Which has Higher odds of happening in the next 100 years?

[Father]

Am curious which you think has Higher odds of occurring within the next 100 years?

 

[shunyadragon]

None of the above.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

None of the above.

+1

 

[Father Heathen]

What would be the difference between another civil war and another revolution?

 

[Father]

What would be the difference between another civil war and another revolution?

Civil war: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country
Revolution: a forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system.

 

[Father]

None of the above.

really? all evidence points to a conflict happening. less of course you have not be paying attention to anything within the last few years

 

[Father Heathen]

Civil war: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country
Revolution: a forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system.

No ****, I know the definitions. What I'm asking is how would each scenario be different? Each would have the populous divided against itself, and each would have the government on one side while the other side would wish to establish a new government. Unless you specifically meant secession?

 

[Father]

No ****, I know the definitions. What I'm asking is how would each scenario be different? Each would have the populous divided against itself, and each would have the government on one side while the other side would wish to establish a new government. Unless you specifically meant succession?

well, the seceding and establishment of a new government without taking over the old is more so a civil war. a revolution is a complete rehaul of the current government for a new one. one results in a split. the other a complete takeover

 

[Father Heathen]

well, the seceding and establishment of a new government without taking over the old is more so a civil war. a revolution is a complete rehaul of the current government for a new one. one results in a split. the other a complete takeover

I wouldn't oppose an amicable secession if it didn't wreck the economy. Let the conservative fundies have Texas, for example.

 

[Father]

I wouldn't oppose an amicable secession if it didn't wreck the economy. Let the conservative fundies have Texas, for example.

eh the economy will tank eventually rather have it be for something of worth than the idiots at Wallstreet filing a number incorrectly

 

[Laika]

Am curious which you think has Higher odds of occurring within the next 100 years?

Voted World War 3 as it is the most historically significant.

If this was multiple choice I would have voted for civil war, revolution and world war. I don't think they are isolated but would be directly connected with one another. The environmental problems threaten the security of food and water supplies, and "peak oil" could create issues for the security of energy supplies. This creates the conditions for a major world war. Moreover, it is extremely unlikely that free societies would be able to survive those kind of conditions but not impossible depending on how bad it is. So you could have the rise of new authoritarian and totalitarian movements by the end of the century if we aren't careful.

Combined with economic and political institutions that are extremely resistant to even basic reforms that would assist their self-preservation, growing income inequalities as a source of social conflict (both racial and class based), the burden of taxation being shifted on to the middle and lower classes (as tax havens and evasion make the very wealthy almost exempt), continued economic crisis and stagnation and emphasis on austerity as eroding people's standard of living, the erosion and corruption of democratic institutions and the rule of law, civil war and revolution are both "possible" in the United States and in the Western world. As an aside, the development of robotics makes it plausible that capitalism as an economic system will not survive without major reforms (none of which are forseeablely going to happen because political institutions are gridlocked).

The biggest indicator of a kind of collapse isn't social, economic or political, but intellectual. The justification for Liberal Capitalism is that "there is no alternative" and that we are living in the "end of history". This is a period of acute intellectual stagnation where there are few, if any indicators, of idealistic and Utopian visions of the future which people could use to create one. The degree of cynicism, apathy and harsh "realism" is corrosive not simply to any revolutionary utopian political project, but also to the utopianism and idealism of renewing a liberal democratic society as something in the public interest. As long as everything is reduced to self-interest, there is little reason to preserve the rule of law or individual liberty, as the naked exercise of power advances self-interest much more effectively under conditions of inequality. Liberalism was after all a Utopian and revolutionary product of the enlightenment based on the ideal of social progress and without that spirit lives in intellectually hostile conditions.

Historically speaking, the ingredients are there but we are still a very long way away from it. The US-North Korea crisis is the first blip and will probably pass quietly as long as no-one does anything "stupid". I suspect it would be between 2050-2070 when the environmental problems will become more acute that we might see some really big stuff. Its not desirable by any means and I'm not happy about it, but it is certainly a possibility that occupies my thoughts given that this is foreseeably within my life time. I try to find useful things I can do and keep the big picture in context as this stuff could drive you mad pretty easily.

 

[Father]

Voted World War 3 as it is the most historically significant.

If this was multiple choice I would have voted for civil war, revolution and world war. I don't think they are isolated but would be directly connected with one another. The environmental problems threaten the security of food and water supplies, and "peak oil" could create issues for the security of energy supplies. This creates the conditions for a major world war. Moreover, it is extremely unlikely that free societies would be able to survive those kind of conditions but not impossible depending on how bad it is. So you could have the rise of new authoritarian and totalitarian movements by the end of the century if we aren't careful.

Combined with economic and political institutions that are extremely resistant to even basic reforms that would assist their self-preservation, growing income inequalities as a source of social conflict (both racial and class based), the burden of taxation being shifted on to the middle and lower classes (as tax havens and evasion make the very wealthy almost exempt), continued economic crisis and stagnation and emphasis on austerity as eroding people's standard of living, the erosion and corruption of democratic institutions and the rule of law, civil war and revolution are both "possible" in the United States and in the Western world. As an aside, the development of robotics makes it plausible that capitalism as an economic system will not survive without major reforms (none of which are forseeablely going to happen because political institutions are gridlocked).

The biggest indicator of a kind of collapse isn't social, economic or political, but intellectual. The justification for Liberal Capitalism is that "there is no alternative" and that we are living in the "end of history". This is a period of acute intellectual stagnation where there are few, if any indicators, of idealistic and Utopian visions of the future which people could use to create one. The degree of cynicism, apathy and harsh "realism" is corrosive not simply to any revolutionary utopian political project, but also to the utopianism and idealism of renewing a liberal democratic society as something in the public interest. As long as everything is reduced to self-interest, there is little reason to preserve the rule of law or individual liberty, as the naked exercise of power advances self-interest much more effectively under conditions of inequality. Liberalism was after all a Utopian and revolutionary product of the enlightenment based on the ideal of social progress and without that spirit lives in intellectually hostile conditions.

Historically speaking, the ingredients are there but we are still a very long way away from it. The US-North Korea crisis is the first blip and will probably pass quietly as long as no-one does anything "stupid". I suspect it would be between 2050-2070 when the environmental problems will become more acute that we might see some really big stuff. Its not desirable by any means and I'm not happy about it, but it is certainly a possibility that occupies my thoughts given that this is foreseeably within my life time. I try to find useful things I can do and keep the big picture in context as this stuff could drive you mad pretty easily.

the cycle certainly shows it. the republic of Rome only lasted 500 years. the most progressive systems have always been monarchies and aristocracies. would not be surprised if the future is a highly technological mirror of aristocratic France. which is sort of shown in the series Gankutsuo which is an Anime adaptation of Count of Monte Cristo set in the future.
the crisis of resources can be avoided if we speed up space exploration. 1000s of pounds worth of solid mineral in rocks above us. plus natural gas's on moons like Titan that could be used as fuel. if we just get our feet off the ground than we have little to worry about the environment. we survived an ice age after all the reverse has happned before and will happen long after we either die off or completly abonden the earth. i am less worried about mother nature and more about human nature.

 

[HonestJoe]

A World War as commonly defined isn’t going to happen in the foreseeable future. That would be a war fought by and within the majority of the countries in the world. At the time of the World Wars, the remains of the various European empires drew lots of countries in Africa, the Middle East and Americas in to fundamentally European conflicts (arguably a continuation of the European conflict that had been ongoing for hundreds of years). The other aspect is that the nature of the technologies and military tactics of the time still required capture and occupation of large swathes of land. The modern political environment would lead to much more fractured positions and lots of countries which could and would look to remain neutral which military technology means national actors could be defeated via targeted attacks from the outside, without needed to capture any significant ground territory.

I doubt you’ll see any true military conflict within the USA either. You don’t have quite enough people who are so crazy as to want to see the kind of devastation a modern war would have and plenty of people outside acting to avoid to stop a conflict. You could certainly be in for some messy political conflict and even acts of political violence but I wouldn’t expect an all out war.

 

[Laika]

the cycle certainly shows it. the republic of Rome only lasted 500 years. the most progressive systems have always been monarchies and aristocracies. would not be surprised if the future is a highly technological mirror of aristocratic France. which is sort of shown in the series Gankutsuo which is an Anime adaptation of Count of Monte Cristo set in the future.
the crisis of resources can be avoided if we speed up space exploration. 1000s of pounds worth of solid mineral in rocks above us. plus natural gas's on moons like Titan that could be used as fuel. if we just get our feet off the ground than we have little to worry about the environment. we survived an ice age after all the reverse has happned before and will happen long after we either die off or completly abonden the earth. i am less worried about mother nature and more about human nature.

I think you might be right about the future being like a "technological mirror of aristocratic France" although I suspect that will lay the stage for social upheaval.

I agree that Space Exploration and Colonisation would be a good insurance policy against existential planetary risks and would open up large commercial opportunities to exploit new sources of minerals. This would solve some our problems and is essential in the long-term but can only be part of the solution.

 

[Augustus]

Peaceful split (although certainly not because everyone has learned to get along).

 

[tytlyf]

I voted WW3. The country will remain divided as long as GOP media is still in business. With the internet and social media, things will only get worse. The problem is people believe fake news....and they'll vote based on their perceptions.

 

[Stevicus]

Am curious which you think has Higher odds of occurring within the next 100 years?

I don't know if any kind of "organized" thing will break out, although it does appear that there's a slow and steady breakdown taking place which will eventually have consequences.

The government already seems to have a diminishing capacity to provide services at the level it once did. Our crumbling infrastructure is an indication of this. They can't even fix the roads anymore. Schools continue to decline and face constant shortfalls and budget cuts. Higher education just keeps raising tuition. Prices keep going up while wages stagnate. I see more and more homeless people on the streets carrying signs than I saw 10-20 years ago, even while there appears to be a glut of vacant housing out there. Healthcare has turned into a sick joke.

If these and other trends keep up, then society will just gradually break down into chaos, as we're seeing already to some degree with these mass shootings occurring with greater frequency. But I doubt that it would be all that organized or that there will be that much collective violence, since most people these days are far too individualistic, narcissistic, and "special snowflakes" who think they're all that and unlikely to cooperate with each other.