#future crisis

A megacorporation is simply a large and powerful corporation. They are a very real thing and while most authors paint them as being evil or malicious, the truth is that many of these extremely powerful corporations are rather innocuous. General Electric is a good example of a megacorproation that you can't really describe as being pure evil. They make engines, turbines, power generators, and so forth... but they don't have a reputation for abuse or exploitation of others like say: Walmart. The truth is that while megacorporations exist they are neither a new thing or a particularly evil entity. Some may be, others are very staunch in trying to keep themselves in the good light with the public. Google Inc. is probably one of the single most powerful corporations in modern times and yet the vast majority of their products are offered for free to customers. Google Drive, Google Sketchup, Google Search, Blogger, Youtube, and various other development projects. Their profits instead come through the sale of advertisements and acting as a go-between for advertisers and online sites. They're corporate motto is: Don't be evil. Ironic, isn't it? This does not mean that violent, dark, and dirty megacorporations don't exist. They certainly do, and there are plenty that have conducted rather morally questionable acts, but the tendency for Cyberpunk writers to make every corporation pure unadulterated evil is wrong. What a megacorporation is designed to do is make money for its owners... be it a select group of private owners or a massive number of shareholders, that is the entire purpose for its existence. Now, the tendencies and policies of these companies varies depending on the social mores, legal guidelines, and morality of the owners. Japanese megacorproations are rather infamous for having really substantial retirement benefits for example, which has become a major burden with Japan's aging population. Now, there's a bit of a revolution going on right now when it comes to how our economy functions. Just-in-time manufacturing, real-time distribution tracking, on-demand publishing and manufacturing, and 3D printing are all eroding many of the factors that made megacorporations such a dominate force. Digital distribution has practically killed the recording industry from the 90s while the individual artists are actually making more money then ever. Retailers are suffering from increasing competition with people buying direct from the distributor or even manufacturer. While this hasn't yet started to hit things like say car-dealerships, it has already decimated many electronic retailers. Best Buy's stock is not what it was ten years ago. Borders has closed leaving only one large book retailer in the American Economy, while Amazon and iBooks surge in market share. The bar for publication has been lowered substantial thanks to Amazon's KDP and Createspace, along with others. Not to mention PDF sales for RPGs... Decentralized distribution of digital materials through torrents and so forth is going to dramatically change the landscape for materials that can be bought and sold as digital materials. Copyright law will likely end up be massively overhauled as the effects of the internet hit full force. It will also massively change the nature of the game for those that sell digital media and in the gaming world, with Steam and other similar companies are effectively allowing small-time independent companies the ability to compete with major companies like EA without worrying about competing over shelf space. The final major change is due to 3D printing and the effects of oil on trade. While current 3D printing is mostly restricted to plastics and paperweights, there are already efforts underway to allow for manufacturing of all sorts of goods through the system. If you can extrude and print silicon, you can print a motherboard. If you can print a motherboard you can print a computer. If you can print a computer, you can print a car (if you've got the materials and an industrial sized printer). Finished goods are heavy, they cost a lot to move, and while in the current environment the distribution system of the act of shipping them to market is profitable, that will only remain true so long as oil and natural gas do not increase dramatically in price. This time frame is likely rapidly shrinking as current UN estimates predict a doubling of energy demands by 2030, while OPEC estimates indicate that around the same time production will decline as the currently accessed oil reserves are depleted. The United States may be able to stave off immediate economic problems by shifting over by manufacturing synthetic gasoline from coal (a technology developed by Germany in World War II), but eventually it will become to expensive to move goods and people in the traditional fashion. In response, localized manufacturing through 3D printing will almost certainly rise to dominance, and since anyone with Google Sketchup can design and 'print' a device... well, manufacturers will soon find themselves either shifting into printing companies or out of a 'job' as hordes of independent people will be able to make and sell finished goods and customize them to customer needs and demands. The future economy is likely to be dominated not by manufacturers and retailers but by ag-business, digital distributors, utilities, 'printing' companies, and material processing companies (mining, refining, and so forth). Generally trade and shipping will be in raw materials and foodstuffs, as finished goods can be more efficiently manufactured by locals. What effects will the rising cost of oil have? It will hurt, and hurt badly. Generally people don't change behavior until they're pained... so expect people to continue on as they are now until around 2030 when the combination of rising demand and declining production make gas prices skyrocket. Gasoline prices tend to be more elastic then other prices, meaning that a slight change in supply or demand results in significant changes for the price at the pump. Demand doubling and production beginning to decline will result in an increase in pump prices by about four times the current level, before inflation. Since currently all international trade is by oil-fueled freighters, this will result in a shocking rise in shipping cost. International trade in finished goods will almost certainly come to a halt (no more Japanese or German cars in America), and the global cost of food will rapidly increase, as it too is expected to double by 2030. This won't effect America as badly since it is a food exporter, but it will dramatically hurt countries that are importers of foodstuffs: Japan, Russia, China, India, and most of Africa. Civil unrest in the regions will skyrocket. Food prices will not come down unless a switch is made from oil to another energy source for shipping, and as a result expect a large scale decline in the population of countries dependent on food imports. Food prices everywhere will also rise, as the cost of shipping and distribution inside a country will also rise. Expect food to also become more seasonal. With the increased demand for coal in the United States, I would not expect the '75 year supply' that the coal lobby talks about to last that long, instead it will probably last until around 2050, by which point America will likely be forced to switch to an alternate source of power. My best guess would be a rise in nuclear power (possibly fusion or fission-fusion hybrid reactors) with many people adding to their own self-sufficiency with roof mounted solar panels. Still, I would expect brownouts and power interruptions during the period. Post 2050, I expect the power situation to begin to even out and oil to largely be replaced by alternate fuels. I'd expect this to come in the form of hydrogen fuel cells as a power source for ground vehicles, nuclear reactors for ships, and perhaps hydrogen-oxygen fuel for jet-aircraft and rocketry. Fusion power, if the containment system can be miniaturized enough, may be viable for direct power of larger vehicles like tanks, APCs, and construction equipment. Finally food prices will begin to fall as the switch to alternate energy sources finishes. Foreign production of finished goods however will never recover. What about robotics? Recently development of robotics has been agonizingly slow, but it's a highly iterative process and continual improvements in computing along with procedural AIs will ultimately bring robotics to the forefront. I expect development to be relatively slow for the next twenty years or so. They'll be a curiosity, and more common in say Japan then other countries. Despite this, probably around 2030 or 2040 I expect they'll reach the 'leg of the curve' which is a saying about technological development. At this point technological developments will rapidly increase in speed, and while there have been attempts before to introduce robots to the service sector, this will be where they first gain the intelligence and programming to actually be used in the service sector, and constant improvements and developments will push the price down far enough for them to be a viable replacement for unskilled labor. In short, by 2050 your average fast food restaurant will have one human worker on staff during each shift and around 10 robots ranging from automated cashiers to roombas. Since the restaurant owner will only have to pay one staff member and food prices will be on their way down once again, prices for food and other needs will begin to decline, however as the number of people needed for the service sector declines, I'd expect to see a massive change in the very way the economy functions. In short, to be certain of having a job that a robot can not do, you need to have a job that requires independent thinking, creativity, or initiative. Managers will be safe, it's just they'll be watching over robots. Anyone involved in designing, testing, or the arts will be safe, and so forth. A lot of repair and maintenance jobs will also be safe from robotic competition, as often times those robots will be the things getting fixed. This will push people into what I call the 'creative' sector: artists, musicians, programmers, designers, and so forth. With improvements to mining and manufacturing efficiency and the removal of shipping costs, the cost of living will likely drop. This is probably good, because the rate of traditional employment will also decline... Though self-employment will likely rise. What about Cybernetics? The thing is, they're already here. Neural interfaces and directly connecting nerves to robotics through implants and chips have already been tested. Google Glass may not be a cybernetic item, but it certainly is getting close to projecting a UI on your eye and connecting your brain to the internet. I'm going to include virtual reality, gaming, digital economy, and so forth in this subject... because they're closely connected. Traditional wetware cybernetics and full-body prosthetics I think are something that will exist, but will never be as commonplace as we see in say Ghost in the Shell. This is because non-invasive neural interfaces are already being tested. Instead of implanting a chip, you can wear a wrist band or something like the Google Glass visor. Since these interfaces will be able to feed directly into the nervous system, a fully immersive virtual reality will likely be possible, though it will probably be limited by processing capacity and require procedural coding to reach it's ultimate capabilities. Depending on the rate of computer development, I could see this arriving as soon as the 2030s. People already pay real world money for digital and virtual reality properties. This is what I like to call the digital economy. Take that immersive virtual reality and include an ability to design your own stuff for the world (ala spore)... Then someone buys it from you. If the virtual reality has a Real Money Trading system, then you made money off producing a virtual good. Some people have made six-seven digit incomes by doing this in Second Life. Moreover, the more immersive the VR is, the more likely it is that people will spend time and money within it.

What about the Military Industrial Complex?

Perhaps a better question would be: What would war be like in the Future?  Current trends indicate increasing levels of automation, and while I doubt we'll ever see a battle-droid army like the Trade Federation uses in Star Wars, drones are definitely here to stay.  I suspect that most countries will keep these systems on a pretty tight leash even with artificial intelligence systems.  It's likely that drones and even intelligence robots will be programmed to require permission to engage targets, be it an AWACs crew controlling an air battle or a squad sergeant.

Most of the worst conflicts in the immediate future will probably be in the 2030-2050 time period, as the crunch of major economic upheaval, the price of oil, and food prices will lead to desperate actions by a number of different countries.  Even normally peaceful nations may feel a need to defend resource claims with force.

Iceland has historically waged a number of 'wars' with the UK over fishing rights in the last century, I would not be surprised if say Japan felt the need to protect their fishing industry from Chinese and Russian competition.

In America, military technology will likely continue to race forward.  Already a number of Cyberpunk style weapons have already been tested and seen limited combat use like Microwave area denial weapons.  While those weapons have been outlawed by the UN rather recently, I would not be surprised to see further development of the weapon by other countries both as a crowd control weapon and as a means of inflicting torture.

Laser technology and Railguns are slated for deployment by the United States Navy in the next decade.  A company you should probably pay a bit more attention to is General Atomics, the developer of the Railgun system for the United States Navy.

A lot of modern defense contractors are relatively small labs with a specific specialty, so I'd be hesitant to introduce a single monolithic entity for Military Industrial Complex (no matter how fun casting Lockheed Martin as villains may be).  However there are some large ones as well, like the aforementioned Lockheed Martin: As an aside, did anyone else see the obvious hints in iconography that Stark Industries is Lockheed Martin in the Iron Man Films?

While going from ship mounted to personal use would be a bit of a huge jump for Railgun and Laser technology, I'd say we can expect to see vehicular mounts for Railguns and Lasers rapidly appear by 2030 or so, with the first prototypes of hand-held devices appearing by 2050.

Railguns will be a popular choice for tanks once the technology has been miniaturized enough to mount them in such a chassis, though they likely won't have as effective HE rounds, though this is probably going to be something most troops don't worry about since canister shells came back into fashion.

Another technology that is being developed is particle beam weapons, which have begun undergoing lab tests, and the Air Force has been talking about researching anti-matter.

Then there's the mecha-anime dimension... Power Armor and Exoskeletons.

Raytheon and Lockheed Martin have both created exoskeleton prototypes, and the United States Navy is already making plans to invest in the Lockheed design.  They're not alone... as a Japanese company known as Cyberdyne Inc. is working on a commercial exoskeleton for the elderly and infirm (hello full-body prosthetics next, hmm?) Plus Japan has launched some investigation into producing a real Gundam type system.

Of course, those studies said it'd cost $275 million to just make the parts, so I think large scale Mecha will remain mostly in the realm of Science Fiction... The same isn't exactly true for smaller versions or robotic drones.  A Full Metal Panic style mecha (the book version, not the anime) with a total height of 8-10 meters will probably end up being the top end of the possible size and weight for such a vehicle, with Ghost in the Shell style designs that blur the line between powered armor and mecha being more viable at 2-3 meters tall, often using large caliber anti-material rifle ammunition for their weapons and so forth.

Overall, pulling all this stuff together we'll probably see the large scale use of powered armor by 2030 by those nations that can afford it, and small mecha around the same time.  Before then aerial warfare will be heavily automated through drone fighter aircraft, as IFF systems and AWACS make that theater the easiest to program an AI for.

Next will probably be automation of armored warfare, where a tank platoon might be reduced to two men commanding and coordinating three tanks besides their command vehicle.  The last thing to be automated will likely be the infantry, but ultimately I could see combat robots being developed for infantry use, in which case a squad's human component might be reduced to a squad leader and an assistant leading perhaps as many as 8 robots into combat.  This could greatly increase the effective size of a nation's standing army while decreasing the number of people it places at risk.

What about Global Warming's effects?

Oh boy... Global Warming's effects and repercussions are a vast topic and one that Cyberpunk tends to fail horribly to understand or accurately describe.  Ironically, one of the most common screw ups is a tendency to suggest a growth of desert environments.

Global Warming does not mean desertification! In fact current projections about Global Warming indicate that the global average amount of rainfall is increasing.  The problem is where this rain is falling isn't helping much.  Flooding and droughts are both on the rise, as the warming world has caused increases in extreme weather.

Tornadoes, Hurricanes, and other storms will become stronger and more prevalent, an effect we've already begun to feel as Tornadoes have begun to appear in parts of the world that have never experienced them before in living memory. 

Over the next 100 years there are estimates of a sea level rise of around 30 to 80 centimeters.  This will have a much more severe effect in low-land environments, where even a rise of around 30 centimeters would flood large sections of the local area.

However, actual land usable for food production may in fact increase overall, as less temperate zones begin to experience longer growing seasons thanks to increasing temperatures.  In the United States, the southern states will experience a more and more tropical environment, while the northern most states will experience more temperate conditions.  Overall, I'd expect food production in the United States to shift toward the north and even see large expansions in Canadian food production as well.

There will be areas of decline as well, I expect the state I live in (Nebraska) to have to switch from corn production to wheat as the Ogalla Aquifer is exhausted, since corn is a rather irrigation intensive crop.

Actual ecological effects will probably follow a similar pattern, with temperate species expanding northward while cold-adapted species retreat into the arctic.  In addition I would not be surprised to find more tropical species moving further north as well.  Jaguars were all but exterminated from New Mexico and Arizona, they're likely to make a come back.

I've heard anecdotal reports that other changes have been observed in wild animal behavior in recent years, especially in the Mountain Lions of Colorado.  One person I know from the state said that he's heard talk of the normally solitary creatures forming prides like African Lions in some parts of the state.  Behavioral shifts like this could well be indicative of pressures from global warming and suggest other behavior changes are in the works.

What effects will terrorism have in the future?

Terrorism is something that any future campaign setting will have to tackle. The thing is that terrorism tends to be a highly adaptive plague on our planet, if security is tightened making one form of attack more difficult to achieve (like hijacking aircraft) then other possible forms of attack tend to become more viable.

Generally terrorist organizations and attacks take one of three main forms. The first is Domestic Terrorism.

Domestic Terrorism can be just as deadly as even the deadliest of attacks by International Terrorism. Thus far, it has been domestic terrorists that are responsible for the only well documented examples of attacks using chemical weapons, when on March 20, 1995 terrorists released Sarin in a crowded Tokyo Subway, causing 13 deaths and sickening over six thousand.

The organization that launched the attack was also attempting to procure biological agents including Ebola and Smallpox.

In America, the deadliest domestic terrorist attack was the Oklahoma City Bombing when two men parked a van full of fertilizer and fuel-oil outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building and detonated it. 168 people were killed and nearly seven hundred were injured.

The second major form of terrorism is state sponsored terrorism. In most cases this consists of a country directly funding a group to further its aims. The primary victim of most state sponsored terrorism is Israel, who has been attacked by Hamas (sponsored by Iran), Hezbollah (sponsored by Syria and Lebanon), and the PLO (sponsored by various nations) for decades.

Generally state sponsored terrorism is much more like a typical insurgency then a normal terrorist group. Their attacks generally are of smaller scale then other forms of terrorism, but much more common and almost everyday. Recently, Hamas has used barrages of artillery rockets on Israel, sometimes firing hundreds of them a day to little affect.

The third major for of terrorism is international terrorism. In modern times the idea of international terrorism is embodied by Al-Qaeda, the now all but defunct group behind the September 11th attacks. International terrorism generally is the only group with the resources capable of launching large scale coordinated attacks, however most international terrorist groups act more like an umbrella for other organizations, providing training and logistical support to these smaller terrorist groups.

Al-Qaeda spawned dozens of 'daughter' organizations, some of which have risen to prominence in Yemen and Syria. The most successful of these successor organizations is ISIS, who has taken control of large swaths of Iraq and Syria to form an Islamic state.

Generally international terrorist organizations are held together through ideology or religion.

In the near term, I would expect terrorism overall to rise and fall inversely to the health of the global economy. When times are good, people are less likely to reach for a gun then when times are bad. Israel will no doubt continue to be an epicenter for terrorism of all sorts, but recently other nations have started to get in on the act.

Russia has demonstrated a willingness to sponsor terrorist and insurgent organizations when it suits their interests, so I would expect in the near term to see state-sponsored terrorism continue throughout Eurasia, as Russia tries to use it to leverage the situation in their favor. I would not be surprised to see border conflicts akin to what is currently going on within Ukraine throughout the region.

The situation is going to dramatically change as oil prices and dwindling supplies in the middle east affect the budgets for those organizations based there. Profits for middle east oil companies will likely increase up until 2030 when the costs finally become prohibitive, though it is possible certain countries may begin to run out of oil before then.

This glut of cash will enable terrorists to better arm and equip themselves, and may ultimately allow them to procure chemical and biological agents. An uncontrolled release of smallpox would have catastrophic consequences and possibly create a global pandemic. Considering the growing tendency for people to refuse to vaccinate their children, the vulnerability of the population to some diseases is increasing.

However, increasing travel costs will ultimately cut down on international terrorism around 2030 except through cyberwarfare. The suffering and economic upheaval of the period will make terrorism far more common unfortunately, though it is more likely to be more local then nationally sponsored or international in nature.

Putting it all together... A Likely World War around 2030.

By 2030 our planet will be on the verge of a revolution in technology as the age of oil begins to come to an end.  Food demand will have doubled, energy demand will have doubled, and oil production will be on the decline.  Nations dependent on food imports will be hard hit as rising cost of shipping and food itself combine to lead to price hikes by as much as 8 times current costs or more before inflation.

Russian expansionism and aggression will have continued.  Buoyed up by high oil prices, their economy will likely slam to a virtual halt as the countries dependence on food imports strike home as the very oil prices that buoyed up the economy drive food prices upward.  Faced with these problems while still in possession of sizable fuel reserves, Russia turns to its traditional 'breadbaskets' of Ukraine and Poland and either bullies them into better trade deals or more likely invades, possibly using Belarus as a proxy.

Attacking Poland pulls NATO into a war with Russia, which while no super-power is still a powerful military power.  In addition, aggressive incidents between Chinese, Japanese, Russian, and American fishing trawlers in the Northern Pacific push Japan to deploy its Self Defense Forces to protect it's fishing industry and primary food supply.  This combined with American use of Japanese bases to attack Russia pushes the Russian Federation into declaring war with Japan.

With Russia and America openly engaging each other, North Korea seizes its chance and invades South Korea.  While Seoul is all but destroyed, the North Korean army's advance quickly is reversed by the South Korean military.  Within months a combined NATO, Japan, and South Korean force rolls North Korea back to the Chinese border.

China, facing it's own food crisis decides to join Russia and North Korea, and begins to put pressure on the rest of the BRICS nations to join in against NATO. (BRICS is Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa)

India's navy seizes a number of UN food shipments bound for Pakistan and redirects them home as India too is having food problems.  Unable to fight another enemy at the same time, NATO and its allies ignore the raids.

Japan takes the Kuril Islands from Russia while America launches an attack north from Korea into Siberia, ultimately to take the Russian oil fields and strategic fuel reserves.  Combined NATO and Ukrainian forces stop Russia along the Dnipr in Ukraine while forces in Poland push forward through Belarus.  Soon the combined forces of NATO and Ukraine go onto the offensive and push into Russia, aiming to take Moscow.

At this point Moscow will either go nuclear or decide to try and negotiate an end to hostilities.  If America has succeeded in taking Siberia's oil fields out of Russian hands, the Russians will likely be in no position to negotiate and China will be looking for a way out as they begin to feel a major oil crunch in addition to a food crisis.  With nuclear weapons a possible escalation, ultimately all sides will bow to a negotiated cease fire.

Even after the war ends, many of the causes will linger as the UN food aid system will almost certainly break down.  I'd expect popular revolutions in countries that are having the worst time of it, especially if they have an autocratic leadership: Russia will likely have yet another revolution on its hands.

It's a bad time globally in the time between 2030 to 2050 as most of the old institutions of trade and commerce break down.