PBWI: World by the Year 2012

OOC: Hey. my character's from San Francisco. What did you expect? :p



Alternative history? Sounds like fascinating genre that could be more heavily explored in the years to come. :D

You really are a Cali Wako, a SF Weirdo! History is not made by "ifs", even if transistors came at a dollar for a dozen (not counting enginerring and interconection production costs). These resources are better spent in text analisys. For example in literature which vocabolary does Shakespeare use in his works, what frequency, is it consistent in all his works, phrases or grammar forms are repeated, etc. In history: gather all historical resources and analize for consistency, common sources, etc.

Imagine a sort of eletronic buletin board or common newspaper discussing politics, in no time mayhem happens: people insulting each other, commie provocatours, or even genuine leftie proposing absurd ideas. I'm in favor in principle to equal race rights and some states even allow interatial mariage. But these changes to sociaty must be gradual otherwise it's anarchy! It's a slipery slope. Negros' rights and conciousness? great. Negro pride? fine. Negro power? Negro suprematism ... extremisms are easy to come by. And what next? depenalize homosexual acts? why we are at it make fags moral? Homosex conciousness? man-man and woman-woman mariage?

As I said thes tools are too powerful to be to the hands of the common man. Imagine what these teenagers may come to if left unattended with such power!

Are you a commie provocateur or just a naive leftie idealist?

(OCC. just to be sure ... it's my character speaking, not me)
 
*It appears that global warming is one of the latest of a long series of environmental concerns to have been discussed as of late. It may unfortunately be possible that 50 years from now, there may be some consequences, perhaps not terribly severe, but still enough to somewhat adversely affect life on this planet. However, though, clean energy may become a reality by 2000 if we can get enough funding for it.

Just one point...

At this point in time, the alarmists currently wetting themselves over Global Warming were doing the same over Global Cooling and a possible new Ice Age...:p;)
 

sharlin

Banned
Sci-fi? That will never move beyond the B list movies or anything major, even by 2012 I doubt that science fiction will ever be a major form of entertainment beyond novels.
 
Just one point...

At this point in time, the alarmists currently wetting themselves over Global Warming were doing the same over Global Cooling and a possible new Ice Age...:p;)

OCC: In '63 Global Cooling was still in full swing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Yes according to those crazies by 2000s, Global Cooling may triger a new Ice Age, North America and Europe will covered by ice ... while at it why don't have mamooths roaming the glaciers. And Global dimming (OCC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming) will force to live by the candles!

(OCC: both Global cooling and Dimming were actually real effects of aerosol and particle polution ... by 2062 itwill be solar panels reflecting or converting to much sunlight ... climate change happens, both man made and natural, the problem is the civilization we built may not cope)
 
Last edited:
Sci-fi? That will never move beyond the B list movies or anything major, even by 2012 I doubt that science fiction will ever be a major form of entertainment beyond novels.

There are excellent Sci-fi literature out there. The problem is that human imagination is too powerful. No mater how many tricks or special effects you use it'll always look artificial and/or limited. A believable mock up of a spaceship bridge? feasible. A believable spaship? maybe, An outside shot on a planet or an alien life? ... impossible

Alien_%281979%29_-_The_Alien.jpg
 

Mathuen

Banned
Fellow members of this discussion, I think you are vastly over-estimating our ability to expand outwards into space. Our current launch systems and those hypothesized to not have with them any potential to get us to Mars or even beyond the moon while being economically feasible. Beyond that... space power?

Yes, rather than using the hundreds of years of coal, oil and gas at our disposal we should go and put little vanity pieces in orbit.

:rolleyes:
 
I believe that with the liberalization of our culture, particularly as we begin to expand a woman's role into the spheres typically inhabited by men and the desegregation of our schools, the social fabric of the year 2012 will be almost wholly unrecognizable.

Imagine women working 40 hours a week, making nearly the same amount as their husbands. The two income household is, thankfully, a rarity today, but in a half-century it may well be a staple of the workforce and economy.

And as we begin to liberalize marriage laws, allowing minorities and whites to wed and reproduce, I can't help but think that by 2012 even the homosexuals will be marrying if their promiscuity will allow them to do so! Imagine the institution of marriage being so warped that even such deviants are allowed to take part in it!

No, I'm afraid our society will have descended into deviancy, sexual and moral, by 2012 unless we're willing to take measure to prevent or slow that slide.
 
I believe that with the liberalization of our culture, particularly as we begin to expand a woman's role into the spheres typically inhabited by men and the desegregation of our schools, the social fabric of the year 2012 will be almost wholly unrecognizable.

Imagine women working 40 hours a week, making nearly the same amount as their husbands. The two income household is, thankfully, a rarity today, but in a half-century it may well be a staple of the workforce and economy.

And as we begin to liberalize marriage laws, allowing minorities and whites to wed and reproduce, I can't help but think that by 2012 even the homosexuals will be marrying if their promiscuity will allow them to do so! Imagine the institution of marriage being so warped that even such deviants are allowed to take part in it!

No, I'm afraid our society will have descended into deviancy, sexual and moral, by 2012 unless we're willing to take measure to prevent or slow that slide.

Did you just wander in here from some random Mississippi town? You sure sound like an ignorant 'Southron'. :mad:
If you want to see an example of a truly deviant society, look at Nazi Germany, whose leaders who were obsessed with the idea of racial purity.....and look what it led to.

OOC: Hey, no offense, just playing the part of the S.F. liberal :D
 
Did you just wander in here from some random Mississippi town? You sure sound like an ignorant 'Southron'. :mad:
If you want to see an example of a truly deviant society, look at Nazi Germany, whose leaders who were obsessed with the idea of racial purity.....and look what it led to.

OOC: Hey, no offense, just playing the part of the S.F. liberal :D

Here it comes the Nazi card!

Terrellk is surely over the line and I don't share his generalization on negroes and women. Homosexuality disgusts me at the gut level but I refrain on comenting that further and generalizing.

I know decent and cultured negroes, and, I know intelligent and resourcefull women. But one cannot generalize the other way around. Not all negroes are decent and cultured. Few women can handle high level jobs (Doctors, professors, architects). Sure women may work for need in low level jobs (as it happened in the war) but to have to work to suplement the family income, a two income household is a detriment to the women itself. Who is going to raise the children? We might end in a generation of wildlings grown without parental supervision. It is the end of middle class America.

It's not a racial or misogeny issue. It is our culture that segregated negros, not giving them educations, and made them angry rebels. Women are grown to be cozy and nurturing, great for raising children, not so for leaders in the workplace.

For example if my daughter wants to marry a black man I'll be firmly against it. Not because of him personaly, he might be a perfectly good chap, but I know how many people, like terrellk, judge just by the skin color. In this society he'll have a hard time finding a high paying job, and that would be at my daughter detriment. And how will people judge my mongrel grandsons?

Another example, let say an intelligent women becomes a doctor, a high paying job, making her the moneymaker int the family. How many man are flexible enough to accept that and be content in raising the children? what will the neighbors say? And surely infants (0-6 yr old) cannot be raised by a men, we do not have the skills. What will happen in reality is either she will not marry or the husband rightfully leaves her. Leaving her alone with her work and maybe even the children unattended. Here I say a heresy, to have a women have children and a career, one should have a very socialist society. A society that grants her paid leave to raise infants, and grants enough off work time (part-time jobs?) and dignity for her husband to raise the children later on (6-14 yrs).

Racial and gender equality might be good thing. But one cannot change society in 50 years. We cannot desegrate and have gender equality now and have in one or two generations a happy society like, let say, women and blacks enterprise executives, PM in the congress or officials in the executive.
 
Last edited:
Here it comes the Nazi card!

Terrellk is surely over the line and I don't share his generalization on negroes and women. Homosexuality disgusts me at the gut level but I refrain on comenting that further and generalizing.

I know decent and cultured negroes, and, I know intelligent and resourcefull women. But one cannot generalize the other way around. Not all negroes are decent and cultured. Few women can handle high level jobs (Doctors, professors, architects). Sure women may work for need in low level jobs (as it happened in the war) but to have to work to suplement the family income, a two income household is a detriment to the women itself. Who is going to raise the children? We might end in a generation of wildlings grown without parental supervision. It is the end of middle class America.

It's not a racial or misogeny issue. It is our culture that segregated negros, not giving them educations, and made them angry rebels. Women are grown to be cozy and nurturing, great for raising children, not so for leaders in the workplace.

For example if my daughter wants to marry a black man I'll be firmly against it. Not because of him personaly, he might be a perfectly good chap, but I know how many people, like terrellk, judge just by the skin color. In this society he'll have a hard time finding a high paying job, and that would be at my daughter detriment. And how will people judge my mongrel grandsons?

Another example, let say an intelligent women becomes a doctor, a high paying job, making her the moneymaker int the family. How many man are flexible enough to accept that and be content in raising the children? what will the neighbors say? And surely infants (0-6 yr old) cannot be raised by a men, we do not have the skills. What will happen in reality is either she will not marry or the husband rightfully leaves her. Leaving her alone with her work and maybe even the children unattended. Here I say a heresy, to have a women have children and a career, one should have a very socialist society. A society that grants her paid leave to raise infants, and grants enough off work time (part-time jobs?) and dignity for her husband to raise the children later on (6-14 yrs).

Racial and gender equality might be good thing. But one cannot change society in 50 years. We cannot desegrate and have gender equality now and have in one or two generations a happy society like, let say, women and blacks enterprise executives, PM in the congress or officials in the executive.

I can see your point. Hopefully things will finally change for the better, but it may come at a harsh short-term cost.
 
Here are my assumptions for the Presidents by 1990. Past that date, I do not know what new officials may be elected.

1961-1969: John Kennedy (Democratic party)
1969-1973: Hubert Humphrey or Pat Brown (Democratic party)
1973-1981: Nelson Rockefeller (Republican party)
1981-1989: Robert Kennedy (Democratic party)

Johnson has no political clout nowadays, thus my reason for not assuming he will be the nominee in 1969. In 1969, the Republican challenger would, it seems, be Nelson Rockefeller. However, given Kennedy's popularity, I do believe the Democratic party will win in that year. Not, perhaps, by a landslide, but certainly decisively and not like what was seen in '60. In 1972, I don't see anyone but Rockefeller again. Goldwater will be the likely nominee in 1964, but he certainly has no chance of winning, and losing will certainly underline the weakness of his wing of the Republican party and the political spectrum which will make it unappealing to the party bosses. I don't expect him to be given the chance at election in 1968 or afterward. Rockefeller seems due to be the nominee and win the presidency. In '72, due to Democratic fatigue, I'd project him to win, and comfortably preside for two terms. Afterward, I do have the feeling that Bobby Kennedy will run and perhaps win the presidency. He is certainly tenacious, and I'd expect him to run for office after the Kennedy administration is over. I have no doubts this will mean another run for the Kennedy political family.
 
Last edited:
Imagine women working 40 hours a week, making nearly the same amount as their husbands. The two income household is, thankfully, a rarity today, but in a half-century it may well be a staple of the workforce and economy.

By 2012 nobody will be working 40 hours a week in America! Maybe women and men could each take 20 hours of the current breadwinner's workweek, so both have plenty of time for other pursuits.
 
By 2012 nobody will be working 40 hours a week in America! Maybe women and men could each take 20 hours of the current breadwinner's workweek, so both have plenty of time for other pursuits.

Get me that 20 hour work week and I'll organize black gay prides every day all over Alabama!
 
And as we begin to liberalize marriage laws, allowing minorities and whites to wed and reproduce, I can't help but think that by 2012 even the homosexuals will be marrying if their promiscuity will allow them to do so! Imagine the institution of marriage being so warped that even such deviants are allowed to take part in it!
:D:D:D I'm sorry, that's just ridiculous. Why in the hell would homosexuals want to perpetuate such an anti-sexual-freedom institution as marriage?

No, no, by 2012 I'd say that most couples, barring the extremely-religious, would be happily "living in sin" as they say. And emotionally-monogamous couples will probably be more relaxed about casual sex with different partners. It's a natural consequence of people becoming more mature about sex and not being so ridiculously enamoured with the "nuclear family".

Anyway, assuming we haven't all blown ourselves up or something, the Cold War has got to have ended by 2012. You can't keep up simmering hostilities based around different economic systems for that long. Eventually the USA and USSR will have to come round and talk to each other like civilised people. There'll be political liberalisation on both sides.

Space exploration: well, even though there'll definitely be bases on the Moon and Mars at least by 2012 (probably manned exploration of Jupiter's four main moons too), there'll probably be some kind of international agreement that limits it to the same sort of thing we see in Antarctica today: research stations and such, with no settler colonies. I may be wrong, though -- overpopulation may force people to settle in Antarctica and then, possibly, on the Moon and Mars.

Anyway, in the short-term it seems like President Kennedy will probably be re-elected. How 1968 will go is anyone's guess -- it depends on how his second term goes, really, as well as on who the Democrats decide to run as their candidate (I doubt Johnson will pull a Nixon and try to run for President to succeed Kennedy -- Humphrey is a good bet, probably with some Southern running mate). It also depends on who the Republicans run next year as well as in '68 -- hopefully they'll run Goldwater next year and he loses, so '68 can be Humphrey vs Rocky.
 
Last edited:
Top