Revolution, Flashmobs and Brain Implants in 2035

siddesu writes "Marxist revolution, WMDs, flashmobs and other sci-fi items are coming soon in a country near you, according to the UK Ministry of Defence. 'Information chips implanted in the brain. Electromagnetic pulse weapons. The middle classes becoming revolutionary, taking on the role of Marx's proletariat. The population of countries in the Middle East increasing by 132%, while Europe's drops as fertility falls. "Flashmobs" — groups rapidly mobilised by criminal gangs or terrorists groups. This is the world in 30 years' time envisaged by a Ministry of Defence team responsible for painting a picture of the "future strategic context" likely to face Britain's armed forces.'"

Thay read too much bad science-fiction

Or watched too much television or other media ''predictions''. This strikes me on par with the typical predictions made 30 years ago. Allmost none of them have come to pass.

Bottom line: These people should be liable for wasting taxpayer money.

Re:Thay read too much bad science-fiction

Or perhaps it's because people like this wargame worst-case scenarios that such have been avoided for the most part?

William

Not such a worst case

Well at least the EMP will take out the brain implants, solving one problem.

Re:Not such a worst case

Probably not. The skull and subsequent membranes that surround the brain serve as excellent EM shielding. It is very difficult to induce a voltage of any magnitude inside a container made of conducting materials. EMP, despite its reputation as a killer of "everything electronic", will not generally kill devices stored in sealed, conductive containers.

Re:Thay read too much bad science-fiction

Or perhaps it's because people like this wargame worst-case scenarios that such have been avoided for the most part?

They don't mention Iran/Islamic radicals getting nuclear weapons at all. Phew! I guess this means it doesn't happen.

The problems with "probability" in this case...

They have absolutely NOTHING to base these predictions upon. Probability is based upon either analysis of the possible options (how many cards in the deck) or analysis of past events with similar features (45% chance of rain tomorrow).

The events they're commenting upon have not happened in the past (45% chance of rain) and are just one possible option of an effectively unlimited number of options (how many cards in the deck). And many of them seem self-contradictory.

An increased trend towards moral relativism and pragmatic values will encourage people to seek the "sanctuary provided by more rigid belief systems, including religious orthodoxy and doctrinaire political ideologies, such as popularism and Marxism".

So we see more extremism. But ...

Iran will steadily grow in economic and demographic strength and its energy reserves and geographic location will give it substantial strategic leverage. However, its government could be transformed. "From the middle of the period," says the report, "the country, especially its high proportion of younger people, will want to benefit from increased access to globalisation and diversity, and it may be that Iran progressively, but unevenly, transforms...into a vibrant democracy."

So the democracies become extremists and the extremists become democracies.

What the fuck ... ?

Re:Thay read too much bad science-fiction

Where's the prediction of people flying cars into parking structures?

Re:Middle-class

You fuck with the middle classes at your peril. A large, prosperous middle-class is the best guarantee of social stability -- unfortunately in the past it has accompanied appalling treatment of classes below, and neglect of the classes above.

If you can somehow engineer middle-class contentment along with opportunity and encouragement for those less fortunate, and keep the rich or aristocratic in their place at the same time as letting them use their wealth, you'll have solved it. But somehow I don't see either a surveillance UK or a fundamentalist USA as the places for this Brave New World to arise.

We have such a world now in the US. It's called the public school system. The rich can afford to send their kids to private schools, where discipline is enforced and kids are motivated, almost guaranteeing entry into college, which they can also afford. All the kid has to do is put forth the slightest effort.
Meanwhile, public schools suck. There is no discipline and if a kid falls behind, they get left there. The kids that "get it" have to sit there and wait while the teacher has to explain it over and over to the kids that don't understand or don't care. Teachers have no choice but to teach to the lowest common denominator in every class, ensuring the entire class learns at the pace of the slowest minds. Granted, if a students wants it bad enough, he or she can learn. They do more than is required of the class and learn all the material before the class is even held. For these kids, the class itself is a waste of time, but they still have to be there. These kids graduate high in their class and score well enough on standardized tests to get admitted to college on scholarship or loans. This is where the middle/lower class opportunity comes in. It's rare, but it happens and it allows for poor kids to climb out of their "class".

Of course, you have the occasional entrepreneur that makes it as well, but even Gates dropped out of Harvard. Not a whole lot of community college drop-outs make it to the billionaire club.

Re:Thay read too much bad science-fiction

I would wager that most predictions from good sci-fi from the past 30 years HAVE come true...short of the ones where we are all living in space.

Frankly, I would be less worried about social unrest, insurgents, ect... and more worried about consequences of global warming, freakish weather (flood, drought), and the threat of a world wide disease pandemic...or epidemic. The world is overdue for a real superbug.

No need to dream up high-tech threats when it will most likely be the low

Population in middle east increasing?

pssseesssseeeeessseeeessssssseeseeeeeseooowwwww

KABOOOOOOOM!

Problem solved.

Isnt the world going to run out of oil any day now, though? When that happens, what threat would the middle east be? They have absolutely nothing else.

And this is why we need Trident?

So Britain's answer is to spend more money on nukes? I'm no hippy, but I think some innovation is needed here by the folks at the MoD

This is a Dup from 1986

William Gibson wrote about much of this in Johnny Mnemonic [wikipedia.org]

Re:This is a Dup from 1986

William Gibson wrote Johnny Mneumonic?! Is the book better than the movie?

For starters, the book doesn't star Keanu Reeves. I leave that up to you as to whether that qualifies for an "Excellent!" or a "Whoah!".
 

Sigh...

The middle classes becoming revolutionary, taking on the role of Marx's proletariat.

You can preempt that by running the country for the benefit of the people in general rather than for the billionaires.

The population of countries in the Middle East increasing by 132%

And the threat in 2035 will be from an unseen quarter.

Information chips implanted in the brain. Electromagnetic pulse weapons. ... Flashmobs" -- groups rapidly mobilised by criminal gangs or terrorists groups.

At least they've kept up on their pop reading.

That's the $64,000 question, though.

You can actually extend that concept to the entire world. The income and quality-of-life disparity between, say, the US and Afghanistan/Iran/Iraq/etc. is enormous. Someone needs to tell Bush that they don't hate us because they hate freedom, a growing number of them hate us because they want a piece of the pie.

This, I think, is the crux of the disagreement. On one hand, you have people -- usually but not always social liberals -- claiming that the source of the world's problems are mostly economic, and that terrorists are produced by folks envious of our plasma TVs, SUVs, and 40-hour-workweeks.

On the other hand you have others -- usually but not always social conservatives -- claiming that the source of terrorism and related global instability is philosophical, religious, and dogmatic: e.g., what the terrorists hate isn't our conspicuously consumptive lifestyles per se, but really they hate the concept of a secular society in general, and really only hate McDonalds, etc., as a symptom of this essential problem.

I don't think the differences between these views can be overstated, because they lead to vastly different ways of visualizing and dealing with the threat of Islamic radicalism and terrorism generally. If the problem is economic imbalance, then you could theoretically correct it through trade and economic-aid programs. But if the problem is philosophical, then by fixing the wealth disparity, you're just enabling terrorism; giving people whose motivations are fundamentally opposed to secularism the means with which to really attack us.

I've seen little convincing evidence and lots of rhetoric on both sides. The fact that people like Bin Laden came from wealthy families, not poor ones, would seem to at least partially substantiate the theory that you can't just give radicals a house, a car, and a front lawn, and suddenly transform them into happy little proto-Americans.

I would much prefer to believe that the problem is economic rather than religious or philosophical, because that to me seems like a tractable problem. However, I'm not particularly upbeat on that being the case.

There is no SINGLE cause of extremism.

In your comment, both sides tend to view the "problem" through their political / economic / religious filters.

Then they discard any examples that doesn't match their model while over emphasizing the ones that match.

A rich guy can turn extremists because he sees how poor people he identifies with are.

The models you describe do not account for empathy or other forms of social awareness. They are purely mercenary.

Terrorism is linked to extremism. You cannot eliminate extremism so you cannot eliminate terrorism. But you can can reduce the appeal of extremism by increasing the accessibility of political and economic power.

One nut case is just one nut case. If there isn't a ready pool of converts, that nut case will eventually take care of himself. The problem is when that nut case finds a pool of potential converts and those converts usually do result from political / economic / family / religious inequalities.

Re:There is no SINGLE cause of extremism.

A rich guy can turn extremists because he sees how poor people he identifies with are.

Not only that, but the recent converts tend to be the most radical - it's a brand new world to them and they haven't got to the point yet where they start to notice all the problems with their new ideology and eventually realize that new boss is just like the old boss.

That's not something unique to terrorism either - you see it with many religious converts of all faiths and on the secular side you see it in things like joining a fraternity or even just spending a lot of money on a car - certain personality types just have to justify their decision by being as gung ho as they possibly can, it keeps them from examining the situation too closely and finding any flaws once they have committed. Like they are trying to avoid "buyer's remorse."

Re:There is no SINGLE cause of extremism.

"Terrorism is linked to extremism. You cannot eliminate extremism so you cannot eliminate terrorism. But you can can reduce the appeal of extremism by increasing the accessibility of political and economic power."

The crux of the issue is that...

People want what they want, and when they can't have it or are prevented from doing what they wish or believing, they will begin to feel trapped and suffocated until they embrace "extreme-ism" or a method that allows them some reprieve from the tyranny of other groups ideas, ethos or way of life. The world CHANGED because of people embracing extremism, people once thought slavery was 'natural' and to not believe in slavery was "extremism", anything can be extremism. Extremism is a tool to change society when all your other options cut off. People don't embrace extremism for nothing, they embrace it because the cannot solve their problems or get access to resources in a timely manner. Or are prevented by cultural racism from living a civil life. Most people in the world today are uncivilized, slaves to their animal nervous systems prejudices. i.e. think of the last time you told someone to get away from you because "you didn't like him" for no justifiable reason, just 'because' he offended your senses.

Indeed it has scarcely been 100 years since moving away from racism and slavery and we STILL haven't moved away from racism and slavery, we're still at war with them both, corporations want to re-institute slavery under the guise of capitalism but the truth is: A good war is better then a tenuous and suffocating peace.

You can't win idealogical or philosophical battles that people are programmed to believe. This is why capitalism, communism and socialism are such politically hardening terms. You can scarcely have a discussion without the the ideology of the dominant group mocking any dissent. This is especially apparent in our market society.

What did you do, Ray?

Information chips implanted in the brain. Electromagnetic pulse weapons. The middle classes becoming revolutionary, The population of countries in the Middle East increasing by 132%, "Flashmobs" Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes! The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria!

Hey, I can do that too.

Well, let me quickly write a scenario for my boss. What will happen in 10 years if they dont immediately fund my division with an additional 3 million bucks and 22 new engineers. Can I say our customers will come to the corporate headquarters and sack and pillage it and carry away the fetching executive assistant the CFO has hired? Nah, wont work. Our management is not as dumb as the UK DoD.

V for Vendetta ...

... was just a movie people.

Re:V for Vendetta ...

No

It was also a comic book!

Marxist revolution

Since when is Marxist revolution a sci-fi item?

Re:Marxist revolution

The science part comes from social science. Where social is synonymous with not-a-real.

One interesting speculation

in TFA is the following:

Tension between the Islamic world and the west will remain, and may increasingly be targeted at China "whose new-found materialism, economic vibrancy, and institutionalised atheism, will be an anathema to orthodox Islam".

This is really the most interesting bit of speculation in TFA (aside from the technological and scientific guesses, perhaps, but these are probably also the least credible, if the past is any indication). Indeed, the rise of China will eventually bring it into possible tension with Islam. If the US is a state of 'infidels', then China is far more so, from a fundamentalist Islam point of view. At least the US has some religion, allowing interfaith talks, in theory at least; China is something else completely.

Islamic fundamentalists currently fume against the shower of western culture entering their lands - TV, movies, etc., and the presence of US soldiers. Fairly soon they will face (or already face) a torrent of goods and products from China, which will surely bring with it some cultural impact. Perhaps this will not be of critical impact until Chinese soldiers are stationed outside of China, but that too may occur, as China becomes the main consumer of middle-eastern oil and other resources, prompting it to secure those resources, if only by token military presences in various locations.

Re:One interesting speculation

Nah, Already chinese imports are flooding the Arab countries. But all China exports are material goods. Islam has no problem with the goods. Infact the Arabs have been taxing goods flowing through the Silk Raod via Samarkand deep into China, into Turkey for a long long time.

The problem Islam has with the West is that we export our culture. We impact their way of life and embolden the youth to question their authorities. For every suicide bomber you hear about in Iraq, some 5000 of his brothers are standing in line to get a visa to USA. China, OTOH, loves authoritarianism and knows how to placate the rulers so that it can continue to make money. So I dont expect any serious confrontation between China and Islam. Only if Islamists decide to attack China and try to take it over there will be a problem. And China will react with violence which the Islamists understand very well. Fundamentally there is no difference between Arab rulers and Chinese rulers. Both are authoritarian. Both control their masses with a mixture of ideology and ruthlessness.

Re:One interesting speculation

Islam's problem is more that we export our influence to Muslim countries. Usually it has nothing to do with the countries being Muslim, and more to do with their location. Oil is a big example - many of the countries it's under are primarily Muslim in belief, so if we are interested in Oil, we seem to be interested in Islam and its followers. Couple that with the west's previous desire to make the middle east nothing but a colony (thanks Britain, France, and the US), and we have a history of us fucking with the middle east. No-one can expect anyone anywhere to behave or react rationally to such pressures, and many people may attribute the causes incorrectly - and it appears that the middle east is taking our "interest" in their oil as us wanting to fuck with them, just to fuck with them. Then throw in the cases of us fucking with non-middle-east Muslim countries (in Asia), and their paranoia increases. People who feel threatened, in any way, get insecure, and group together. It doesn't help that Islam has a notion of brotherhood between all Muslims in all countries (hard to believe when you look at Iraq, but it is the case for other Muslims not so severely threatened), which means any perceived "attack" on any Muslims in any country, by anyone, is an attack on ALL Muslims who feel fraternity with those "attacked" Muslims. I personally can't blame anyone for feeling insecure after their country has been plunged into chaos for reasons not explained, with motives that are rarely, if ever, altruistic in nature towards the indigenous population.

People are the same all over the world - when they get, or even feel, threatened as a people, they group together and fight back. It feels like the only thing to do - and it's not a purely Muslim trait. Northern Ireland saw Christian terrorists fighting each other, killing the shit out of innocent people, and each other. It's pressure, with no way to stop it peacefully, that causes terrorism, not one particular group of people.

Re:One interesting speculation

America is not using full force. It is trying very hard not to hurt the civilians. I am not saying America does not hurt civilians. But they dont do it deliberately. Abu Gharib happened and some of the military personnel were roasted and punished. If China was running Abu Gharib, the torture would have been worse, no pictures would have come out, even if pictures came out no Chinese army officer would have been called into account.

War is about Can I hurt you more than you are willing to tolerate before you could hurt me more than I am willing tolerate? Till about WW-II all nations have similar high level of tolerance to death/destruction/loss. Russia lost 20 million people including civilians. Germany about 8 mill, and USA about 0.5 mill. Presently the level of tolerance for loss in America is very low. The threshold the Islamic militants have to reach to "hurt" America is as low as killing one single solitary soldier. The level of tolerance to loss by Al Quaida is very very high. It is impossible for America to hurt al-Quaida enough before it kills one soldier. On the other hand, the level of tolerance to loss is very high for China. Islamists will lose badly to China.

I think the Chinese are smarter than that.

If the US is a state of 'infidels', then China is far more so, from a fundamentalist Islam point of view.

Not really. Remember that religion is the excuse, not the reason. The reason is power.

There are only four paths to power:
#1. Political
#2. Economic
#3. Family/Tribal
#4. Religion

As long as there is flexibility in those, only the hard-core nut cases will become extremists. Once you start blocking access to any of them, you start creating more extremists.

Islamic fundamentalists currently fume against the shower of western culture entering their lands - TV, movies, etc., and the presence of US soldiers.

And look at that. The goods represent economic issues. The soldiers represent political issues (political power flows from the barrel of a gun). Crack those and the fundamentalists become just more street lunatics who don't bathe regularly.

Perhaps this will not be of critical impact until Chinese soldiers are stationed outside of China, but that too may occur, as China becomes the main consumer of middle-eastern oil and other resources, prompting it to secure those resources, if only by token military presences in various locations.

This is where I believe the Chinese will learn from our mistakes.

DO NOT make your presence visible in the volatile areas. Have them travel to see you.

DO NOT make your economic advantage visible in the volatile areas. Adopt their appearance.

Work with their family/tribal structures.

Keep your religious practices subdued. We have a big problem because of the Crusades. China doesn't have that issue.

Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

I'm in favour of radical systemic change, but let's not make the mistake of 20th century revolutions. The main problem was creating an all powerful state that owned everything, including the people. In one word: centralisation.

The new goal should be the total opposite: decentralisation, community sovereignty, individual freedoms. Instead of creating a centralized state to control everything, lets create global networks of autonomous local communities and workplaces. No central authority, no presidents, effectively no nation-states. Democracy works best when people can meet in real life, face to face. Direct democracy, or horizontal democracy (no hierarchy) means everyone can have a say on issues that effect them. That means small scale is best.

A.K.A: Anarchism.

The system I've just described is not unlike the Opensource community. So we have an example already that works.

Re:Lets Kill Marxist Revolution.

Anarchism doesn't work for a single reason: because there are four basic kinds of human personality with four different life goals. They are:

a) Intellectuals: driven by knowledge;
b) Rulers: driven by power;
c) Entrepreneurs: driven by profit;
d) Workers: driven by stability.

An Anarchist society cannot work because it doesn't address the needs of all the people that have the Ruler or Entrepreneur personality. And even if you fine tune it to allow for free market, as the anarcho-capitalists do, thus filling the needs of the Entrepreneurs, the Rulers still stay out of it (with lots of Workers, who lose much of their cherished stability).

A working society must allow for all new born persons to have a place. And so far, a government with well known powers under a constitutional framework offers a good place for Rulers to battle their battles without disrupting (much) the life of the other three kinds.

It's either this, or back into utopic profilings and pre-emptive killings of any person who showed traces of non-compliant personalities. As revolutionary marxists used to do with anyone showing signs of Entrepreneur behavior.

Global Circumstances

I don't intend to poke fun at the British peoples or anything, but I am inclined to express my concern. I began to toy with this idea after watching Children of Men, which caused my concern really started to reach its pinnacle, with this report solidifying it.

Can all of these circumstances be viewed as a cry for help?

What I mean is, so many movies out of Britain really paint a dismal picture of the future with urbanization and then the fall of society. That with near daily Orwellian reports about the copious amounts of surveillance the British citizens put up with, and it starts to feel like we, be it the United States or whomever else as a third party should be taking some cues here to help.

2035 == no oil

When the military has no oil for its war machine what is it going to do? I guess they missed the elephant in the room there.

Also -

and even what it calls "declining news quality"

Maybe they shouldnt be letting their personnel sell their stories [bbc.co.uk] then... pot, kettle, black.

Don't let them distort the term!

The media, regardless of whereabouts, cannot be allowed to distort the term "flash mob" like it has so many other terms, i.e. "hacker" and the like. A flash mob is a group of people that rapidly assembles with a minimum amount of preparation which generally is done via the Internet and with the intent of a peaceable prank or bragging rights. I did some research on this term [westminster.edu] while working on my college graduation project.

Bright side?

But on the up-side, at least by 2035 my mortgage will be paid off. From the tune of TFA, a lot of good THAT will do me.

Time to blow it all on hookers and blackjack, I guess.

Karl Marx? Quick!

One final question Karl and the beautiful lounge suite will be yours... Are you going to have a go? (Karl nods) You're a brave man. Karl Marx, your final question: who won the Cup Final in 1949?

So you say you want a revolution?

If you want a revolution, you're a dumbass. Forget communism, with the implications of violent overthrow of the ruling class. We've already had that, and it didn't work. Meanwhile, in other parts of the world, we HAVE thrown off the ruling class, and we're letting them back into their old jobs by small measures, through tax cuts and corporate welfare.

This is how socialism and eventually communism will happen - by default, naturally, no revolution. The cost of capitalizing a new activity will eventually drop to near zero for everything. I don't know if this is going to happen through a universal nanotech assembler, or through ubiquitous robotic slaves building shit for us in exchange for duracells, but it's going to happen. Everything is going to eventually be so cheap that it won't be worth selling. When you can get your robot to build you a car of your own design, and all you have to do is plug it in, you won't be going to Ford to buy a piece of shit Tempo-like ugly box. No, you'll design your own, or you'll download a GNU car schematic of something cool like the Linux-go-cart and tell your robot slave to build it for you. Richard Stallman will finally become relevant to everyone when his ideas move up a level of implementation from computers to the real world. It'll be just like Second Life where you use a computer editor to change your house - and your REAL house changes into a castle. Plus you can edit the length of your own cock to keep up with the Jones's. Hell, your wife could edit the length of her cock too!

That's my fantasy. Now, who's written a nice sci-fi novel about that?