Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States News

In the Year 2020 515

Posted by michael from the flying-cars? dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Every 5 years, the CIA funds a detailed forecast of the future 15 years hence. The biggest trend identified in the latest report is the economic and technological rise of Asia."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

In the Year 2020 More

In the Year 2020

Comments Filter:

  • Internal conflict is what I worry about... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Friday January 14, 2005 @03:52PM (#11366775)
    US Unipolarity--How Long Can It Last?

    A world with a single superpower is unique in modern times. Despite the rise in anti-Americanism, most major powers today believe countermeasures such as balancing are not likely to work in a situation in which the US controls so many of the levers of power. Moreover, US policies are not perceived as sufficiently threatening to warrant such a step.

    Eh, with the Dollar doing as shitty as it has been and the country being run into financial ruins by someone known to have little success with any other financial venture he spearheaded I really don't think that we will be able to recover in as little as twelve years. We are digging an enormous hole right now both financially and in public opinion. When a leader sends a country to war on what we figured were false pretenses but ends up ahead at the end we might forgive them. When a leader sends a country to war on what we figured were false pretenses but ends of admitting we found squat I just don't think that public opinion will remain high...

    The country may weaken itself due to internal conflict. Especially if the draconian measures continue to erode our personal freedoms.

    In the future, growing distrust could prompt governments to take a more hostile approach, including resistance to support for US interests in multinational forums and development of asymmetric military capabilities as a hedge against the US.

    Too bad they can't come right out and say that the distrust is justified. Who the fuck is going to go to bat for us when we get owned by more organized terrorists (or internal conflict) when anything the leaders of our country have said over the past 10 years is proven bullshit?

    Many countries increasingly believe that the surest way to gain leverage over Washington is by threatening to withhold cooperation. In other forms of bargaining, foreign governments will try to find ways to "bandwagon" or connect their policy agendas to those of the US--for example on the war on terrorism--and thereby fend off US opposition to other policies.

    And with the dollar so weak and public opinion (both nationally and internationally) low this will probably work. Any pressure they put on us 10 years ago would mean nothing. We would just use our leverage and shove back. With our country weakened on multiple fronts we won't have much leverage or public desire to have leverage (ie more deficit dollars).
    • Who the fuck is going to go to bat for us when we get owned by more organized terrorists (or internal conflict) when anything the leaders of our country have said over the past 10 years is proven bullshit?

      I agree that your post is interesting but I can't make heads or tails of this sentence-- care to elaborate?

    • +5: Anti-Bush Tirade (Score:5, Interesting)

      by goldspider ( 445116 ) on Friday January 14, 2005 @04:10PM (#11367038) Homepage
      OK, trollish subject aside (and yes I believe that's why it was modded up), what makes you believe that anyone else would be any more fiscally responsible?

      I'll agree that Bush isn't doing us any favors, but you don't replace one big spender with another and expect things to be any different.

      Case in point: Bush is trying to overhaul Social Security and rescue it from the inevitable financial ruin that Bill Clinton predicted in 1998. What are Democrats saying in response? That there is no financial crisis in Social Security, that the problem can be fixed by simply raising taxes.

      Let me reiterate: Bush isn't doing this country's finances any favors. But neither would Democrats. The whole lot of them need to be given a lesson on how to spend other peoples' money (hint: sparingly).
      • I can't predict the actions of another individual and his cabinet running this country (and neither can you). I can state, for a fact, that Bush is spending money we do not have and digging a deficit hole so deep that we will spend many, many, years recovering from.

      • Re:+5: Anti-Bush Tirade (Score:5, Informative)

        by gad_zuki! ( 70830 ) on Friday January 14, 2005 @04:25PM (#11367274)
        >one big spender with another

        Under Clinton the budget was balanced and the deficit was gone. This "spendocrats" myth is just that. Historically, Democratic Presidents have been much more fiscally responsible.
        • Clinton did so only by further increasing the disproportionate tax burden of "the wealthy".

          And by "the wealthy", Clinton meant households bringing in more than $60k.
          • Yes... clearly it is the poor people which should shoulder the majority of the tax burden... not those who can... actually... pay... it...
          • You make me weep with sympathy.
          • 60K isn't wealthy!!! And if you have a family 60K goes rather fast. Funny no one has mentioned that every tax CUT has actually INCREASED the amount of revenue taken in by the Government. It's just that they never seem to spend it wisely. Oh, and that silly notion about GWB never have financial sucess, just the other day the liberals were moaning that he make TOO MUCH money when he (and his partners) sold out the Texas Rangers baseball club to Tom Hicks. Situational ethics the liberal trademark.

            • Re:+5: Anti-Bush Tirade (Score:3, Informative)

              by Surt ( 22457 )
              60k is wealthy. It's in the top 1% of world earnings. It's a working life take home of well over a million dollars.
            • Maybe if those making 60k would realize that they don't need two H2's in their driveway along with premium cable service and steak every night they wouldn't be so bad off. I sit on about 20K a year right now and I'm quite comfortable. I have enough at the end of the month for a good savings when things work out well, and I'm able to afford it when things don't work out so well (although it's still annoying). The people in this country need to grow up and learn how to actually manage money.
          • Clinton did so only by further increasing the disproportionate tax burden of "the wealthy".

            Really? You coulda [cbpp.org] fooled [cbpp.org] me. [cbpp.org]

      • In his first few days as president, Bush ripped 1.3 trillion away from the budget surplus. The average American got about 300 dollars from this, while owners of large corporations got millions.

        Clinton set aside 2.5 trillion in the surplus to account for the aging baby boomers, and when Bush was giving his speeches in 2000, he promised not to touch it.

        Within the first year we went from a 5.3 trillion surplus down to 1.8 trillion. So far he has lost 9.6 trillion dollars from his "tax cuts", going from the

      • mmmmkay.... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rbird76 ( 688731 ) on Friday January 14, 2005 @04:44PM (#11367554)
        Find one Democratic President who's spent more money he didn't have than any of the last three Republican Presidents. That would be...noone. Oops.

        The Republicans have campaigned on their superiority to the Democrats on their spending and economic records, and I'm still trying to figure out why. 2/3 of the national debt was amassed during the last three Republican Presidents. Clinton didn't run the debt in eight years that Bush Sr. ran in four (and he ran the least debt of the three RPs). Clinton had the benefit of the economy, which of course doesn't help, because of the /. sig (the economy has done better under the worst Democratic President than under the best Republican President).

        The claim that anyone would have spent themselves silly doesn't seem to hold, because only the Republicans have shown themselves equal to that task. Since they have spent a good deal of the past decades complaining about the spending that they have been most qualified at undertaking, they are either hypocritical or stupid.

        Social Security is a problem, and one Clinton or the Democrats did nothing about. On the other hand, making SS reliant on the entity (the stock market) it was instituted to secure savings from doesn't seem like the smartest policy on the planet. Of course, removing money from the system (to invest in the stock market) while it is reliant on current income to pay current recipients without raising taxes and then saying that future and current SS recipients won't lose money seems to require mathematical legerdemain that is beyond my capacity to understand. In this case, to keep SS solvent without cutting it (which would probably sink the stock market) taxes are probably the best solution (in concert with raising the retirement age). They aren't always the best solution, but they may be in this case.
      • Case in point: Bush is trying to overhaul Social Security and rescue it from the inevitable financial ruin that Bill Clinton predicted in 1998.

        If this is true, why haven't the economists been coming out of the woodwork in support of this plan? Why have so many of them come out of the woodwork to say that the centerpiece of his plan--private accounts--is more likely to hurt Social Security than help it?

        It's Iraq all over again. Remember why we went to war? Because we were facing a grave and imminent c

      • The two presidents with the worst budget deficits, both accomplished by combining tax cuts and with increased spending, are Bush (Republican) and Reagan (Republican).

        The last two presidents to have a budget surplus were Clinton (Democrat) and Johnson (Democrat).

        Social Security is NOT in crisis. The trust fund is growing, and will do so for another ten years or so. It will then gradually decline and take about 50 years to be bankrupt. This can easily be fixed by a small payroll tax increase. Entrusting
    • The country may weaken itself due to internal conflict. Especially if the draconian measures continue to erode our personal freedoms.

      It pains me to say this, but I fear you may be on to something. I'm sitting a few blocks from the capitol building right now. I have Thursday off next week (yay!).

      Though I can use the rest, I'm troubled for the reasons I'm getting it. The reason: all the forecasts are calling for the most heavily protested inaugural event ever. It is supposedly going to be such a mess

      • The problem these days is everyone thinks they have something important to say.

        <offtopic rant>

        Now I'm not saying that we should all be apathetic. But these protestors had their chance to speak their minds at the polls this past November, and they lost. What do they think they will accomplish by protesting the inauguration?

        They'll say they just "want to be heard". Guess what? Most people don't give a shit about what they have to say. It's sad that they're so gratified by inconveniencing others.
        • Guess what? Most people don't give a shit about what they have to say.

          That's probably WHY they're protesting. Being ignored or being considered "irrelevant" has a way of sparking emnity. When one group that has a slim majority decides that the rest just don't matter or that they just "don't care", it's a recipe for a house divided.. and what did we learn in school about a house divided???


        • I agree with you. This is the inevitable byproduct of the Oprah generation and talk radio. Jerry Springer, Oprah, et al, and all the talk radio shows of all bias' make each individual feel that they have something to say that is worthwhile. They give people with poorly thought out ideas, no sense of logic, and severe provincialism the idea that they have something important to say and a right to have it listened to.

          I now leave you to ponder the irony (used in it's proper definition) of my above rant

      • Things have been more violent in the past... (Score:5, Informative)

        by EnronHaliburton2004 ( 815366 ) on Friday January 14, 2005 @04:22PM (#11367210) Homepage Journal
        We as a nation have historically weathered contentious times in relatively peaceful fashion.

        While I agree with your fears that this may be the end, contentious times have frequently seen periods marked by violence. There were numerous labor protests in the late 19th century and early 20th century, dozens of people were shot dead by the police during many riots, the crowd's lynched policemen and members of the moneyed class. Not that they teach this stuff in HS History class ...

        In the 60s and 70s, the President was assinated, we we in a war which was much bigger then the Iraqi conflict as it is today, there were massive race riots, radicals on the left were blowing up banks, radicals on right were burning down Churches, sometimes during Sunday school with children still inside.

        I'm not saying everything is better today, but things aren't nearly as violent as they have been during some periods in the past.
      • >But I do wish we could all just turn down the volume a bit a try to proceed a bit more mindfully and rationally.

        You also asked, "What the hell is happening to us?"

        Remaining silent is the problem and you are advocating it or promoting it. There is no opposing party in the US, so when the fictional reasons for war came out, there were very few dissenting voices. People like you like that. Everyone was "nice" to Bush. Respect the office and all of that. Look at the fruits of that approach.

        On top of it
        • Maybe I should complete my thoughts bit better.

          I'm perhaps a bit more weary of it all due to the fact that I live in such close proximity to it and get extra-concentrated, regular doses of the national bile. Hence the voicing of my wish to which you refer. The melancholy in my statement perhaps belies my own awareness of the fact that I believe myself to be wishing in one hand and crapping in the other. Foolishly hoping I'll get my wish. The crap hand is fast filling up.

          No one has been "nice" here for a long time. Nor should they be now. I would agree, it's high time for the gloves to come off, but I don't have to enjoy it or relish the prospect. Civil strife is anything but civil.

      • Though I can use the rest, I'm troubled for the reasons I'm getting it. The reason: all the forecasts are calling for the most heavily protested inaugural event ever. It is supposedly going to be such a mess due to the number of protesters, that several of our subway lines will be closed, there will sharpshooter around, streets will be closed off and large portions of the city will be virtually off limits.

        I wonder if the protesters will get out in the same numbers as the youth voters who were going to c

    • Especially if the draconian measures continue to erode our personal freedoms.

      Yeah, who decided to let half-dragon, half-human beings into government office anyway?
    • I know you're probably trolling, but the dollar being weak isn't necessarily a bad thing. For one thing, it makes european goods much less competitive in America, and American goods much more competitive in Europe. Likewise, with the yuan pegged for the dollar, you can guess the effect. I don't see why people are so focused on the BAD of a weak dollar, when there are so many ups! Also, personally, I expect the dollar within 6 months to start climbing again. Watch the location of the dollar vis a vis the pou

    • 2010 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by OECD ( 639690 ) on Friday January 14, 2005 @04:35PM (#11367434) Journal

      It's interesting to look at the (nearer) "2010" one (done in 1996.) I was expecting a laugh, but it's not too bad. Tidbits that struck me:

      The "Social Security-Medicare" debate already reverberating throughout the developed world will be acute.
      We anticipate genetic engineering fueling a fourth agricultural revolution by the end of this timespan. As in the past, shortages will be man-made.
      To compete, businesses will continue to move beyond regional or national perspectives to optimize global trade.
      Potential adversaries will attempt to blunt our military superiority in other ways: improving their capabilities relative to their neighbors, and using unconventional and often asymmetric means--ranging from the increased use of terrorism to the possible use of weapons of mass destruction.
      The likely course at least through 2010 will be an enlarged NATO serving s the primary vehicle for launching and sustaining "coalitions of the willing."
      US-European strategic interests will be buffeted by several contentious issues: differences over -a policy toward Iran and Iraq (where political changes will occur in both countries by 2010); costs of underwriting a Middle East peace; divergent views on the future of Turkey's relations with Europe; and US positions on "fair vs. free trade," extraterritoriality, and the role of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in settling trade disputes.
    • with the Dollar doing as shitty as it has been and the country being run into financial ruins by someone known to have little success with any other financial venture he spearheaded I really don't think that we will be able to recover in as little as twelve years.

      The dollar coming down isn't that horrible for the US, you make it sound like it's worthless or something. When the dollar goes down, US workers become cheaper in the global scheme of things. Also, you may think "Bush is controlling the econom
    • The country may weaken itself due to internal conflict. Especially if the draconian measures continue to erode our personal freedoms.

      Excuse me, but do you have the faintest idea as to what you're talking about when you use the term draconian? Have you, by any chance whatsoever, spent any time within a truly totalitarian state? Have you at least studied one sometime in the past?

      Do yourself a favor: go do a little homework before writing anything like this again. Maybe it will give you a little more perspe

  • hmmm (Score:5, Funny)

    by nocomment ( 239368 ) on Friday January 14, 2005 @03:53PM (#11366778) Homepage Journal
    I'd be interested to see past reports, and see what they got right. I know they having really been batting a thousand as of late.

    • Re:hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MasterOfUniverse ( 812371 ) on Friday January 14, 2005 @04:34PM (#11367419)
      Actually seeing how many things they got it right might not be a correct idea. Most(not all ofcourse) of thier gloomy predictions are taken seriosuly and worked upon, so that they do not occur. And if they do not come true then it does not mean that the original prediction was false. For example, suppose in 1995 they said terrorist would attack US in 10 years. If we would have had reacted to that report, we would not have had 9/11. But now if you would have read that report, it would turn out to be false (since we prevented 9/11).
      • In 1995, the CIA probably did predict a major terrorist attack. After all, this was not long after the first WTC attack. And when the OK City bombing occurred (April 1995), for several days everybody assumed it was Islamic terrorists.

  • /. cia (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 14, 2005 @03:53PM (#11366781)
    Sweet! We slashdotted the CIA!

  • motion to rename the CIA (Score:5, Funny)

    by hsmith ( 818216 ) on Friday January 14, 2005 @03:53PM (#11366783)
    to "Captains of the obvious"

    Anyone who can't see what Asia, especially China is going to become is blind.
    • Don't forget, this is the same CIA that didn't see the collapse of the Soviet Union coming.
    • And the best of all: China made some really really good movies in the last months. Go see "House of flying daggers" [imdb.com] if you haven't and maybe another, somehow similar movie "2046". These films go lengths beyond Hollywood stereotypes and are just refreshingly traditional at the same time.

      Rent them, if the cinema isn't playing them, you wont regret it, I promise. An astonishing flurry of images, colors and emotions, not artsy emotions like French films have, but very transparent and breathtaking scenes. "Hou
      • Years of experience with foreign film and television had conclusively demonstrated that Sturgen's Law applies. This includes chinese cinema. 90% of chinese movies suck - then again, 90% of everything sucks. They may seem innovative to a neophyte, but watch a little more and you'll see that in the context of their own kind most are as predictable and shallow as anything Hollywood turns out.

        In particular, I've noticed how plot coherency/novelty is often ignored in favor of eye candy. (I suspect dialogue

  • Gloomy 15 year forecast (Score:5, Funny)

    by Marco_polo ( 160898 ) on Friday January 14, 2005 @03:53PM (#11366787) Homepage
    Same as in 1990. Bush in the whitehouse, future not so good. Bush leaves, things pick up. Another Bush (Jeb) gets elected. Apocolypse ensues.

    Rapture this baby!
    • Jeb? By 2016 (when Hillary is term-limited out) the twins will be old enough to run.

      And before you laugh -- it's hard to imagine how they could do any worse than their father. It's hard to imagine one of them accomplishing anything while in office, but given the sorts of things Bush family members like to "accomplish," that would likely be an improvement.
      • For the sake of the Democratic party, I hope Hillary doesn't win the nomination. No one else has the power to rile up angry red-staters quite like she does, something that people on the coasts, strangely, don't seem to realize. Even Screamin' Dean would be a better pick.

        My hopes for '08 are on Ed Rendell or Bill Richardson.

  • Nothing to see, move along. (Score:4, Funny)

    by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Friday January 14, 2005 @03:54PM (#11366793)
    Where's my personal helicopter to land in my driveway? And the return of the airship? And the 600-foot mechas helping us build skyscrapers?
  • Or will Google/Slashdot/online be the primary/only means of news in 2020?!?

  • Screw 2020 (Score:3, Funny)

    by Qzukk ( 229616 ) on Friday January 14, 2005 @03:55PM (#11366804) Journal
    I want to know what happens in the year 2525, if Man is still alive.

  • It's in the Bag. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ian Action ( 836876 ) on Friday January 14, 2005 @03:55PM (#11366806)
    The U.S. is out of luck, by 2020 I will have reached Alpha Centauri and won.

  • Most surprising prediction... (Score:5, Funny)

    by bobdotorg ( 598873 ) on Friday January 14, 2005 @03:56PM (#11366823)
    President Jenna Bush?!? WTF!!!

  • India Economy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Coneasfast ( 690509 ) on Friday January 14, 2005 @03:59PM (#11366853)
    Something i would like to mention

    As the report states, India and China will both be big economic powers partly due to their huge population, but the standards of living won't necessarily be better.

    I've been to India 12 years ago and i've been last year, and yes the standards of living have vastly improved, but for it to be at an acceptable level, it definitely won't take another 15 years. My hope is within 50 years (and that's being optimistic).

    • Doesnt have to.. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by cOdEgUru ( 181536 ) * on Friday January 14, 2005 @05:09PM (#11367974) Homepage Journal
      Actually the report points out the following:


      Because of the sheer size of China's and India's populations--projected by the US Census Bureau to be 1.4 billion and almost 1.3 billion respectively by 2020--their standard of living need not approach Western levels for these countries to become important economic powers.

      Which means these two could have a global impact even if substantial parts of the country were living in poverty. Both these nations cannot afford to wait around for all its troubles to be over before pushing to the front.

      The report does a good comparison of both nation's strengths and weaknesses under the "Risks to Economic growth" part. Interesting read..

  • Is it a federal crime to /. the CIA? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 14, 2005 @03:59PM (#11366854)
    Really hope not, because she's dead Jim....

  • Nanobots (Score:4, Insightful)

    by a_nonamiss ( 743253 ) on Friday January 14, 2005 @03:59PM (#11366857)
    From what I've been reading lately, we'll have cured death, enabling us to live over 1000 years while simultaneously have turned the entire world into a gray goo by perfecting nanobots.

    My guess is it'll be about the same as it is now, except I'll be 15 years older, taxes will be higher, and we'll have a whole bunch more crap that doesn't really make our lives any easier.
  • "The biggest trend identified in the latest report is the economic and technological rise of Asia."

    China WILL bite us on the ass. It's only a matter of time. We are enriching our enemy.
    We do business with them so the capitalists can stuff more money in their already fat pockets as they undermine the very economy that is making them fat and rich. What will they do then?
    They are rotating the wealth around.
    China will become what we WERE and ameriKans will be doing slave labor to build cheap crap for the ri

  • I for one... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Guano_Jim ( 157555 ) on Friday January 14, 2005 @04:01PM (#11366889)
    would like to shuo huanying nimen lai Meiguo to our new Chinese overlords.

    Zenme shuo Zhongwen "you want fries with that?"
    • Hmm... people always say, "nin2 yao4 tao4 can1 ma?" But that means, "Do you wanna make it a combo meal?"

      If it MUST be "do you want fries with that", then say "yao4 pei4 shu3 tiao2 ma?"

      FYI "shu3" = potato/yam, and "tiao2" = stick

      PS Anybody know what's wrong with slashdot and Chinese characters? This is one of the only forums I've seen that turns them all into ??s

  • I've read the forecast (Score:5, Funny)

    by Jakhel ( 808204 ) on Friday January 14, 2005 @04:01PM (#11366907)
    and not one mention of a flying car..

    =..(
  • I like the final scenario "Cycle of Fear".

    I wonder if Orwell had any idea how big an impact his summarization of political oppression would play in the future?

  • US and Rome (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 14, 2005 @04:09PM (#11367028)
    See similarities, at least in theme, between the current US and ancient Rome?

    -Military stronger than everyone else's? Check
    -Foreign enemy considered barbaric? Check
    -Foreign enemy wages hit and run warfare, avoids standing to fight in large battles? Check
    -Vast amount of resources used to fight a limited threat? Check
    -Power held by rich self serving minority? Check
    -Populace stagnating culturally? Check
    -Increasing importance placed on personal luxury and materialistic acquisitions? Check
    And finally,
    -Widening gap between average citizens and the fundamentals of survival (ie farming, etc.)? Check

    Just because the US has been around for 200 years doesn't mean it will always be. Putting aside parisan politics and the religious schisms, I think that we really need to start addressing the hard issues that our country has traditionally ignored- until too late. One of these days, it will be.

  • that in 15 years they will find the WMDs that were there all along in Iraq, but gave up on a few days ago.

    Sorry, but I don't hold too much credibility for these guys after completely imagining (along with British "intelligence") significant and substantial evidence of WMDs.
  • You know, I'd like to know the same thing about the CIA's 15 year predictions as Gartner's resear^H^H^H^H^H^Hcrap:

    What, if any of their past "predictions" have come true? And is that statistically significantly different from a monkey throwing darts at random predictions...

    My money is on "no".
    • What, if any of their past "predictions" have come true? And is that statistically significantly different from a monkey throwing darts at random predictions...

      My money is on "no".

      Hmm... I'm not sure, so I asked my dart-throwing monkey. He didn't hit yes or no with any darts, but did get a fair amount of poo on "yes". I'm not sure what that means; he can be a fairly satyrical monkey sometimes.

  • Summary of report (Score:5, Informative)

    by alphakappa ( 687189 ) on Friday January 14, 2005 @04:17PM (#11367149) Homepage
    For those who do not want to read the entire report, here are a few key points [nwsource.com]:

    * Al Qaeda is replaced by decentralized terror groups which are equally deadly.
    * China and India emerge as new global players. (But they could be competitive instead of cooperative)
    * Rise in military strength of China and India - could lead to conflicts.
    * Russia and Central Asia decline (in terms of democracy)
    * Democracy grows in the Middle east.
    * More competitive world for the United States
    * India's Bollywood outshines Hollywood
    * Rise of Korean Pop.

    Now make your own predictions.
  • lmao the CIA website was Slashdotted!
  • 2020 forecast and still no single word about *flying cars*?!
    Change that fu$@#@g forecast now before it is too late! I DEMAND MY FLYING CAR BEFORE 2020!!!
  • I have to say, as a non-US citizen, I am impressed with the CIA. When I see someone interviewed on TV who we're told works for or used to work for the CIA, and the detailed information(of all countries) on their website, I'm impressed. Why? Because on TV when the person answers a question there are no "umms" and "aaas", no answering a question with a question (amazing how you get used to that). Very focused and professional.

  • No mention of Peak Oil (Score:3, Interesting)

    by vrmlguy ( 120854 ) <samwyse@nOSPAM.gmail.com> on Friday January 14, 2005 @04:29PM (#11367337) Homepage Journal
    Two points from the paper:
    Despite the trend toward more efficient energy use, total energy consumed probably will rise by about 50 percent in the next two decades compared to a 34 percent expansion from 1980-2000, with an increasing share provided by petroleum.
    According to the petroleum producers, at current rates of consumption the world's current petroleum reserves will be exhausted by 2040. A fifty percent increase in consumption will exhaust them much more quickly. A few back-of-the-spreadsheet calculations indicate that we could run out of oil by 2028.
    The International Energy Agency assesses that with substantial investment in new capacity, overall energy supplies will be sufficient to meet growing global demand. Continued limited access of the international oil companies to major fields could restrain this investment, however, and many of the areas--the Caspian Sea, Venezuela, West Africa and South China Sea--that are being counted on to provide increased output involve substantial political or economic risk. Traditional suppliers in the Middle East are also increasingly unstable. Thus sharper demand-driven competition for resources, perhaps accompanied by a major disruption of oil supplies, is among the key uncertainties.
    So the big question is, how big are the undiscovered reserves in the four areas mentioned above?
    • Canada's oil sands can meet the world's demands during the year 2020 for about 39 years. Combining that with the rest of the oil producers means we still have at least a couple hundred years left, although it will start to get very expensive to mine the oil once it gets too low.
  • Total collapse of the US economy.

    OK, I could only read the executive summary (will the FBI send michael to Gitmo for orchestrating a DDoS attack on a government website? ;p) so I might have missed it, but they do not seem to see Judgment Day coming.

    As Cheney said: Reagan proved deficits don't matter. Well Richard, it is too early to say. Wait until you have to repay those 30 year T-bonds.
    Reagan started the policy of voluntary massive deficits. That deficit has to be paid back 30 years later.
    Given how the
  • America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. --Abraham Lincoln

    To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. - Theodore Roosevelt
  • How come no one is talking about Peak Oil (Hubbert Peak)? That's when global oil production peaks and begins its inevitable decline. It may be happening now even...
  • Here is the original report from the investment firm gs:

    http://www.gs.com/insight/research/reports/report6 .html [gs.com]

    Most of the stuff on aging and energy is from public institutions as well. Not much new or interesting here.

  • CommanderTaco should be hearing a knock at his door a few moments from now.

  • They forgot the 2nd Middle Ages, and immigration. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by master_p ( 608214 ) on Friday January 14, 2005 @05:15PM (#11368074)
    First of all, the first world's population will be radically altered from the vast number of people emigrating from 3rd world countries to 1st world countries. This is has prons and cons: it will definitely give a boost to local economies, due to more young people working, but it will also bring havoc to social peace.

    Secondly, we are plunging with great speed into a 2nd age of darkness. More and more, people don't use their critical thinking and logic and they are based on emotion, faith and mysticism. Although technology has done quantum leaps in the last century, the average person (average, when including 3rd world countries, of course) has no clue about mainstream science and attributes everything to God (just like with the recent tsunami being viewed as a punishment from God).

    The standard of education goes down like a rock falling from a cliff, and there are gonna be millions of people with diplomas and degrees which are essentially uneducated into what makes society tick.

    The computer business will reach a point where everything halts. Processing power would be so great, that upgrading will be meaningless. Of course that is after computers can do realtime raytracing and voice synthesis.

    We are never gonna go to Mars.

    There is a possibility of a 3rd World War, much more devastating than the first two, especially if politicians keep ignoring the facts that the west's wars are viewed as religious wars by East.

Slashdot Top Deals

Trap full -- please empty.

Close