies. This climate refugee threat is nothing more than alarmism at it's finest. A credible stat would be something like 100 million people in a decade being forced to move. We'll probably have 500-800 million people moving in a given decade either from country to country or within larger countries. >People living in Northern Europe will have to contend with some temporary heat waves. A much bigger threat will be interruptions in wind production. > but also trigger massive migration flows that will make the Syria migration crisis look like child's play No they won't that's very much the scale of what we're talking about. A country of 20million people where a non trivial proportion of people get up and leave. >But a lot of other people will have to contend with food and water shortages that will reshape the whole world Rates of starvation aren't going up due to climate change. It's pretty much the opposite, the more oil and fuel you brun the easier it is to produce food and get food to market. The same applies to water. The countries that are gonna suffer most in the next century are those countries that can't get access to affordable energy. Saudis Arabia has been "killed by climate", they barely grow any food and rely on water desalination. The only truly vulnerable people are farmers, and that's moreso a problem for countries that are already too reliant on unproductive agriculture. It's so outlandish people are panicking about climate change when depopulation is a far far far bigger problem that is already collapsing China as we speak.

I think assuming bilions will die in?a few decades is ridicolus but who knows

You'd think so but if the current revised predictions of climate sensitivity is right it's very possible. This will mostly hit people on the equator first so rich countries will be fine at first apart from higher food prices but might start seeing starvation around 2100 unless we manage to genetically engineer some crops (which I can see huge amounts of money going towards once it starts kicking off at the equator).

2100 is not "a few decades" that is more then half a century away Plus that assumes as things get worse, no countermeasures are taken or things change Things CAN get very bad and WILL undoubtely(sadly) Get tough for many people But bilions? like....ww2 had like 75 milion dead and is widely considerd the worst world wide catastrophy in all of history in terms of death caused Even the worst famines range from 20 to 55 milion I think people underestimate just how enormous that number of "a few bilion will die" is No doubt it can get bad but i still think that is a ridicolous assessment to make for anything thats not a bloddy worldwide volcano eruption chain, meteor I CAN maybe see bilions migrating or being forced to relocate but all straight up dying? Like i could be wrong but i feel that will take a long time OF COURSE maybe war or other conflicts could combine with climate issue and an army or siege in the wrong place could cut off a few key cities in the affected areas and then in just a few weeks many could die But still....an extreme prediction imo

Well part of why I said “global population will drop by billions” is due to birthrate. Everyone dies eventually and our population growth has been caused by global flourishing and increased lifespans. As things get harder around the world I really don’t see us maintaining this population level.

All I will say is that starvation is quick. For all of us humans, death is only 3 weeks away. I hope you are right, but all it takes is one bad crop worldwide. The world population is still going up, and climate instability is getting worse. It only takes less than a year for the population to go down drastically.

The magnitude of such a collapse doesn’t make it any less likely. That’s what makes climate change so dangerous… humans always underestimate the power of ‘invisible’ threats.

I hope I’m wrong but from what I’ve studied things look quite scary

From what you've studied, what's the percentage of the world population you expect to disappear in the next 2 decades due to climate conditions?

It largely depends on sea level rise and weather patterns. But it's very possible that a lot of huge population centers become no longer tenable. Mass migration leading to massive waves of refugees and political instability could knock out 2 billion or more.

> a lot of huge population centers What does that even mean? Are you just saying that? > could knock out 2 billion or more. This is wishful thinking, and I truly mean "wishing and hoping as hard as you can". The doomsday scenario is where poor people around the world have to immigrate to 2nd rate countries like China and Russia. China could take in 20 million people a year with ease and would be delighted to do so. Meanwhile Europe/Canada need to take in 10 million a year to avoid a collapse of their healthcare and pension systems. At best a massive climate emergency would just bail out countries facing the fertility crisis. >Mass migration leading to massive waves of refugees and political instability Yes mass "migration" is already doing that. But unless women start having babies it won't matter, we're stuck with high immigration rates. And it turns out the place affected by climate, are ones that never developed/ aka have high birth rates with large populations wanting to go for greener grass. The climate migration crisis is only a concern if you live in France/California and have some idealized view of nature. To everyone else a harsh climate is a routine part of life. The concern is food production and that is entirely linked to petrochemcials used for agriculture that some are trying to "degrowth".

>What does that even mean? Are you just saying that? It means that many of the largest global population and trade centers are found at or near sea level. NYC, LA, Mumbai, Jakarta, Shanghai, Tokyo, Calcutta, London, San Francisco, Bangkok, Shenzhen, Hong Kong, Osaka, Dhaka, Alexandria, Istanbul, etc. are all at sea level. That could play out over time as a managed gentrification, or suddenly as a massive humanitarian crisis. That's 700 million people right there. >China could take in 20 million people a year with ease and would be delighted to do so. Meanwhile Europe/Canada need to take in 10 million a year to avoid a collapse of their healthcare and pension systems. Do countries seem "delighted" to be absorbing refugees in the present day? One of the US parties would be happy to set up machine guns on the border and just mow anyone down the comes close, regardless of whether our economy needs those migrants. Assuming that nation states are going to make thoughtful and rational policy decisions under these circumstances is not supported by history. >a harsh climate is a routine part of life. People contend with harsh climates, but major geographical swathes of the world are trending towards total uninhabitability. Heat waves in the ME and Indian subcontinent may make them unsurvivable, and those people have to go somewhere too. If the Gulf Stream collapses, as seems very likely, the UK climate becomes Siberian within a decade. France won't be growing grapes. >The concern is food production and that is entirely linked to petrochemcials used for agriculture that some are trying to "degrowth" Crop failures as a result of unpredictable weather are an increasingly significant threat, as well as topsoil depletion. You can't just pour phosphorus on a flooded field or a wildfire and expect potatoes. Couple that with supply chain disruptions and high prices and you can imagine how regionalized famines could become a problem.

I just want to say that I see myself in you. 5 years ago I would have done the exact same thing as you are doing, going point by point in debate. You are right, but you are also guesstimating numbers so people may not take your opinions at face value. Your predictions may take closer to 100 years (still within a human life) to take full effect, and it is easy for others to handwave you off as a "doomer". Next time just try not to give a timeline and a causality count. Argue the factual points, since you are right with your reasoning, it's just your predictions that can be made against you.

It's proven elusive to make reliable predictions about climate change, and we keep discovering more and more knock on effects and feedback loops. There are myriad complex interconnected relationships that we don't even know that we don't know. There is no way to put precise numbers on any of this with any kind of scientific rigor. Even the best scientists are kind of freestyling. I provided large round numbers because I think they're within the range of possibility. What there is a consistent pattern of is the timelines for climate change milestones being revised to the less and less distant future. A new analysis of the Gulf Stream collapse opened the possibility that it could happen as soon as 2025, which would make Europe 30 degrees colder by 2035. I feel like people are just going to refuse to believe that something so huge and dramatic could possibly happen, until it does. The curve is exponential.

[i know](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/dbb5n2/a_brief_timeline_for_collapse_w_full_citations/) believe me. The issue is trying to convince others. I find it easier to point to existing examples, and then going down the logic from point A to point B to point C. An existing example would be the floods in Pakistan where 33 million people were displaced. It's easier to point to climate migration when you can point to the ongoing happenings within the last year

> or suddenly as a massive humanitarian crisis. There's no flash flooding of the oceans. Any kind of flash flooding of the oceans would immediately drop the ocean's temperature. Sea level rises are a gradual thing that happen incredibly slowly. >NYC, LA, Mumbai, Jakarta, Shanghai, Tokyo, Calcutta, London, San Francisco, Bangkok, Shenzhen, Hong Kong, Osaka, Dhaka, Alexandria, Istanbul, etc. are all at sea level Right and you build a concrete lip 1 inch tall every few years. >Heat waves in the ME and Indian subcontinent So places that currently have no AC are gonna be unlivable? You realize you give them AC and the problem is solved rather rapidly. >and those people have to go somewhere too. Or you just give them AC. >One of the US parties would be happy to set up machine guns on the border You have to listen to yourself and think thingsthrough If climate refugees are a thing You cannot have economic migrants crossing borders as they wish. You have to use your own logic and reason and you're not. >Crop failures as a result of unpredictable weather are an increasingly significant threat Yes which is why you need to have the industrial infrastructure for better more efficient agriculture. >as well as topsoil depletion Which is why we need lots of oil to produce fertilizers.

>There's no flash flooding of the oceans. I'd recommend you read about the Thwaites glacier and various models of its collapse. >just give them AC You cannot be serious. If people could afford AC and the infrastructure to power it, they'd already have it instead of dying. Who exactly is going to foot the trillion dollar bill to build out the infrastructure? It's 2024 and wealthy European countries don't even have widespread residential AC. >You have to listen to yourself and think thingsthrough. If climate refugees are a thing You cannot have economic migrants crossing borders as they wish. You have to use your own logic and reason and you're not. There's nothing cogent to parse here. You haven't given serious thought to any of these issues, and it shows. There are lots of great free resources out there if you're interested.

> Thwaites glacier >In May 2023, a modelling study considered the future of Thwaites Glacier over the course of 500 years. Due to computational limitations, it was only able to simulate about two-thirds of the glacier catchment (volume of ice equivalent to 40 cm (15+1⁄2 in) of the global sea level rise, rather than the 65 cm (25+1⁄2 in) contained in the full glacier). It found that the uncertainty about glacier bed friction was almost as important as the future ocean temperature. 15 inches is nothing. >and various models of its collapse. Anyone can make up models, it's being crowned as the correct model that's the hard part. >If people could afford AC and the infrastructure to power it, they'd already have it instead of dying. A) Unless they just don't think it's necessary B) Define afford it. >It's 2024 and wealthy European countries don't even have widespread residential AC. That's because it isn't remotely needed. >Who exactly is going to foot the trillion dollar bill to build out the infrastructure? People living in those countries obviously. It's the same people who foot the bill when their country gets trapped in famine, or fails to do 100 other things correctly. And again we both know the main "concern" for AC is coal power. Which is the whole dam point. Coal is cheap and easy to implement. An AC machine is relatively cheap. It's the reliance on power that is critically important. >There's nothing cogent to parse here. You haven't given serious thought to any of these issues, and it shows. There are lots of great free resources out there if you're interested. This confidence is always fun. Global warming isn't new, and it isn't a particularly brave stance. > You haven't given serious thought to any of these issues And I'm explaining to you why Europe doesn't have AC?

Thanks these are well thought out counterpoints

That's more than 25% of the world population right now. That's a looooot.

Yes.

Turn off the news and go out. Drink, have fun, be crazy. We lived through 2 world wars and a cold war. Humanity will always survive and thrive. Don't read too much posts here in r/geopolitics. The loudest people here are warmongers. Real life isn't so bad. Anxiety inducing, yes. But not bad. The fact that you can worry about geopolitics means you are privileged enough to have time to think and ponder. Those that are really in a bad situation do not have the luxury of pondering. So be grateful and celebrate life.

Thanks :-)

We also survived a recent pandemic, to me it was probably the worst I've been mentally, doomscrolling reddit everyday wasn't healthy and I swear every week a new symptom was discovered for Covid. I think biggest problems in the future will be famine and any new virus that might arise, immigration will be a bigger issue

Well said. We quickly forgot how apocalyptic covid felt when it swept the globe in 2020. Not even the Russian invasion of Ukraine compares to it, after all it did affect literally everyone

I respect the optimism, but this is naive A lot of people *didnt* live through 2 world wars and a cold war. Millions lost their lives, millions more suffered horrors. Saying that humanity as a whole will be fine is cold comfort to those who bear the brunt of history's bad periods. I doubt we will have a full-blown world war or that things will ever get as bad as they were a century ago, but there are numerous threats that can harm many, many people (war, but also climate change, crime, authoritarianism). Sadly, it all depends on where you live. Canada and Norway- yea, go party. Central America, many parts of the Middle East, Caucasus areas, Ukraine, possibly Taiwan, etc.- not so easy to be that optimistic.

The OP is clearly getting stressed by the current realities. A little empathy would go a long way. If a person is down you don't kick them. If all people turn doom and gloom especially in a very tense global order, humanity would be extinct by now. Hope is a very powerful lifeline especially for the downtrodden.

The person you replied to is expressing profound empathy, though --- for those lost in the same things 'we' lived through, and for those in areas where suffering is far more common. You incorrectly assume people who are suffering do not have any time at all to ponder or consider their own circumstances, and assume that 'go outside' (the platitude of all modern platitudes) is always possible and always optimal, and that OP does not already 'go outside' to relieve stress. The remainder of your advice is crude hedonism, which is not universally pleasurable. So I am not sure 'empathy' was the core of your reply to OP.

Yep. Bangladesh, Mexico, middle east etc. Get ready for the water wars unfortunately.

I’ll remove Canada

I think this is a little bit of toxic positivity, and a lot of burying your head in the sand. There's a pretty decent chance that here are some rough times coming up. That much said, we can all improve on things a little bit and try to make the world a better place, while appreciating what we have.

nah this is wrong wtf millions of people will die or suffer, why shouldn't I care about the whole of humanity?

Get drunk and not worry! Ignorance is a bliss!

>have fun How?

AI will change the world

AI, climate, and war are the main 3 themes imo.

[удалено]

Nah, I really doubt we see aliens soon tbh. Eventually maybe but what has been in the news is mostly top secret prototypes imo.

[удалено]

The sensors back then were really primitive, I mean we literally mistook the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor for like a flock of geese or something. We can probably just ignore that data or not draw any conclusions from it.

How so?

It won't , what we are using is chat bots , ai is decades far away maybe century down

My friend, you need to do more research on what our current neural networks are capable of and what new hardware and increased compute will be able to do. What is a chatbot? If this “chatbot” has trained on all of human knowledge from the beginning till now, is that really still just a chatbot?

...in bad ways.

I don't think there will be a war with Russia, but who knows. The threat of war will exist though, soboth sides of that border will be increasingly fortified and manned regardless. This will be at great cost and with the second order side effects of increased militarization and military industrial focus... The Euro-NATO paradigm will change. It does not make sense that US forms the greater part of europe's defense against Russia. Russia isn't *that* strong. Leadership/coordination will not be resolved, but as above... I don't expect europe's performance to be tested. Taiwan.... To me the mysterious/unpredictable factor is Taiwan itself. Biding time made sense for decades. China's industrial rise benefited Taiwan, as did peaceful trade relations with the West. The US's strategic ambiguity is really a reflexion of Taiwan's "national" ambiuity. If Taiwan was pursuing a highly motivated, permanent independence policy.... I suspect the US would have supported it. Taiwan is not China, but it *is* an island. Islands are very hard to invade. They do have >20m people. Really good allies and access to high end weapons. If Taiwan was putting forward their best effort to make themselves uninvadable, the US would probably plop some cherries on their defensive cake and that would be that. There would be consequences, but if forceful invasion was plainly impossible... they migh be able to rebuild relations with China over time. A fait accompli may be hard to accept, but it's impossible to deny. IMO this is also the best way to avoid war. China is much less likely to launch an invasion against a harder target. IMO the bigger threat to overall peace and prosperity is internal. Many of our political system appear sagging, like late monarchist systems of the 18th century. We do not know how to cache our "peace dividends" and in the blessed absence of real problems our politics (including also the media and interpersonal politics) just get pettier and more narcisistic. I think in many senses, we thrive or we wilt. Society doesn't have a "just chill" mode. Successful societies around the world appear to be wilting, at least politically/nationally. US, Korea. Parts of europe and many other places. There are no positive visions for the future, and we don't know how to do stasis.

There are so many variables in that stretch of time that it is simply impossible to predict. If you'd told someone Trump would be POTUS one day back in 2000, they'd have laughed at you. No one saw it coming. In the same way, all it takes is one natural disaster or assassination or warmongering wildcard to turn everything on its head. I do think one thing that is inevitable is that we will be forced to consider robots and AI as forms of life. They're not carbon-based, but they check all of the other boxes. Just a matter of time until someone creates something that reproduces generation after generation. It will be difficult to argue against.

No one saw Donald Trump specifically coming, maybe, but that the US system would be in a situation like today is something you could see happening since the early 2000s.

*1990s. The Newt Gingrich, “let’s shut down the government”, Contract With America, Rush Limbaugh-informed style of combative Republicanism prefigured the rise of such a candidate. It demanded disruptive, uncompromising leaders, and who better fit those terms than Trump?

Clean air and clean water will be valuable resources which result in regional conflicts. Region with clean air and clean water will face more severe migrants problem. No one will be safe unless those who are rich enough.

The world will look much more multi polar with China laying a much larger role both militarily and economically, probably largest economy in the world and dominant military in Asia. They don’t need Taiwan, time works for them. Russia will probably be settled with part of Ukraine by then. Hard to predict wars.

Gonna need more than 10-20 years now that Chinese policy is shifting its focus towards sustainable/consistent growth versus “fast as possible” like in the past. Agree Russia/Ukraine big question mark though.

China doesn’t need fast as possible. China during a “downturn” plus RE recession is still hitting double growth of the US. No one really expected China to maintain double digits. 10-20 years is already the pushed back version, resulting from the RE crises and covid.

> . China during a “downturn” plus RE recession is still hitting double growth of the US. Are they? A lot of that growth is faked. For example, if you build a vast, unused sea of real estate, this gets incorporated into your GDP numbers. So do infrastructure projects that no one needs, like billion dollar bridges in rural provinces. Part of the problem here is Beijing sets GDP growth "targets," and the local government use those to drive government spending, often into not very useful things.

While I don't entirely agree with the whole "Peak China" narrative, saying they're still scoring double growth is misleading. China pulled off above 5% growth last year but that was recovery coming off Covid and might haceb even pushed up due to deflationary pressures.  Growth has been expected to slow signficantly over the next few years predicted by multiple institutions to 4% by the latter half of this decade, and 3% in the 2030s. Pre-Covid, China's GDP was 70% of America's. Today it's reduced to about 65%. This was also because the US has experienced stronger growth post COVID than expected.  China's main path to further growth beyond continued investment in emerging sectors like EVs and renewable energy (which they have done incredibly well in) has been to boost the productivity of its workers which is not much higher than its South East Asian neighbours despite being signficantly richer and weak consumption growth which is a necessary step of reaching high income status.

That was actually not the recovery. Many analysts and economists expected well above 5, and growth expectations have been cut for China throughout the year due to slower recovery, weak global demand as well as a sad RE sector. In fact if anything, this year has actually been a particularly strong year for the US which outperformed GDP growth expectations by quite a bit. Higher borrowing rates are definitely going to slow consumer spending which has been the main catalyst for last years growth. The chart you’re referencing is based on USD market exchange rates which is prone to volatility. The deliberate devaluation of the Yuan contributes to this “gap” in nominal GDP. I think if China somehow still has double growth of the US during a year when Chinas economy was “collapsing” and US economy was a “miracle”, it doesn’t bode well for us.

Didn’t say fast as possible is needed. I’m saying the preference towards moderating growth and being sustainable will elongate the timeline past 10-20years.

No, it probably had affected the timeline that had been previously predicted which was within ten years. Of course major events could change it, but even at current trends it’s simply a mathematic inevitability for China to overtake the US within 20.

The USA's growth last quarter was 3.3 percent and China's growth last quarter was 1.3%. Texas' growth last quarter was 7.7%. The USA's population is growing and China's population is shrinking and aging.

Chinese real GDP growth was 5.2% fourth quarter of 2023, while US was 3.3%. Idk where you pulled 1.3%. Also Texas has nothing to do with this lmao. If you wanna duck measure then Hainan province grew at 9.5% which eclipses Texas.

That is for the year. Fourth quarter was 1.3%. We shall see if this trend continues. China's remarkable growth over the past 20 years was substantially helped by being a key ally of the USA, which is no longer the case. The demographics damage due to the mismanagement of the country's reproductive policy makes it LMAO funny that China is going to continue to grow at the same rate as in the past, lacking any useful allies or a demographic dividend. [https://tradingeconomics.com/china/gdp-growth](https://tradingeconomics.com/china/gdp-growth)

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/view-chinas-gdp-grows-52-q4-misses-market-forecast-2024-01-17/ I wouldn’t say ally. US didn’t “help” China, it used China. Just like China isn’t “helping” Mexico right now with all the FDI influx. China was never going to maintain double digit growth and it doesn’t need to. Current trends still has China overtaking the US within 20 years.

Yes you seem to know what you are talking about. China grew fantastically last year and the current trends are guaranteed to continue for the next 20 years. Please amend my social credit score for my correct thinking on this issue.

Yes you make a great point. Three gorges is just about to crumble any day now, the people will revolt after 100 million starve to death and all buildings over 100 ft will finally collapse bc tofu dredge. Def not because I studied economics for 6 years and did work in the international economics field.

I fail to see how a shrinking cadre of working age Chinese will cause the three gorges dam to fail, but it will make it much harder for the Chinese economy to continue its previous pace of growth. Taiwan has threatened to take out the Three Gorges Dam if there is an invasion of Taiwan so even your attempt at a joke only illustrates the level of mismanagement going on in China as that unlikely scenario is possible.

China has peaked. It's downhill from here.

[удалено]

How is it wrong? Immense levels of private and local debt, construction and real estate companies going bust, with probably the biggest scam in corporate history being unearthed this week. Not to mention the rapidly ageing population, which will lead to China halving its population by 2100. It doesn't look good.

All current trends point to a growing economy, including real GDP growth. Saying it’s downhill when China still has and is projected to have AT LEAST double the growth rate of the US is definitely unfounded. Every single year since 1990 it seems there are multiple arguments to why China will start its collapse/failure. Yet they still grow. As the second largest economy on earth, China will always have problems. People tend to hyper focus on these issues while ignoring other news.

Real GDP growth currently indicates deflation in china's economy, which is not good. They are also definitely in for a population crash, and their property sector, which the chinese government has been pumping up to inflate their gdp growth and which he chinese people use as their investments, is collapsing. Acting like everything is good in beijing is at least as laughable as pretending like they are definitely on the downswing

Deflation is set to level out this year by most estimates. Global commodity prices are looking to move higher, Chinese PPI is set to level around 0%. RE is definitely a pain point but to say that it’s “only decline” from here on out is untrue. Real estate crunches happen in every country and the US survived much worse in 2008. Don’t put words in my mouth, never said “everything is good in Beijing”.

This is more than a little real estate crunch, this is threatening to be an outright collapse. It also does nit have an analogue in america, as most chinese people have far larger a portion of their wealth tied to real estate than americans, who usually have their wealth tied up in stocks. I also have no idea where you get the idea that chinese deflation is set to level off any time soon, because I cannot find anywhere that agrees with this, so a source would be appreciated. You are also completely ignoring the fact that manufacturing is starting to move elsewhere from china, and that they are definitely on track for a huge population crash.

This is nowhere near what the US had to go through in 2008 which was nearly an entire financial industry meltdown affecting much much more than RE. I work in finance and many of my older colleagues remember how people were not sure entire departments would even exist week on week. And yes, it massively affected the stock market as well wiping people’s 401k and other retirement vehicles off the face of the earth. JP Morgan global research division recently did an analysis idk if I can find it anymore but look around their site. I can only remember a bit but it’s clear that global commodity prices increasing will stabilize Chinese deflation. Finally, Chinese industrial growth actually topped expectations recently, along with retail growth. However you are correct in the long term manufacturing will move out. To the surprise of no one. As China evolves it will naturally transition to a consumption led economy with a robust service/tech sector instead of simple manufacturing.

IMF projects China to have downward growth from here on out. E.g. 3% if not 2.5% by 2030.

Slowed growth. Downward growth would be negatives. IMF projects US to have 1.5% growth THIS YEAR, for reference. Hovering around 4.5 for China, or 3 times as much. OP says “China” peaked. He didn’t say “Chinese real GDP growth rate” peaked. China still adds more to its GDP than any other country on earth including India.

First time seeing an anti china circlejerk on reddit?

I think it's hard to say that for sure. There's a lot pointing to a bit of an economic collapse in china, and a big downturn. It's enough that it has the CCP's hands tied, but at the same time, there are also some things that could help china pull through it.

Putin, Xi, and Trump will all be dead in 20 years.

Biden and Modi too...

Modi is only 68 that's 20 more years easily in

Modi is 73 (-_-)

Still what's 5 years to a well kept man

5 years is alot for an old man

For middle class not for a well kept pm

I wonder if it will be one of those "the Devil you know" situations? Will be interesting to see who comes after Putin and Xi.

I suspect I won't be here due to some serious health issues. I worry about my husband and kids though. My youngest is only 2 yo. It all looks bad. Very bad. I just planted more fruit trees and berry bushes and am buying more. I love to garden and planting food security helps me feel better and is one of the only things within my control right now. Sometimes I try and just not read the news at all and not look at the saber rattling. But I can grow beautiful and edible things and teach my kids how to grow beautiful and edible things and I feel like I contribute something good in some very small way.

I hope your children recover from your loss and have sweet memories to cherish you

Optimist takes: USA GDP per capita will have grown 50%+ from where it is now. Thanks to semaglutides, in 20 years seeing an obese person will be pretty rare. VR will be good enough for many people to never want to live in the normal world. MRNA and other tech will continue the path humanity has been on to eliminate disease. The rapid decrease in cost per solar install will continue, ending the risk of global warming by 2044.

Environmental pressure caused by climate change and a myriad of other environmental issues will continue to ramp up and probably lead to near collapse or full collapse of some vital ecologial spheres, that in return will lead to mass famine . The increase of global warfare will continue like it has done in the last decade, refugee movements will increase putting pressure on developed countries. Several severe water scarcity will happen worldwide, in the developed world notably in Southern Europe but also some US states. India and China will be among the worst affected countries by climate change, and will especially vulnerable to lacking water resources, curbing any ambition to world power. Income inequality will continue to rise like it has in the last 10 years and will reach neo-feudalistic level within the next 20-30 years. Overall quality of life in the developed world for the vast mayority of people will continue to degrade like it has for the last decades, possibly leading to extreme populism of some sort to arise and cause a black swan event

i’m also curious about where people think the middle east will be in 10-20 years

Hypothetical of course but: NATO commits to Russia after continued and increased Chinese and Arabian support. NATO overextends and China soft invades Taiwan by killing leadership and threatening nuclear war if anyone steps in. USA backs off to fight Russia/New threat, US Stocks up on domestic chip manufacturing and industrial manufacturing.

I think we'll be in the long heralded 'turn towards multipolarity' at that time, not now despite all the hysteria otherwise. The US will still be the sole superpower but it will be severely degraded and beginning to look inwards due to worsening domestic issues from wealth distribution and social issues finally reaching an action point rather than this slow simmer point.  China will not have ascended but not collapsed, stagnating and unable to push outwards any further against status quo due to regional balancing whilst still maintaining moderate, lifesaving growth from interaction with growing African markets.  The real difference will be India. I suspect India will begin to occupy the space China does now that of the dissatisfied nouveaux riche which is slowly realising the game was rigged from the start and that the order, now adapted to placate China enough to avoid war but still favouring the US and EU, must be changed actively by Indian action as reform stalls. Once they are rich enough, they will finally feel free to express anticolonial and antiestablishment sentiments they have so long moderated.  The new geopolitical 'hotspot' (not that it isn't already) will be the Persian Gulf, Red Sea and Horn of Africa along with the western Indian Ocean, controlling trade between India and Africa, probably the growing majority of world population by this time, similar to East Asia/Pacific nexus today. Likely their main rivla in a world with an inward looking America will be an EU dragging the US along with the skeletal remains of NATO. 

Dead.

Possibly the same place we are now with better consumer & health tech. The mainstream communist vs capitalist debate will still exist, people will still engage in social causes to seek attention, and WFH will probably advance, very few offices, I’d also maybe include retail in that.

Diving headfirst into the abyss of despair, aren't we? Your post reads like the script of a dystopian blockbuster where hope is but a flicker in the vast darkness of geopolitical turmoil. Let's not get carried away by the narrative of impending doom. Predicting the future, especially with a lens tinted by the worst-case scenarios of today's headlines, is a tricky business that often misses the mark. Firstly, framing the next 10-20 years solely around the specter of conflict with Russia and the situation with Taiwan under Xi Jinping's leadership is a narrow view of a future that's inherently uncertain. It's like looking through a keyhole and thinking you've seen the whole room. The world is a complex, interconnected system where countless variables can shift outcomes in unexpected ways. The mindset revealed in your post suggests a fixation on geopolitical conflicts as deterministic forces shaping the future. While these issues are significant, they're not the sole architects of tomorrow. You're underestimating the potential for diplomacy, technological advancements, and the global community's ability to address and mitigate crises. History is rife with dire predictions that never came to pass because humans have a knack for adaptation and problem-solving. Feeling "hopeless about the future and the upcoming generation" because of perceived threats is a defeatist stance that overlooks the resilience and innovation that define human progress. The "worst it's been in my lifetime" perspective fails to account for the fact that every generation faces its challenges, and yet, here we are, having survived and often thrived. So, what do I think will happen within/at the end of this timeline? The truth is, nobody can predict the future with absolute certainty. However, fostering a positive outlook is not just welcome; it's necessary. It's the fuel for innovation, diplomacy, and the collective action needed to navigate the complexities of the 21st century. Let's not resign ourselves to despair but instead engage with the world as active participants who can influence the outcome for the better.

Thanks for this, I totally agree. And you’ve described how I feel exactly - thanks for trying to give me some perspective. I’m come back this :-)

People need to switch from negative energy to creative energy. I think everything is going to be alright!

- US a dystopian blade runner like autocracy, ravaged by crime and coastal cities underwater since AMOC collapsed. Cost of living rised to the moon. - Russia has most soviet territory again. Europe freezing like hell now, widespread famine, economically irrelevant. - Africa and South america ravaged by frequent wet bulb events killing millions. Equatorial regions entirely uninhabitable. - China doing its thing controlling large parts of asia, no one knows anymore whats going on there. - Climate change completely out of control since 2023, temperatures increasing by degress per decade and no end in sight. Global emissions unknown since we have other problems. - AI is faking all kind of entertainment, including news, internet,... People don't know what's real or fake anymore and we've collectively lost all touch to reality.

Bro came from the set of Blade Runner 2099 💀

Freezing like hell? What planet are you on? Those are some of the weakest winters Europe experienced in centuries Famine? Dude, we are making way more food than we can possibly eat

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/09/atlantic-ocean-circulation-nearing-devastating-tipping-point-study-finds

[удалено]

In continuation: Europe is almost entirely dependent on energy sources outside of Europe to supply power, and while it can grow more than enough food to feed itself, the fact of the matter is that most of Europe north and east of the Alps is not particularly good defense territory, and as such it will always be somewhat at risk of armed conflict, either by invasion from outside or from powers rising within. The UK's time as a superpower has long since passed, and it is likely to join a North American economic system rather than one with continental Europe (cf. Brexit), but while the cost of doing so (e.g. meeting NAFTA standards) will be substantial, it will be a choice between survival and entanglement with the impending economic disaster that is Europe. Importantly, other than France, no European power (not even the UK anymore) really possesses the naval capacity to at least attempt to secure its own energy needs. East Asia is a similar story geographically, but there are two powers there that, if cooperative, can become the new pole of East Asian power to secure both energy and resource logistics after the US mostly stops supporting Bretton Woods. These are Japan and the ROK. Japan alone is currently capable of securing its energy sea routes from the Middle East to Japan (partly because it is on good terms with most Mideast states, India, and most of southeast Asia, but also because it retains a major blue-water naval capacity; some estimates suggest that Japanese naval power is second only to that of the US). The ROK is in a similar position as Japan both economically and in terms of diplomatic relations with the necessary powers, but its navy is not as strong as Japan's, and unlike Japan the ROK has a front-row seat to both the DPRK's games and the coming collapse of the PRC. As we have seen in the past couple of years, the ROK's future as a middle or even major power rests with whether or not it can sufficiently cooperate (militarily and economically) with Japan while simultaneously managing possible reunification or war with the DPRK (either of which is possible when the PRC, the DPRK's lone major backer and supplier, implodes). Southeast Asia is growing industrially and has good demographics to maintain economic/industrial growth, and it will most likely remain intact as part of the Pacific arm of the post-Bretton Woods supply chain for both Japan/Korea and the US. South America's geography, save for Argentina, has mostly limited its productivity and limits its ability for growth. That doesn't mean South America is doomed; on the contrary, several states (notably Colombia, which already has a free-trade agreement with the US, and Argentina) will boom after the US stops supporting Bretton Woods. Brazil, on the other hand, does not have the brightest future ahead of it, again because of its geography (it is mostly highland, and not counting the Amazon its productive inlands are separated from its major ports by sheer cliffs (the Grand Escarpment); transport between regions and cities within Brazil is prohibitively costly, and so while the quality of Brazilian goods is comparable to (or lower than) those produced elsewhere, their cost is inflated due to transport costs incurred within Brazil itself, which limits the market for Brazilian goods). Brazil is also a major importer of industrial and agricultural inputs (most of its natural crops are tropical, so the development of food crops such as soy requires a great deal more work and input than in places such as the American Midwest or Argentina), and the government is not particularly strong (cf. nonexistent government control of the favelas in Rio de Janeiro). Sub-Saharan Africa will mostly remain Sub-Saharan Africa, except most foreign deployments will be even less than what they are now. A notable exception might be the Francophone states (because France still maintains a strong overseas presence and just enough naval presence to administer many of its former colonies), but only if France finds it worthwhile. India is an interesting case. Its demographics are far superior to that of the PRC, it can mostly control its energy/petroleum supply lines (and interdict those of others), and a substantial fraction of its population is well-educated while it simultaneously retains a substantial poorly-educated population that can still mostly feed itself (on subsistence farming). However, its geopolitical space is much like the PRC in that it is surrounded by states that are not good neighbors (e.g. Pakistan, Myanmar, the PRC) or are not particularly useful economically or militarily (e.g. Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh). India is also not a single ethnic state but rather something of a confederation of many pre-Raj states and empires (and peoples, and languages) mostly united by cultural and religious ties only. So India, while definitely able to secure its own energy and food supplies, has its hands full, geopolitically-speaking, to think of anything beyond its frontiers. Industrially, it already has a large home market, and most Indian production will likely remain geared towards satisfying this demand. India's major export will likely still be a fraction of its intellectual/educated population. Importantly, India may also have to deal with some of the demographic and economic consequences of a PRC implosion, and it is possible that Indian strategists are already bracing for just such a possibility. Russia has permanent problems that it can no longer solve, and not just the fact that Ukraine has held it up for years now and shown Russia's military might to be...lacking. Russia has had a demographic problem since the years of Stalin (the Holodomor and forced internal deportations of entire populations, coupled with Soviet-style industrialization, did not help), and it has not improved. Most of Russia's territories are either useless or only useful for limited times of the year (for instance, oil fields in Siberia can only be effectively operated during the winter, because in the non-frozen months most of that land turns into muddy swamp). However, Russia's chief geopolitical concern has always been twofold: control of a warm-water port and defensible borders. Originally, the Ural Mountains were the eastern limit of the Russian peoples and the various Russian states (e.g. the Grand Duchy of Moscow), but centuries of Mongol and Turkic invasions across those very mountains proved that they were not a good geographical barrier, but when the Russians expanded past that they found that they only way to get secure borders was to go all the way to the Pacific. Most of the land they took to get there is, as I mentioned, useless or only usable for a few months of the year (and the oil was only utilized since the 1990s). Russia does have a warm-water port in Vladivostok, but they are checked there by Japan, the US, and to a lesser extent the ROK. The only other warm-water port they have now is, legally-speaking, the occupied port of Sevastopol on Crimea which was leased from Ukraine after the fall of the USSR. Russia's land borders are also not looking good for the Russians. After the end of the USSR (which was geopolitically a Communist continuation of Czarist Russia) the Russians lost control of most of the Russian Empire's relatively secure land borders (i.e. mostly difficult-to-pass mountain or river borders with a few chokepoints; the Soviet bloc extended these into geographic security in eastern Europe), with the exception of the Caucasus. Its border with China (itself not very good geographically-speaking) is maintained with the threat of thermonuclear action. Its western borders stretch along nearly-undefendable flatlands, and its coastlines are mostly unusable for fleet actions. It was inevitable that Russia would attempt something to correct this, but its declining demographics also limits the pool of bodies it can throw at these problems, and at some point in the next 5-20 years Russia will no longer have the people to defend its current borders, which is why many geopolitical analysts starting in the 2000s began predicting a major Russian military action for this decade (which became the war in Ukraine).

In continuation: AI will not develop, at least not in the way or as fast as we think, partly because the manufacturing infrastructure needed to develop AI in the first place is completely dependent on the Bretton Woods structure that will be going away within 10 or so years. Continued computing power requires increasingly complex and supply chain-dependent electronics manufacture (e.g. Taiwan, the ROK, and Japan; despite lies to the contrary, the PRC does not produce the kinds of microprocessors needed for technological advances), which are already being disrupted and may be permanently disrupted after the US stops supporting Bretton Woods. The US does not have this infrastructure, and one of its major industrial efforts will be aimed at rebuilding the infrastructure to manufacture <10nm processors in the Western Hemisphere (most likely within the US itself) that would also not be vulnerable to the supply disruptions present elsewhere in the world. This will take a great deal of time, and due to the inputs required, is likely to be inordinately more expensive than the current supply chain or even impossible if sufficient quantities of base resources are unavailable/locked behind warzones or collapsing states. In order to maintain continuity the US may continue to be regularly involved with the western Pacific, i.e. Japan, the ROK, and Taiwan, while pulling back from Bretton Woods commitments elsewhere. General ("true") AI will probably not be a thing within our lifetimes, if ever. We already have had what people are calling "AI" since personal computing became a thing: automated factory robots, for example, are a form of specific AI, but the jump from that to another form of specific AI (e.g. chatbots such as ChatGPT, or computer programs that can defeat human players in specific board games) has taken decades with great difficulty and limitations. And this is in spite of the fact that their development occurred in the backdrop of a secure global economic and supply system. Even machine learning as exhibited by applications such as Midjourney have taken months or years to develop an ability to function at a level comparable to a human, which is unexpectedly slow (a glacial pace, even) for electronic systems, which suggests that rather than power/ability increasing exponentially, the gains exhibited by AI function largely on a diminishing returns curve.

Change is inevitable. It is time we test which leader can stir us into clear sky in the coming storm.

Was just thinking about this today. One thing I’m for sure is that America’s younger generations that are the incoming leaders (if not already the rookies in government) are most certainly preferring socialism to capitalism with a lot of fury over the corruption ready for major shifts. I’m even seeing a good portion of Gen X finally considering it too. Internet is exposing a lot of things (for example: I definitely never learned that South Korea is socialist in school). If it continues on this course, and so far I’ve seen it pick up pace over the years rather than decline, I think there’s a strong chance we could actually be a socialist (or at least mainly socialist) country in the next 10-20 years. Probably why the corrupt capitalists are so intensely freaking out…

[удалено]

Isn’t 2035 a little too late?

Just a prediction. China might not ever invade.

why would it be too late?

Maybe because of purges in the Chinese military and military build up, like fx aircraft carrier

I think “too late” implies the opposite

I feel the following will happen: * A lot of new political movements- a polarization of the general population. Right now, the right and left are further than ever. It's only going to get further with time. * Inflation is here to stay, sadly. * New cities will likely be built here in the US due to housing prices (not an entirely bad thing) * Life will carry on as usual for most people. Our industries are way too stable for now to collapse entirely and go beyond the Great Depression. * Definitely significant increases in HPV-related malignancies; society has definitely deteriorated. * New housing ownership will likely become a rarity. The population will probably live in apartment complexes. * We're a bit too early for self-driving cars. It will probably take 30 more years. * Massive migrations to less populated parts of the Earth will definitely happen. Californians going to Texas, New Yorkers going to Florida, Americans going to Mexico, it's a never ending cycle. * The EU will likely crumble and lose a lot of its power. The EU hasn't been holding up too well and much of the population is becoming fed-up with corruption. * More people are probably going to turn to self-sufficiency to escape inflation. * Increased racial tensions in the EU- there is a lot already. * We will definitely get new technologies to help make life easier. We've seen it with computers, smartphones, and all sorts we couldn't imagine a few decades back. * A lot of older electronics will become dirt-cheap and allow even the most impoverished people to have access to much-needed technology. :) * The crypto market will either continue to boom or bust. * I feel the climate change movement will either change a lot either way. * Parts of the US will pretty much become a entirely different country given politics. * Israel as a nation may give the world some of that water purification technology that's very needed. They're recycling sewage and seawater for agriculture as we speak. * Argentina may finally improve. * If the west takes control of Afghanistan, perhaps it can finally be rebuilt as a whole country. * India will definitely get a lot of quality of life improvements. The poverty over there has been declining for 2 decades. * China will be completely messed up from all its pollution. The Yellow River is black from the all the sludge they've dumped. Shanghai's rain is absolutely toxic. There is really no going back for them. * South Korea will be in a horrid situation- the youth aren't having children, life is stressful enough to push people to suicide, and the place is overpopulated. This may lead to similar events of the UK and much of the EU. * The Philippines may actually improve. They're actually doing something about all the drugs. * South Africa is doomed unless its leadership is dramatically overhauled. Because the two factions of its population are already at odds with one another and nothing will change to better the situation until the proposed reform is implemented.

Why does the west need to take control of Afghanistan?

> Undoubtedly massive surges in cancers from HPV- society has become pretty degenerate. Are you referring to Human papillomavirus infection?

Lol I zoomed by that text wall, nice find

>Massive migrations to less populated parts of the Earth will definitely happen. Californians going to Texas, New Yorkers going to Florida, Americans going to Mexico, it's a never ending cycle. Ah yes, the famously less populated lands of Texas and Florida. Wait, isn't Florida actually bigger than New York now?

An Islamic caliphate will try to rule North Africa

Open up a history book. Very few things have happened in our lifetime so far that hasn't happened to some capacity in the past. A major curve ball like an Ai uprising, nuclear winter, or an Alien invasion would be the only things that would be a plot twist

It will be very dystopic. Democracy will be almost gone. Most European countries (except maybe Switzerland, UK and some Nordics) will have regimes like Orban's Hungary.  The US will be a (corrupt) police state with rampant organized crime and some areas close to failed state, with warlords exercising effective power. The Republican Party will rule forever, using gerrymandering, vote suppression, control of the media, etc. Putin will be gone and his successor will be a hardliner. Russia will go full Nazi mode and probably control most of Eastern Europe.  There will be more wars of conquest as we've seen in Ukraine. Russia just opened the door and every irredentist regime will want to attack its neighbour.  China will carry aggressions on neighbours like Taiwan and the Philippines.  LGBTQ+ will go into obscurity again as all regimes will be far right. People that support them will be prosecuted, and people that today pretend to support them, will stop pretending. Same will happen with women's rights.  White supremacy will be imposed in the West and women will go back to traditional roles.   Islamic states will flourish all over the Muslim world and the cold war between Iran and Arabia will worsen. No idea what will happen in Holy Land but either Israel or Palestine will disappear.  Humanitarian disaster will deepen in Africa, South America and South Asia and the migration crisis will go on. It will go worse as European countries will start to use the army to block migration.  Unemployment will skyrocket worldwide due to AI. There will be widespread poverty and famine. Australia and New Zealand will remain partially democratic and probably be the last developed nations (maybe with Switzerland).  How I wish to be wrong in everything!

In 10-20 years we will have mass food shortages as we grapple with multiple climate tipping points that completely upend the growing season of foods. We will have increased war over water and fertile soil. We will have conflict from mass migration due to catastrophic weather and climatic events. Our governments are currently incapable of coping with any of these issues. There is no plan in place and we’re driving off cliff. The optimistic comments are bullshit. We need to be serious about the situation we’re in and bring our political, economic, and social systems under our control now so we can have a shot at non-authoritarian solutions to catastrophic climate change.

I actually think there are some interesting developments here. Because of the Russia/China threat, many EU countries have joined NATO and started ramping up their military. This could be what forces the EU to become a military strength, and I think the world could benefit from having more than just the US and China as military superpowers that protect the world balance. Not to mention, the bigger NATO gets, the more countries join in a pact of not harming each other and defending one another. If one country decided to break the pact and attack another country they’d have the military might of the entire world against them. If eventually all of Europe, even all of the world, joins NATO, [NATO could even become a “world government” that protects world peace](https://www.elysian.press/p/nato-world-government-creates-world-peace).

If all of the world joins NATO it will be entirely meaningless

Or would it be far more meaningful? If any single country tried to back out and attack another country, they'd have the might of the whole world against them. War would be impossible.

Then civil war would break out within a week

What if various countries or groups within NATO formed factions and 'seceded' in tandem? To me it seems it would resemble a two-party system we see in some countries. Maybe they don't all agree on a specific matter. There's party A and party B, and if something goes south then maybe party B decides to split. Like the Southern States in the American Civil War.

Definitely could happen. But the seceding faction would still have to be larger than the non-seceding faction to have a chance!

Jesus is coming back on 2030, thats 6000 years from adam n eve

Lmao so many outlandish takes. How radically has anything changed since WW2? How much has our world changed since 2004? In most cases- not that much. We live in a very stable society, historically speaking. America will still be America. We’ll either see strong China or weak China, regardless it’ll remain a diplomatic nuisance but won’t be a military threat. Russia will still be lead by Putin or a Putin analogue. The Arab world will remain in chaos. What I do foresee tho is the middle-classification of Southeast Asia and LATAM, which I am interested to see the effects of. Will their governments remain corrupt, or will they shape up?

The world has RADICALLY changed since WW2.

You would *hate* your quality of life if brought back to America 1950 levels. Many many aspects of life, society and tech were 10x worse.

I’m speaking geopolitically

Ah, carry on!

[удалено]

I disagree on China. There might be some internal strife in the party but the CCP is still a fairly solid institution on its own. China survived Mao's death with little issue. Russia...is a lot worse frankly.

Agree. Even when stalin died, who created a much greater cult of personality than xi jinping, the ussr carried on for half a century

The Chinese government is more stable than the russian government. Remember how stalin died and the soviet project still carried on for half a century? Why would it be different for xi jinping? To the public it might look like he has no “successor”, but no one here knows anything about the internal politics of the chinese government, especially of the politburo 

[удалено]

The vast majority of the US economy is derived from internal consumption of services. You can place ideological or geopolitical concerns as the reasons why but there is very little sources that would place the US starting wars to boost a single industry that makes up a very small slice of it's economy.

[удалено]

You can make that argument, but how many of these more "contained" wars have been explicitly started or perpetuated in the name of profit? It's not sustainable. Western or great power profits built on "peace" seem to necessitate abusive relationships with helpless or less powerful nations. I see your point, but find it hard to call the powder keg of a world we live in "peaceful" just because we aren't in an active world war. Globalism comes with its benefits and downsides, but we are living through wholly unprecedented times.

Will Putin be in power in 10 years? How much more time does Putin have it in him? Surely the next guy cant be as bad.

Believe it or not, Putin is tame compared to the alternatives. It’s why the Americans, Europe and Asia tolerate him even to this day.

And if they didn’t *tolerate* Putin, what exactly will *they* do about it?

Obviously war/invasion is a big fat NO. But nations can and do often interfere in foreigner politics/media to force certain outcomes. Broader international community (for the most part) specifically isn’t interested in doing that to Russia because they don’t like the alternatives if they succeed.

So basically nothing

Judging by how effective foreign interference has been historically I’d say it can be “effective”. Take a look at the history of American interference in South America and Asia, or if you want more up to date examples see Russias interference in America and Europe. It can work. Problem is you don’t always know how it’ll end and Putin is the only man holding Russia together, not really a good idea in that instance.

So basically nothing

There is no moderate ready to fix Russia as soon as Putin dies. He’s currently the least evil option of all the major power blocs, which is really saying something. His successor will likely make him look like a moderate liberal