I'm not sure about that. The article is from 1997, after the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, but before the bombing of the USS Cole (2000) or, especially, the destruction of the World Trade Center and the partial destruction of the U.S. Pentagon (2001).
That’s the one that stands out as an unambiguous miss. The rest of the predictions were either spot-on (Russia), or predicted too large of a change or effect (COVID, by about an order of magnitude).
But cancer? Pretty flat.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-population-with-...
And the death rate has decreased.
https://ourworldindata.org/cancer#is-the-world-making-progre...
(1) Relations between China and the US aren't great but it's far from a cold war and even farther from a hot one.
(2) This is a bit wishy washy with the word "expected" but technology has transformed the economy and the world.
(3) Is accurate but had basically already happened by 1997. The transfer of public assets to oligarchs happened 95 to 96
(4) Way off. You can sort of squint at Brexit and say it's true, but besides that set back Europe has been on a steady path of integration.
(5) Way off. No famines and no major price increases attributable to climate change.
(6) Is close. We saw terrorism but I don't know that we've "pulled back in fear"
(7) Not even close to an overwhelming increase in cancer
(8) Not even close to a huge increase in energy prices and alternatives look close to replacing completely.
(9) Had a pandemic but not that deadly.
(10) Progress continues.
I don't think this was specified as happening by 2022?
(1) seems pretty close to cold though - if Russia hadn't acted up it might be.
(3) sure, but it does seem to me that every now and then new things to siphon off get found.
(4) there have been a few issues that have been dangerous, remember these are potential scenario spoilers, so not supposed to happen but could happen and thus stop the scenario of ongoing progress.
(5) "global climate change that, among other things, disrupts the food supply" https://profel-europe.eu/news/climate-change-impact-on-fruit... again, first quarter of century
(6) They probably should have written 'freaked out'
(9) we had two, but not that deadly https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3329048/
I agree 3 was in place in 1997 but the extent or permanence wasn't known. I think "that threatens Europe" is key. In 1997 I'd say it wasn't clear how long the corruption would last, and I don't think most people saw it as threatening Europe (or the US really).
9 is debatable but I think it's clear that we had a worldwide pandemic with significant economic, public health, and political implications. I think they were basically correct in this, even if the details aren't right.
1 hasn't occurred but I think there has been a sharp turn in Chinese-Western political relations in the last couple of years, accompanied by a change in Chinese internal politics. Where it goes is uncertain I think; I think they could end up being right.
5 will always be ambiguous because of "attribution to climate change", so even if it did happen there would be controversy about it. However, we are having inflation, and people are predicting a major food crisis this year; part of this is due to geopolitics and war, but some of it (my understanding) is lack of yield due to climate issues. I wouldn't say 5 is "yes" but it's somewhat debatable and clearly still a possibility.
8 isn't so far off. We have had energy crises in some places, and in many ways, are having one. You're right that alternative energy is in a strong place right now but it's not actually enough to nullify petrocrises at the moment. Given that people are predicting grid failures in the US, and most of the Western world still relies heavily on petrol, I think this is still very possible.
But a world that struggles to acknowledge the death toll from covid or climate change unsurprisingly may also simply ignore the death toll from pollution as well, until the system collapses due to failing to address any issues at all.
I wonder whether to complain about those colors or be thankful. Looking at that combination seems to make me so much more appreciative of everything else after looking at it.
And so solar, wind, and hydroelectric need to bring the future.
Oh hey have you seen that environmental groups financed by oil money are against power lines to connect the eastern seaboard with the Quebec grid composed of 98% hydroelectric power?
But, on the other hand isn’t it “just more of the same” of what was going on in 1997, be it turned up a notch? I’m too young to remember, but I feel the world hasn’t changed fundamentally after 1997 (though the local perception may have been different due to events like 9/11 etc.). See what’s trending now, extrapolate, amplify?
Yes. That's what I thought when I read it.
And not so turned up, actually. Bird flu was '97. Russia was "embracing capitalism" in the form of a kleptocracy. There was impending climate catastrophe. China was clearly an economic juggernaut and there would be future tensions with the US because of that. We'd been proclaiming peak oil for years by then. New tech never lives up to its hype.
The crime/terrorism one seems like a near miss to me. On terror, they couldn't have guessed the response to 9/11, though domestic terrorism was already on the rise by then. On crime more generally, rates over all are lower now.
And I have no idea what stopping progress, "dead in its tracks" or not, even means. But it sounds very Wired.
Sure, Africa was a mess and South America wasn't a lot of fun but the mood after the end of the cold War was jubilant to the level I don't recall before or since. It culminated in the dotcom mania of 1999. But somehow it all made sense. We all read Kurzweil and believed it.
I bemoan young people who never got to experience this brief and obviously misguided period of euphoria but it was so much fun while it lasted :)
1. While there is tension, the consequences of a hot conflict between such economically intertwined behemoths will make Russia/Ukraine conflict seem like knocking over wood blocks in the playground. Neither country is willing to gut their standard of living (at the moment).
2. If you interpret this as a dig at blockchain tech, it makes some sense. But there have absolutely been leaps and bounds made elsewhere. Renewables and medical treatments just to name a couple.
3. Pretty much unchanged since the Cold War, except much more openly hostile and desperate to keep its dwindling sphere of influence now.
5. Well, there is still 75+ years to go, so this may very well happen in a few decades.
6. Crime and terrorism? No. Corporate grift and hostility towards customers who can't defend themselves. Squeezing both workers and customers towards unrealistic short term goals. General diminishment of trust.
7. Fairly wrong, but the effects of microplastics could be just as negative
8. Fairly wrong again, shift to renewables is humming along.
9. COVID was controlled fairly well, despite massive media outcries about forced lockdowns and masks and whatever else.
10. Too vague to be a useful prediction.
