Final Paper Draft (Riddlestorffer)

Introduction

            The world in which we know it is an ever-evolving realm where humans have worked together to achieve peace and prosperity. As time has gone on, societies have grown and developed from primal states to more sophisticated ones. States have learned which forms of governments have worked best, and which ones have fallen by the wayside. Some government systems have been abandoned for new, more complex ones, while others were abandoned simply because the world did not see feasibility for them in the present day. But what if the world system were to change in future years?

            Globalization has been a driving force for the interconnectedness of the various states throughout the world. Although it may not be new, globalization has continued to rise in prominence, reestablishing how the world system will look in the future. Dr. Francis Fukuyama argues that as time goes on the world may move towards holding more universal ideals than not (“Economic Globalization and Culture”). Through this growing reliance on universal ideals, the state system as we know may vanish and be replaced by something else.

Final Paper Draft

Sorry that the format is messed up, I copied from word onto the Google doc and all the footnotes got pushed to the last page. The red next to three of the sections indicates that I still have more work and explanation to do for those sections.

Google Doc Link

Snow Crash

Predictions of the future are made from circumstances and situations in the present. Based on today's society I think one element of Snow Crash that is plausible is the creation of burbclaves. I think in the world today we already seeing a greater divide between the rich and poor. Burbclaves are similar to gated communities. In some communities today we are already seeing greater homogeneity therefore I think its possible to have a burbclave full of people with the same culture. In the book the central collapse of the state leads to the wealthy sealing themselves off in the burbclaves which seems likely to me. The wealthy will look out for themselves. I think in the future conflicts and international catastrophes will only make the divisions in wealth more prominent.  This gets root in today's politics of gentrification. Running people out of their homes and make it harder to afford that area has caused many issues that society faces today and is the beginning step in creating a burbclave.

One element of Snow Crash that I find kind of unlikely is the weakened states. States have not always existed as they do today but I don't think that necessarily means they will be wildly different from what we have. I think that the next step for states isn't to be weakened and fragmented but to follow some sort of over-arching government. Similar to a federal system. An international governmental organization would gain some more power. After many international disasters (ie WWI and WWII), the states were willing to give up more sovereignty rights in order to get protection and ensure future peace. I think the next step for states is to work more together. The US also only specializes in movies, music, pizza, and microcrodes. I think that's unlikely, while some countries do specialize in one particular good, I don't believe the US would be willing to. Many people, and companies have a vested interest in the United States keeping their powerful economy and protecting against hyperinflation. In the book the US experiences brain drain but currently, people are leaving the developing world to come to the developed world. 

Plausibility of Snow Crash

Neal Stephenson's 1992 novel Snow Crash depicts a futuristic world wherein, among other things, people have divided themselves into 'burbclaves', essentially gated communities guarded 24/7 in order to keep out those who are not wanted within the burbclave.

This relates directly to our discussions on the effect of globalization on culture.  The burbclaves are clusters of people who are culturally homogenous; burbclaves also are sovereign.  Within the gates of the community, no other force has authority other than the burbclave, which represents a drastic (and enforced) homogenization within certain geographic areas.  I don't think this is a totally implausible representation of the cultural future.  Gated communities already exist, with similar (though maybe not as overtly expressed/enforced) barriers to entry.  Much like the burbclaves, gated communities exist in order for people to live and associate with those who are like them while keeping out 'undesirables'.  Even outside of gated communities, regular communities are becoming more and more segregated and segemented as people continuously move about the United States in order to live around those who are like them.  This is rooted in basic psychology: people like to associate with people who share similar views and live similar lives as they do.  Not only are the burbclaves a logical progression of the current gated communities that exist, but are also a concept based on basic human psychology, taken to its logical (though perhaps extreme) conclusion.  

Horizons: Can It Happen?

In Rosenblum's Horizons, she sets up a futuristic world where there are many similarities and differences to the world we live in today. Some of the new things that Roseblum introduces are more plausible than others.
I believe that one possible future invention that was seen is the idea of microchips. In the book, microchips are used to allow states to keep track of their citizens. While I think that the use in the future will not be as widespread as the book makes it seem, I feel people will be willing to use these chips as a means of protecting themselves. Although the government will be able to track where you are, this can be good in the sense of protecting their own. Parents would feel safer knowing that their kids had microchips in case they went missing. It would not be mandatory, but after time of seeing the benefits I think it that more people would be willing to put their skepticism aside in order to achieve a higher level of safety.
One of the aspects of Rosenbaum's futuristic world that I do not believe will happen is the idea of the World Council. In the book, the WC serves as the primary governing body of the world. I do not think that it would be realistic to think that a WC would be created, because each area of the world values their sovereignty so much. We have discussed in class how difficult it is for the UN to get tasks done on a large scale. Without any changes to the world stage, I do not see the WC being any different. I think that it would take a major world catastrophe (i.e. major natural disaster) for countries to give aside their power toward an over arching WC. Because I think this is extremely unlikely, I feel that the closest we can get to a WC is a stronger UN.

Plausibility of Horizons

           After reading Horizon's by Mary Rosenblum there are a few things that I have to admit could end up actually happening in the future. One thing that I think could definitely occur would be territorial jurisdictions of certain regions. Some would argue and say that this would not happen because states would not want to give up their sovereignty however I think it is already beginning a little. The European Union in a sense is a territorial jurisdiction of that region. Though states still have their own governments within the EU many of their policies and actions are dictated by the EU. However, in the future, as Rosenblum, explains it these territorial jurisdictions would be a little different from how the EU is. I think it would take a lot for a regional jurisdiction to occur. I think if it would resemble anything it would resemble the US in way. With small states within the territory, all answering to a federal government with smaller state level governments. Those small state level governments are the family and corporation super powers that run the different territories.
           Aside from many of the things that could possibly happen one day, there are a few that I definitely think would not. One example would be genetic modifications to human beings and clones. I understand that there are scientists who are attempting to clone animals and see if it is possible. However, I don't think as a society we are there and I don't think we will ever be there. Individuals have so much pride being who they are, there are movements now meant to empower individuals to accept who they are and to be proud that they are one of a kind. Being able to clone people or even genetically modify them would completely turn away from the mentality that many are accepting and moving towards now.  Additionally, genetic modification of foods and vegetables are beginning to be largely frowned upon. There is a think green movement inspiring more people to go to farmers markets and stores that provide them with more organic options. To go from that mentality to allowing the government to genetically modify human beings and clones is just something I do not foresee happening.

Plausibility of Horizons

I think that one of the things that is very plausible in the future is the platforms on which people live that orbit around the earth. I think that as populations expand and people become more adventurous, it will be a natural progression for people to at least consider a move to platforms or even colonizing the Moon and eventually Mars. Even today we have things like the International Space Station which, while being on a small scale, does house people for long periods of time in orbit. I don’t necessarily think that platforms will come out of a terror war. Rather, I think they might just naturally develop as states initially look into building them (again like the ISS) before private companies take over and build larger structures to house more people. There is already a fascination with space travel and space life and I think if this builds it is at least plausible that humans could one day inhabit platforms orbiting the Earth.

I find the microchipping of everyone to be implausible, largely because I think people would eventually not like this and figure out a way to take the microchips out even if they allowed states to insert them to begin with. If some people have microchips and others do not, the system breaks down and is virtually useless if states are trying to track each citizen or person in the world. It may be that microchips are placed in people who commit violent crimes, however I do not feasibly see how citizens would be willing to allow state governments to track them and their every move through a piece of technology inserted into their body. I think the microchipping of cars or things like that could happen because people may not be aware of it, however I do not see a world, even if citizens feel their security is at great risk, in which people are willing to be tracked and analyzed as if they were subjects in an experiment.