Connect with us

Latest

Red Pill

Analysis

How the world will look like in 2050?

Public surveillance and social scoring as they have in China will be commonplace.

The Duran

Published

on

1,199 Views

Authored by Filip Poutintsev via HackerNoon.com:


More surveillance

Digital monitoring becomes cheaper and easier every year, so there is no reason why the governments and corporations will stop watching us unless we they are forced to do so.

We will most likely see same type of public surveillance and social scoring as they have in China, although it will be far more advanced, and unfortunately we will not be able to do anything to stop it.

First Libertarian (Anarcho-Capital) government will be born

The biggest obstacle in creating new free state is the lack of free land. All the land has been divided between governments long time ago, and they are not willing give any of it, even if it’s purchased from them.

However future technologies will allow people to create artificial islands and other lands masses in terra nullius more cheaply and thus creating place where to settle it’s citizens.

Another obstacle of creating new country is security and lack of fund to support large army. But due to robotization of military as country of 1000 people (if they have necessary funds) will be able to have high power AI controlled arsenal that will be able to withstand an army of another country.

Bitcoin will be the main currency of the world

Some economists say that Bitcoin may take over FIAT after the next global economic crisis, which is predicted to happen in 1–3 years from now. Whether this will actually happen this fast or not, it will surely happen in 10–20 years, and by the year of 2050, people will think of government issued money as something from 20th century socialist era.

Along with Bitcoin few other crypto currencies that have some concrete advantages will survive, but their total use will be less than 10% of the use of Bitcoin.

Super AI that will transcend human intelligence will be created

This is simply a matter of time, as computing power on the machines doubles every 2 years, and by the 2050 (which is 32 years from now) computers will be 30 thousand times faster and smarter than they are today. Smarter than human AI will be probably created much earlier than 2050, and by 2050 the existence of non-human super intelligence will be certain.

People will achieve biological immortality

Simply this will mean that with specific medical treatment scientists will be able to prolong healthy human lifespans until eternity. Of course it will not mean that people will stop dying completely as this treatment will probably not be available to the poorest part of world and our bodies will not become indestructible, and therefore people will still die in result of accidents and other physical trauma.

Radical birth control will be implemented

Overpopulation is a huge problem, and the only cause of it is too high birth rate. In most Western countries birth rate has already dropped below natural preservation rate (which is 2 children per 2 adults) and will continue to do so. But in developing countries it’s still too high and those countries are alone responsible for the overpopulation problem we have. In the future governments will either limit families in having only 1 child or forcefully sterilize people. Children are not the future, they are the past.

Robots will take over our jobs

In couple decades robots will be able to perform all physical tasks that we perform, starting from cutting our hair to serving us at the restaurant and cooking our food. Many jobs are already replaced by robots, so the progress is inevitable.

When the robots will replace human workforce two things will happen.

1st: Most people (especially the poorly educated) will be left out of work and without ability to support themselves. This will lead into the birth of large class of poor people, with no ability to reach even the basic standard of life and at the same time it will give birth to even richer group or people who will together own everything. In rich countries the governments may be able to provide basic income for it citizens, but the poor countries will not have the funds for that. Basically unless you are very smart and educated, your only chance of making a living will be through business. That is renting your apartment, self-driving car or assistant robot to someone else, given that you have the funds to purchase it in the first place.

2nd: The cost of most services and products will be reduced a lot. Currently the biggest portion of the cost of product or service is the cost of labor, as it’s usually the most expensive part. But in the future when machines will do all the work, goods and services will be produced much cheaper. Take for example self-driving taxi. In order to provide taxi services you will no longer have to pay the salary of the driver (which is usually half of the expenses) and therefore the companies will be able to offer rides half of the price.

Most part of physical interactions will be replaced by interaction with robots

By the 2050 we will have advanced human-like assistant, servants and sex robots. They will resemble people so much that by interacting with them we will satisfy our social needs. And interacting with robots will be much easier. They will not have their own will (as their sole purpose will be in serving us), they will not have feelings, they will not get angry, annoyed or tired. Therefore they will be perfect companions as we will no longer have to take into account their needs or wishes and compromise with them. Human-to-human interaction will be reduced to minimum as dealing with other people is extremely hard and difficult.

Most human-to-human interactions will happen in Virtual Reality

Due to growth and excellence of virtual reality more and more of our daily activities will move into virtual world. We will not only play and watch movies there, but also spend our more and more of our free time there by virtual travelling and meeting people using our avatars. Our lives will resemble the movie Surrogates a lot, with only exception that we will not have secondary physical bodies, they will be purely virtual.

The popularity of virtual reality will also grow due to the fact that in real life all sort of accidents can happen to you or you can become victim of a crime. While virtual reality will be perfectly safe, at least for your physical body.

Crossing borders and inter-country travelling will become more difficult.

Due to the fact of exploding wave of illegal immigration and terrorism, travelling from country to country will get more difficult as many of them, will heavily limit the entry of foreigners. Especially citizens of 3rd world countries will have trouble going to Western World. Some island countries may even go so far that they will limit all travel except air travel, as it easier to control. The world will not get any safer and countries will have to take radical actions to keep unwanted people away.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
5 Comments

5
Leave a Reply

avatar
5 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
IsabellaBrigitte MeierRick OliverJohn FrancisVera Gottlieb Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Vera Gottlieb
Guest
Vera Gottlieb

Thank goodness!!! I won’t be around by then. Our world, our society, our behaviour, our morals, our integrity… are crumbling by the minute.

John Francis
Guest
John Francis

Has anyone watched this film recently. I watched it for the first time in 1945 when I was 14 years old. It made a very deep and lasting impression on me then. It was a warning. It is becoming a reality now and the result will be the same. Either complete enlightenment or total disaster. Ask questions! Question more!
Scientific materialism is the way to utter pointlessness and oblivion for life on Earth

Metropolis (1927 film) – Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolis_(1927_film)
“Metropolis”+ is a 1927 German expressionist science-fiction drama film directed by Fritz Lang. Written by Thea von Harbou in collaboration with Lang,

Rick Oliver
Guest
Rick Oliver

You say products and services may be cheaper! You`ve forgotten the ” greed ” factor of the human being !

Brigitte Meier
Guest
Brigitte Meier

And who really will want to live in the world you describe? Which makes mass suicide one more attribute of your future world!

Isabella
Guest
Isabella

Like just all “prophets” the writer has clearly never grasped that the world and human life on it are multi-layered, multifaceted, complex and immensely diverse. Just about nothing is linear, as he tries to portray it here – except perhaps calculating the trajectory of a cannon ball on a still day !! Perhaps he could consider the Law of Unintended Consequences and its multiple actions, for one, American aggression against Russia having the one consequence they certainly didn’t want – bringing Russia together with China, and even, maybe, Germany. He has never heard of Black Swan events, wherein a small… Read more »

Latest

Macron pisses off Merkel as he tries to sabotage Nord Stream 2 pipeline (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 177.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss an EU compromise for Nord Stream 2 where EU member states, the EU Parliament, and its Commission will give the bloc more oversight on gas pipelines, with one caveat…the Nord Stream 2 project with Russia will not be threatened by the new regulations in the agreement.

Macron pushed hard to have the new regulations include (and derail) Nord Stream 2, an action which annoyed Angela Merkel, who eventually got her way and delivered another blow to Macron’s failing French presidency.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via The Express UK

Angela Merkel hit back at Emmanuel Macron over Russia and Germany’s pipeline project, declaring it would “not be a one-sided dependency”. The German Chancellor explained that Germany will expand its gas terminals with “liquified gas”. Speaking at a press conference, Ms Merkel declared: “Do we become dependent on Russia because of this second gas pipeline? I say no, if we diversify. Germany will expand its gas terminals with liquefied gas.

“This means that we do not want to depend only on Russia, but Russia was a source of gas in the Cold War and will remain one.

“But it would not be one-sided dependency.”

Via DW

The EU parliament and its Council are set to adopt new regulations on gas pipelines connecting the bloc members with non-EU countries, the EU Commission announced early on Wednesday.

The upcoming directive is based on a compromise between EU member states and EU officials in Brussels. The bloc leaders agreed to tighten Brussels’ oversight of gas delivery and expand its rules to all pipelines plugging into the EU’s gas distribution network.

“The new rules ensure that… everyone interested in selling gas to Europe must respect European energy law,” EU Energy Commissioner Miguel Arias Canete said in a statement.

For example, owners of pipelines linking EU and non-EU countries would also be required to allow access for their competitors. Brussels would also have more power regarding transparency and tariff regulations.

Russian ambassador slams US

Brussels has repeatedly expressed concern over the controversial Nord Stream 2 project which would deliver Russian gas directly to Germany through a pipeline under the Baltic Sea. Many EU states oppose the mammoth project, and the US claims it would allow Moscow to tighten its grip on the EU’s energy policy.

Berlin has insisted that the pipeline is a “purely economic” issue.

Speaking to Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung daily, Russian ambassador to Berlin, Sergey Nechayev, slammed the US’ opposition as an attempt to “push its competition aside” and clear the way for American suppliers of liquefied gas.

“It’s hard to believe that a country that is destroying the rules of free and fair trade, that is imposing import tariffs on its competition, that is flying slogans like ‘America First’ on its flags and often threatens biggest European concerns with illegal sanctions, is now really concerned about European interests,” the Russian envoy said in remarks published in German on Wednesday.

Last week, France unexpectedly rebelled against the project, but Berlin and Paris soon reached a compromise. Thanks to their agreement, the latest deal is not expected to impede the ongoing construction of Nord Stream 2.

Citing sources from negotiators’ circles, German public broadcaster ARD reported that the deal left room for Germany to approve exceptions from the EU-wide rules.

According to the EU Commission, however, exceptions are “only possible under strict procedures in which the Commission plays a decisive role.”

The Gazprom-backed pipeline is set to be completed by the end of the year.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

UK Defence Secretary looking for a fight with both China and Russia (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 87.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss UK Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson’s idea to deploy hard power against China and Russia, starting with plans to send Britain’s new aircraft carrier to the tense sea routes in the South China Sea.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

“Britain’s Gavin Williamson places Russia & China on notice, I’m not joking,” authored by John Wight, via RT

UK Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson is itching for conflict with Russia and China. He’s not mad. Not even slightly. But he is stupid. Very.

Unlike former fireplace salesman Gavin Williamson, I am no military expert. But then you do not need to be one to understand that while Britain going to war with Russia and China might work as a video game, the real thing would be an exceedingly bad idea.

So why then in a speech delivered to the Royal United Services Institute in London, did Mr Williamson’s argument on the feasibility of the real thing elicit applause rather than the shrieks of horror and demands he be sacked forthwith it should have? This is a serious question, by the way. It is one that cuts through British establishment verbiage to reveal a country ruled not by the sober and doughty political heavyweights of years gone by, but by foaming fanatics in expensive suits

Placing to one side for a moment the insanity of the very concept of Britain deploying hard power against Russia and/or China, the prospect of fighting a war against two designated enemies at the same time is a recipe for disaster. Not satisfied with that, though, Mr Williamson is actually contemplating a conflict with three different enemies at the same time – i.e. against Russia, China, and the millions of people in Britain his government is currently waging war against under the rubric of austerity.

“Today, Russia is resurgent,” Mr Williamson said, “rebuilding its military arsenal and seeking to bring the independent countries of the former Soviet Union, like Georgia and Ukraine, back into its orbit.”

For Mr Williamson and his ilk a resurgent Russia is a bad thing. Much better in their eyes if Russia, after the Soviet era in the 1990s, had remained on its knees as a free market desert; its state institutions in a state of near collapse and tens of millions of its citizens in the grip of immiseration. Yes, because in that scenario Western ideologues like him would have had free rein to rampage around the world as they saw fit, setting fire to country after country on the perverse grounds of ‘saving them’ for democracy.

As it is, he and his still managed to squeeze in a considerable amount of carnage and chaos in the years it did take Russia to recover. The indictment reads as follows: Yugoslavia destroyed; Afghanistan turned upside down; Iraq pushed into the abyss; Libya sent to hell.

By the time they turned their attention to Syria, intent on exploiting an Arab Spring that NATO in Libya transformed into an Arab Winter, Russia had recovered and was able to intervene. It did so in concert with the Syrian Arab Army, Iran and Hezbollah to save the day – much to the evident chagrin of those who, like Gavin Williamson, prefer to see countries in ashes rather than independent of Western hegemony.

As to the facile nonsense about Russia trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine back into its orbit, both countries happen to share a border with Russia and both countries, in recent years, have been used by the UK and its allies as cat’s paws with the eastward expansion of NATO in mind.

It gets worse though: “The Alliance must develop its ability to handle the kind of provocations that Russia is throwing at us. Such action from Russia must come at a cost.”

“Provocations,” the man said. Since British troops have been taking part in exercises on Russia’s doorstep, not the other way round, one wonders if Gavin Williamson wrote this speech while inebriated.

It is Russia that has been on the receiving end of repeated provocations from NATO member states such as the UK in recent times, and it is Russia that has been forced to respond to protect its own security and that of its people where necessary. Furthermore, not only in Russia but everywhere, including the UK, people understand that when you have political leaders intoxicated by their own national myths and propaganda to such an extent as Britain’s Defence Secretary, danger ensues.

The most enduring of those national myths where London is concerned is that the British Empire was a force for good rather than a vast criminal enterprise, that Britain and America won the Second World War together alone, that Iraq had WMDs, and that international law and international brigandage really are one and the same thing.

Perhaps the most preposterous section of the speech came when Mr Williamson tried to fashion a connection between Brexit and Britain’s military strength: “Brexit has brought us to a moment. A great moment in our history. A moment when we must strengthen our global presence, enhance our lethality, and increase our mass.”

Reading this, you can almost hear Churchill turning in his grave. Britain’s wartime prime minister had such as Gavin Williamson in mind when he famously said, “He has all the virtues I dislike, and none of the vices I admire.”

Mr Williamson obviously misread the memo talking up not the opportunity for increased conflict with China after Brexit but trade.

This was not a speech it was a linguistic car crash, one that will forever command an honoured place in compendiums of the worst political speeches ever made. As for Gavin Williamson, just as no responsible parent would ever dream of putting an 10-year old behind the wheel of car to drive unsupervised, no responsible British government would ever appoint a man like him as its Defence Secretary.

In years past, he would have struggled to find employment polishing the brass plate outside the building.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

The Birth Of A Monster

The banking establishment welcomed the Fed with open arms. What gives?

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by David Howden via The Mises Institute:


The Federal Reserve’s doors have been open for “business” for one hundred years. In explaining the creation of this money-making machine (pun intended – the Fed remits nearly $100 bn. in profits each year to Congress) most people fall into one of two camps.

Those inclined to view the Fed as a helpful institution, fostering financial stability in a world of error-prone capitalists, explain the creation of the Fed as a natural and healthy outgrowth of the troubled National Banking System. How helpful the Fed has been is questionable at best, and in a recent book edited by Joe Salerno and me — The Fed at One Hundred — various contributors outline many (though by no means all) of the Fed’s shortcomings over the past century.

Others, mostly those with a skeptical view of the Fed, treat its creation as an exercise in secretive government meddling (as in G. Edward Griffin’s The Creature from Jekyll Island) or crony capitalism run amok (as in Murray Rothbard’s The Case Against the Fed).

In my own chapter in The Fed at One Hundred I find sympathies with both groups (you can download the chapter pdf here). The actual creation of the Fed is a tragically beautiful case study in closed-door Congressional deals and big banking’s ultimate victory over the American public. Neither of these facts emerged from nowhere, however. The fateful events that transpired in 1910 on Jekyll Island were the evolutionary outcome of over fifty years of government meddling in money. As such, the Fed is a natural (though terribly unfortunate) outgrowth of an ever more flawed and repressive monetary system.

Before the Fed

Allow me to give a brief reverse biographical sketch of the events leading up to the creation of a monster in 1914.

Unlike many controversial laws and policies of the American government — such as the Affordable Care Act, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or the War on Terror — the Federal Reserve Act passed with very little public outcry. Also strange for an industry effectively cartelized, the banking establishment welcomed the Fed with open arms. What gives?

By the early twentieth century, America’s banking system was in a shambles. Fractional-reserve banks faced with “runs” (which didn’t have to be runs with the pandemonium that usually accompanies them, but rather just banks having insufficient cash to meet daily withdrawal requests) frequently suspended cash redemptions or issued claims to “clearinghouse certificates.” These certificates were a money substitute making use of the whole banking system’s reserves held by large clearinghouses.

Both of these “solutions” to the common bank run were illegal as they allowed a bank to redefine the terms of the original deposit contract. This fact notwithstanding, the US government turned a blind eye as the alternative (widespread bank failures) was perceived to be far worse.

The creation of the Fed, the ensuing centralization of reserves, and the creation of a more elastic money supply was welcomed by the government as a way to eliminate those pesky and illegal (yet permitted) banking activities of redemption suspensions and the issuance of clearinghouse certificates. The Fed returned legitimacy to the laws of the land. That is, it addressed the government’s fear that non-enforcement of a law would raise broader questions about the general rule of law.

The Fed provided a quick fix to depositors by reducing cases of suspensions of their accounts. And the banking industry saw the Fed as a way to serve clients better without incurring a cost (fewer bank runs) and at the same time coordinate their activities to expand credit in unison and maximize their own profits.

In short, the Federal Reserve Act had a solution for everyone.

Taking a central role in this story are the private clearinghouses which provided for many of the Fed’s roles before 1914. Indeed, America’s private clearinghouses were viewed as having as many powers as European central banks of the day, and the creation of the Fed was really just an effort to make the illegal practices of the clearinghouses legal by government institutionalization.

Why Did Clearinghouses Have So Much Power?

Throughout the late nineteenth century, clearinghouses used each new banking crisis to introduce a new type of policy, bringing them ever closer in appearance to a central bank. I wouldn’t go so far as to say these are examples of power grabs by the clearinghouses, but rather rational responses to fundamental problems in a troubled American banking system.

When bank runs occurred, the clearinghouse certificate came into use, first in 1857, but confined to the interbank market to economize on reserves. Transactions could be cleared in specie, but lacking sufficient reserves, a troubled bank could make use of the certificates. These certificates were jointly guaranteed by all banks in the clearinghouse system through their pooled reserves. This joint guarantee was welcomed by unstable banks with poor reserve positions, and imposed a cost on more prudently managed banks (as is the case today with deposit insurance). A prudent bank could complain, but if it wanted to use a clearinghouse’s services and reap the cost advantages it had to comply with the reserve-pooling policy.

As the magnitude of the banking crisis intensified, clearinghouses started permitting banks to issue the certificates directly to the public (starting with the Panic of 1873) to further stymie reserve drains. (These issues to the general public amounted to illegal money substitutes, though they were tolerated, as noted above.)

Fractional-Reserve Free Banking and Bust

The year 1857 is a somewhat strange one for these clearinghouse certificates to make their first appearance. It was, after all, a full twenty years into America’s experiment with fractional-reserve free banking. This banking system was able to function stably, especially compared to more regulated periods or central banking regimes. However, the dislocation between deposit and lending activities set in motion a credit-fueled boom that culminated in the Panic of 1857.

This boom and panic has all the makings of an Austrian business cycle. Banks overextended themselves to finance the booming industries during America’s westward advance, primarily the railways. Land speculation was rampant. As realized profits came in under expectations, investors got skittish and withdrew money from banks. Troubled banks turned to the recently established New York Clearing House to promote stability. Certain rights were voluntarily abrogated in return for a guarantee on their solvency.

The original sin of the free-banking period was its fractional-reserve foundation. Without the ability to fund lending activity with their deposit base, banks never would have financed the boom to the extent that it became a destabilizing factor. Westward expansion and investment would still have occurred, though it would have occurred in a sustainable way funded through equity investments and loans. (These types of financing were used, though as is the case today, this occurred less than would be the case given the fractional-reserve banking system’s essentially cost-free funding source: the deposit base.)

In conclusion, the Fed was not birthed from nothing in 1913. The monster was the natural outgrowth of an increasingly troubled banking system. In searching for the original problem that set in motion the events culminating in the creation of the Fed, one must draw attention to the Panic of 1857 as the spark that set in motion ever more destabilizing policies. The Panic itself is a textbook example of an Austrian business cycle, caused by the lending activities of fractional-reserve banks. This original sin of the banking system concluded with the birth of a monster in 1914: The Federal Reserve.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending