[Icepasian]

(08-05-2012 12:01 PM)Finas Wrote:  

over 50 years ago or so (around that time) we had things like the civil rights movement going on

Now I say 50 years is too much maybe to guess, who knows what can happen till then, but 20 to 50 years from now, what social changes do you see happening in the US?

I personally think there's too much gloom and doom in this thread but I'll say my piece as well:

1. The USA will become more stratified by race in the near-term. The Republican party will likely become the "Party of Whites" while the Democrats become the "Party of Non-Whites". It's probable that this split will dramatically increase the amount of racial tension in the USA although it will probably only take place in the urban areas. A large proportion of Hispanics will most likely adopt the "White" label and become the new Italians/Greeks/Jews in the USA while the rest will probably entirely deny the existence of their partial European heritage. Due to the large amount of mixing between the primarily mestizo Hispanics and traditionally White Americans, much of the USA(California, Texas, and Florida especially) will start looking more racially akin to Argentina or Chile than Northern Europe or Mexico. This "Argentinian White" group and its rapid growth will probably prevent the USA from becoming minority-White this century.

2. American English and Latin American Spanish will likely start fusing(think Spanglish) within the USA as the nation becomes increasingly bilingual. This won't create a new language in such a short period of time but it could possibly be the start of a new "Anglo-Latin" language and culture. I predict that the USA will adopt many aspects of Latin American culture while still maintaining a majority of the traditional Anglo-American culture.

3. American feminism and hypergamy will see a rapid rise to unprecedented levels until hitting a wall and going into decline as abortion/cheap contraceptives stop the growth of the "hedonist"(for lack of a better word) population. Demographics will usher in a renaissance of traditional values as a majority of the children will be growing up in religious/traditional households. Once this religious and traditional generation hits its peak, it will push for legislation that repeals most of the progressive legislation of the 60s(don't worry, not the Civil Rights Act). Hopefully, the legislation pushed by what will probably be a large, religious, White and Hispanic political bloc will end the stagnation and decay of Black America.
________________________________________________________________________________​__________

I also wrote these predictions before rereading that you stated "social changes":

4. Rapid growth in biomedical technology allows for human embryos to be augmented in the womb. This will allow people in affluent nations to wipe out genetic diseases much like we did with small pox and polio. There's also the possibility for designer children(everyone's sons are going to be 6'3" Italians in 50 years?) although there will be a definite push by the religious to ban it. Gene therapy and/or augmented body parts(think Deus Ex: HR) could become readily available in the next few decades causing a true "superiority/inferiority" schism to occur on socio-economic levels.

5. Hyper-efficiency in most industries will wipe out much of the need for labor. A definite push for socialism will occur as wealth will rapidly continue to accumulate with those that own the capital. Robotics and further automation will inevitably make cheap labor obsolete and industry will thus return to the West to cut transportation costs as they will be higher than the near-zero labor costs of maintaining the equipment. I believe China will industrialize to the point where they will make it to self-sufficiency with a large enough domestic market to prop themselves up on. Although, India and Africa will likely fall back down into the dump as they aren't given the great boost that East Asia gained(Western investment and markets) in the second half of the 20th century.

6. Lassiez-Fairre Capitalism(as we know it) will be probably be phased out as it will no longer be the optimal economic ideology in the new "era of material abundance"(for the West and East Asia). As the amount of labor(intellectual included) ceases to be needed, a new economic model will have to be created that allows the benefits of such abundance to be spread across society in a way that won't cause it to self-destruct(like Communism did) or concentrate all wealth into the hands of a few(like modern Capitalism likely will). We'll have a nation with 200 million workers yet only enough work for 50 million. A possibility could be to gradually lower the average work week although that would only postpone the inevitable.

7. Space exploration, exploitation, and colonization will begin as many rare metals necessary for industry become scarce on Earth and as technology makes it economically feasible. On the bright side of things for the non-Western/East Asian peoples, the abundance of minerals in near-Earth orbit will likely save the less affluent nations from becoming the victimes of another Great Scramble. At first, most of the work done in space will probably be done by robots as human muscles and organs atrophy in zero-g environments. Of course though, technological augmentation like I stated in point #1 will likely allow humans to safely live in space soon after. Once carbon nanotubes are able to be mass-produced, it will likely be viable to create a space elevator which would make the vast majority of mining on Earth non-viable.

[Icepasian]

...

[Icepasian]

Sorry for the double post^.

[Hades]

Oh shit, I forgot to mention :

Unbelievable improvements in AI technology and robots, spurred mostly by Japan, will put a strong niche into the sexual marketplace for sexbots. For the cost of a movie ticket, you can walk into a "man-salon" and have sex with a robot resembling (among others) Jessica Alba, Hallie Berry, and whoever else. This causes a dramatic upheaval of the "player market" with the art of game completely dying out as men are seduced into easy and no-strings-attached 'sex'. Women are at a complete loss, and conservative groups try their damnedest to abolish or regulate the "new destruction of the family unit". Sexbots go underground. I haven't seen Ghost in the Shell yet but I figure this sort of thing is what happens.

Within fifty years, improvements in computer-frontal lobe communication make it so that wirelessly transmitting a physical sensation into somebody becomes a reality. A lot of people willingly choose 'The Matrix', since it offers that little hit of dopamine that (until now) they've been using reality to pursue.

(08-05-2012 11:09 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(08-05-2012 07:51 PM)Hades Wrote:  

I'm kind of butthurt about the future abolition of honkeyville, USA. There's a lot I don't like about how it is now, but eventually becoming a minority group is something I'm not prepared to deal with. I never even saw a black guy until I was 8. Not a race troll, just fear of the future.

A lot of whites feel precisely the way you do, which is why you can expect to see interracial tensions come to the forefront a little more often in coming years.
The reality is that many (most?) whites do not feel entirely comfortable with the direction America is going in, and they're not going to ride quietly into the sunset. You will see the pushback in politics (it will begin to frame policy debates and party lines will become increasingly racially defined), demographics (the acceleration of white flight, increased segregation between a dwindling number of white and and increasing number of mainly non-white areas) and a number of other dimensions.

This is going to be a very interesting 50 years coming up.

I'm definitely looking forward to it. I just hope there won't be a civil war.

[kosko]

(08-06-2012 05:43 PM)j r Wrote:  

Here are my thoughts on the future.

The western world will continue to see an internal divergence. Tyler Cowen has an interesting thesis called The Great Stagnation. He points out that the latest technological improvements are pretty wondrous, but aren't all that transformative and don't create a whole lot of employment. The future of the working class is uncertain. If we had properly functioning educational and labor institutions, they would be teaching kids usable skills and helping workers adjust to the new reality. Unfortunately, we don't. There are a lot of good jobs in high-skilled manufacturing and the trades, but these days any kid with the slightest potential is told to go to college. This may change.

At the same time, there will be a cognitive elite that will be increasingly global and mobile. If you're young or if you're raising kids, make sure that you/they have a solidly global outlook. Acquire portable skills. Learn languages. Be willing to go where the opportunity is.

Globally, a lot depends on China. It looks imminent now that China will become the next global superpower, but remember all the talk about Japan thirty years ago. People were convinced that the Japanese were buying everything in America, but then their economy tanked and they sold it all back at a discount. China has the demographics on its side, but there's no telling whether it has the institutions to dominate the world. For instance, look at copper. China consumes 40 percent of the world's copper and yet copper prices are set on exchanges in London and New York. Why? Because no one would trust an exchange based in China. China has this financial system where capital is basically directed to various projects by local party officials. It's mad corrupt, so there's no telling what the real return on investment is. There's also no telling how much bad debt there is in China. A system like that can't go on indefinitely.

The other thing with China is the middle-income trap. China's growth is based on exports, but that model starts to break down as Chinese workers reach a certain wage-level and it's no longer as profitable to be the world's workshop. At that point, China has to find a way to substitute domestic demand for exports. That's not an easy thing to do. Especially since China's exports are aided by it's low exchange rate and currency moves, which keeps domestic consumption quite low.

In the near future, I don't think it's going to be a story of China usurping America; although plenty of people will try to spin at that way. Rather we are moving to a multi-polar world. And this is why I disagree with predictions about the dollar. As trade diversifies and as capital starts looking to the developing world for higher yield (the yield on US Treasuries is essentially negative right now), the dollar will slowly lose its place as the world's reserve currency. Instead, we will see a basket of currencies taking the place that the dollar has now. US borrowing costs will begin to rise and this will cause us to have to make some serious fiscal adjustments. The good news is that, as the baby boomers start to fade from prominence, this may be possible.

I've said this before, but the whole idea of collapse doesn't really have much historical precedence. Societies just don't collapse over night. It happens over generations. Of course, there are always shocks. A meteor could hit and wipe out half the population and blot out the sun for a hundred years.

People think China will just be ushered into the top spot in the quiet of the night?

Little on the thread has been spent on the matter of conflict.

WWIII is almost inevitable the way the USA is moving. Its guns is the only thing it has left and is basically egging Russia, China, and the rest of the Shanghai block into a nuclear war.

This thread is 3 pages deep on non-sense such as race. Americans continue to be lost in the non-issue of race the elites have made into a issue.

Here is a fact check. White people already are the minority and in 20 years time when the last of the boomers die off it will be even worse. Its a none issue.

Class will be the base of tension domestically in the future. NOT race.

Did they not say the Civil rights movements and the full rights to African-Americans would end America 50 years ago? It hasn't Americans have gotten more poor though since then though. Race is nothing but the biggest fucking red herring in history. Its the elites silver bullet to keep the masses at each others throats.

[Giovonny]

(08-05-2012 06:51 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

The USA has always been a firmly, predominantly white nation.

Actually, when the USA was established in 1776, there were many more native indians then there were whites. Remember, the native indians had been here for thousands of years, white were only coming in small groups by boat from Europe. Little by little, white population grew. But, for the first hundred years or so, whites were the minority. In this part of the world, whites have only been the majority since the late 1800's. This was indian land for many centuries. Whites were the majority from around 1850 to around 2050, only about 200 total years in all of history.

(08-05-2012 07:51 PM)Hades Wrote:  

I'm kind of butthurt about the future abolition of honkeyville, USA. There's a lot I don't like about how it is now, but eventually becoming a minority group is something I'm not prepared to deal with.

Ha, thats funny, at least your honest. But remember, whites will only be a minority if you ADD UP ALL the other ethnicities.

And, most of the them will be on the coasts and in the big cities. I'm sure there will plenty of predominantly white areas for you to live.

The USA is currently about 70% white. It's projected that in 2050, the usa will still be around 70% white. Latinos will increase quite a bit, asians will increase a little, and blacks will stay at around 12-13%. I don't think you have to much to worry about.

Are my numbers accurate???

Other then that, who the fuck knows what will happen in 50 years

[Deluge]

I'm jumping onto this topic late, but I basically agree with every Athlone's said.

A couple things to add, people are always spelling out a coming apocalypse, especially conservatives. The end of nigh stuff rarely comes to pass, and if it does it is not literally the end of the world. Older generations have been trashing the children they raised since Ancient Greece, and they've preaching the end times for just as long.

Superpower wise, Athlone is right, China's demographics is their achilles heel. Economists predict China will have to start importing immigrants from 2030 to prevent a skills shortage. The government has mapped out the age structures of the population to ascertain when they'll run out of labour for each job/industry. Unless China abandons the one child policy they won't reach their potential. They've eased up on it slightly, but have no plans to scrap it (yet) and even if they did there's no guarantee their fertility will reach replacement level because of the rising cost of living and very high food prices compared to their income. East Asia in general is fucking itself over by not having enough children, them and Europe will begin to shrink population wise, especially in Eastern Europe. 1/4 of Europe will be Muslim by 2100 and the most Islamic country will be Sweden. Mexico and Brazil will also face similar problems, the Middle East, Africa and South Asia won't with the except Iran which will experience hyper ageing.

America's population will continue to grow adding 130-140 million people by 2050, (the non-hispanic white population will stay in the very low 200's) and because of this is not going to lose it's great power status any time soon especially as their main rivals Russia and China's population shrink.

Athlone: One thing to keep in mind demographics wise is that just because white conservatives are having more children doesn't guarentee anything. Conservative and liberal social/sexual culture happens in cycles that cannot be explained by the political leanings of those who're having the kids. The cultural revolution hit at the same time as a gigantic youth boom (the Baby Boomers) but their parents were very conservative. Another wave of conservatism may hit us, but that itself could be wiped out by yet another baby boom. America's healthy birth rate will be a check and balance on a pre-cultural revolution sexual culture reappearing, which I don't think will happen because it doesn't sound like evangelical christian girls are actually keeping it in their pants. Speaking of the few down under they're not all that less slutty then non-religious girls. Europe is a different beast though, I can see Europe becoming more socially conservative due to Islam (the children aren't falling far from the tree) and ageing and shrinking native population.

I think Australia will still be a pretty damn good society to live in 40 years from now though. Healthy birth rate, religious conservatives too tiny a group to be a threat, immigrants here seem to fit in a lot better then they do in America (probably cause in general they're middle class andwell educated) and even then native Australians have more kids then non-white immigrants do (and a lot of our immigrants are white) meaning we won't be a society filled with racial tension with a young generation supporting an elderly population who looks very different from them.

[Excelsior]

(08-09-2012 04:27 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

Athlone: One thing to keep in mind demographics wise is that just because white conservatives are having more children doesn't guarentee anything. Conservative and liberal social/sexual culture happens in cycles that cannot be explained by the political leanings of those who're having the kids. The cultural revolution hit at the same time as a gigantic youth boom (the Baby Boomers) but their parents were very conservative.

The main distinction today comes from the much higher retention rates the conservatives are maintaining. I should note that it isn't just the white ones either-minority conservatives are going to make a difference as well, and I'd expect them to claw back predominance within their owns groups much more rapidly due to the relative dearth of true progressives within their population (Europeans are, far and away, the most liberal and secular humans on Earth).

The analogy is somewhat similar to that of DDT-the first wave of treatment kills many of the mosquitoes, but those who survive become much hardier and breed a much hardier, more resistant population.

In this case, the DDT is modern liberal secularism. The first wave of secularism swept through the west and hit most of the folks there, becoming the dominant force in the western world and gaining significant ground elsewhere as well.

A few folks resisted this wave, and they are going to be much hardier than their predecessors. They're much more committed than the average conservative of the 50's/60's was (remember that only the more hardened of that ilk resisted the wave) and, unlike the older conservative generations, their kids are staying more closely in the fold.

Keep in mind also that many "conservatives" during that time period instilled in their children the basic values that led to their progressivism (ex: instilling in their daughters the value of education as a means to gain some independence from men).
We assume that the boomer apples fell far from the tree, but in actuality this is not the case. The seeds for their rebellion were planted by their upbringing, though it may have went further than their parents expected.

At the end of the day, our parents are still our greatest influences-we rarely get too far away from the core lessons they teach us. Our grandparents gave their boomer children unprecedented peace and prosperity and then told them to use that time to expand their minds and outlooks-what we see is merely the end result of that.

Furthermore, differences in conservative and liberal fertility have expanded rapidly (they were much closer when the first secularist wave hit). If there is any genetic component at all to this divide in fecundity and culture, then we're selecting for it now.

Long story short, a more conservative wave is coming. It will not last forever (like you said, cycles come and go) but it will be here and it will be around for a while. The west is going to need to get prepared, because the low fertility of their more progressive groups is only going to bring this shift faster. The only people left standing in a generation or two are going to have been bred by conservatives, raised in conservative environments and schooled in more conservative values.

This is no joke-you might be insulated more securely down under, but in America this has the potential to roll back many of the changes progressives have spent decades fighting for. The pre-cultural revolution culture may not be ushered back in (I don't think we can ever expect that again), but secular progressives are still not going to like what they see.

I strongly recommend checking out this book (it can be ordered in online form on Google Play or via Kindle) if you want to learn more about this topic-it is superbly well researched and quite compelling. Seriously a must-read.

Quote:

...native Australians have more kids then non-white immigrants do (and a lot of our immigrants are white) meaning we won't be a society filled with racial tension with a young generation supporting an elderly population who looks very different from them.

Like I said, this is going to be a very interesting 50 years (for better or worse).

[kosko]

How will America add 150 Million people with near negative birth rates and 35% of their population gone which won't be replaced?

The West, all nations, are having issues replacing them selves. Growth in these parts in 100% Dependant on immigration which is far from static. If American progress and scale of its economy regress... which it will. What makes it so certain that it will continue to attract so many new immigrants. If I life in Africa, or South America staying home will provide me more opportunities then going abroad in 2050. Those places are on a upswing while the west is going downwards. In 2050 many African of South American nations whom have historically been poor will most likely be at the levels at where former FSU nations are today. Countries such as Libya (pre-war) we're enjoying progress levels per annum greater then countries like the Ukraine. Angola has one of the best performing economies in the world in terms of growth Zimbabwe has been performing well also.

As a immigrant myself if I had children and we're looking for a place to immigrate to the USA, Canada, AUS, UK would not even be on my list.

After the boomers go the professional imports will stop. The doctor and health care shortage will be over and the professional nurses, doctors, etc from abroad will stop coming in. The economy will shrink accordingly also and there literally just won't be jobs for everybody to have. If people think it is bad now I really can't stress the effect the boomers dropping out of the general economy will have.

*

In regards to conservatism I feel that this 2nd or third wave your talking about @Athlone is over stated. Liberalism actually achieves more of that the dominant and elite class wants. Liberalism empowers institutions to continue to wedge power in America. In 2040 the majority of people will work or have their jobs tie to or subsidized by the Government. The American Empires current mantra of Reactionary War Policy, and Reactionary-ism in general will still be on the table and Liberals help that more than conservatives since the end goal of a paranoid reactionary state is to force things back to the norms which can only be done via the force of the State. America will ultimately become a Fascist state as this is how all Reactionary States end up.

But that is the thing both are really the same. I think people waste to much air trying to distinguish the two. American policy has been Reactionary War Policy since the end of WWII this has been the mantra that has lead every decision and movement, backlash the State and society at large has gone through.

America today would make classic conservatives like Eisenhower roll in his grave. Where is the backlash? Conservatives are just as politically and power bankrupt as liberals both are delusional into thinking their views are unique or matter when both sides have no effect in the direction of the nation.

If you want to know the future of America you read on how other Reactionary States prospered and vanished. Conservative and Liberal writers don't have a clue at all. Simply they write for their own amusement as they know they will be long dead when things come to pass.

This is why I feel people whom paint the USA as slipping into a Socialist comma are off. Resources and capital are being sucked up by the wealthy 1% of the nation not the state. They have no intentions of redistributing shit back either. The corporate class in America already has dominant control in all parts of society and they have no intentions of re-distributing anything back either. This is the part in the 60's Americans failed to go after. Americans never got the keys to their vault back and have been getting fleeced every since. I think when you and your fellow man has nothing but a nickel left in your pocket then American will rise up in anger but by then it will most likely be too late.

[DjembaDjemba]

Who's to say that the future of conservatism is going to be white conservatism?

The strongest conservatives in Europe are Muslims. Here in Canada, the conservative party has been in power since 2006. It has become more and more mainstream, and its strongest pillars of support are visible minorities. Without them, the liberals would still be in power. Political pundit right wingers were screaming for 20 years that Canada's immigration would place the liberal party in control for another 100 years, yet it killed it within 20.

In Canada, minorities (especially blacks) fare better in conservative centres of power in terms of job opportunities and pussy opportunities with the mainstream (majority) population.

In America, this seems to be the case too. Blacks and Mexicans (the dark ones) seem to do very well in conservative centres of power, Georgia,Texas, Florida, etc). Asians do well all round. Inter-racial mixing is at an all time high between all groups historically. It's highest for blacks and whites in the south per capita, not the 'liberal' north.

America is continuing to melt in the pot into a stew. Black in America is now the new "Irish", Mexican is the new "Italian", Asian is the new "British".

The future of America will be bright. It will not be segregated at all.

America is doing it all right in the immigration department. Plenty of low wage labour to keep itself competitive, ample number of immigrants who work hard and rise to the top, and a healthy amount of intermarriage. Any form of white segregation in the future will look more like Amish self separation today than the segregation we saw in South Africa or Louisiana pre 1960. Economic realities of the 21st century simply do not allow for mercentilist racial policies.

America will certainly be more conservative in the next generation, but the conservatism will be fiscal not racial. It will be similar to German and Canadian conservatism.

Americans in the next generation will look back to these dark days like Canadians look at the late 80s and early 90s when the nation was at the brink of bankruptcy.

The US government will do what is necessary to in the next 10 years to restructure the government's debt burden. The military will be downsized. The size of the state will shrink significantly like it has in Canada. Welfare will be restructured and made very difficult to attain. The only welfare that will be accessible to the masses will be similar to Canada's employment insurance, a temporary taxed sum no more than 60% of $45,000 annually to keep one going until they find a job.

Municipalities will begin to pick up more of the state and federal burdens leading to more regional governing style. This time, unlike in the 1860-1960s it will more inclusive due to universal suffrage.

Americans like Canadians and Germans will see the richer stop growing so rich. The average income will be harder to supplant with debt once the cuts in services hit. Political changes will be made from both the top and bottom to make sure job growth is strong domestically.

Technological changes will continue to make our lives easier.

Feminism will march on as we become more and more heavily industrialized and brawn is no longer needed outside of a few niche industries. Women will most probably overtake men in incomes outside of the top CEOs.

America, once its become more browner and more asian due to continued mixing of people from different cultures and ethnicities, will go in the way of Japan.

Full beta nation. Men will play with dolls and beat off to cartoons.

The game movement will have been a blip in the grand scheme of things. Helping a few former betas and seasoned alphas spread their seed as they always have, generations past.

[kosko]

(08-09-2012 11:00 AM)DjembaDjemba Wrote:  

The future of America will be bright. It will not be segregated at all.

America is doing it all right in the immigration department. Plenty of low wage labour to keep itself competitive, ample number of immigrants who work hard and rise to the top, and a healthy amount of intermarriage. Any form of white segregation in the future will look more like Amish self separation today than the segregation we saw in South Africa or Louisiana pre 1960. Economic realities of the 21st century simply do not allow for mercentilist racial policies.

America will certainly be more conservative in the next generation, but the conservatism will be fiscal not racial. It will be similar to German and Canadian conservatism.

Americans in the next generation will look back to these dark days like Canadians look at the late 80s and early 90s when the nation was at the brink of bankruptcy.

The US government will do what is necessary to in the next 10 years to restructure the government's debt burden. The military will be downsized. The size of the state will shrink significantly like it has in Canada. Welfare will be restructured and made very difficult to attain. The only welfare that will be accessible to the masses will be similar to Canada's employment insurance, a temporary taxed sum no more than 60% of $45,000 annually to keep one going until they find a job.

Municipalities will begin to pick up more of the state and federal burdens leading to more regional governing style. This time, unlike in the 1860-1960s it will more inclusive due to universal suffrage.

I agree the race aspect is a non-issue. But I don't agree with your rosy comparisons of America to Canada.

It is true Canada basically was bankrupt, was downgraded, and nearly blew up on its debt payments but after it gutted its social programs it new it had a prized horse in the stable to roll out down the road.

Canada is nothing more than Petrol-State that is highly dependency on its resources. America does not have this luxury as it has largely burned through the majority of its reserves. Aside from Agriculture, Cotton, and Natural Gas America does not have enough natural resources to power its self along like it has done in Canada.

The military will never be substantially downsized to the point to make the budget manageable as it goes agianst Reactionary policies. The USA army will always be maintained to eventually keep order on the homeland after its expansionism goals die down.

The issue of States power and rights is important. I do agree they will be handed more stuff from up top but more-so in costs and burdens and not the actual powers to deal with them. Power will continue to be centralized whiten DC structures. Even though it is not the best way to deal with it. You may even see hostility in some parts. Texas whom loosely views itself as part of America may try to isolate itself from the issues in DC. I am not saying full out successionism but it will try to pass its own laws to make it more autonomous from Washington. Many other states would like to do this but few would actually have the means to make this happen, Texas is the only one capable of doing so aside from California.

Economically it has no where to go but down and smaller. Deflation will be theme for the next 15-20 years. An Economy which is 68% dependent on consumer spending seeing its largest most wealthy segments of society vanish....

So its either the USA slips into a redundant comma like the UK and basically just cycles money around to itself to keep the lights on. Or it tries to maintain its standing and crash and burns away in the process. Nobody knows what direction it will choose but history as a benchmark shows it is choosing the latter currently versus the first right now.

But the UK did similarly in the days of WWI and WWII it was only met with a fork in the road moment where the USA basically forced it to the back seat. The USA has not had its fork in the road moment but I don't believe that it will be handed a soft support arm like the USA extended to the UK.

[kdolo]

Life extension technology- people who have the economic resources to buy good food and the tech will live to 150.

Home ownership decline: more people will live in small apartments,condos, coops, communal apartments, hostel-type living.

The Net will supplant most universities - expect 50% or so of them to go the way of the DoDo.

Urban cores will be mostly "white" - due to gentrification - only those with "good" corporate or government jobs can afford to live there.

Way more interacial marriage and dating.

[Excelsior]

(08-09-2012 10:43 AM)kosko Wrote:  

How will America add 150 Million people with near negative birth rates and 35% of their population gone which won't be replaced?

The West, all nations, are having issues replacing them selves. Growth in these parts in 100% Dependant on immigration which is far from static. If American progress and scale of its economy regress... which it will. What makes it so certain that it will continue to attract so many new immigrants.

There will still remain a mass of nations from which there will be an incentive to depart due to higher standards of living-the west is not going to decline to African/Central american standards of living over night.

Also, the west may recess to some degree, but they'll not go quietly-the attraction of immigrants will be key to staving off some of the more significant economic risks of the current demographic profiles these nations maintain, and they will go out of their way to to bring them in. Skilled migrants are about to become a highly prized commodity as these western nations move further into demographic (and the resulting economic) trouble. There will be fierce competition in due time.

Quote:

If I life in Africa, or South America staying home will provide me more opportunities then going abroad in 2050.

Africa is a large place, as is South America. Your statement here generalizes these wholes and then presumes that both will, generally, match or surpass western standards of living in the next few decades.
This may happen in pockets/sections (ex: Brazil, portions of India, etc), but it will not be the norm for some time. The west has a very long way to fall, and it won't cover that full distance so quickly especially if it is successful in attracting the migrants it needs to stave of the demographic troubles.

Quote:

Those places are on a upswing while the west is going downwards.

You overestimate the upswing and exaggerate the western decline, is my point.

Quote:

In 2050 many African of South American nations whom have historically been poor will most likely be at the levels at where former FSU nations are today. Countries such as Libya (pre-war) we're enjoying progress levels per annum greater then countries like the Ukraine. Angola has one of the best performing economies in the world in terms of growth Zimbabwe has been performing well also.

As far as living standards go, the top African nations (ex: Tunisia, Botswana, Seychelles, etc) are roughly on par with many Eastern European nations. So you're right, it is possible that some African and Latin Nations will join them at that standard of living.

The problems here are:

1. Only some of these nations will be making that jump. Angola might. Ghana could. I wouldn't count on Zambia, Liberia or Sierra Leone doing the same anytime soon (high economic growth =/= automatic rise in individual wealth and living standards, remember). Kenya and Uganda are up in the air. Zimbabwe is a mess right now, that is going to be a long recovery.

2. Even if some of these nations do come close to FSU levels, that won't remove the incentive to migrate (many FSU citizens are doing this now, despite their relatively high living standards). Living standards and wages in the west could still conceivably be at a much higher level still even then.

Quote:

After the boomers go the professional imports will stop. The doctor and health care shortage will be over and the professional nurses, doctors, etc from abroad will stop coming in. The economy will shrink accordingly also and there literally just won't be jobs for everybody to have. If people think it is bad now I really can't stress the effect the boomers dropping out of the general economy will have.

This assumes that the nations in question have not been planning for this.
The goal of the immigrant importation drive is to stave off this exact problem and correct the imbalance (which leans towards the old right now) by importing many younger folks from more fertile populations.

The point of this is to blunt the impact of the boomers' passing and prevent drastic pop. decline while keeping the economy from contracting massively with the supplemental po. numbers.
If immigration continues (it is only going to accelerate in the near future, and I already mentioned that incentive will remain for a while), then there is a chance that these nations could soften the damage you're warning of.

Quote:

In regards to conservatism I feel that this 2nd or third wave your talking about @Athlone is over stated. Liberalism actually achieves more of that the dominant and elite class wants.

I don't think it matters for two reasons. Firstly, the elite are not a monolith-some may see this new trend as something that favors their interests (ex: potentially staving off pop. decline), and others may not. You cannot state the contrary with any precision.

Secondly, the social progressivism of the kind that is currently dominant simply isn't sustainable, regardless of what anyone wants. The book I mentioned earlier explains this very well, as do a few articles.
Change is coming, for better or worse.

[keepreal]

(08-09-2012 04:27 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

I'm jumping onto this topic late, but I basically agree with every Athlone's said.

A couple things to add, people are always spelling out a coming apocalypse, especially conservatives. The end of nigh stuff rarely comes to pass, and if it does it is not literally the end of the world. Older generations have been trashing the children they raised since Ancient Greece, and they've preaching the end times for just as long.

Superpower wise, Athlone is right, China's demographics is their achilles heel. Economists predict China will have to start importing immigrants from 2030 to prevent a skills shortage. The government has mapped out the age structures of the population to ascertain when they'll run out of labour for each job/industry. Unless China abandons the one child policy they won't reach their potential. They've eased up on it slightly, but have no plans to scrap it (yet) and even if they did there's no guarantee their fertility will reach replacement level because of the rising cost of living and very high food prices compared to their income. East Asia in general is fucking itself over by not having enough children, them and Europe will begin to shrink population wise, especially in Eastern Europe. 1/4 of Europe will be Muslim by 2100 and the most Islamic country will be Sweden. Mexico and Brazil will also face similar problems, the Middle East, Africa and South Asia won't with the except Iran which will experience hyper ageing.

America's population will continue to grow adding 130-140 million people by 2050, (the non-hispanic white population will stay in the very low 200's) and because of this is not going to lose it's great power status any time soon especially as their main rivals Russia and China's population shrink.

Athlone: One thing to keep in mind demographics wise is that just because white conservatives are having more children doesn't guarentee anything. Conservative and liberal social/sexual culture happens in cycles that cannot be explained by the political leanings of those who're having the kids. The cultural revolution hit at the same time as a gigantic youth boom (the Baby Boomers) but their parents were very conservative. Another wave of conservatism may hit us, but that itself could be wiped out by yet another baby boom. America's healthy birth rate will be a check and balance on a pre-cultural revolution sexual culture reappearing, which I don't think will happen because it doesn't sound like evangelical christian girls are actually keeping it in their pants. Speaking of the few down under they're not all that less slutty then non-religious girls. Europe is a different beast though, I can see Europe becoming more socially conservative due to Islam (the children aren't falling far from the tree) and ageing and shrinking native population.
.

CHina is already probably going to officially switch to 2child policy soon, plus people are allowed to have 2children in farms, and in cities they have another child if the 1st child is a girl. The fine is low enough, that most rich people can afford to have another child. Gender ratio might be an issue though. Although China has a long way to develop their domestic market andtheir wages are raising steadily.
Conservative kids are not that conservative, the girls are slutty, people go with their peers, it is uncertain if conservative will stay conservative or become a little more liberal.

[keepreal]

Africa is way too corrupt, it take awhile for african nations to develop their consumer markets, infrastructure and effectively use their resources. If USA helped and invested into one of the African nation like they did to taiwan or South korea during 40s to now, it would be like a 1st world country.

[Deluge]

(08-09-2012 10:43 AM)kosko Wrote:  

How will America add 150 Million people with near negative birth rates and 35% of their population gone which won't be replaced?

That wasn't a number I made up, you'll have to take that up with the Census Bureau.