WWIII

[GGT]

The goal was not to be measured in body counts.....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908...show/#42889180

[Draco]

If you could be a fly on the wall one hundred years from now, would our latest "Global War on Terrorism" look like WWIII, or something else?

What would you call it?

I don't think so.

Then again it depends on the state of the world in 100 years time. If it ends up being a PC type world, then it will be viewed the same way the Inquisition is today. Not that I'm relating the two in any way.

But if the 'War on Terrorism' leads to a third world war, then it will definitely be seen as the prelude to WWIII. But if WWIII does come about before that 100 year mark, then that 100 year mark may not even exist!

[Aimless]

I think of "war" as an openly declared militarised and probably aggressive conflict, and I've been told it has to cost more than 1000 lives. That's the only number threshold I've come across. I haven't come across a number threshold for "world war", although I think it's reasonable to assume that death-tolls can and probably will change. However, I can understand that you might want large parts of the world (or several nations) to be involved in some way, to be disrupted for example. I didn't know the global recession was an openly declared militarised and aggressive conflict. Was it? Can someone provide a good wikipedia link or blog post?

Dunno 'bout the "War For Terror". It's like a string of wars between the US and politically attractive targets. It's probably less significant than the civil war going on in the US between ideologies, with one side heavily emphasising military expenditure and in that way as well as in many others costing far more than a thousand lives. But it's more like a secret war or something

[LittleFuzzy]

Based on what you say, Fuzzy....numbers of deaths aren't the metric that should be used when calling a war a World War.

That's what I said, albeit in a different way. Would you agree?

That it's what you said, albeit in a different way? Not sure. I just went back over the posts in the thread, and it is true you did not originally bring it up as a metric, but your first post replied to it being brought up seems to go both ways and subsequent posts don't really bring any clarity.

That it's not a good metric? Maybe, maybe not. Like most metrics, it's a proxy. In this case, it's a way to reference the conflict's scale and depth. Trade has become more interconnected, including for food, and the trade disruptions that would be attendant on a new war could easily be imagined to cause mass-starvation in various areas of the globe. The use of nuclear arms will remain a possibility and those can inflict significant casualties. But Flixy's original comment does not necessarily require comparing like terms *like deaths* because it's just a proxy. He could point to the losses from the two prior wars as a way to define their scale, and say that nothing about the "war on terror" approaches it.

[Flixy]

I also asked (earlier in another thread) if using the term WAR was appropriate in the 21st century.



Still, no excuse for Gitmo, or using torture today. Actually, even less justification because we have history to be our guide.

I'm not saying it's an excuse, but the 'repression' today is far less than during the world war.

That's what I've been saying! That deaths alone, or the use of the word "WAR" isn't very meaningful (when we think of world wars) but I left the definition open to anyone and everyone. <Would some epidemiologists consider HIV as WWIII?>

<no>

Nukes.



Don't confuse my OP with my personal opinions.

I'd hoped people would post their views of what WWIII might look like in their mind's eye, or how'd they know if we're in the midst.....or would no one really know for one hundred years and hindsight.

Sometimes I think we're in WWIII, almost like a global Cold War. Not many deaths, but plenty of nations acting together, or at the same time.

One of the newer realities is seeing how civil unrest can domino from Tunisia, to Yemen, Egypt, Syria......phenomenons "experts" downplayed for years. That civil wars in aggregate could never lead to a world war. Because, y'know, what are the odds that several middle east or Arab nations would have civil wars at the same time? Especially if they're getting funds from the west to 'contain' themselves?

In case you didn't get my answer to your specific question --- I think our current "War on Terror" is bigger in scale that WWII, but only because we are more globally connected than in the 1940's. In some ways I think our new "wars" are greater in magnitude and scale, even if there are less troops, physical fighting, combat, or deaths.

Except it is not bigger in scale in any way (well, it's lasting longer I suppose). And please, do tell me in what way modern wars are greater in magnitude and scale, even if blabla?

[Loki]

I wonder if she'd then agree with the right-wingers in this country that the Cold War was really WWIII. Probably a better argument for that...

[Asmodian]

War for me at least involves large scale fighting. World war so far at least means fighting on monumental scale involving majority if not all major world powers. Moreover the sides in a world war have been if not balanced but at least comparable.
I really fail to see how the war on terror can be viewed as world war 3, it has been used as an excuse to invade 2 minor countries without military power of any note. It could be a prelude to world war 3 as US continues its rapid decline and attempts to boost its failing world hegemony by projecting force, which could spark a conflict between nations that can hit back.
But most likely with modern arms cooler heads will prevail seeing that is a conflict that cannot be won.

[GGT]

Except it is not bigger in scale in any way (well, it's lasting longer I suppose). And please, do tell me in what way modern wars are greater in magnitude and scale, even if blabla?

In the way it's seeped into daily life in practically every country. From CCTV in cities to airport security pat downs and body scans, nations trading intelligence, warrantless wiretaps, citizens taught to "report suspicious packages and people". Commercial flying sees multiple-millions of people every day, that alone is bigger in scale than previous travel. Even if it's from cultural or technology changes, this 'war on terror' impacts more people directly. Terrorists can't hide, but neither can anyone else.

blabla

[wiggin]

Dude, there was widespread rationing in the entire world during WWII. The government in the US essentially took over the entire industry of the country to make war materiel. Look at car production numbers in the US: they were a few million cars a year in 1941. After Pearl Harbor, the US government required car manufacturers to stop making cars - in 1942, there were 500k(ish) built in the beginning of the year, after which essentially no cars were built in the entire country until 1946. NONE. Ditto for pretty much every manufactured good.

Food and fuel were tightly rationed, with most production getting shifted to military uses. A huge proportion of the working public was conscripted into the military or support services, and nearly everyone else was involved in producing materiel for the war effort. Non-military R&D ground to a halt as everyone from private industry to academia was enlisted to help in the war effort.

And this was in the US where the war barely touched our soil. Imagine what it was like in Asia, Europe, and N. Africa. Now that's a war that seeped into daily life.

[GGT]

I mentioned one thing, regarding "bigger in scale than previous travel". Not made any comments about hardships, production changes, or rationing. Let alone conscription. For crying out loud, this is an open-ended topic about WWIII and a fucking hypothetical question! In no way meant to argue or debate ad nauseum if the "war on terror is WWII".

If you prefer, talk about the Arab Spring and dynamics changing across the globe, and what the future might bring.

Asmodian said:

It could be a prelude to world war 3 as US continues its rapid decline and attempts to boost its failing world hegemony by projecting force, which could spark a conflict between nations that can hit back. But most likely with modern arms cooler heads will prevail seeing that is a conflict that cannot be won.

And hope that cooler heads prevail.

[LittleFuzzy]

I mentioned one thing, regarding "bigger in scale than previous travel". Not made any comments about hardships, production changes, or rationing. Let alone conscription. For crying out loud, this is an open-ended topic about WWIII and a fucking hypothetical question! In no way meant to argue or debate ad nauseum if the "war on terror is WWII".

If you prefer, talk about the Arab Spring and dynamics changing across the globe, and what the future might bring.

You asked if we looked back onto our activities now from a point in the future, would we consider the "war on terror" WWIII. And we're all telling you that nothing about it looks like something resembling a World War. It does not affect the economy enough, not enough people are dying, not enough people are involved, it's not altering behavior enough, it's not penetrating deeply into society, etc. Our imagining of a world war is a conflict of extensive scope and depth. As yet the war on terror pretty much has no characteristics suggesting something on that scale.

[GGT]

You asked if we looked back onto our activities now from a point in the future, would we consider the "war on terror" WWIII. And we're all telling you that nothing about it looks like something resembling a World War. It does not affect the economy enough, not enough people are dying, not enough people are involved, it's not altering behavior enough, it's not penetrating deeply into society, etc. Our imagining of a world war is a conflict of extensive scope and depth. As yet the war on terror pretty much has no characteristics suggesting something on that scale.

There were/are other questions, too. What metrics to use, what would it look like....how would we define World War in the future, when we're hesitant to call what we're doing now war (let alone actually declare War through congress)? Coordinated NATO interventions....?

Today's events may look like a "prelude to world war" some day. Between Arab Spring and structural financial problems in so many countries. Maybe not! That's the thing about a hypothetical question and a discussion.

And when all is said and done, the 'war on drugs' is probably more likely to be source for sliding into real conflicts which could develop into a WWIII than anti-terrorism.

Maybe so! Would that possibility be less if we de-criminalized certain drugs? Do you mean the cartels in Mexico or the Poppy Fields of Afghanistan, and weapons/arms smuggling, too?

[LittleFuzzy]

There were/are other questions, too. What metrics to use, what would it look like....how would we define World War in the future, when we're hesitant to call what we're doing now war (let alone actually declare War through congress)? Coordinated NATO interventions....?

Which are all merely subsidiary questions for answering the primary one asked in the original post. All the rest of us are agreeing and telling you that for purposes of the primary question, what makes a world war is its scale, which is something the "war on terror" lacks.

Today's events may look like a "prelude to world war" some day. Between Arab Spring and structural financial problems in so many countries. Maybe not! That's the thing about a hypothetical question and a discussion.

Maybe so! Would that possibility be less if we de-criminalized certain drugs? Do you mean the cartels in Mexico or the Poppy Fields of Afghanistan, and weapons/arms smuggling, too?

And WWIII *if there is such a war* could also arise from the Invisible Pink Unicorn sneezing. Something being "hypothetical" is not an excuse for it to be so vague as to have no shape or form whatsoever. It's not a synonym for verbalizing your stream of consciousness.

It seems like when you say you're interested in something "hpothetical" and in "discussion' what you mean is you want the forum to give shape to your nebulous thoughts, and then you object that we're not respecting their non-shape nebulosity.

[GGT]

Which are all merely subsidiary questions for answering the primary one asked in the original post. All the rest of us are agreeing and telling you that for purposes of the primary question, what makes a world war is its scale, which is something the "war on terror" lacks.

And WWIII *if there is such a war* could also arise from the Invisible Pink Unicorn sneezing. Something being "hypothetical" is not an excuse for it to be so vague as to have no shape or form whatsoever. It's not a synonym for verbalizing your stream of consciousness.

It seems like when you say you're interested in something "hpothetical" and in "discussion' what you mean is you want the forum to give shape to your nebulous thoughts, and then you object that we're not respecting their non-shape nebulosity.

In other words, you have trouble with vague or amorphous beginning topics. You want something more....defined and particular, to match your pedantic and picky personality. When it's not there, you say it's due to my stream of nebulous consciousness.

In reality, there's been heavy coverage (and discussion) about the WAR on Terrorism since bin Laden was killed. The word War is used in so many contexts (like you said, the War on Drugs) we're almost blind or numb to its use. Not many focus on the word Terror, but a few writers have said it's an ideology or a tactic that can't be fought with a War.

Instead of starting with an article or study, I decided to use that open-ended and shapeless style to see what others think, where it might go. So sorry if it got your pink unicorn panties in a bunch.

[LittleFuzzy]

In other words, you have trouble with vague or amorphous beginning topics. You want something more....defined and particular, to match your pedantic and picky personality. When it's not there, you say it's due to my stream of nebulous consciousness.

In reality, there's been heavy coverage (and discussion) about the WAR on Terrorism since bin Laden was killed. The word War is used in so many contexts (like you said, the War on Drugs) we're almost blind or numb to its use. Not many focus on the word Terror, but a few writers have said it's an ideology or a tactic that can't be fought with a War.

Instead of starting with an article or study, I decided to use that open-ended and shapeless style to see what others think, where it might go. So sorry if it got your pink unicorn panties in a bunch.

And everyone pretty much responded in the same vein, didn't they? You asked a question, people provided answers to it, all in the negative. When has anyone on this forum responded to one of these threads and just riffed off of the "topic" the way you wanted them to, without dialing down and focusing in a way you consider unseemly, as happened here with everyone converging on world wars and their scale?

[Nessus]

In the way it's seeped into daily life in practically every country. From CCTV in cities to airport security pat downs and body scans, nations trading intelligence, warrantless wiretaps, citizens taught to "report suspicious packages and people". Commercial flying sees multiple-millions of people every day, that alone is bigger in scale than previous travel. Even if it's from cultural or technology changes, this 'war on terror' impacts more people directly. Terrorists can't hide, but neither can anyone else.

blabla

Societies adopting more Orwellian tools to shape our seemingly unavoidable Huxlean future doesn't resemble a world war (in the sense as the previous were defined), it's a cultural change. One not brought on by anything resembling the two conflicts deserving the moniker, too. It's an exercise in absolute futility and stupidity to try and dilute the meaning of terms enough that all of them are synonymous to a degree of uselessness.

Hell, that's Orwellian in and of itself.

Still not a World War, though!

[GGT]

And everyone pretty much responded in the same vein, didn't they? You asked a question, people provided answers to it, all in the negative. When has anyone on this forum responded to one of these threads and just riffed off of the "topic" the way you wanted them to, without dialing down and focusing in a way you consider unseemly, as happened here with everyone converging on world wars and their scale?

Thanks for the explanation, Fuzzy. I'm sure my posting techniques and discussion failures could be improved by watching you, and all the threads you start. Oh, wait. You don't start any threads!

Rarely do you go beyond critiquing others and share your own ideas, but even when you do (the War on Drugs in context) it's secondary to your need to correct. How many posts have you made in this thread about what WWIII might look like, and how many posts did you direct to me? Even when discussion could move along and "open up" you're still harping on me, yet you insist I'm the one with focus problems?

[LittleFuzzy]

Thanks for the explanation, Fuzzy. I'm sure my posting techniques and discussion failures could be improved by watching you, and all the threads you start. Oh, wait. You don't start any threads!

Rarely do you go beyond critiquing others and share your own ideas, but even when you do (the War on Drugs in context) it's secondary to your need to correct. How many posts have you made in this thread about what WWIII might look like, and how many posts did you direct to me? Even when discussion could move along and "open up" you're still harping on me, yet you insist I'm the one with focus problems?

The "War on Drugs" reference wasn't an idea, it was an example. It's not going to develop into some sort of world war either. Rather it demonstrates a more socially deep example of what the war on terror is, something that fit more of the characteristics you expressed concern about *and hence, according to your fairly nebulous speculative framework, a greater risk of developing into a world war* which no one could reasonably speculate might turn into that sort of massive conflict, absent paradigm-changing events which are impossible to rationally predict/expect.

World War III could look like anything. It could arise from resource depletion, a power belligerently seeking to alter the current framework of world affairs which places the US in such prominence, a power seeking to alter the local framework and another major connected power taking exception and drawing the rest of the world into the conflict, accidents or more inimical events with WMD, invading space aliens, returned Deity initiating the Rapture, conflict over space exploitation, or something else. What it would look like from one context will depend on how it happens, when it happens, and why it happens. From another perspective what it will look like is exactly what's been discussed on here already, because that's the shape that goes with the term. If such a conflict differs substantially from that shape, than it won't BE a world war, it will be something else. People may come up with a new term to call it, or they may use some other term already in use, whose framework the new conflict seems to fit, or they may remove "world war" entirely and fit WWI and II, along with this new conflict, within a framework with different cleavages which do match for all three. People didn't call WWI that until WWII was well underway, they called it The Great War and The War to End all Wars.

[GGT]

The "War on Drugs" reference wasn't an idea, it was an example. It's not going to develop into some sort of world war either. Rather it demonstrates a more socially deep example of what the war on terror is, something that fit more of the characteristics you expressed concern about *and hence, according to your fairly nebulous speculative framework, a greater risk of developing into a world war* which no one could reasonably speculate might turn into that sort of massive conflict, absent paradigm-changing events which are impossible to rationally predict/expect.

The Arab Spring sounds like a paradigm-shift happening in real time to me! No one predicted or expected it to play out as it is, in domino fashion. Also no 'rational' reason to ignore it now, just because it doesn't fit in previous frameworks of what war or terror "are". The US has spent decades being involved in military conflicts around the world. Before that it was the Cold War or Star Wars, yet still considered times of relative Peace....

World War III could look like anything. It could arise from resource depletion, a power belligerently seeking to alter the current framework of world affairs which places the US in such prominence, a power seeking to alter the local framework and another major connected power taking exception and drawing the rest of the world into the conflict, accidents or more inimical events with WMD, invading space aliens, returned Deity initiating the Rapture, conflict over space exploitation, or something else. What it would look like from one context will depend on how it happens, when it happens, and why it happens. From another perspective what it will look like is exactly what's been discussed on here already, because that's the shape that goes with the term. If such a conflict differs substantially from that shape, than it won't BE a world war, it will be something else. **People may come up with a new term to call it, or they may use some other term already in use, whose framework the new conflict seems to fit, or they may remove "world war" entirely and fit WWI and II, along with this new conflict, within a framework with different cleavages which do match for all three**. People didn't call WWI that until WWII was well underway, they called it The Great War and The War to End all Wars.

** That's the hindsight, context and terminology I mentioned! Suppose this could have been titled The Future of War....? Or are you engaging in a War of Words?

Osama bin Laden thought he and al Qaeda were waging a 'War on the West', extremists declaring a Holy Jihad, apostates waiting in the wings to continue using terror tactics. No one country, leader, or military force the west can focus on, more like Whack-a-Mole. New NATO or UN 'initiatives' with collections of allies, using intelligence information is the latest powerful weapon. CIA and special-ops forces, stealth air craft, unmanned drones---the new face of conflict (but don't call it war because it doesn't fit).

World War III could look like anything....

Agreed! What do you think, Fuzzy? Something out of science fiction or literature? Too far-fetched to put to paper, so why bother?



<Some people are convinced we're already fighting a type of economic and/or currency 'world war' with China, and their military has nothing to do with the damage it could cause. We don't know what WWII will look like, or what it will be called, but it's something we DO think about. It shows up in our cultures, terminologies, policies, even our entertainment--movies and games.




On that note, I wonder how many believe the next big war, or world war, would mean an armageddon end of the world scenario, or a war of man vs machine?>

[Loki]

The Arab Spring sounds like a paradigm-shift happening in real time to me! No one predicted or expected it to play out as it is, in domino fashion.

In contrast to the 1848 liberal revolutions? Or the 1989 Autumn of Nations?

[GGT]

In contrast to the 1848 liberal revolutions? Or the 1989 Autumn of Nations?

In contrast to 20th century "conventional wisdom" about the middle east, northern Africa, democracy, power shifts.....and The Information Age.

[Loki]

Clearly whenever conventional wisdom is wrong, we have a world war on our hands.

[GGT]

Clearly whenever conventional wisdom is wrong, we have a world war on our hands.

You asked, I answered. Previous wars weren't Twittered or Tweeted. Information didn't move across the globe as it does now, full color real time moving in nano-seconds, with live video feeds from cell phones. Some dude in Abbatobad knew about (and shared) the Navy SEAL helicopter raid before the Pakistani government even had a clue. Yeah, I'd call that a paradigm shift in the Information Age.

Loki, we've already established that a World War could look like....anything. We've already agreed that terminology is....mutable. If you want to use conventional wisdom, a technical compare-and-contrast between today and history---then go ahead and Just Do It! But, if all you wanna do is play bait 'n switch, find someone else.

[Loki]

Believe it or not, people managed to spread information before Twitter came into being.

[GGT]

Believe it or not, people managed to spread information before Twitter came into being.

What's your point, Loki? Or are you moving from baiting into trolling?

[LittleFuzzy]

The Arab Spring sounds like a paradigm-shift happening in real time to me! No one predicted or expected it to play out as it is, in domino fashion. Also no 'rational' reason to ignore it now, just because it doesn't fit in previous frameworks of what war or terror "are". The US has spent decades being involved in military conflicts around the world. Before that it was the Cold War or Star Wars, yet still considered times of relative Peace....

The Arab Spring, if it actually lasts *such "dominos" have fallen before only to not last* might well be paradigm-changing for and within those countries. It is very unlikely that it will seriously alter things for the rest of the world, anymore than decolonization did. For this sort of discussion decolonization was mostly a sideshow of the Cold War. It shifted things around somewhat, but it didn't make any serious alterations to that paradigm. One path that might possibly have the potential to actually change things *note how heavily qualified that statement is* would be if it resulted in a united power bloc, analogous to NATO or the EU. But there's no way to see that sort of thing happening yet, and it isn't a high-percentage scenario in the first place. Even if it did take place, and even if it actually resulted in a shift, what would be controlling influences in that power bloc? Would it be democratizing? Would it be theocratic, a new Caliphate? If so would it cleave to Wahabbi extremism, some more moderate branch of Islam, or some new branch as yet undeveloped? There is literally nothing to actually talk about. You can't say "I think" with ANY sort of support whatsoever rendering it nothing but so much pissing in the wind.

** That's the hindsight, context and terminology I mentioned! Suppose this could have been titled The Future of War....? Or are you engaging in a War of Words?

I doubt that what I said and meant is really what you mentioned and meant. If it was, it became another casualty of unclear communication.

There is nothing, NOTHING, to choose from those different scenarios and others, from what we can see now. Look at the list, it's got everything from China rising to alien invasion to Revelations straight from the Bible. You can say basically anything you want, it's all equally meaningful *meaningless, IMO* because there's nothing to choose between them.

Agreed! What do you think, Fuzzy? Something out of science fiction or literature? Too far-fetched to put to paper, so why bother?

See above. I generally don't try to prognosticate more than a few years in the future, because I don't process the different threads which produce the future very well. Few people do. And a number of those that do. . . they're just getting lucky.

On that note, I wonder how many believe the next big war, or world war, would mean an armageddon end of the world scenario, or a war of man vs machine?>

Quite a few think, not without reason, that a major factor in the fact that the Cold War never turned into another world war was because it would/could have meant nuclear annihilation.

[GGT]

There is literally nothing to actually talk about. You can't say "I think" with ANY sort of support whatsoever rendering it nothing but so much pissing in the wind.

There is nothing, NOTHING, to choose from those different scenarios and others, from what we can see now. Look at the list, it's got everything from China rising to alien invasion to Revelations straight from the Bible. You can say basically anything you want, it's all equally meaningful *meaningless, IMO* because there's nothing to choose between them.

See above. I generally don't try to prognosticate more than a few years in the future, because I don't process the different threads which produce the future very well. Few people do. And a number of those that do. . . they're just getting lucky.

Sounds like you've made up your mind that John Q. Public prognosticating is just pissing in the wind. That it's meaningless without lengthy analyses of history and geopolitics and structured choices. That meaningful thought only comes with footnotes comparing expert opinions. And there's simply nothing to talk about outside a controlled academic setting, so why bother?

You'd rather turn this discussion into a debate....something that has a right or wrong side, a winning or losing position....and if you can't win or be proven right, you don't wanna play. Not only that, but you can't understand why anyone else would. Why would anyone waste time using their brain on frothy folly like the future, or the future of War? Might as well write a sci-fi novel or design a video game, because it's all fantasy and imagination. Heaven forbid it might lead to other streams of thought, or asking questions about our current trajectory, or policies, or what unintended consequences lie ahead. Everything should fit in its neat and tidy compartment, and stay there.

Now I understand better why so many threads turn into accusations of "anti-intellectualism", why you complain about my 'rambling emotional' posts, why anecdotes and missives are discredited....

Quite a few think, not without reason, that a major factor in the fact that the Cold War never turned into another world war was because it would/could have meant nuclear annihilation.

Yes. Maybe I (incorrectly) assumed recent events would have others here thinking about War, and wanting to discuss it in a personal way. Many here were very young on 9/11 and have grown up in this anti-terrorism extremist atmosphere, knowing nothing else. What we thought about the future then and how today is now matters for how we approach tomorrow. But then, I grew up with sirens and drills, hiding under a school desk or "evacuating" to a school gymnasium, in the event of a nuclear fall-out Never could shake the feeling that we'll have another World War, but annihilation doesn't have to come from nuclear weapons.

[LittleFuzzy]

Sounds like you've made up your mind that John Q. Public prognosticating is just pissing in the wind. That it's meaningless without lengthy analyses of history and geopolitics and structured choices. That meaningful thought only comes with footnotes comparing expert opinions. And there's simply nothing to talk about outside a controlled academic setting, so why bother?

It's pissing in the wind for academics and experts in ivory towers and think-tanks too. Lengthy analyses of history, geopolitics, and structured choices aren't going to tell us what the world will look like in 100 years. The closest thing to knowledge of the future we have is that whatever we think it may look like is way more likely to be wrong than it is to be right.

[GGT]

It's pissing in the wind for academics and experts in ivory towers and think-tanks too. Lengthy analyses of history, geopolitics, and structured choices aren't going to tell us what the world will look like in 100 years. The closest thing to knowledge of the future we have is that whatever we think it may look like is way more likely to be wrong than it is to be right.

What's that---Fatalism---or paralysis? No point in doing anything today, with the future in mind, because who the hell knows and we'll likely be wrong anyway?

[LittleFuzzy]

What's that---Fatalism---or paralysis? No point in doing anything today, with the future in mind, because who the hell knows and we'll likely be wrong anyway?

You're asking what the world will look like. That's completely unknowable. What we should do now, what are potential consequences of what we do now, those are potentially knowable or predictable. They also have a rather more limited time frame. But that hasn't been a topic. No one else is allowed to change topics because you whine that's us being too focused, and you can change topics freely, again because we're being too focused.