We live in very interesting times

[Mathnomalous]

This just hit me: there is a high probability my family and I will be alive to witness several key events in human history. Just think about it: there are at least 10,000 years of recorded human history but only in the last 150 of those people have experienced the most amazing things any human has ever seen.

If I get to the age of 100, I have decent chances of witnessing a 3rd world war, witnessing a 2nd American Revolution, the 1st female US President, seeing the first people to walk on Mars, seeing irrefutable evidence of a habitable planet, and/or even reading about the possible discovery of some form of life outside of Earth.

I might get to experience what people experienced in 1969! My life might not be great right now, but damn, these are wonderful times to be alive!
On the not so bright side, there is a good chance I might live through a world epidemic... or worse... witness S. P. become President... dammit!

 

[Pythagorean]

So sorry about S P

-Alaska

 

[lisab]

So sorry about S P

-Alaska

 

[Averagesupernova]

How do you know that some people weren't saying the same things 125 to 150 years ago about cars, telephones, wireless communications, flying, or anything 'horseless' for that matter, and a whole list of other things we take for granted? The way I see it in 100 years or so if things keep going the way they have the things you talk of will seem as boring as Alexander Graham Bell saying: "I heard every word you said, distinctly!"

 

[CRGreathouse]

Let's give this thread some teeth.

If I get to the age of 100, I have decent chances of witnessing a 3rd world war, witnessing a 2nd American Revolution, the 1st female US President, seeing the first people to walk on Mars, seeing irrefutable evidence of a habitable planet, and/or even reading about the possible discovery of some form of life outside of Earth.

[...]

On the not so bright side, there is a good chance I might live through a world epidemic... or worse... witness S. P. become President... dammit!

Suppose you were in a betting mood. What odds would you place on each of these events?
1. Third World War
2. Second American Revolution
3. First female President of the US
4. First person walks on Mars
5. "Irrefutable evidence" of a habitable planet
6. ET life discovered
7. Palin elected President of the US
8. World epidemic
by, let's say, 2070 (since I don't know your age).

The events seem to have wildly different chances to me. I would place #3 at 90% to 98% (there should be 8 to 16 US presidents elected in that time) and #5 at 75%+, depending on the particular meaning of 'habitable' and 'irrefutable'. On the other hand, #1, #2, and #7 seem to be less than 1% likely in my estimation.

I'm not sure exactly how to interpret #8; it could be very likely or fairly unlikely depending on the definition.

 

[G037H3]

Let's give this thread some teeth.



Suppose you were in a betting mood. What odds would you place on each of these events?
1. Third World War
2. Second American Revolution
3. First female President of the US
4. First person walks on Mars
5. "Irrefutable evidence" of a habitable planet
6. ET life discovered
7. Palin elected President of the US
8. World epidemic
by, let's say, 2070 (since I don't know your age).

The events seem to have wildly different chances to me. I would place #3 at 90% to 98% (there should be 8 to 16 US presidents elected in that time) and #5 at 75%+, depending on the particular meaning of 'habitable' and 'irrefutable'. On the other hand, #1, #2, and #7 seem to be less than 1% likely in my estimation.

I'm not sure exactly how to interpret #8; it could be very likely or fairly unlikely depending on the definition.

1. 88%
2. 96% (if a civil war counts)
3. 31%
4. 92%
5. 60%
6. 3%
7. 2%
8. 58%

 

[Mathnomalous]

Let's give this thread some teeth.
Suppose you were in a betting mood. What odds would you place on each of these events?
1. Third World War
2. Second American Revolution
3. First female President of the US
4. First person walks on Mars
5. "Irrefutable evidence" of a habitable planet
6. ET life discovered
7. Palin elected President of the US
8. World epidemic
by, let's say, 2070 (since I don't know your age).

The events seem to have wildly different chances to me. I would place #3 at 90% to 98% (there should be 8 to 16 US presidents elected in that time) and #5 at 75%+, depending on the particular meaning of 'habitable' and 'irrefutable'. On the other hand, #1, #2, and #7 seem to be less than 1% likely in my estimation.

I'm not sure exactly how to interpret #8; it could be very likely or fairly unlikely depending on the definition.

By 2070:

1. 25%
2. 30% ***
3. 90%
4. 50% ***
5. 70% ***
6. 5%
7. 25%
8. 60%

*** the ones I am looking forward the most.

My point was that today we are slightly more aware of the things we may accomplish unlike a person in 1870 whom did not have access to the Internet and other mass communication tools.

 

[CRGreathouse]

1. Third World War
2. Second American Revolution

1. 88%
2. 96% (if a civil war counts)

Wow, you're pessimistic. (And yes, I would say a civil war counts, but of course not a secessionist movement like Talossa.)

 

[G037H3]

Wow, you're pessimistic. (And yes, I would say a civil war counts, but of course not a secessionist movement like Talossa.)

Things are way less stable than you think they are. The US is not going to be able to force everyone to be capitalist and democratic forever. This picture illustrates my point:

 

[jobyts]

Watch between 50:23 to 53:00

From the title of this thread, I first thought we were going to discuss the more exciting stuff mentioned in the video :(

 

[CRGreathouse]

The US is not going to be able to force everyone to be capitalist and democratic forever.

Of course not. This isn't a surprise in any way -- the US only ever had that power for a few years. See Krauthammer's "The unipolar moment". The US was privileged in being able to shape world affairs for a number of years. It was known from the beginning that this power would last only a short time: that's mentioned on the first page!

But there's a serious difference between being the hegemon (which the US was for only a short while, or perhaps never -- see Wilkinson 1999) and being in civil war/revolution.

 

[G037H3]

Of course not. This isn't a surprise in any way -- the US only ever had that power for a few years. See Krauthammer's "The unipolar moment". The US was privileged in being able to shape world affairs for a number of years. It was known from the beginning that this power would last only a short time: that's mentioned on the first page!

But there's a serious difference between being the hegemon (which the US was for only a short while, or perhaps never -- see Wilkinson 1999) and being in civil war/revolution.

I've stated at least a dozen times that a nation with such divided demographics will only be stable as long as people are contented by $. And even then there is much daily friction. My views are unpopular; I don't care.

 

[Char. Limit]

On the not so bright side, there is a good chance I might live through a world epidemic... or worse... witness S. P. become President... dammit!

I would find living through a world epidemic pretty damn lucky.

 

[G037H3]

I would find living through a world epidemic pretty damn lucky.

Why? If you live in an area full of people who are good at cooperating, you have a pretty high chance of survival.

 

[Char. Limit]

Why? If you live in an area full of people who are good at cooperating, you have a pretty high chance of survival.

I don't think I do. Well, the Eastern Washington people will probably get along well, but those Westerners will ruin everything.

{humor intended}

 

[G037H3]

I don't think I do. Well, the Eastern Washington people will probably get along well, but those Westerners will ruin everything.

{humor intended}

No, your statement is likely correct.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I've stated at least a dozen times that a nation with such divided demographics will only be stable as long as people are contented by $. And even then there is much daily friction.

Pity you have no money to put where your mouth is, then.

 

[G037H3]

Pity you have no money to put where your mouth is, then.

It's a historical perspective. People learn again and again that the apparent patterns of their age are not the patterns of history. =)

 

[CRGreathouse]

It's a historical perspective. People learn again and again that the apparent patterns of their age are not the patterns of history. =)

I just wish I could pit my understanding of historical perspective against yours with more than just my reputation on the line.

 

[mheslep]

2070?

1. Third World War 5%
2. Second American Revolution 10%
3. First female President of the US 70%
4. First person walks on Mars 40%
5. "Irrefutable evidence" of a habitable planet 0.01%
6. ET life discovered 0.0000 (and so on ) 1%
7. Palin elected President of the US 1%
8. World epidemic 30%

#1 (and #2 if violent): No full fledged democracy has attacked another since Athens attacked Syracuse. Now there are some 160 democracies. So 3rd world war? No way. A 2nd Amer Revolution is slightly possible if a (mostly) non-violent one qualifies as a revolution.

 

[lisab]

Every time I read Third World War in this thread, I think of a war in the Third World...100%, I'm afraid.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Every time I read Third World War in this thread, I think of a war in the Third World...100%, I'm afraid.

Based on data from the COW project I count 321 wars starting 1992-2001 (since 2001 is the most recent year with data). Modeling this as a Poisson process, I estimate the probability of having no wars over a given 60-year span at exp(-32.1 * 60) or about one in 3 x 10⁸³⁶.

 

[CRGreathouse]

#1 (and #2 if violent): No full fledged democracy has attacked another since Athens attacked Syracuse. Now there are some 160 democracies. So 3rd world war? No way. A 2nd Amer Revolution is slightly possible if a (mostly) non-violent one qualifies as a revolution.

I wasn't counting non-violent revolutions; if I was my numbers would match yours.

 

[discrete*]

Just out of curiosity, why does everyone seem to think a third world war is so unlikely?

 

[G037H3]

Just out of curiosity, why does everyone seem to think a third world war is so unlikely?

Last Men always think that way.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Just out of curiosity, why does everyone seem to think a third world war is so unlikely?

Nuclear weaponry, the democratic peace, increased international trade.

 

[discrete*]

Nuclear weaponry, the democratic peace, increased international trade.

It seems to me that all three of these things could be used to start, continue or end a world wide war.

 

[lisab]

Just out of curiosity, why does everyone seem to think a third world war is so unlikely?

To go to war, a majority of citizens of country X must believe that the people in country Y are evil, and the only way to deal with them is to kill them. Globalization and the internet make it very difficult to isolate a country enough to effectively do that, IMO.

 

[discrete*]

To go to war, a majority of citizens of country X must believe that the people in country Y are evil, and the only way to deal with them is to kill them. Globalization and the internet make it very difficult to isolate a country enough to effectively do that, IMO.

This is a good argument, and probably the most realistic one in terms of common sense. But, there are exceptions. For example, suppose nation Y launches a large scale attack on nation X, nation X is too weak to combat nation Y alone and thus calls on nation Z (an ally) and so forth.
It's at this point that isolated countries do not matter, and it than becomes a group of allied nations vs another group. Now, this is an extreme example, but certainly not a far-fetched one. I suppose it's more likely that, if a conflict of this caliber was to break out, nuclear weapons would end it before many nations had a chance to "jump in". Either way, humanity takes a serious blow.

 

[CRGreathouse]

To go to war, a majority of citizens of country X must believe that the people in country Y are evil, and the only way to deal with them is to kill them. Globalization and the internet make it very difficult to isolate a country enough to effectively do that, IMO.

Precisely -- that's what I was talking about wrt trade.

“When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will.” -Bastiat