Peltaire wrote:
> It seems entirely backward to relate to the future as if it were
> fixed a particular way, and that the way it will be can be
> computed.
> John, your words and your calculations are in favor of a new world
> war. And the work you have done has predicted a 21% chance of it
> starting in 2005. It refers to the new global war correct? How do
> you measure when a war starts? Is it declared? Or did you set up
> other measurements for that?
Well, when did World War II begin? I've suggested that the 1930
Smoot-Hawley law could be considered the first "shot." Or perhaps
the Japanese invasion of Manchuria or China.
But it's generally accepted that WW II began with Britain's
declaration of war against Germany.
I would expect some similar cataclysmic event to signal the beginning
of the Clash of Civilizations world war.
The article that you're referring to was really an experimental
attempt to attach some numbers to the predictions.
** Six most dangerous regions in world
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... nger041120
In those computations, I made the assumption that any regional war in
any of those six regions would create a situation where major
declarations of war would begin, and that would be the start of the
World War.
Quite honestly, I think it's one of those things where we'll know it
immediately when we see it. I think that once it happens, we won't
be debating whether it really happened. That's my expectation,
anyway.
Peltaire wrote:
> You could just as easily come up with a computational result
> showing a 37% chance of global utopia for a week in November.
Yeah, right.
Peltaire wrote:
> This is a blog for individuals who are passionately connected to
> the future. This is also a blog with very smart participants who
> make an impact on others with their words. My intention is to hold
> you accountable for what your words create for other people and
> make sure you are responsible for the impact words have on the
> conversations readers have out in the world. I could easily assert
> that someone who read this blurb is now testifying that there will
> be a new world war because there was a fancy calculation done. I
> am not saying it isn't possible, it is possible, the very worst
> future yet, and because that is possible, so is everything else.
I've had this kind of accusation before -- that I might be the CAUSE
of a world war, or I might be the CAUSE of a financial crisis, and I
really consider it utter nonsense.
How would that even work? Would Osama bin Laden read my web site,
and decide to start a war? Actually, he's already been doing that
since the 1980s.
And that's part of the point. There are many terrorist groups who
publish stuff that's really inflammatory with the objective of
starting a war, and they don't succeed, because the time isn't right.
Generational Dynamics teaches us that a crisis war has to be triggered
by the right combination of chaotic events. We saw how the Danish
cartoon incident triggered worldwide protests, and that might have led
to a major war somewhere, but it didn't.
On the other hand, do you think that Pakistan's president, Asif Ali
Zardari, might be surfin' the net one day, stumble across my
prediction that Pakistan and India are going to have a war, and then
say, "Well, if John Xenakis says we're going to have a war, then I
might as well start it, so we can get it over with!" It just doesn't
make sense.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail:
john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site:
http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum:
http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com/forum