How Our World and Age will Collapse Very Soon.

[Raze]

 

[BlueOak]

I have a negative outlook, and I dismissed a spiritual teacher ten years ago when they said we were on a path to WW3.

Having watched all this, it's too bleak, I feel this is out of alignment with what is happening. I do feel a large-scale conventional conflict is increasingly possible, as are civil wars in countries that are already unstable. It misses some hope like Egypt or Saudi are greening their desert. It misses some of the technological adaptations which could happen at a faster pace, such as in multi-level indoor farming. So I think the food crisis, being such a unifying necessity will be solved. It misses that if we finally, (ever), get off oil/gas then that will be less of a factor. My thoughts about people's willingness to get off oil and gas are currently at an all-time low however, if this Russia crisis was anything, it was an excuse to do just that, people failed.

I think the fall of some of the authoritarian powers is vastly overstated here, because they are on the rise and have been for a very long time. I don't even see civil disturbance being as great as I originally thought, given that most people seem not too bothered about the changes occurring. The level of protest or willingness to tolerate it is an all time low. 

But yes there are some tough times ahead, possibly some larger conventional or civil wars but I think the video exaggerates. I would like to see the UK's military doubled in size to 4% of GDP as soon as possible personally, and I no longer completely rule out a world war as I did previously, seeing some of the extremism I've seen from opponents in this recent conflict.

Edited July 10, 2022 by BlueOak

[Raze]

16 hours ago, BlueOak said:

I have a negative outlook, and I dismissed a spiritual teacher ten years ago when they said we were on a path to WW3.

Having watched all this, it's too bleak, I feel this is out of alignment with what is happening. I do feel a large-scale conventional conflict is increasingly possible, as are civil wars in countries that are already unstable. It misses some hope like Egypt or Saudi are greening their desert. It misses some of the technological adaptations which could happen at a faster pace, such as in multi-level indoor farming. So I think the food crisis, being such a unifying necessity will be solved. It misses that if we finally, (ever), get off oil/gas then that will be less of a factor. My thoughts about people's willingness to get off oil and gas are currently at an all-time low however, if this Russia crisis was anything, it was an excuse to do just that, people failed.

I think the fall of some of the authoritarian powers is vastly overstated here, because they are on the rise and have been for a very long time. I don't even see civil disturbance being as great as I originally thought, given that most people seem not too bothered about the changes occurring. The level of protest or willingness to tolerate it is an all time low. 

But yes there are some tough times ahead, possibly some larger conventional or civil wars but I think the video exaggerates. I would like to see the UK's military doubled in size to 4% of GDP as soon as possible personally, and I no longer completely rule out a world war as I did previously, seeing some of the extremism I've seen from opponents in this recent conflict.

I think a conventional war is still unlikely because of nuclear weapons 

[BlueOak]

47 minutes ago, Raze said:

I think a conventional war is still unlikely because of nuclear weapons 

They happen every day. 

I think the use of nuclear weapons is always extremely unlikely, especially by comparison.

[actuallyenlightened]

On 7/10/2022 at 2:32 AM, BlueOak said:

I think the fall of some of the authoritarian powers is vastly overstated here

Authoritarian powers always fall apart pretty quick. Just think of all the peasant revolts, peoples' revolutions, king's jealous brother, losing wars, etc. I'd say many authoritarian governments will fall just to get replaced other ones

On 7/10/2022 at 4:33 PM, BlueOak said:

I think the use of nuclear weapons is always extremely unlikely, especially by comparison.

Using low-yield nukes to wipe out a carrier fleet in international waters may be an 'acceptable' strategy for some. 

[BlueOak]

16 hours ago, actuallyenlightened said:

Authoritarian powers always fall apart pretty quick. Just think of all the peasant revolts, peoples' revolutions, king's jealous brother, losing wars, etc. I'd say many authoritarian governments will fall just to get replaced other ones

Using low-yield nukes to wipe out a carrier fleet in international waters may be an 'acceptable' strategy for some. 

As a first strike? Still extremely unlikely as that would mean a retaliation and again the end of millions of lives (at best). 

The only possibility for a nuclear strike is against a country that is far outside the influence of a nuclear power, which are a few but not many, and most of those don't have the military to make it necessary.
 

16 hours ago, actuallyenlightened said:

Authoritarian powers always fall apart pretty quick. Just think of all the peasant revolts, peoples' revolutions, king's jealous brother, losing wars, etc. I'd say many authoritarian governments will fall just to get replaced other ones

When they reach that stage sure, either through economic collapse or losing a war badly enough. Getting to that stage when the authoritarian way of governing is ascendent in culture and the population is not going to happen on its own.

[actuallyenlightened]

3 hours ago, BlueOak said:

As a first strike? Still extremely unlikely as that would mean a retaliation and again the end of millions of lives (at best). 

Not a first strike but a desperate attempt to change the tides of a conventional war. Retaliation would likely not include nuking cities. Militaries would be much more interested in destroying military bases, nuke silos, ports and battalions in the field. What I'm saying is that it's possible for nuking population centers to remain taboo but not military targets. 

3 hours ago, BlueOak said:

When they reach that stage sure, either through economic collapse or losing a war badly enough. Getting to that stage when the authoritarian way of governing is ascendent in culture and the population is not going to happen on its own.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'happening on its own.' Economic collapse is one of these things that happen very often usually because of shortsighted policies or bad luck ie global supply chain shortages, inflation, climate change etc 

[BlueOak]

3 hours ago, actuallyenlightened said:

Not a first strike but a desperate attempt to change the tides of a conventional war. Retaliation would likely not include nuking cities. Militaries would be much more interested in destroying military bases, nuke silos, ports and battalions in the field. What I'm saying is that it's possible for nuking population centers to remain taboo but not military targets. 

I'm not sure what you mean by 'happening on its own.' Economic collapse is one of these things that happen very often usually because of shortsighted policies or bad luck ie global supply chain shortages, inflation, climate change etc 

Sorry I should have been more specific.

In military doctrine, the use of nukes first is called a first strike. I don't know of a country on earth with nukes that has a nuclear first strike doctrine against a naval force. Russia does for example have a first strike when they are losing a land battle on its own territory and the country is in danger of being overrun. This is also why nuclear powers don't fight conventional wars on their own territory and instead attack each other's spheres of influence either directly or indirectly. Almost all modern wars are a result of this.

References: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_strategy Check the see also section for a few doctrines, first strike, second strike etc.

So when I say more conventional wars are more likely, they are infinitely more likely based on past history, they just won't be fought on the land of nuclear powers, at least until missile defense has become much more effective.

As for happening on its own. I was referring to an authoritarian government only collapsing usually when their economic or military policy fails them. Most people if they are well fed, have reasonable jobs, and feel secure in their military forces they are not prone to an uprising. Sometimes democratic groups get enough funding and coverage to push for change but that's usually only viable when the population is discontent. I don't see the people of Russia or China discontent, there are some murmurings in China, but the state apparatus to suppress the population is incredible these days. It works on so many levels, that I don't see democratic change in any of the large authoritarian powers happening any time soon.

Meanwhile they are extending their spheres of influence over more and more of the world, which is changing governments everywhere.
 

Edited July 13, 2022 by BlueOak

[Leo Gura]

Be careful with doom and gloom narratives.

[BlueOak]

Synchronicity I was watching this at the time I read Leo's post 

So as I prefer to do, here is the opposite outlook to balance my own.
 

 

Edited July 13, 2022 by BlueOak

[actuallyenlightened]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Be careful with doom and gloom narratives.

Is what I said considered doom and gloom? I'm not trying to fearmonger but please tell me if I'm too negative here... I'm not saying that society would collapse, nor would it get nearly as bad as WWII but that the next decade or two would be tough. Sri Lanka is just a taste of what's to come in some parts of the world.

15 hours ago, BlueOak said:

So when I say more conventional wars are more likely, they are infinitely more likely based on past history

I agree, there's one going on now; and if people make too many mistakes there may be a bigger one. That being said, I haven't ruled it out as a possibility. 

15 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Russia does for example have a first strike when they are losing a land battle on its own territory and the country is in danger of being overrun. 

Even if the everyone agrees not to invade Russia proper for example, a drawn out war may lead to them to be spread too thinly and not be able to handle domestic uprisings. A strong show of force can be seen as a solution (a tragic one of course). They would likely limit it to one small bomb on the battlefield hoping that the other side wouldn't retaliate forcefully and come to the negotiating table offering favorable terms. 

China could invade Taiwan and nuke American ships if they start losing because they may believe that their failure to seize Taiwan would lead to people losing faith in them, leading to their demise. These types of decisions would likely not be made until deep into a war when the leaders start panicking. 

These leaders are smart but care more about staying in power than the wellbeing of their people. So to them it'll be worth it to take these risks if they think they can come out on top as a result.

Of course, this is highly speculative and depends on the psychology of the individual leaders. 

16 hours ago, BlueOak said:

As for happening on its own. I was referring to an authoritarian government only collapsing usually when their economic or military policy fails them. Most people if they are well fed, have reasonable jobs, and feel secure in their military forces they are not prone to an uprising. Sometimes democratic groups get enough funding and coverage to push for change but that's usually only viable when the population is discontent. I don't see the people of Russia or China discontent, there are some murmurings in China, but the state apparatus to suppress the population is incredible these days. It works on so many levels

It's possible. Russia already has a weak economy and with their low birthrates it'll only get worse. Now that Europe is weaning off of their energy, they'll have to sell it to China who would obviously rip them off because they are the only ones willing to buy all of it. It wouldn't be so easy to pay their security forces. Rather than a big collapse, I believe Russia would just become a loose confederation with their outer regions falling into foreign spheres of influence. 

Things are a lot worse in China than what is reported in the news. There's a bank run going on now, I'm not sure why because they aren't so transparent about it. They are at risk of running out of food because of unusual amounts of flooding recently, as well as farms getting paved over to make buildings.. so now they are stockpiling a lot of food to avoid a famine.  The real estate market is falling apart - this was an important way for local governments to raise funds, now they need to get bailed out or go bankrupt. The current government is anti private business and that's really hurting the economy, not to mention covid zero. They are spending a lot of money on the belt and road initiative; it really should be spent on domestic investments as most of the people are still poor. They are so good at suppressing the population that you likely wouldn't hear of anything until things are already in freefall. For now though, I think the communist party would maintain control albeit more brutally. They still have time to reform if they oust the chairman, which is possible given that a lot of people in the party don't like him and that he doesn't have complete power over everything.

16 hours ago, BlueOak said:

I don't see democratic change in any of the large authoritarian powers happening any time soon.

I don't think so either. Another authoritarian faction would rise up promising to make things better in most of these places

[BlueOak]

@actuallyenlightened

There are strict nuclear doctrines. Russia will not do a first strike overseas without changing theirs, there is a long line of people involved in that process. They will also know their opponent's response ahead of time, they won't be hoping they won't be nuked, if it's the policy of that country to do a second strike then they will and will know that far in advance. This is why nuclear weapons work as a deterrent, everything is published ahead of time in the open.

I hear differing reports about China, but I did mention it because the housing crisis is quite bad there. I don't know if its enough for the economy to stagnate though let alone enter a depression. Perhaps, if we see them stop expanding their influence in Africa economically for example that will be a sign they are at least stagnating.

Food is an issue yes, for a lot of countries right now. It will be increasingly so for those that don't make preparations for global warming, if only because the crops each country will be able to grow will change, or dwindle at worst. Seafood for example will be hard to come by as coral reefs die out. Indoor farms, boosting agriculture sectors at home, and greening of deserts are certain countries planning ahead for the challenges to come. China and India will suffer here because their populations are so big, its a monumental task to ensure a billion people are fed in all areas when the food market is shifting so much. Flooding of course on all coastal cities will continue to increase, and those that are already in deserts or high temperatures now, which are not doing anything to lower them (greening deserts) are going to be less habitable. 

I don't see China being as rash as Russia, certainly not using nukes. I see them just waiting it out for an American president who takes his eyes off Taiwan and then invading. There will be a president in America one day that will say something like, we need to focus on American issues not asian issues, and that will be the cue for China to seize Taiwan. Of course, I could be wrong and they might rashly invade, but China will get all it wants and more if they continue to grow in influence, economically they will end up owning Taiwain a few decades from now if they have patience.

Sri Lanka is an example of a debt-ridden country being crippled by tourism falling due to covid and internal issues, and a highly corrupt government. I wouldn't compare it to a superpower that has a growing economy, even if it has certain pressures on it. Some countries are just in a better position to weather this storm than others.

[BlueOak]

Oh and on energy. India is buying all the Russia oil the EU have let go and more. I was searching for a comparison graph but I couldn't locate it. This means Russia won't be hurting in its energy markets, and these countries will be burning oil more readily to up temperatures, AND oil is for war. When a country has an excess amount of oil, that factors into their readiness for war at least in China's case.

Edited July 14, 2022 by BlueOak

[zazen]

Love whatifalthist. If you see Peter Zeihans work its also very doom and gloom. A lot of the data presented can be true but its the projections of whats to come from the current data/facts that can be tricky to pin down as the human factor isn't always known, we can adapt in many ways and there are so many moving parts in the world. Saying that, some very intelligent people across different spheres have mentioned the next decade being a tricky one , and if things prevail then a transitory one to better times if we can make it so.  Teal swan, Eckhart tolle, Ken wilber just to name a few from the spiritual community have said the next decade of two don't look very good. 

 

Ken Wilber mentions he's not hopeful for the next 10-15 years but eventually/hopefully we'll grow from it into something better. See timestamped video below.

Some major negative trends seem to be

- Demographics / a declining birth rate = growing populations lead to economic growth (if that population is educated skilled etc). We've been riding on the back of the baby boomers after world war 2 which had plenty of children.  Young people are needed to fund the care of the elderly (via taxes etc). With a inverted demographic pyramid where there are much more old than young, the young are pretty much working and getting taxed heavily to care for the old which burdens the welfare system. With population below replacement immigration will open up to bring in younger populations, this causes tensions with parts of the population who would be anti-immigration, especially if that migration isn't the correct kind or don't assimilate well causing ghettos/gangs/crime. 

- Economic model = generally capitalism is good at growing the pie whilst socialism is good at dividing the pie, however socialist can erode the very pie it divides by its nature if left un checked in certain ways. Capitalism, especially late stage leads to the problem of high in-equality and the erosion of buy power for the average person as basics (housing,healthcare,education) outpace the growth of wages. Once in-equality gets to unsustainable levels as we have now, civil unrest being. What happens in the world of negative population growth, or the wrong kind of population growth ie unskilled,educated etc. How is economics structured for a society where the pie isn't growing any longer like we'v seen as the world globalised and traded over the past decades. 

- De-globalisation to regionalism = with tensions arising between competing powers and the world becoming a more multi polar world (the west and the east), if there are trade route disruptions vie choke points, or proxy wars in vulnerable regions (Ukraine) this affects energy markets, agriculture etc. Countries who are self sufficient can bear these situations. Countries will look to regionalise / on shore manufacturing, and obtain energy themselves or with allies to become self sufficient.  

- Energy = green energy is noble but unrealistic that it can replace fossil fuels at the stage they are currently at. The world has to slowly transition to green energy, and put more towards R and D. The inputs required for green energy are mostly under control of China/Russia, and require heavy mining. Through the whole life cycle of these technologies aren't as clean as they seem to be, only the dirty parts of it are out sourced to the mining regions where the mineral inputs are, even then the social factor comes in to question if the labour is ethical or not. With the squeeze of fossil fuels via the green agenda, the current war, and the world we are going into, the West in particular Europe will have to face whether they push their 2030 net zero goals later and find fossil fuel replacements or go back to coal if Russia turns the taps off. 

- Social / culture wars  = The dating scene and the rise of black pill etc is self explanatory, the high divorce rate, broken families etc. In the name of liberalism and liberating ourselves from social shame and guilt of being promiscuous we have denigrated family units and trust between the sexes, only fuelled by the technologies that facilitate these social values ie dating apps, social media etc. Broken families leads to broken people leads to broken society. 

 

What could overcome these problems is awareness, innovation and communication. Unfortunately, modern technology and platforms stifling speech and communication due to their incentive structures isn't helping us with overcoming the many challenges we face. 

Edited July 15, 2022 by zazen