27 replies to this topic

[ckn]

Guardian article

Some interesting stuff in there...

[Millman]

Guardian article

Some interesting stuff in there...

Nothing in there about Wakefield's new ground, or Mick giving up gambling which gives it real credibility to some.

[ShotgunGold]

My thoughts on each... 1, 4 and 13 are in my opinion the biggest ones.


1. This will be the big one. I still believe that Vietnam will go down in history as the turning point of the little man having enough intelligence to beat the big guy. Yes their methods have probably been done before then but it was the war that captured the attention of the world. These methods have now developed through states (North Korea, Iran) but also through non-states (Al Qaeda, Taliban). It will be China versus America (although hopefully not militarily) but I expect there to be many sides, many rogue states, much chaos. Every single country now realises that it can cause the world to collapse, it solely depends on how far they're willing to go. America's sphere of influence I think will continue, it is done through media too not just economically, but I think American politicians will struggle to come to terms with the fact that they will be on equal terms will many countries quite soon. It's all well having Britain, France and Germany as allies but these are not the countries that will influence the world in the next 25 years.

2. Hopefully this will happen. It's probably correct in saying that it will take another financial crisis for people to change. As someone who has never been a full supporter of capitalism, and as someone who hasn't felt the effects of this first financial crisis, then this is great news as it will finally mean change. Economics and politics overlap way to much.

3. This is great news. A little worried about the worlds population but it will be fantastic if this proves to be true.

4. Unfortunately this is probably right. Although I still believe that technology and efficiency will (just about) save the Western world. For people in the likes of Bangladesh, Indonesia, Africa; I don't think this will all come quick enough unfortunately. It's our choice of energy that is fueling these natural disasters.

5. Plain packages I don't quite agree with. I actually see the likes of cannabis becoming legal soon as our society grows much more tolerant. I've always thought that a major factor in all this concerning our country is the NHS, and whilst it annoys me that I'm paying for alcoholics, heavy smokers, £400 for 20 year olds who have drunk so much in one night they're on the verge of dying etc; most countries don't have this problem. As for the advertising gurus, god help us all.

6. In really really really hope this isn't true. Humanity really would have hit an all time low if it's the case. I'm all for medical research for the disabled but this would have taken it to far if extended to all human beings.

7. Sounds good.

8. A huge problem which will once again see the rich hold on whilst the likes of Africa slip back. I really can see the possibility of Africans having access to high-speed broadband, but not to enough food.

9. Another thing that just sounds barmy to me....

10. I think people spend too much time in their virtual worlds, so I don't like where this is going, but hey the prediction is definitely right.

11. ?????? This again sounds bad! The whole point is that it's open.

12. We need to get away from clothing being so disposable. Yes it's good to have a change of clothes for the week or 10 days or whatever but massive wardrobes are really not needed.

13. This is the second "big one". We cannot survive without these creatures. There is a chain and we are part of it. Yes we are more intelligent and yes we will always value ourselves over other creatures but the amount of damage we are doing will soon be irreversible. It's great that we are attempting to save tigers and pandas and the like but I believe that's because that are large creatures which "look good". Saving plankton, insects, the rainforest, the coral reefs etc are much more important but because they're not as "visible" as the tiger people will forget about them.

14. I'm worried that cities will turn into basically a group of houses. Fewer social buildings, shops, offices etc as we all decide to do things from home. I've always believed that cities should be the place for humans and the countryside should be the place for animals, so more people living in cities and less in the countryside would be great imo. I never object to councils building more houses on the edge of cities to extend them, but building new villages, or extending villages, where nature lives, annoys me.

15. I definitely see shorter formats becoming more popular, not so in football but in cricket and rugby. I think that the world will see seven or eight sports flourish whilst the rest will start to disappear in terms of a professional format.

16. Not many predictions there at all.... I'm hoping we'll see more reliance on public transport and less on cars. An upgrade on our train lines across the UK will be great.

17. To be healthy is to be attractive. I see the "split" that is currently present in society to grow, meaning that a large proportion of people will get fatter, will drink more, will continue to eat rubbish and hold lifestyles that will mean that we will have to do even less work than we currently do. However gyms will flourish, as people get richer they can afford to eat healthily or eat a lot to to put on muscle. There will just be a bigger split. In terms of long term illnesses then again I see a split. If you lead an unhealthy life then you're bound to get these.

18. Not for much longer. It's clearly over for religion in the Western world. Not quite sure if the likes of Africa and Asia will follow suit in the next 25 years though.

19. Sounds good. I like diversity in art.

20. Sounds ######! I don't like diversity like that.

[JohnM]

They missed one out. The Guardian will go out of business

[bowes]

18. Not for much longer. It's clearly over for religion in the Western world. Not quite sure if the likes of Africa and Asia will follow suit in the next 25 years though.

It's not all over for religion in the West, but it is perhaps is for traditional forms of Christianity. I think we'll see fewer religious people but the ones who are religious will be more religious whether through evangelicalism or Islam.

The rise of China (and Brazil and India), running out of fossil fuels and ageing population will be big ones, but the latter doesn't seem to get much of a mention. Not sure how much growth Russia has as it's population is falling fast so they won't have the young people (especially not young ethnic Russians) for a military to hold such a big country together if China one day decide they want Siberia (or keeping Chechenia, Dagestan etc).

Edited by bowes, 05 January 2011 - 04:52 PM.

[Millman]

It's not all over for religion in the West, but it is perhaps is for traditional forms of Christianity. I think we'll see fewer religious people but the ones who are religious will be more religious whether through evangelicalism or Islam (or in fact New Age paganism type religions perhaps).

What does "more religious" mean?

[bowes]

What does "more religious" mean?

Stronger religious views. Compare an evangelical to a liberal part of the Church of England for example.

[Millman]

Stronger religious views. Compare an evangelical to a liberal part of the Church of England for example.

To atheists they're equally as silly.

[JohnM]

Stronger religious views. Compare an evangelical to a liberal part of the Church of England for example.

plus this

5000 is not many, sure but is it a trend to more "serious" religion?

[Bulletproof]

They missed one out. The Guardian will go out of business

That's more a fantastical dream than a reality....although I really really hope it's true.

[Rubber Schnib]

That's more a fantastical dream than a reality....although I really really hope it's true.

Do you mind me asking why?

The Guardian is no tabloid, so regardless of whether you agree with its editorial stance it's worth having around on the basis of "quality" journalism from a political perspective that differs from your own.

I don't always agree with its editorial stance, but I read it almost every day - along with the Telegraph and Times, where available. I like my news from several different perspectives, and would ideally like the ability to continue in that manner.

[bowes]

plus this

5000 is not many, sure but is it a trend to more "serious" religion?

There's a surprising number of West Indian converts to Islam in London so I wonder how it breaks down? Many converts are for marriage purposes though I find it hard to understand how you can change your beliefs solely because you want to marry someone who believes it. Just doesn't sound sincere to me

[bowes]

To atheists they're equally as silly.

Equally as silly perhaps. But I'd rather someone dress up and eat bread and wine than preach hell, fire and brimstones. I've been to Christian and Muslim events trying to convert you that quite frankly scare me but I guess the more liberal members rarely try to convert people.

Edited by bowes, 05 January 2011 - 06:13 PM.

[Bulletproof]

Do you mind me asking why?

The Guardian is no tabloid, so regardless of whether you agree with its editorial stance it's worth having around on the basis of "quality" journalism from a political perspective that differs from your own.

I don't always agree with its editorial stance, but I read it almost every day - along with the Telegraph and Times, where available. I like my news from several different perspectives, and would ideally like the ability to continue in that manner.

I think it is an embarrassment to the left. I used to buy it, simply because I identified myself as a left winger, and quickly realised it is the most apologetic, miserable double standard of a newspaper. It is to the left what the Mail is to the right although not as destructive. A good example I can think of right now is it's recent stance on "giving back" The Falkland Islands to an Argentina who never had them in the first place. Several editorials have been dedicated to this ideal.

As I haven't read it in quite some time due to the nature of its contents I couldn't elaborate too much. I do avoid it, sometimes, it comes up with things I agree with, all too often it comes off as smug.

Personally, I think the UK press is overall an institution which needs to change. I'm happy new media is coming in and forcing them to. Sometimes I wonder who runs this country, if they want a politician out, there's a good chance they will make it so. If they want a policy brought in, they can throw their weight behind it and make it so. Who voted for them? And who owns these institutions? I'll be happy when quite a few newspapers go out of business, many of them are a disgrace to Britain. Not least the tabloids, who are still reporting on Jordan's marriage today, but also The Guardian.

[Bulletproof]

To atheists they're equally as silly.

I don't think they are though. Not nearly.

[Rubber Schnib]

I think it is an embarrassment to the left. ... I'll be happy when quite a few newspapers go out of business, many of them are a disgrace to Britain ... but also The Guardian.

Cheers.

But I honestly think the label "disgrace" is woefully inappropriate for the Guardian, regardless of whatever political stance you may take. They'll drop the ball, as all journalistic outlets will from time to time, but they're no "disgrace" in my book.

[Bulletproof]

Cheers.

But I honestly think the label "disgrace" is woefully inappropriate for the Guardian, regardless of whatever political stance you may take. They'll drop the ball, as all journalistic outlets will from time to time, but they're no "disgrace" in my book.

On their own, not so much, but as a collective, our press are frequently a disgrace. They bang on about freedom of the press, but are not so worried with the freedoms of others. Like privacy, innocence until proven guilty, not bringing personal vendettas into serious business etc.

I find The Guardian frequently disagreeable, frequently hypocritical, but I wouldn't put them in the same bracket as the tabloid someone left around yesterday I had the misfortune to check out. Where are people's priorities? Cheryl Cole? Jordan? Why is this important?

[Rubber Schnib]

On their own, not so much, but as a collective, our press are frequently a disgrace.

I hesitate to lump all the press into the same bracket in such a manner; publications such as the Independent, Telegraph, Guardian/Observer and Times are a pronounced cut above the likes of the traditional tabloids.

The UK media (not just the press!) are still, as a whole, pretty darned good IMO - even taking into account the worst excesses of populism and scaremongering.

[JohnM]

. Where are people's priorities? Cheryl Cole? Jordan? Why is this important?

That's a tough one. Who are we to say? Unless of course we are better than those who don't share our priorities.

As for the Guardian, why is it an embarrassment to the left? Does it have some sort of charter to promote the left? My prediction is solely based on its inability to stay the course - falling circulation, losses, redundancies....

[Millman]

There's a surprising number of West Indian converts to Islam in London so I wonder how it breaks down? Many converts are for marriage purposes though I find it hard to understand how you can change your beliefs solely because you want to marry someone who believes it. Just doesn't sound sincere to me

So some of the massive number of people regarded Muslims in this country aren't really Muslims then in your opinion?

I suspect you're right. As a wider point I suspect the proportion of people referred to as Muslim that aren't actually Muslim is larger proportionally than the number of people that are casually called Christians that aren't Christians (although I cannot back this up other than anecdotally).

Edited by Millman, 05 January 2011 - 10:56 PM.