I was reading the 2012 olimpics thread and I start to read a publication of the Rockefeller Foundation (2010), a report that bngenoh linkedhttp://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,26953.msg346791.html#msg346791http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/publications/scenarios-future-technology
What is interesting is how they project disasters, pandemics, ect, for the future. It fits with what we are acquainted here in the forum and what has been described by the C's. Of course this also can be a smoke courtain. I will put some excerpts
They posed four big scenarios, depending on this two parameters:
"GLOBAL POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC ALIGNMENT
This uncertainty refers to both the amount of economic integration — the flow of goods, capital, people, and ideas — as well as the extent to which enduring and effective political structures enable the world to deal with many of the global challenges it faces."
This uncertainty refers to the capacity at different levels of society to cope with change and to adapt effectively. This ability to adapt can mean proactively managing existing systems and structures to ensure their resilience against external forces, as well as the ability to transform those systems and structures when a changed context means they are no longer suitable."
"The Rockefeller Foundation and GBN began the scenario process by surfacing a host of driving forces that would affect the future of technology and international development. These forces were generated through both secondary research and in-depth interviews with Foundation staff, Foundation grantees, and external experts
Once crossed, these axes create a matrix of four very different futures:THE SCENARIO NARRATIVES
LOCK STEP – A world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback
CLEVER TOGETHER – A world in which highly coordinated and successful strategies emerge for addressing both urgent and entrenched worldwide issues
HACK ATTACK – An economically unstable and shock-prone world in which governments weaken, criminals thrive, and dangerous innovations emerge
SMART SCRAMBLE – An economically depressed world in which individuals and communities develop localized, makeshift solutions to a growing set of problems
The scenarios that follow are not meant to be exhaustive — rather, they are designed to be both plausible and provocative, to engage your
imagination while also raising new questions for you about what that future might look and feel like. Each scenario tells a story of how the
world, and in particular the developing world, might progress over the next 15 to 20 years, with an emphasis on those elements relating
to the use of different technologies and the interaction of these technologies with the lives of the poor and vulnerable.[...]
In 2012, the pandemic that the world had been anticipating for years finally hit. Unlike 2009’s H1N1, this new influenza strain — originating
from wild geese — was extremely virulent and deadly. Even the most pandemic-prepared nations were quickly overwhelmed when the
virus streaked around the world, infecting nearly 20 percent of the global population and killing 8 million in just seven months, the majority of
them healthy young adults. The pandemic also had a deadly effect on economies: international mobility of both people and goods screeched to a halt, debilitating industries like tourism and breaking global supply chains. Even locally, normally bustling shops and office buildings satempty for months, devoid of both employees and customers.
The pandemic blanketed the planet — though disproportionate numbers died in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central America, where
the virus spread like wildfire in the absence of official containment protocols. But even in developed countries, containment was a
challenge. The United States’s initial policy of “strongly discouraging” citizens from flying proved deadly in its leniency, accelerating the
spread of the virus not just within the U.S. but across borders. However, a few countries did fare better — China in particular. The Chinese
government’s quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing off of
all borders, saved millions of lives, stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter postpandemic
China’s government was not the only one that took extreme measures to protect its citizens from risk and exposure. During the pandemic,
national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face
masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets. Even after the pandemic faded,
this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified. In order to protect themselves from
the spread of increasingly global problems — from pandemics and transnational terrorism to environmental crises and rising poverty — leaders
around the world took a firmer grip on power.
At first, the notion of a more controlled world gained wide acceptance and approval. Citizens willingly gave up some of their sovereignty — and their privacy — to more paternalistic states in exchange for greater safety and stability. Citizens were more tolerant, and even eager, for top-down direction and oversight, and national leaders had more latitude to impose order in the ways they saw fit. In developed countries, this heightened oversight took many forms: biometric IDs for all citizens, for example, and tighter regulation of key industries whose stability was deemed vital to national interests. In many developed countries, enforced cooperation with a suite of new regulations and agreements slowly but steadily restored both order and, importantly, economic growth.
Across the developing world, however, the story was different — and much more variable.
Top-down authority took different forms in different countries, hinging largely on the capacity, caliber, and intentions of their leaders. In countries with strong and thoughtful leaders, citizens’ overall economic status and quality of life increased. In India, for example, air quality drastically improved after 2016, when the government outlawed highemitting vehicles. In Ghana, the introduction of ambitious government programs to improve basic infrastructure and ensure the availability of clean water for all her people led to a sharp decline in water-borne diseases. But more
authoritarian leadership worked less well — and in some cases tragically — in countries run by irresponsible elites who used their increased
power to pursue their own interests at the expense of their citizens.
Undeniably, the planet’s climate was becoming increasingly unstable.
Sea levels were rising fast, even as countries continued to build-out coastal mega-cities. In 2014, the Hudson River overflowed into New
York City during a storm surge, turning the World Trade Center site into a three-foot-deep lake. The image of motorboats navigating
through lower Manhattan jarred the world’s most powerful nations into realizing that climate change was not just a developing-world problem.
That same year, new measurements showing that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were climbing precipitously created new urgency and pressure for governments (really, for everyone) to do something fast.
Devastating shocks like September 11, the Southeast Asian tsunami of 2004, and the 2010 Haiti earthquake had certainly primed the world for sudden disasters. But no one was prepared for a world in which large-scale catastrophes would occur with such breathtaking
frequency. The years 2010 to 2020 were dubbed the “doom decade” for good reason: the 2012 Olympic bombing, which killed 13,000, was followed closely by an earthquake in Indonesia killing 40,000, a tsunami that almost wiped out Nicaragua, and the onset of the West China
Famine, caused by a once-in-a-millennium drought linked to climate change.
Not surprisingly, this opening series of deadly asynchronous catastrophes (there were more) put enormous pressure on an already overstressed global economy that had entered the decade still in recession. Massive humanitarian relief efforts cost vast sums of money, but the primary sources — from aid agencies to developed-world governments — had run out of funds to offer.
Most nation-states could no longer afford their locked-in costs, let alone respond to increased citizen demands for more security, more
healthcare coverage, more social programs and services, and more infrastructure repair. In 2014, when mudslides in Lima buried thousands,
only minimal help trickled in, prompting the Economist headline: “Is the Planet Finally Bankrupt?”
These dire circumstances forced tough tradeoffs. In 2015, the U.S. reallocated a large share of its defense spending to domestic concerns, pulling
out of Afghanistan — where the resurgent Taliban seized power once again. In Europe, Asia, South America, and Africa, more and more nation states lost control of their public finances [...]
[...]With government power weakened, order rapidly disintegrating, and safety nets evaporating, violence and crime grew more rampant.
Countries with ethnic, religious, or class divisions saw especially sharp spikes in hostility.[...]
[...]With increasing ease, these “global guerillas” moved illicit products through underground channels from poor producer countries to markets in the developed world.[...]
In the context of weak health systems, corruption, and inattention to standards — either within countries or from global bodies like the World Health Organization — tainted vaccines entered the public health systems of several African countries. In 2021, 600 children in Cote d’Ivoire
died from a bogus Hepatitis B vaccine, which paled in comparison to the scandal sparked by mass deaths from a tainted anti-malarial drug
[...]The positive effects of the mobile and internet revolutions were tempered by their increasing fragility as scamming and viruses proliferated, preventing these networks from achieving the reliability required to become the backbone of developing economies — or a source of trustworthy information for anybody.[...]
Those who couldn’t buy their way out of chaos — which was most people — retreated to whatever “safety” they could find. With opportunity frozen and global mobility at a near standstill — no place wanted more people, especially more poor people — it was often a retreat to the familiar: family ties, religious beliefs, or even national allegiance. Trust was afforded to those who guaranteed safety and survival — whether it was a warlord, an evangelical preacher, or a mother. In some places, the collapse of state capacity led to a resurgence of feudalism. In other areas, people managed to create more resilient communities operating as isolated micro versions of formerly large-scale systems. The weakening of national governments also enabled grassroots movements to form and grow, creating rays of hope amid the bleakness. By 2030, the distinction between “developed” and “developing” nations no longer seemed particularly descriptive or relevant[...]