There is a Stratfor article going around the the mainstream media covered it here in New Zealand with this article in the NZ Herald.

Disturbing Trends does not agree with a primary assumption that military dominance will maintain relevance, as the future all rather depends upon what individuals do. “Disturbing Trends” represent a few of those decisions – as they start to show their ugly signs. Predicting the future is not so much a science, as an art and if one is to be very good at it then there is a need to consider more than one side of the coin.

Military dominance only has so much value. The age of military dominance will eventually fade – like the human crime of pollution of the natural environment will be corrected by a burp by nature eventually, and in a few billion years – we really will be forgotten history as no evidence of our existence or crimes could remain unchanged.

Once military dominance is established then trade competition replaces war, so goes the conventional or political wisdom. But eventually, can “dominance” be the successful way for humanity to survive? War is no longer survival of the fittest. It is the random death of people. Anyone will do.

My prediction is that the current climate in our thinking will thaw, that we as humanity will be forced to stop thinking that we can damage our environment without destroying ourselves.

Humans are tough enough for a few to survive the worst effects of climate change and after a few million years to climb back into dominance. Distopian fiction seems to be about that hope, for example we used to fear authority (before 9/11) now we fear the disruption of authority (the mad king syndrome).

If Barack Obama were elected in ten years either side of when he was, then he would not have been expected to be a “saviour”. What does it mean? Some want to give him super powers so that he can be seen to fail even if he is merely successful. That is an old trick. Politics.

China’s rise to power is not in itself a new thing. It being able to dominate the world militarily is a Western fear. Look at this politically, here we have an authoritarian government of a successfully exporting nation, huge diversity and the same problems of poverty that other nations (USA, Russia, Eastern Europe, the UK) suffer as well.

There is definitely a set of priorities where much of the national spending (i.e. collective effort) of major economies is military potential far beyond the necessary. Not in so much in successful societies like Norway, Sweden or Switzerland where national wealth is not squandered on military display.

The US fall from its “superpower” status is fiction. It maintains military dominance. Yes, China is restricted by conventional issues like the shape of the land. It does not have military dominance except over its own people.

Something unexpected (alien invasion, plague, another flood, etc.) could disrupt things and make military dominance less of a survival tactic (for example, strong earthquakes could corrupt the US military).

For humanity to survive its own folly, it must rise above greed for the sake it self. The only way it could ever evolve is for its very existence to be threatened.

Humanity blinds itself to self created threats that evolutionarily proves to itself it can exercise power like that a God may wield.

The world of the future depends upon more individuals evolving beyond greed, acting as humanity for the cause of the common good. Our economic traps are designed to enable governments to finance conflict, the purposes of which are often remote to the humans living within the geopolitical borders being argued over.

If governments were not thus funded – if that were the product of the UN – it could only be due to a matter of more urgent concern. The trouble is that our military might is the junior cousin to the fact that we appear to be blind to the inevitable.

Over population is a strategy that has consequences that are impossible to avoid. No matter how many bloggers say “overpopulation”, no matter when the media talk about it, even if world leaders talk about it, it will not stop the human instinct and religious imperatives that have produced – the most successful of breeding instincts – look how much cleverer we are compared to just 3 thousand years ago. Or just 300 years ago. Or even three years ago.

The long term trend that we have to solve for a happy future for our great great grandchildren would mean an end to growth and competition as a way of measuring progress. Sustainability means we stop consuming natural resources.

It simply is not going to happen with our growth religion. Humanity is not going to sacrifice progress willingly until the select few have their DNA launched into space as a last wild attempt to avoid the final chapter of our story.

A dystopian future is likely to be the disruptor as we threaten the ground we walk on, their air we breath, and the food chain we rely upon.

Real civilization means living in accord with nature, not in competition with it. Real civilization means appreciating other human beings, not wreaking each others time on Earth with missiles and threats. War is not progress. It indiscriminate destruction is not natural selection.

Human nature exists. But there are two human natures – the clawing for survival – that can result in a humble nest and garden, or the murder of competitors that results in a freezer full of high protein snacks.

There are choices and there are ways that individuals think. The choice is easier to make now, than it ever will be again. There is an unusual combination of intellectually capable individuals on the world stage. More talk, less action. That is pretty good medicine.