Seven Predictions about the Future

It is, of course, not possible to predict the future with much accuracy, but that should not stop people giving it a go for fun. Overall, I am really optimistic about the next hundred years – possibly because I don’t see much point in being pessimistic. So here are my seven predictions for trends that will dominate the coming decades:

(1)     The global population will stop growing and then start falling. This will happen quicker than people expect and it will be a good thing. (a) It will make the world more stable because there will be fewer angry young men with nothing to do. (b) It will reduce pollution and end the threat of global environmental catastrophe. (c) It will facilitate the rewilding of large areas of the globe. (d) It will facilitate more aesthetic architecture and landscaping. Declining population (along with more technological progress) will not actually damage living standards – it will increase them. (Also: women will continue to have more and more control over their own lives and men will continue to whine about it).

(2)     Technology (the information revolution, machines, robots) will mean fewer and fewer stable middle-class private sector jobs. The private sector model of stable employment will collapse. For societal stability a Basic Income will eventually be required, as well as a Right to Work. Essentially, anyone who wants to work will have a right to a public job, in return for which they will receive extra income above the Basic Income. If people want to work for themselves outside the public system then they can also do so, and they will still receive the Basic Income. The Basic Income will be an unconditional right for each and every citizen whether they work or not. These ideas seem outrageous and unworkable now – but once they are implemented they will work fine and they will seem as natural as the air we breathe. Humankind will be liberated from the scourge of wage-slavery, just as it previously liberated itself from chattel-slavery and serfdom.

(3)     The relative power of the West will continue to decline and this will cause chaos but in the end it will be a good thing, allowing non-Western regions to take more control over their own destinies. The EU model of transnational co-operation will be copied by regions such as Latin America, Southeast Asia, the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa. This will allow these four regions to defend their interests against other regions and also against the mega-states of China, the USA and India. As the developing world becomes wealthier there will be less emigration and immigration. People will tend to stay where they are.

(4)     There will be another financial crisis, even bigger than the last one. Public rage at this will give rise to a new phenomenon of anarcho-terrorism against the financial system – there will be targeted assassinations of CEOs of investment banks and mutual funds, plus bombings of global financial centres. All this will eventually lead to a final overthrow of the current financial system – the sector will come under democratic-public control and\or ownership.

(5)     As noted above, and contrary to what everyone now expects, emigration and population movements will decline and people will tend to stay where they are born – this will lead to more localism and to strong native communities – people will take more and more pride in their local food, land, buildings, wildlife, environment, communities, religions, families, heritage and traditions. They will increasingly make their own food, clothes and furniture.

(6)     In parallel with this there will be a handful of global cities that will be multiethnic, youthful, dynamic centres of innovation, connected with each other, autonomous, increasingly detached from their localised hinterlands. In these global cities new forms of voluntary institutions will develop to gradually replace the profit-maximising corporation – these new institutions will evolve in unexpected ways from cooperatives, universities, charities, social networks, clubs, online communities, political parties, associations, unions, and so on.

(7)     Despite all the progress, people will continue worrying, and being miserable and they will continue to think that the world is about to end at any moment, and that they live in the worst time in human history, even though for most people it will be the best time in human history to be alive.

Are opponents of same-sex marriage homophobes? Do you care?

At pivotal moments in our nation’s history, when people are dazed and bewildered, and when things look like they could go either way, I like to emerge from my lair and sort the matter out. The recent heated debate in Ireland about whether or not opponents of same-sex marriage are homophobes is one such momentous moment. Is your mind going around in circles trying to get to the bottom of the great impenetrable question of what exactly a homophobe is? Do you find yourself lying awake at night, tossing and turning, wondering whether you might be a homophobe? Are you bored off your head listening to people drone on endlessly about this idiotic question? Well fear not! I intend to bore you about it as well. Duty calls for a clarifying intervention from www.brianbarrington.com.

There is an argument that people who oppose same-sex marriage are not necessarily homophobes. In my view this is incorrect. People who are afraid of equal rights for homosexuals are homophobes – they are afraid of homosexuality.

The argument against this is that many people who are against same-sex marriage, like perhaps some elderly relatives you might have, are really nice people and therefore not homophobes. Do you really want to label these nice people that you love so much with the horrible term “homophobic”? Well, it is true that they may be nice people but being a nice person and being a homophobe are not incompatible, just as being a misogynist\sexist and being a nice person are not incompatible. Nor is being a racist\xenophobe and a nice person incompatible. For example, perhaps you have elderly relatives who are very nice people but who are also sexist and racist – the fact that they are nice does not stop them being sexist and racist. Someone who thinks women should stay in the home and not work may be a nice person, but they are also sexist. Similarly, someone who thinks all blacks or foreigners should be “sent home” may be a nice person, but they are still racist and xenophobic.

Here is another argument against the view that opponents of same-sex marriage are homophobes: “There are some homosexuals who are against same-sex marriage. Are they homophobes? Are you saying that these people are self-hating homosexuals? Surely that is very bigoted of you.” Well, it is true that there are some homosexuals who are against same-sex marriage – these homosexuals oppose equal rights for homosexuals so they are, in fact, homophobes. This does not necessarily mean that they hate homosexuals, it means that they are afraid of granting equal rights to homosexuals.

In the past there were doubtless some women who opposed giving women the vote – these women were sexists and misogynists because they were afraid of granting women equal rights. In the past there were doubtless some blacks who opposed ending racial segregation – these blacks were racist because they opposed granting blacks equal rights.

So people who oppose same-sex marriage are, as a matter of fact, homophobes. Now, a separate question is whether or not it is “helpful” or prudent to call them homophobes. Perhaps it would be better to go easy on them and not use provocative language, so that we can keep the debate civilised, and gently encourage people to accept same-sex marriage, rather than calling them terrible names? Well, maybe. But in my view the best tactic for expediting equal rights is by making opposition to equal rights appear wrong and pernicious, and that means labelling opponents of equal rights for homosexuals what they are: homophobes.

But ultimately I think it makes little difference one way or the other. In Western societies same-sex marriage is either legal or it will soon be legal – this is inevitable because the power of the idea of equal rights will eventually overcome any homophobic objections to it, just as the power of the idea of equal rights eventually overcame any sexist objections to women having the vote, and also eventually overcame any racist objections to blacks having civil rights. So you can call objectors to same-sex marriage homophobes if you want to, or you can call them principled conscientious objectors - you can call them fried-chicken if you like. It won’t make any difference. Same-sex marriage is going to become legal - it is just a question of when not if.