State of the world

[andrewducker]

In this fifty year period, a massive depression, coupled with the collapse of a key resource, undermines traditional economic models. Even as the global economy recovers, a global war erupts, a horrifying accident triggered by political systems overwhelmed by increasingly rapid communications, a tragedy multiplied by the almost casual use of chemical weapons. The end of this war coincides with the emergence of a pandemic the likes of which the world has never seen, killing millions upon millions -- and, combined with the war, almost eliminating an entire generation in some parts of the globe.

After the pandemic ebbs, a brief, heady economic boom leads many to believe the worst has ended. Unfortunately, what follows is a global depression even more massive than the previous one, causing hyperinflation in some of the most advanced nations, and leading directly to the seizure of power by totalitarian, genocidal regimes.

 

What follows is perhaps predictable: an even greater world-wide war, nearly wiping out a major culture and culminating in a shocking nuclear attack.

 

At this point, you’ve probably already realized that this scenario covers the end of the nineteenth century through the end of World War II.

From.

Comments

[cybik.livejournal.com]

Yes, war has evolved, but I still think something huge might break out - especially if fossil fuel estimates are wrong and we end up having almost no resources in the near future. In which case I think our government (especially if it's New Lab. or Tories) will happily commit to mass destruction.


I used to think Brave New World was more likely to happen than 1984. Now I think I was wrong, and that scares me.