Introduction

A wind turbine farm for clean, sustainable, energy production. Expect to see more of these in the future. Image from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

There are several reasons for studying history. One is to understand why the world is the way it is; the present is a result of past decisions, so history has many of the answers. Another reason is empowerment. In understanding how and why the present world came about, we may understand how to build a better one in the future, or at least avoid past mistakes. Take, for example, the European Union and the United Nations. Both institutions were established to avoid past errors and build a safer future. You have seen many examples of such thinking in this book. Therefore, one reason for studying the past is, ironically, concern for the future.

An upshot is that historians are tempted to predict the future based on present circumstances and trends. They are often inaccurate; few could have predicted the end of the Cold War, though George Kennan managed it. But if historians can foresee national or global problems, governments may be able to avoid those problems if they act accordingly. Governments and corporations both dedicate significant resources to researching the past to extrapolate future developments.

This chapter will address four major trends which will determine what sort of world our children and grandchildren will inherit. It will examine at the sources of these trends and why they are so critical to the future. The four trends are global warming, globalization, emerging technologies, and the new international polarity.

Global Warming

The twin hearts of modern economics are capitalism and industrialization, referred to together as industrial capitalism. Industrialization refers to using machines to make commodities, as opposed to making them by hand. Because it is so much faster than handcrafting, industrialization makes inexpensive products, allowing more people to afford them, expanding sales and thus growing the economy. Industrialization began in the UK, where the first viable steam engines were invented and improved, then put to work in the textiles industry.

Industrial machinery requires immense energy. In the UK, the first industrial energy source was coal, which is readily available in the British Isles. Coal is the mineralized remains of ancient plant life which spent tens of millions of years underground, subjected to intense heat and pressure. This chemically changed the organic materials until they became coal. Coal is the remains of ancient life, and so is called a fossil fuel.

Over time, coal was used to power more than manufacturing equipment; it was used to fire the steam engines of trains, ships, and electrical power plants when the first was built in 1882. Coal remained the undisputed king of energy until 1860, when Étienne Lenoir invented the internal combustion engine. Automobiles soon followed. The internal combustion engine was much smaller and far more efficient than steam engines, but didn’t run on coal – it required derivatives of oil, another fossil fuel. Oil is the concentrated remains of algae and zooplankton which lived on the surface of the ocean from 90 to 150 million years ago, then subducted underground and compressed in the same manner as coal. One gallon of crude (as oil is called when first pumped out of the ground) contains 98 tons of this compressed ancient life. The crude is filtered and chemically refined into the various derivative fuels (gasoline, diesel, kerosene, etc.) as well as lubricating oil and plastics.

Oil quickly surpassed coal as the world’s primary fuel and nations strove to acquire it by one means or another -- see the example of the British in Iran. It is the most cost-efficient fuel humans have ever discovered, allowing modern man to do 70 to 100 times more physical work than preindustrial civilizations. (Nuclear power plants are very efficient at generating electricity, but are expensive to build and have certain dangers associated with them; see Chapter 2. Also, they are impractical for powering land vehicles.) Oil is the main reason why modern economies are so much more efficient than earlier ones, since it makes transportation and manufacturing so inexpensive. Naturally, as economies expand, so does fossil fuel consumption.

Although burning fossil fuels produces a toxic byproduct (carbon monoxide) as well as particulate matter, scientists in the late 19th century recognized a potential problem with a nontoxic byproduct: carbon dioxide.

Greenhouses stay warm in winter by allowing sunlight to pass through their glass ceilings. The sun’s energy, in the form of visible light, enters the greenhouse through the glass and strikes objects in the building. The objects warm and radiate the energy back in the form of infrared energy, better known as heat. However, most of the infrared energy cannot pass back out through the glass ceiling because its wavelength is longer than visible light. Therefore, the sun’s energy enters the greenhouse, converts to heat, and remains in the greenhouse.

Scientists have long known that carbon dioxide has a similar effect in that most infrared radiation will not pass through it. Burning fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide, releasing it into the atmosphere. Historically, the earth’s temperature was relatively stable over short geologic periods between ice ages. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was such that much of the sun’s reflected infrared could radiate back out into space and maintain heat equilibrium. But centuries of fossil fuel burning have increased the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from its natural 280 parts per million to 420 parts per million today.

The result of this increased carbon dioxide level is called the greenhouse effect. Trapping more infrared energy on earth instead of radiating it out to space increases the planet’s surface temperature. Indeed, weather records show that Earth’s temperature has increased two degrees Fahrenheit since industrialization. While it does not sound like much, it is enough to cause unnatural variations in the climate, such as stronger storms, droughts, and rising sea levels. Although the climate is naturally variable, 98 percent of climatologists agree that climate change is “very likely” caused mainly by human activity. Mankind continues to use about fifty thousand gallons of oil every second, constantly increasing the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. What are the expected consequences of long-term climate change?

Chart showing the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from 1750 to 2020. From the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

If carbon emissions are not drastically reduced, scientists expect that the most dramatic changes will be evident by the year 2100, if not before. The warmer world will be dryer in many places as the heat evaporates surface water. Droughts will become more common, disrupting food production, especially in already-dry climates such as the US Southwest. Scientists expect to see a drop in production for every major cereal crop worldwide, putting millions of people in danger of famine. Fresh water will become an ever-larger problem (some speculate that drinking water will become a very valuable commodity in the future). For example, many glaciers around the world have already disappeared due to warming temperatures. Himalayan glaciers provide drinking water to about a quarter of the Chinese population when their spring melt swells the rivers; when those glaciers melt entirely, it will become an immediate problem for China and other countries. The American Southwest is already suffering a lack of drinking water due to climate change.

Another major result of climate change is sea level rise, which is already being recorded in several regions, including the Southeastern US. Melting ice caps in Iceland, Antarctica, and the North Pole add water to the oceans; also, as the seas heat up due to global warming, the water expands, raising sea levels even more. Sea level change will vary around the world, but in the coastal United States, levels are expected to rise by twelve inches by 2050 and 62 inches by 2100. Other nations will experience considerable sea level rise as well.

The damage from this, already felt in such places as Florida, will be catastrophic. Nearly half of all people globally live within 65 miles of the sea; sea level rise would result in devastating floods, especially with a combination of storms and high tide. Furthermore, sea water can infiltrate fresh water aquifers farther inland, rendering them undrinkable and reducing fresh water supplies.

Climate change will have many other consequences which do not bode well for mankind or other species. Storms, hurricanes, and tornados become more frequent, and stronger, in hot weather. Pests and diseases which are presently limited to the tropics could migrate north and south as the earth becomes warmer, since temperatures could now support them. While those species would thrive, other species sensitive to changes in climate would not be able to adapt fast enough. A great many would go extinct.

All these factors, especially famine, will breed crime, civil war, and anarchy. Wars are likely to erupt to seize or protect the remaining resources, particularly fresh water. Refugees from famine, flooding, and war are likely to number in the hundreds of millions, dwarfing every refugee crisis of the past. That only leaves the question: what can be done to prevent climate change, or to mitigate the effects?

Many nations are taking at least some steps to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, by switching to solar and wind energy for power generation or subsidizing electric vehicle purchases. It is hotly debated whether these adjustments will be enough. Remember that oil is the most cost-efficient fuel known to man, and other sources are unlikely to make up the difference in energy if fossil fuels are abandoned. Electric vehicles have far less range with current technology that internal combustion engine cars. Any drop in the overall energy available to mankind will damage our economic system. Politicians who harm the economy with a quick shift away from fossil fuels are unlikely to be re-elected, and they know it. Since climatologists say that mankind needs a rapid transition to renewable energy, our politics will clearly be an obstacle to change. But doing nothing, or too little, is a clear path to climate disaster.

The most likely outcome is that a certain degree of climate change will be permitted to occur due to the political difficulties in changing the system. At that point, the public will be more likely to accept change, once it understands the consequences of inaction. Some analysts believe that, at that point, change would come too late. Carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for between 30 and 100 years; by the time significant changes are made, it may be too late to avoid the worst effects of climate change. But it is obvious that climate change will become an increasingly-important topic of political debate at the global level for the foreseeable future.

Globalization

Historians tend to apply labels to periods of history in order to classify them and make sense of the passage of time. The Cold War and decolonization were both “eras” in global history. The present era since the end of the Cold War may be referred to as the Era of Globalization, as globalization is presently the dominant global paradigm.

Globalization is the integration of the global community, particularly in economic terms. It refers to the unrestricted, global movement of money, commodities, people, and ideas. One of the drives of capitalism is unlimited growth – to reinvest profits and grow a company, theoretically, without limits. While international trade has a long history, there have always been many limits to it. Often, governments would not let foreigners sell goods in their country, or else heavily tax their profits, in order to protect their own manufacturers from competition; this is known as protectionism. Sometimes the restrictions are due to political or religious differences manifesting as embargoes. Also, technical problems limited trade. Manufacturing and farming were inefficient and transportation was slow. Communication and business administration were primitive. All these reasons kept companies, and thus national economies, from growing past a certain point.

More recently, the Cold War divided much of the world between the capitalist and communist camps, and trade between them was restricted, limiting growth. The global economy has changed drastically since the end of the Cold War, however, and many political, legal, and technical restrictions on international trade have been removed. That is why, although international trade is very old, modern globalization is considered a new phase in economic history.

Modern globalization began at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944. While World War II still raged, delegates from 44 Allied nations laid the groundwork for the postwar economy. Their intention was to assure that the world would have a financial system capable of rebuilding the world as well as preventing another Great Depression, which was viewed as a cause of the war. Their plan, later called the Bretton Woods system, called for international standards of currency exchange, the creation of the IMF and World Bank to provide money to recovering or developing countries, and other common economic standards. This was the first time in history that nations had gathered to create an international standard for global trade. Later agreements included the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1947, which eliminated further barriers to trade, such as tariffs and trade quotas. Nevertheless, Bretton Woods would not be global, as the Cold War cut off the communist countries from the system; those nations did not participate in it. This limited globalization until the opening of China and the end of the Cold War. Also, while the Bretton Woods concept of globalization espouses eliminating tariffs, domestic pressure for protectionism has forced politicians to keep and even expand tariffs over the years.

The Bretton Woods agreement broke down in 1971, when the US ended the convertibility of the dollar to gold, as Bretton Woods promised. Still, other agreements remained in force, and the World Trade Organization (WTO) was established in 1995, to facilitate world trade and settle international trade disputes. Laws regarding intellectual property (i.e., copyrights and patents) have been internationalized, so that owners can pursue and prosecute violators in other countries, thus protecting their profits.

The increase in world trade since 1950; this is essentially the impact of globalization. Chart compliments of the World Trade Organization.

Laws and treaties are one facet of globalization. Another is the tremendous improvement of transportation technologies and systems. If international trade is to be profitable, transportation of manufactured products must be cheap and efficient; the same goes for global tourism, which is an eleven trillion-dollar industry. Jet aircraft have vastly improved the efficiency of air travel, which is also much safer than it once was.

Since the 1980s, the proliferation of computer technology has greatly improved business efficiency and profitability. The rise of the internet in the mid-1990s not only allowed freer exchange of information, but also introduced online business transactions (e-commerce), which is presently worth about three trillion dollars a year. This was quickly followed by mobile (cell) phone technology, which allows both communication and data access, greatly expanding interconnectivity.

These changes in international trade laws, politics, and technology have increased the value of international trade from $61 billion in 1950 to $22.3 trillion in 2021. This is because globalization has removed many barriers to trade since World War II, often with technology the participants of the Bretton Woods conference could not have imagined in 1944. Globalization is the realization of their dream, a world without economic limits. But since globalization is the most complicated of all current historical trends, there are both pros and cons to it.

The benefits of globalization are clear. It benefits businesses by making all the world’s markets, resources, and labor pools available. The markets are particularly important, because industrial capitalism has a habit of saturating domestic markets (that is, companies can only sell so much of their products because no one wants, or can afford, any more). Therefore, the ability to sell to the entire world is an important asset. Globalization also allows access to the necessary natural resources for manufacturing, since companies can buy them from any source in the world. Access to the world’s labor markets allows corporations to open factories in nations with abundant, inexpensive labor, reducing productions costs.

Globalization also benefits smaller countries by opening global markets to specialized goods they excel at producing (for example, sugar and coffee in South America). If these countries can sell enough of their specialized product, they can theoretically afford to buy the manufactured products they cannot produce cheaply themselves.

Socially and politically, globalization is believed to increase cooperation between nations, reducing ethnocentricity through exchange of information and allowing travelers to visit foreign cultures. Music, fashion, and movies now enjoy global audiences. The internet has made all aspects of human culture available to anyone with a cell phone.

There are also many disadvantages to globalization, depending on one’s position in the system. Increased competition is a major problem for small, local companies. For example, global restaurant chains such as McDonald’s or Domino sell cheap products and thus beat local restaurants, which are eventually forced to close. While the inexpensive food may benefit the local people, it hurts the local restaurants, who simply cannot compete with the globalized corporate behemoths. Amazon and Walmart have similar effects.

Another upshot is that globalization can create homogenization; that the same globalized food chains, music, internet, movies, cars, etc. will erase all the local producers and convert all the world’s cultures into a single culture created by the corporations. Since most of the global corporations and products are American, homogenization is sometimes also referred to as “Americanization.” Understandably, many people do not want their home culture to turn into a foreign one.

An anti-globalization protest in the US. Seattle Municipal Archives, November 29 1999. CC BY-2.0.

More serious than homogenization is the exploitation of workers. Globalization treaties allow corporations to open factories in foreign countries where labor is cheaper, not just in terms of salary but also with a lack of labor laws, environmental and safety regulations, and so on. There is disagreement even among foreign workers whether this represents abuse. On one hand, the corporations employ these workers only because they are inexpensive. On the other hand, the global corporation’s jobs may be the only ones available. Is this helpful, or exploitative?

Another disadvantage to globalization in this respect is known as the “race to the bottom.” Since governments want global corporations to provide jobs in their countries, and know that corporations want an inexpensive labor market, they sometimes take steps to reduce the costs for corporations. This might include providing tax breaks for the corporations, but also things which harm the workers. For example, the government may remove or ignore workers’ rights in a country, such as a minimum wage or safety standards, to make it more attractive to global corporations. While this may bring jobs to the country, the workers must accept those jobs with few benefits. Again, is this beneficial, or exploitative? And when all the developing nations compete to attract corporations by removing workers’ rights, this is known as the “race to the bottom.”

Finally, just as capitalism considers the environment to be an “external” (i.e., apart from economic considerations), globalization also ignores environmental destruction in pursuit of natural resources and manufacturing. Governments often ignore environmental concerns in order to grow their economies, allowing the corporations to do what they need for the sake of increasing profits. This grows the economy and provides jobs, which are important for re-election. While this may benefit them in the short-term, it has negative long-term consequences for the country and even the entire world (via global warming).

While globalization provides both cheap products and jobs, it can also result in workers losing their jobs. One reason why the manufacturing base in the United States lost so much of its dominance is that US corporations have their factories in countries with cheaper labor (or else buy needed parts from those countries because they are cheaper). Corporations then close unneeded factories in the US, and American workers lose their jobs. This happens in other developed counties as well.

Like capitalism in general, those who are better-placed in the system benefit the most from globalization – skilled workers or wealthy investors. So, while globalization produces wealth for all, it does not do so evenly. The richest one percent of the world’s population owns nearly half of the world’s wealth, while the poorest fifty percent own only one percent. One of the most important determinants between wealth and poverty in the future will be whether individuals and nations are equipped to compete in the globalized environment.

Emerging Technologies

Since the Industrial Revolution, technology has completely remade human culture. Industrial agriculture reduced the need for farmers, and the workers went to the newly-built factories for jobs; the farmers became city folk and factory workers, living entirely different lives. Medicine and public health improved and extended human lifespans. On the other hand, military technology is now sufficiently advanced to wipe out its makers – and history shows that mankind is increasingly afraid of its own creations. But where is technological development taking us from here? This section will examine three developing technologies which will likely profoundly influence human life in the near future.

The first is genetic engineering. Mankind has practiced genetic engineering for hundreds of years via selective breeding of plants and animals to produce offspring with desirable traits. Although useful, selective breeding is a slow process, requiring many generations to complete, and may also create undesirable traits as well.

Modern genetic engineering is much more direct. It delivers genetic material from one organism and inserts it into another; it does not require several generations to see results and avoids also transmitting negative qualities in the process. Although the concept of DNA was known as early as the mid-19th century, the ability to edit the genetic makeup of cells in a lab only became possible in the late 1970s and 1980s.

Agriculture has thus far been the field most affected by new technology. Genetic engineering has created crop plants (known as GMO, or genetically-modified organisms) which produce larger yields and are resistant to insects and drought. These modifications increase the amount of food available and thus lower the price. Other organisms are modified so that they produce drugs for human use; for example, GMO bacteria are used to produce insulin.

But the most controversial use of genetic engineering relates to its use on human beings. Recent advances have made it possible to “edit” human beings before their birth. These changes theoretically include immunity to certain diseases or the elimination of inherited disabilities. Furthermore, it may be possible, with an increasing understanding of genetics, to produce humans with desirable aesthetic traits, or with increased intelligence. It may be possible to eliminate “undesirable” character traits such as greed or aggression; but, at that point, is the person a human being anymore? Genetic engineering presents the most complex ethical dilemmas of any new technology, and arguments over its acceptable uses are ongoing. Famed scientist Stephen Hawking predicted that, someday, wealthy people with access to genetic engineering would produce a race of superhumans. As to the unmodified people, Hawking predicted, “presumably, they will die out, or become unimportant. Instead, there will be a race of self-designing beings who are improving at an ever-increasing rate.” Little wonder that genetic engineering is so fraught with ethical issues.

Nanotechnology is a new science addressing the manipulation of matter at extremely small scales – as small as one nanometer (one billionth of a meter). For scale, a human hair is about 100,000 nanometers in diameter. This might include building materials from individual molecules or even atoms; the first manipulation of an individual atom for this purpose was in 1989.

Since them, scientists have envisioned a myriad of uses for this technology. Matter has different properties on this tiny scale and nanotechnology leverages them to create changes in materials on the macro scale. Materials engineered at the molecular level provide such benefits as greater tensile strength, heat resistance, lower weight, and water resistance. Nano-manufactured materials such as concrete would greatly benefit building construction. Aircraft made from carbon fiber nanotubes will be lightweight, yet stronger than steel. Nontechnology is already used in cancer treatment and vaccination. One envisioned use is for drug delivery; such tiny creations can pass between cells and deliver drugs to exactly the correct target so that drugs are not wasted. Computers will also benefit from nanotechnology. The smaller the microchip, the more information it can contain, and the faster it works. Manufacturing chips at the molecular level would create a whole new generation of computers, vastly more powerful than current technology while using less energy. The same technology applies to robots. Scientists envision tiny machines able to enter the bloodstream and eliminate cancer cells or other problems. These are just a few of the benefits of this newly-emerging technology.

This technology can also be used for more nefarious purposes. The same undetectable, microscopic robots which can heal the body could also be used to destroy it from within. When coupled with nanotech computers and AI (see below), such mass-produced robots would be virtually unstoppable killers. There is also the danger of unintended pollution from nanomanufacturing, as the man-made particles escape into the air and water. This is already happening, as nano-manufactured clothing and other items are thrown away and degrade; studies indicate that such pollutants could be as dangerous as asbestos if ingested or inhaled. But, given the benefits that nanotechnology provides, it is certain that an increasing number of products will be made with nanotechnology.

Finally, there is the famed development of AI (artificial intelligence). AI is the ability of a digital computer to carry out processes typically associated with the human mind – reasoning, generalization, and learning. Alan Turing, the British mathematician, developed the earliest theories of AI starting in the late 1930s, long before computers capable of AI were invented. The first tentative steps towards AI were computers capable of playing checkers and chess, developed in the early 1950s. From there, both computer hardware and AI software programs have advanced exponentially.

At the moment, computers cannot think the way humans do, although AI chat programs appear to do so (in fact, they are only mimicking linguistic patterns, like a parrot). Intelligence includes the ability to adapt to new circumstances according to general principles, which AI cannot yet do. It is difficult to exactly define intelligence in humans, making it almost impossible to judge whether a machine has human intelligence. Many analysts claim that, despite their speed, AI programs are no more intelligent than insects. Still, specialized AI programs are very good at specific tasks, like playing chess or running a robotic assembly machine. Generalized AI – that is, a computer that can derive theories about the world from its own experience and use them to make decisions in novel situations – appears to be a long way off. We do not even understand how humans do it.

But, given that humans are putting a great deal of effort into creating generalized AI, some experts call for regulation. Some fear that generalized AI robots could replace humans at work, causing massive unemployment. Others say that AI could develop cognitive biases. For example, an AI using human history as a guide might perceive the racism inherent in past decisions and incorporate it into new decisions – devasting if the AI is being used to determine government policy.

The greatest of all AI fears is AI-guided weapons, like automated aerial drones. These autonomous machines could surpass human capabilities in combat, fighting with neither fear nor sympathy, making them formidable opponents. This brings up the possibility that they would not obey the laws of war, such as avoiding civilian casualties.  In February 2023, 60 nations, including the US and China, published a statement urging the development of military AI that would honor “international legal obligations and in a way that does not undermine international security, stability and accountability.”

Such is the danger of specialized AI in warfare. But what about a generalized AI with military capabilities that decided that mankind is a threat to its existence? This is a common trope in science fiction and serves as the basis, for example, of the “Terminator” movie series. The truth is that generalized AI is presumably far in the future. But since protections against such an event would need to be in place before the first AI became sentient, some AI experts recommend safety protocols be developed now, in the form of a “kill switch” that could be used to instantly deactivate a rogue AI.

Of all ethical arguments surrounding new technologies, the danger of AI is probably the most hotly debated, with experts on both sides of the issue. Given the considerable advantages AI could bring to economic planning, manufacturing, the military, and other fields, it is certain that AI and the associated computer hardware will continue to develop, and the results could be momentous.

All of these developing technologies are essentially multipliers of human power, granting us greater efficiency in economics, medicine, and elsewhere. The ethical questions emerge when we consider just how mankind will utilize this new power (or, in the case of AI, how AI will utilize it). 20th century history has shown that mankind can use its increased capabilities for medicine, economic expansion, and protecting human rights, and also for warfare and environmental destruction. French philosopher Jean Rostand wrote, “Science has made us gods even before we are worthy of being men.” This summarizes the fears that new technologies arouse: that mankind is like a child playing with matches, unprepared for the consequences. Still, mankind has successfully navigated the danger of nuclear war for seventy years. It remains to be seen if we can do the same with emerging technological dangers.

International Polarity

A major question when contemplating mankind’s future is the power configuration of the international community of states. The division of the world during the Cold War had a profound effect on international relations, even among nonaligned states. It deeply influenced international trade (and was not very good for it) and circumscribed what nations could do and still avoid a war or other negative outcome. Now that the Cold War is long gone, how to we describe the current power configuration in the international community, and how does it affect national decisions?

International relations specialists use the term polarity to describe the world’s power configuration. There are three basic types of polarity. The first is unipolarity, which is when a single nation (or empire) has so much power that it doesn’t fear any potential rival, even if that power is not great enough to coerce the other nations into obedience. The second is bipolarity, when two great nations share most of the power. The third is multipolarity, when the power is divided up among three or more nations.

By way of example: during World War II, the world was in a multipolar state as various countries and alliances struggled for victory. After the war, the world quickly developed into bipolarity between the US and the USSR; this was called the Cold War. After the fall of the USSR, the world entered a unipolar state, in which the United States enjoyed a preponderance of power; still, the US did not become the world’s hegemon, because the other nuclear powers still had enough firepower to limit its dominance. But American unipolarity allowed it to carry out military actions in the Middle East and Asia as part of the War on Terror without serious resistance from other countries. This would not have been possible during the Cold War, when the US had to be very careful not to threaten Soviet interests and risk war.

What is the current world polarity? As one might expect, experts debate this point. Some claim that the United States still stands head and shoulders above the rest of the world in terms of economics and military might (the two main determinants of polarity). Others claim that the rising power of India, China, and the EU mean that the world has returned to a multipolar state. But the rise of China, more than any other nation, indicates that we are likely entering a bipolar state between China and the United States in a “New Cold War.” And if we have not yet entered bipolarity between these two countries, we are likely to do so soon.

What is the United States’ grand strategy? What does it want in the world, and how does it go about getting it? This is a complicated question because it can vary, sometimes a great deal, from one US presidential administration to another. Like all nations, the US is primarily concerned with its own safety. Apart from terrorist attacks, which are not an existential threat, the US has little to fear in terms of war. The only nations which could threaten conventional war with the US are Russia and China, and neither are very interested in that. The US nuclear arsenal also serves as a major deterrent. Since the US is at the top of the global pyramid, it would like to see the world system remain stable; major changes might upset the US position at the top. Three things tend to concern US foreign policy makers: failed states (like Somalia, which could become a breeding ground for terrorists), rogue states (which act like criminals, like North Korea), and autocratic peer states (China and Russia). The last of these have always been considered the most dangerous to US interests, even during the War on Terror, which targeted mainly rogue states.

What about America’s main peer and adversary, China? Xi Jinping has made it clear that he wants to return China to its old imperial great-power status, perhaps the greatest in the world. Therefore, China wants to change the current world system and balance, while the US wants to maintain it. Because China is a one-party state under the Chinese Communist Party, and Xi has been the general secretary of the Party since 2012, he has effectively been ruling China for over ten years; this means that he can carry out long-term strategies which would vary from one president to the next in the United States.

Xi has three strategies to attain his goals. The first is the permanent dominance of the Chinese Communist Party in his country. Not only are other parties prohibited, but Xi has also taken steps to concentrate power into himself, rather than the party apparatus. This gives him an unopposed power unseen since the days of Mao. With so much power, Xi can single-handedly guide Chinese policy, aiming directly at great-power status. Note that Xi and the CCP are not on some sort of communist crusade ala Marx; the party is much more interested in nationalism than pure socialism. The autocracy of socialist politics merely serves as a convenient tool for maintaining power. This resonates well with the Chinese people, who seem sympathetic to Xi’s nationalism. Propaganda is at least partially responsible for this.

Second, and related to the dominance of the CCP, is the Chinese economy. Xi has promised to increase not just China’s GNP, but also its per-capita income. While China is the second-richest nation in the world (after the United States), China’s large population (over four times larger than the United States) means that the wealth is divided among many more people, so Chinese individuals command less than one-quarter the wealth of their American counterparts. Per capita wealth is the kind that affects peoples’ daily lives. This is important to the continued dominance of the CCP, which needs to prove its worth to the Chinese people to command their respect and avoid dissent. This is particularly true since the CCP has largely replaced socialist economics with guided capitalism; the people want to know why they have a one-party socialist state if they are not practicing socialist economics. The CCP needs to deliver if it is to retain legitimacy in the peoples’ eyes. And, of course, a nation cannot become a great power, with a large military and international influence, if it has a small GDP. Power costs money.

This leads us to the last part of Xi’s plan: the Chinese military. A great state requires a powerful military, not just to defend itself and its interests, but also to intimidate adversaries so that a war never occurs. Modern militaries are exceedingly expensive, which is one reason why the CCP focuses on economic development.

The Chinese military, despite a recent modernization program, is still a distant second to the United States’. This is not necessarily a disadvantage, because neither nation wants to settle their differences through war. Each side is armed with nuclear weapons; since a conventional war may lead to a nuclear war, neither side wants to risk a confrontation, a comforting thought to the people of the world who would have to suffer the consequences. The main point of contention between the US and China, in terms of a possible war, is Taiwan. The CCP wants the island returned to China and has stated it is willing to use force to do so. The US has pledged to defend Taiwan against invasion, and the situation simmers tensely.

Xi’s plan seems to be to increase China’s power and influence through economics rather than military force. China also needs to build alliances around the world to help spread its influence. Presently, the US is much better at this. This competition for power and influence, while threatening, but not using military force, recalls the days of the Cold War. But, unlike the US and the USSR, the US and China are deeply connected economically; each needs the other to maintain its economy. This combination of mutual reliance and mutual distrust produces a tense, yet stable relationship that might best be termed a “Cold Peace.”

Conclusion

Bearing all this in mind – as well as the fact that prophesy is a risky business – what kind of world can our children expect to live in?

The peace and stability of the next hundred years of human experience is debatable. Humanity has suffered far fewer wars since World War II and certainly since the end of the tumultuous wars of decolonization and the immediate aftermath. A combination of the United Nations and nuclear weapons prevents war between large nations. Most conflicts in the modern era are internal insurgencies rather than international conflicts.

On the other hand, climate change is likely to upset this peaceful picture. The social upheaval from drought, sea level rise, and famine will cause both unprecedented migrations and widespread insurgency. These may also become interstate wars if the situation declines too much. Whether or not international organizations and the threat of nuclear war will be enough to prevent them is anyone’s guess, as the situation of human-caused global climate change is unprecedented. Climate change will likely be the main determinant of what the future holds. If mankind can prevent or mitigate the worst effects, the future might well be bright.

Several other trends stand out. The late 20th century brought the rise of powerful nonstate actors to the international arena. Large corporations, empowered by globalization, can now deeply affect nation-states. For example, “Walmart, Apple and Shell all accrued more wealth than even fairly rich countries like Russia, Belgium, and Sweden,” according to Global Justice Now. Of the richest 200 global entities, 157 of them are corporations, not nations. Yet corporations are not democratic; rather than represent and serve people, their only loyalty is to profit. This new corporate power represents a shift from democratic institutions to profit-driven ones. This would not necessarily be a problem if corporations were made to follow international standards on workers’ rights and pollution; but as we saw in the section regarding globalization, this is often not the case. If corporations continue to accrue power and wealth in this fashion, it may lead to a reckoning with the power of nation-states. Other powerful nonstate actors include non-governmental organizations (NGOs, nonprofits which can influence public opinion), global terrorist organizations, and increasingly-numerous billionaires (who are empowered by wealth to do things once restricted to nations, like launch space programs or run massive humanitarian campaigns).

Finally, technological advancement will continue at an ever-increasing rate. Mobile phone technology and the internet have already changed society and economies in only a few decades. Even greater changes are likely coming in the forms of genetic engineering and AI; and then, of course, there are technologies we cannot even guess at this time.

Certain things are unlikely to change. For most people of the world, respect for human rights (however they are locally interpreted) will remain the basis for legitimate government, and all governments will try to appear to be human rights champions, however hypocritical that makes them. Nationalism has been a powerful force since the 19th century and isn’t going anywhere. Although sometimes in conflict, human rights and nationalism are apparently permanent features of modern life, as is industrial capitalism.

The two main drivers of change will be climate change and new technologies. As always, their outcomes will be determined by a combination of human adaptability and concern for the future. Whether the near future is promising or hellish will depend on how mankind navigates these two challenges.

[The author wishes to thank the staffs of 1st Cup Coffee in Atlantic Highlands, NJ and Booskerdoo Coffee & Baking in Fair Haven, NJ, where most of this textbook was written.]