4 ms·

By far the most accurate: DAVE WOLVERTON In 2012 We will see: 1) That economic cycles caused by rises in technological levels will begin to level out—countri

By far the most accurate: DAVE WOLVERTON In 2012 We will see: 1) That economic cycles caused by rises in technological levels will begin to level out—countries that have a falsely inflated economy will be forced to export their technologies to third-world countries where people are willing to work for less money. This will lead to a situation where knowledge, the key to our technologic success, will be spread across the world. We'll see rapid decreases in starvation levels, but will still be plagued with political turmoil. 2) Men's Rights—We will see a reaction to the women's movement. Men will demand to be portrayed by the media as the sensitive, caring creatures that they are. They will also demand equal rights in custody battles where children are seldom awarded to a father because our society chooses to believe a mother is a better care-taker by nature. 3) Introduction of x-ray microscopes in the early 2000's will lead to rapid progress in gene splicing. Look for rapid growth in medicine and mining, and food production. We may also see bacteria being engineered to simulate parts of the immune system (which could cure immune disorders such as AIDS and allergies).

aprendo 14y ago
The second point is technically accurate – but does it really count if it’s a delusional movement by a few crazies that is in no way comparable to to the women’s movement and mostly based on a completely weird worldview (all the while many of the legitimate goals of the women’s movement are far from reached)?
- rmc 14y ago
  Agreed. There have been some men's rights groups but they are now a minority. I don't know about child care, but men are starting to be shown on media as caring people with emotions (e.g. Brokeback mountain won an Oscar and that's about 2 men who fall in love). I don't think the MRA's are responsible for that, since they mostly campaign against various policies put in help women (rather than campaign for sensitive men).
- lunarscape 14y ago
  Feminists were also branded as delusional mentally ill people when they started fighting for their rights. Your comment shows exactly why these movements need to exist and the prejudices they have to overcome. Are men fighting for basic access to their children in a biased legal system "crazies"? What about those trying to tackle the massive problem of young men committing suicide? What about those campaigning to give boys the same protection from genital mutilation as girls? Every movement has radicals and unfortunately they tend to be the loudest. Consider the running controversy over anti-transgender feminist groups (eg. [1]). They're loud, get lots of attention but hardly represent the majority. [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/25/radical-feminism-trans-radfem2012 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/25/radical-...
  - aprendo 14y ago
    All MRAs I’ve ever heard were downright weird in their worldview. There are some problems worth fighting for (nothing comparable with what women faced and still face), sure, but that doesn’t seem to be their focus. Their focus seems to be demonizing feminists and derailing. (Let’s quickly talk about custody: feminists and MRAs could actually be marching in exactly the same direction: The root cause of the problem are strict gender roles, women are for taking care of children, men are for working. But no, feminists are to blame. MRAs also love using warped statistics, but that is very much besides the point. There is no reasonableness in that movement.) The text implies that some sort of MR movement would spring up as a widespread reaction to feminism (and it doesn’t have any comparable issues to fight for, it doesn’t have the numbers, it doesn’t have the intellectual depth nor the academic backbone). It did spring up as a tiny reaction to feminism. Wikipedia tells me that the movement has its roots in the 1970s, so it’s not like this would have been something completely new in 1987. It’s hard to say, but I see no reason to believe that the MR movement is that much bigger than it was in 1987. And it still defines itself as a reaction to feminism. Which makes about zero sense. All the issues they are fighting for were not caused by feminism. Far from it. Many feminists will be perfectly capable of recognizing them as valid problems. (But, again, that’s very much besides the point.)
    - sesqu 14y ago
lwat 14y ago
I'd love to hear what Dave predicts for 2037! I'm gonna try to contact him...
- pdelgallego 14y ago
  Dont forget to blog about it
JVIDEL 14y ago
GREGORY BENFORD also starts eerily similar to what we are seeing today, but then starts with the classic futurology stuff of the time (bases on the Moon, trip to Mars, mass starvation) that didn't happen.
brc 14y ago
I wouldn't say that (1) is very correct. Economic cycles are worse than ever because the same mistakes keep getting made. But the part about exporting work to third-world countries and less starvation is dead-on.
- run4yourlives 14y ago
  I'd say that you are doing exactly what many of the submissions did in 87 with regards to the AIDS pandemic - taking something at the top of its influence curve and incorrectly assuming that to only be the beginning of said curve. In essence, overstating a trend because you are in the middle of participating in it. There is nothing overly dramatic about this economic cycle than any other down cycle. It's certainly nowhere close to previous cycles.
smsm42 14y ago
(1) is partially false. The cycles are not leveling up but being amplified. Outsourcing is close, though. But this trend actually seems to be much less popular now than before, especially with raising wages overseas. (2) is marginally true - man's rights movements exist, but considered fringe by majority. I also suspect this one has something to do with Wolverton's personal history, which is not really a good place to discuss. (3) No curing of any disorders by genetically engineered bacteria so far, AFAIK. Also I'm not sure how bacteria would help curing AIDS caused by retrovirus, anyway.

aprendo 14y ago

The second point is technically accurate – but does it really count if it’s a delusional movement by a few crazies that is in no way comparable to to the women’s movement and mostly based on a completely weird worldview (all the while many of the legitimate goals of the women’s movement are far from reached)?

rmc 14y ago
Agreed. There have been some men's rights groups but they are now a minority. I don't know about child care, but men are starting to be shown on media as caring people with emotions (e.g. Brokeback mountain won an Oscar and that's about 2 men who fall in love). I don't think the MRA's are responsible for that, since they mostly campaign against various policies put in help women (rather than campaign for sensitive men).
lunarscape 14y ago
Feminists were also branded as delusional mentally ill people when they started fighting for their rights. Your comment shows exactly why these movements need to exist and the prejudices they have to overcome. Are men fighting for basic access to their children in a biased legal system "crazies"? What about those trying to tackle the massive problem of young men committing suicide? What about those campaigning to give boys the same protection from genital mutilation as girls? Every movement has radicals and unfortunately they tend to be the loudest. Consider the running controversy over anti-transgender feminist groups (eg. [1]). They're loud, get lots of attention but hardly represent the majority. [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/25/radical-feminism-trans-radfem2012 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/25/radical-...
- aprendo 14y ago
  All MRAs I’ve ever heard were downright weird in their worldview. There are some problems worth fighting for (nothing comparable with what women faced and still face), sure, but that doesn’t seem to be their focus. Their focus seems to be demonizing feminists and derailing. (Let’s quickly talk about custody: feminists and MRAs could actually be marching in exactly the same direction: The root cause of the problem are strict gender roles, women are for taking care of children, men are for working. But no, feminists are to blame. MRAs also love using warped statistics, but that is very much besides the point. There is no reasonableness in that movement.) The text implies that some sort of MR movement would spring up as a widespread reaction to feminism (and it doesn’t have any comparable issues to fight for, it doesn’t have the numbers, it doesn’t have the intellectual depth nor the academic backbone). It did spring up as a tiny reaction to feminism. Wikipedia tells me that the movement has its roots in the 1970s, so it’s not like this would have been something completely new in 1987. It’s hard to say, but I see no reason to believe that the MR movement is that much bigger than it was in 1987. And it still defines itself as a reaction to feminism. Which makes about zero sense. All the issues they are fighting for were not caused by feminism. Far from it. Many feminists will be perfectly capable of recognizing them as valid problems. (But, again, that’s very much besides the point.)
  - sesqu 14y ago

lwat 14y ago

I'd love to hear what Dave predicts for 2037! I'm gonna try to contact him...

pdelgallego 14y ago
Dont forget to blog about it

JVIDEL 14y ago

GREGORY BENFORD also starts eerily similar to what we are seeing today, but then starts with the classic futurology stuff of the time (bases on the Moon, trip to Mars, mass starvation) that didn't happen.

brc 14y ago

I wouldn't say that (1) is very correct. Economic cycles are worse than ever because the same mistakes keep getting made. But the part about exporting work to third-world countries and less starvation is dead-on.

run4yourlives 14y ago
I'd say that you are doing exactly what many of the submissions did in 87 with regards to the AIDS pandemic - taking something at the top of its influence curve and incorrectly assuming that to only be the beginning of said curve. In essence, overstating a trend because you are in the middle of participating in it. There is nothing overly dramatic about this economic cycle than any other down cycle. It's certainly nowhere close to previous cycles.

smsm42 14y ago

(1) is partially false. The cycles are not leveling up but being amplified. Outsourcing is close, though. But this trend actually seems to be much less popular now than before, especially with raising wages overseas. (2) is marginally true - man's rights movements exist, but considered fringe by majority. I also suspect this one has something to do with Wolverton's personal history, which is not really a good place to discuss. (3) No curing of any disorders by genetically engineered bacteria so far, AFAIK. Also I'm not sure how bacteria would help curing AIDS caused by retrovirus, anyway.