The Big Picture - Where's the world going?

[Valmy]

People, even in Democracies, want leaders.

Leaders are dangerous and generally suck. I want boring functionaries who just blandly carry out the laws our representatives pass. But it is not what the people want.

[Barrister]

You guys make me want to slash my wrists.

It was kind of reassuring when I learned as  a teen my parents were initially reluctant to have kids - they were so worried about the fate of the world.  Global nuclear war, pollution, inflation (it was the 70s), possible global ice age...

We know things got better from there.

You can go to any era and find people worried about the future.

Now I'm not saying we can just sit back with faith that the "arc of progress" is on our side.  Things do regress or stagnate.  But generally - we as societies, as peoples, and a human race, go on.

[crazy canuck]

Unfortunately, authoritarianism/fascism/dictatorship seems to be the human "default" for government and politics, and we too often easily gravitate towards it.  It takes a lot of work (and education) to stray far away from it.

Excellent point.  We had a nice run of a period of Liberal Democracy, that is but a blink of the eye in the history of how humans have organized themselves politically.   When Liberal Democracy "won" and became the dominant ideology, I suppose everyone just took for granted that it would continue and there was no need to continually reinforce why it should continue to win.

When it was a battle of ideologies, governments could justify spending a lot more resources on socializing the importance of strong Liberal Democratic institutions.

[HVC]

You guys make me want to slash my wrists.

It was kind of reassuring when I learned as  a teen my parents were initially reluctant to have kids - they were so worried about the fate of the world.  Global nuclear war, pollution, inflation (it was the 70s), possible global ice age...

We know things got better from there.

You can go to any era and find people worried about the future.

Now I'm not saying we can just sit back with faith that the "arc of progress" is on our side.  Things do regress or stagnate.  But generally - we as societies, as peoples, and a human race, go on.

Human history is generally a shit show. We had a nice little window that's to a world War or two and, more importantly, MAD. But all good things must come to an end.

[Norgy]

Where we're heading?
We're running head first into a brick wall of AI controlled by a libertarian oligarchy, climate change with fairly unknown ramifications outside of more migration and that arable land will disappear, species disappearing, authoritarianism in Europe, population decline and uncertainty. All factors that either will bring out the worst in most people or the best in some.

And then there will be readjustment and realignment.
I have come to think that AI will in many ways make the future world as unrecognisable as today's world would be to a Visigothic chieftain.

The rate of change, or progress, depending on your outlook has picked up enormous pace.

[Oexmelin]

People, even in Democracies, want leaders.

Leaders are dangerous and generally suck. I want boring functionaries who just blandly carry out the laws our representatives pass. But it is not what the people want.

There have been lots of consensus polities in history (hunter-gatherers, pastoralists) - where charismatic leaders are followed, but also have their authority constrained in favor of building consensus.

And blind bureaucrats can be no less dangerous than charismatic leaders.

[Barrister]

People, even in Democracies, want leaders.

Leaders are dangerous and generally suck. I want boring functionaries who just blandly carry out the laws our representatives pass. But it is not what the people want.

There have been lots of consensus polities in history (hunter-gatherers, pastoralists) - where charismatic leaders are followed, but also have their authority constrained in favor of building consensus.

And blind bureaucrats can be no less dangerous than charismatic leaders.

I think it's interesting though that even the most autocratic of nations all put up at least a charade or lip service to democracy and the consent of the governed.  Even North Korea has elections (according to Wiki they're not secret and only one candidate is on the ballot, but still they think at least a show of having elections is important).

Similarly every nation around the world adopts some notion of human rights.  They're not always the same rights (Bhutan's Right to Happiness, or Saudi Arabia's right to Islamic sharia law), and they're definitely not all fully implemented, but the notion that humans have rights is accepted around the world.

Francis Fukuyama wasn't entirely wrong when he wrote The End of History...

[Sheilbh]

In terms of very big picture stuff there's obviously climate (though I am broadly an optimist). I think increased risk and vulnerability to pandemics/disease. An ageing population globally but especially in the developed West (I think Korea and France, for example, both have more people living who were born in 1945 than 2024) and the general decline in people having kids - I've no idea how that will play out. Related to that, the region where birthrates are declining from a later peak is Africa which on current projections means over half the population growth in the world between now and 2050 will be African and around 25% of the world's population will be African, and a vast proportion of the world's youth (this is, coincidentally about the time Asia's population should peak). How all of those interact I have no idea.

I also think we have to take seriously the potential impact of AI on our societies and economies - I think it could do for white collar work what automation/robotics have done to blue collar works from say mid-century industry. Also - given the scale of money involved - the billionaires' interest in space (and their competing visions for it). Especially given China's interest and, last year, being first to do a mission to the dark side of the moon.

On the other stuff I've no idea - but some thoughts.

I agree that liberal democracy is relatively new and may well not last. But I wonder if it's something possibly more significant - modern states are relatively new and I wonder if we're moving into an age where the state itself becomes increasingly empty and irrelevant? We may have elections and governments but they move to a more decorative stage (like constitutional monarchies), particularly in the face of increasing corporate/capital power. The states that achieve most may either be ones that suborn capital to them (like China) or the ones that are effectively fusing with economic interests like the Gulf states and Saudi (which I used to dismiss but think is actually important), or, say, Erdogan's Turkey or Modi's India which are political projects with very close corporate connections. (And FWIW I don't think proponents have to make an argument for liberal democracy, though they should - but for politics itself.)

I think China might pull off what they're trying to do - but I also wonder if we'll see centrifugal/federalist forces emerge if there's any obstacles. Direction of China for the last 100 years has been to unification with both KMT and CCP being Leninist-derived believers in a strong party state. I wonder if that'll last - if there's a challenge, there's also a strong history of disintegrating forces in China (even within PRC history). Having said that my default is that the Chinese state has been very effective in doing what they've set out to achieve in recent years - I still don't really see any big reason to make me doubt that. But my other standard heuristic for the world is no-one's made much money betting against America - those two may contradict and I'm not sure which way

On unification projects, I think the key challenges for the EU are not external. In terms of its ambitions - I think it's at the edges of what's possible under Lisbon and no-one wants to do another treaty because I think the expectation would be that it would be very difficult to pass (like the European Constitution). The next leap will include issues that have helped drive populist forces across Europe such as common debt and budgets (AfD, Wilders, the Finns) or defence (particularly in Ireland but elsewhere too). So I don't see a great leap forward, but also probably not disintegration. Having said that the EU advance through crisis - I'm just not sure what that crisis could be to move forward. (Again I think Macron's got many flaws which is why he couldn't deliver this - but I also think he's the only European leader in the last 25 years who has had anything like an analysis and a solution for Europe - but he failed.)

At the same time I think the EU is basically values-neutral. It's a set of tools and institutions that responds to the elected governments of member states - so one thought I have is that we should start thinking about what a far-right EU would look like as I think that is as likely the direction of travel in the near term with the possibility of Le Pen, Wilders, Meloni, Orban and the far-right in coalition or growing elsewhere. I'd expect more on "defending our European way of life" and more of a defensive focus of a common European civilisation v other powers. I think we've already seen some of it in the Commission ditching the Green Deal as one of the priority policy areas - it's now under sustainable prosperity and global competitiveness.

The US and the world I don't know. I posted that Gideon Rachman piece on possible outcomes recently and I think that I thought the three most likely outcomes were: G2/great power politics, a globalised world without America or Trumpism works. I'm not sure which I'd find more alarming - or which I think is more likely (it changes a lot ).

[Josquius]

With there being so much else going on at the moment I've sort of dropped worrying about the climate...
Though perhaps this is because the outlook is now so beyond awful.
Previously things were crap but I was optimistic our rate of change was on track. If nothing else teh powa of teh market would ensure a green transition was on the cards.

Not on a time frame enough to avoid trouble. Even with an active green government a total avoidance would be hard. But... To avoid the worst for sure.

With the rise of modern fascism though, it's not just indifference to climate change that is an issue, it's active hostility to the idea of stopping it. Vice signalling denial is coming back in vogue.
They're purposefully wanting to undo the green economy even when it costs them money to do so.
This is a huge worry.

It's weird. But between the woke brain worm infected us and Russia it's China who are left as the "good guys" on this.

[Jacob]

On the US internally, one of the things that I think is important (to say the least) to see how far the anti-democratic slide goes.

Will the current Trumpist oligarch regime push fully towards a dictatorship that drops even the pretence of democracy?

Are they aiming for a Putin-style "democracy" where the forms are maintained, but everyone knows the system is thoroughly corrupt and controlled?

Are they actually going to attempt to implement a Yarvinist post-national capitalist libertarian order?

Or is it sufficient to leave American democracy mostly functioning, with just enough thumbs on just enough scales that Republican supremacy is maintained for the foreseeable future, while leaving the roots of democracy untouched?

Or does democracy and pluralism make a comeback? Does Trumpist disorganization and overreach trigger a pushback strong enough to overcome whatever anti-democratic tendencies?

One of the factors in my mind here is that America has a very strong mythology of freedom and democracy, a pretty robust civil society, and a long history of civil resistance. How is that going to play into the Trumpist plans?

[Sheilbh]

Couple of thoughts.

There are ideologues on both the MAGA/nationalist side and the TechBro side.

As an aside - I do wonder how long that alliance will last - on the other hand perhaps that's 21st century fusionism with anti-Woke serving as the solvent that anti-Communism was in the 20th?

But on the TechBro side especially I'm not sure there is a plan or a thing they're aiming for. I think in part it's a different mindset - I think they have projects they're interested in. There are some inchoate ideas with many sources and off-shoots in the ideological mulch. I think what they are aiming for is disruption. To an extent I think the means is the end. I don't think they have an end goal or ideological idea they're working towards any more than capital in general does.

One other point is I think there's a tension in your questions - which is something that I've been wondering about since the Brexit referendum - which is the idea of a "post-national" order. But the answer to that is not the "nation" but "democracy and pluralism". And I wonder if that's right or if, in fact, there's a choice there? I don't know but I am struck more and more that the entities that have best enabled individuals to exercise meaningful democratic control in their society have been nations, they've been countries. You think of that IT projects triangle of you have to pick two of quick, good, fast - I wonder if there's a similar trilemma of globalised capital, national sovereignty and democratic control?

Domestically in the US in the first Trump administration I think the most important "resistance" was states and local government. I think America has a very deep democracy and I think that is where I'd place my trust - I think at a Federal level the legislature, courts, administrative state will be transformed. Which is why any fightback will not be through the courts or lobbyists but ground up politics.

[crazy canuck]

On the US internally, one of the things that I think is important (to say the least) to see how far the anti-democratic slide goes.

Will the current Trumpist oligarch regime push fully towards a dictatorship that drops even the pretence of democracy?

Are they aiming for a Putin-style "democracy" where the forms are maintained, but everyone knows the system is thoroughly corrupt and controlled?

Are they actually going to attempt to implement a Yarvinist post-national capitalist libertarian order?

Or is it sufficient to leave American democracy mostly functioning, with just enough thumbs on just enough scales that Republican supremacy is maintained for the foreseeable future, while leaving the roots of democracy untouched?

Or does democracy and pluralism make a comeback? Does Trumpist disorganization and overreach trigger a pushback strong enough to overcome whatever anti-democratic tendencies?

One of the factors in my mind here is that America has a very strong mythology of freedom and democracy, a pretty robust civil society, and a long history of civil resistance. How is that going to play into the Trumpist plans?

The problem is that the concept of freedom has come to be understood as freedom from the state, rather than the state guaranteeing freedoms.  As I said in another thread/post, that kind of thinking has become a staple of the right since at least Reagan.  We are now seeing the most extreme version of that ideology, to date. 

All of the versions you have proposed are possible, and represented within the groups supporting Trump.  Hard to know which one will win out, and it is likely there will be no clear way forward.  It will really just be who Trump spoke to last before he makes a decision.

So while the next four years is likely going to break the American system, we won't know what takes its place until we see who wins the power struggle after Trump dies. 

[Sophie Scholl]

China steps into the US role of "global police" and investor in developing nations a la their increased investment in Africa the past few years. Overall, the global leader position is much more firmly unilaterally China's like it once was the United States'. The US continues its trajectory into a Putin-ist state with collapsing economic and social conditions, perhaps leading to talks and actual actions of dissolution of the United States as it currently stands a la the breaking up of the former USSR. In the meantime, the US becomes much more of a Russian level player on the global scene, sending mercenary forces abroad and operating solely for its own benefit instead of any type of perceived global order and stability or alliance building concepts. Europe, Latin America, Pacific Asia, Australia, and South America drift into or actively pursue joining China in pursuing the goals of global stability and order and maintain or improve upon their current power levels. India becomes closer to Iran in terms of its "democracy" as Modi and other radical Hindu leader continue to pull it in a fundamentalist direction. Israel overplays their hand and is trounced in a war with Iran (with Chinese and united Middle Eastern support combined with European indifference) and left a global pariah or eliminated entirely after the US is unable to match the financial and military support levels they rely on. NATO is dead. As is the Pacific Alliance. Once again, China steps up to form replacements. The UN becomes a modern League of Nations as Russia and/or the US leave, making it much more difficult to do the actions it does now.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

https://reader.foreignaffairs.com/2025/02/11/the-path-to-american-authoritarianism/content.html

Let me know if the link shows the full article. It's in reply to Jacobs post 39 in the thread.

[Sophie Scholl]

https://reader.foreignaffairs.com/2025/02/11/the-path-to-american-authoritarianism/content.html

Let me know if the link shows the full article. It's in reply to Jacobs post 39 in the thread.

It does not. At least not for me.