Talk:The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Was there a reason to remove the contents of the book?
[edit]Was wondering. As far as I've read the book the condensed summaries were relaying the contents reasonably well and there was no need to remove them. I'd rather re-instate these and stop playing hide-and-seek witnessed with the other editions (namely, the russian version that is still missing the summary for the first part of the book). Would you agree? (I'll check back in a month to see if this is accepted - "no response" will be taken as "yes") - EagletSam - 08/01/2018 9:52am US EST.
There's room for improvement
[edit]I have read the book. The article is generally accurate, except that it makes it sound like George Friedman predicts things which he clearly states are only possible scenarios provided as examples of the sort of thing that will take place.
In general, Friedman's predictions are presented as more certain for things in the EARLY 21st century (pre-2025), as well as LARGE trends (like the continued importance of North America and the cultural shift of the southwest USA due to continued immigration from Mexico). However, for specific details of things after about 2025, he makes it clear that he is just presenting possible examples.
So in the world war he predicts, he makes it clear that the countries opposing the USA need not necessarily be Japan and Turkey. He only says that he thinks those are likely candidates.
This article could be improved by making a distinction between things Friedman specifically predicts (like China fragmenting) and things he presents as possible scenarios (a war between a USA/Polish alliance versus a Turkish/Japanese alliance).
Since his predictions of a "second cold war" between the West and Russia are looking good right now, I am thinking about re-reading the book. If I do, I may significantly edit this article with the improvements as I suggest above.
I'm not sure how to sign this comment; and think that it will be autosigned, so I'll just save it. I am user "M. E. Smith". — Preceding unsigned comment added by M. E. Smith (talk • contribs) 21:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Update Sep 11 2012
[edit]The European Fiscal Crises, the domain of the US-Iraq/Afghan Wars, and the steady hand of aged Putin in Russia, the conflicts and throes of the Middle East + North-East Africa.
While some of it was not expected (EU crisis), the Russian and Middle-eastern side of the story seems to hold true/
Russia is indeed eager to build resources -- without trust, there is a poverty of diplomacy. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/putin-thanks-romney-for-calling-russia-no-1-foe/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.55.105 (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Second Cold War
[edit]Could someone please mention that this Second Cold War is already beginning thanks to Russia's actions in Ukraine?
Anonymous96.226.22.43 (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
About the Author.
[edit]I think to much atention is being given to this book and the author, witch work its more or less accurate with a Psicotropic World than rather a possible vision of a 100 year future. The fragmentation of Russia and China its a clear American Yankee wet dream. There is no way those countries balkanize, even india have more posibilities of being fragmented, or pakistan (religion, ethic conflicts). Really its a clear insult to history and comon sense.200.48.214.19 (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)