My remote viewings do not support these perceptions. Improvements in living conditions have a way of spurring on child production within developing countries. Also, within developing countries, they require a much larger work force to support their increases in manufacturing and development. Generally, when heads of families feel they can bring home the bacon and provide for a larger family, they will have more children. Increased access to medicine within developing nations will also more than compensate for any improvements in contraception. The only area I've ever seen that truly has a dramatic impact on childbearing is education.
In many areas of the world, the average educational level is rising, but not fast enough to make a difference. In some heavily populated areas of the world, education has recently taken a beating from the reinstitutionalization of archaic religious practices as well as a substantial rise in the continued persecution of women.
Therefore, as early as the year 2050, I predict the world population will already begin to exceed the 10,000 million people mark—easily fifty years ahead of schedule.
Why is this an important figure? It's important because it represents the total number of people we will have a capability to feed. If my remote viewing is correct, our ability to feed the population is actually under stress now. Given our ability to adapt modern technologies and our inventiveness to address such problems, we will probably be able to compensate for these demands for food well into the 9,000 million mark. But, somewhere between the ninth and tenth billion, significant breakdowns in food production will begin to occur. Hence, by the year 2050, food production will be a severe problem.
Many of the industrialized countries, the primary producers of food, will begin to see the handwriting on the wall about the year 2035, but it will essentially be too late to make the changes necessary to prevent wide-scale starvation in marly of the still-developing countries. Something will have to be done quickly to thin the ranks.
Since the average population growth, using a straight-line graph, appears to be about 80 million per year (or .08 of one percent), thinning the ranks becomes somewhat more difficult to implement than one might initially think.
There are two ways to do this thinning out. There is a hard way—through war—or a more benign or peaceful process—by controlling birth (through attrition).
What about war?
Using history as an example, it would have to be a war to end all wars. Let's assume that we could have a really nasty one, that it's at least twice as bad as either of the two world wars and lasts just about the same amount of time—five to six years.
Assuming the highest possible casualty rate (in deaths), the thinning might look something like the following:
For sake of argument, we'll assume the total number of casualties for military and civilian populations on all sides is somewhere in the neighborhood of 75 million. We could then add in another 125 million to allow for the Hitler, Stalin, and Mao type personalities that always crop up during these times of darkness. This comes to a total of 200 million dead. We could arbitrarily decide that it will probably be at least twice as bad as we can envision it to be, so let's now double our figure to 400 million.
If our population in 2050 is 10,000 million, we can divide our casualty rate (400 million) by this figure, and we can see that the total casualty rate will represent a very small .04 percent in population reduction. If we then figure back in our .8 of one percent (80 million people per year) normal growth rate, we have to add back the 400 million we just lost, which means that we will simply break even.
My conclusion is that we are definitely in big-time trouble.
Is there a peaceful solution? Yes. We have simply to get everyone on the planet to agree to an immediate ten percent reduction in child production beginning right now! By doing so, we could actually slow projected world growth by 500 million people by the year 2050. At the very least, this would give us an additional fifty years to figure out a more permanent solution. Will this happen? You tell me.
Children
Children are the most important commodity walking the face of the planet. Their dreams and aspirations drive the future. What happens over the next 75 to 100 years will be a direct result of not only the decisions we make as adults today, but the visions and accomplishments of our children. Yet child abuse, neglect, and runaways are increasing on almost an exponential basis. This may be in direct correlation to the rise in population, but I doubt it.
When the STARGATE program was exposed and I became publicly known as one of the program's remote viewers, I was nearly overwhelmed with requests to help locate or find missing children. I was absolutely stunned by the fact that while there are numerous organizations that have been set up to look for missing children, there was no real primary or federally funded and supported clearinghouse for maintenance of such files.
I predict that by the end of 2004, the federal government will establish and fund a primary facility to coordinate a nationwide search organization for missing children. It will operate through the Internet and provide local law enforcement and medical facilities with up-to-date and rapid-response information helpful in identifying missing kids.
The point of initiation for this project will be a single grant from an individual estate that will provide the seed monies necessary to design and implement a grass roots drive to address this problem.
In conjunction with this effort, I see a decision by the Supreme Court that acknowledges the "Rights and Laws of Children" as a necessary step toward the reduction of child abuse.
On the down side, with the continuing rise in violence among teens, a decision will be made to bring harsher penalties to children accused of felony crimes. Before the year 2002, the Supreme Court will uphold the conviction of a teen (twelve-to fourteen-years of age) for multiple first-degree murder who will have been tried and sentenced as an adult. This will take place in a Southeastern state—probably Georgia or Florida.
By the year 2010, three new prisons will be constructed, one in the Northeast, one in the South, and one just west of the Rocky Mountains, that will be specifically designed and constructed to house children and teenage offenders between the ages of eleven and sixteen. Modified sentencing will be established that falls somewhere between what an adult might receive and what is currently being levied on teens.
The positive side of this action will be a twenty-year, very intensive study of new methods for behavior modification, which will produce landmark approaches for treating young criminals, rather than punishing them. A key element to this behavior modification will be education (more about this can be found in the section that deals with law.)
Of greater interest to teens, I make the following predictions:
By the year 2010, there will be a complete change in the testing procedures for college entry. The SATs will go the way of the dinosaurs.
By the year 2015, a new method of teaching will be established in most cities, which will differ radically from what is commonly found in most schools today. As an example, most high school students will be able to:
1) Choose the hours they want to attend school.
2) There will be more opportunities to study skill-related subjects such as electronics, information processing, engineering, etc., in the high school environment.
3) There will be a shift back to the old ideas of apprenticeship. A new type of educational system following high school, where "apprentice" and "journeyman" have meaning, will develop. A student will be able to spend four to six years learning a complex or sophisticated professional trade through practical or hands-on application. Surprisingly, this will be driven by the fact that most "high-tech" corporations have to do such training or retraining anyway, and this will be seen as a way of increasing control over the work force, and a way of reducing educational costs.
The federal and state education administrations will probably duke it out well into the year 2025. The system(s) as they now operate will continue to degenerate to a point that screams for reconstruction. By the year 2015, approximately 60 percent of our children will be attending privatized schools and the public school system will be in shambles. The primary reason for this occurring are the following:
1) By 2015, the administrative costs (at the senior management level) will exceed 50 percent of most school's budgets.
2) Highly qualified teachers will migrate to private institutions in ever-growing numbers.
3) The quality of textbooks, study materials, and library content in most public schools will have been diluted to the point of futility.
4)The battle between community "spiritual" leaders and "nonsectarian" protection groups will have reached a level of near violence.
5)The population of "students" that exists at that time will have been polarized to one of two extremes. Those who have been taught about the power of information, how to access it, how to use it, and those who haven't. Unfortunately, this will be based mostly on social status or social background—a new form of ethnic discrimination.
Action taken by the federal government to make changes within public school systems across the country will require the establishment of martial law in at least six states, much as the enforcement of integration did during the late fifties and early sixties. (See additional information under the specific topic "schools.")
Ethnic Groups
With the coming new millennium, we are changing our view of the planet and how we relate to one another. One of the unique features of our old way of relating is that our tribal distinctions, that is, what makes us different from our neighbors, had significant meaning. Tribal differences don't just occur between tribes of people. Sometimes they can happen on a block-to-block or street-to-street basis within neighborhoods, as well as along distinctive borders between countries, or within them.
To get a mental picture of what is going on, think of these tribal differences, or pockets of identification, as being well-defined sections of Earth, small continents floating on the surface of a globe. Where they make no contact there is no problem. Where they do, we have earthquakes.
In the past, there was plenty of room for these small continents to float around. There was even room within the borders of single continents for individual landmasses to shift or move. Sometimes there were both accidental as well as deliberate "bumps" between masses, which usually resulted in earthquakes. The size of the quake was usually dependent on how accidental or deliberate the "bump" might have been. In some cases it might have had more to do with pressure building up over time, sort of like two land masses resting against one another with neither wanting to give space to the other. Well, we are quickly running out of space, so the number of "bumps" and the degree to which they quake, are going to climb exponentially. This will especially be true where there is little give—within country borders (dictatorships), and between countries (where there is least agreement or compatibility).There is a good side to this. Just as the movement of mountains and the creation or destruction of land on a planetary scale is inevitable, so is the requirement for change unavoidable. Knowing this, we simply have to acquiesce to the requirement.
Notice I did not say it would be easy. What I mean by this is that knowing it is going to happen and that it is unavoidable, we should be willing to negotiate how it's going to happen before it becomes a forced situation.
A good example of nonnegotiation would be what is now called ethnic cleansing! A highly charged phrase that, truth be known, was probably originally coined by and designed to sell newspapers. However, as distasteful as it may be, it represents something that is very real and very dangerous.
Within Bosnia, Serbia, and Croatia, parts of what used to be southwestern Russia, segments of Africa, inside Iraq, and a number of other countries, this is already happening. In some of these places, it has to do with tribal differences that go back hundreds of years. Others are religion based, and some center on political zeal, or simply deal with old vendettas and revenge.
Generally, we are not talking about greed or power here, but clashes stemming from differences in ethnic belief, or out of some ethnic idealism. These types of clashes are not going to go away. They will only increase.
For whatever reasons, areas within which we can expect major clashes and their specific periods include the following:
2010-2015 C.E. There will be significant problems at the border areas of the United States and Mexico—specifically San Diego/Tijuana, and Juarez/E1 Paso. As a result, Mexico and the United States will enter into an open border treaty that will go into effect in conjunction with a similar Canadian/American treaty sometime near 2020-2022 C.E. The opening for this treaty will occur when all three countries have agreed to a common effort toward adopting both a common currency as well as equalization of workers/unions rights/benefits. The agreement will be initiated, but full commonality will not take place until approximately 20302035 C.E.
2018-2020 C.E. There will be a small border clash between Peru, Colombia, and Brazil over disputed land areas that have direct access to the Amazon River. This will be settled by international treaty and by the direct intervention of Venezuela and Chilean diplomats.
2009.2011 C.E. Border clashes between Gambia and Senegal, Sierra Leone and Liberia, the Congo and Central African Republic will erupt over land disputes. They will last for a period of two, one, and four years, respectively.
2006.2008 C.E. Algeria will take exception to border issues with Tunisia, which will invite the intervention of Libya into both their affairs by the year 2010 C.E. Efforts to solve this dilemma will fail for a period of nearly fifteen years, during which it will spread to civil unrest within Libya, eventually erupting into civil war. (See section on war.)
2009-2010 C.E. There will be a minor clash between Namibia and Botswana over the Caprivi Zipfel area, which will be resolved peacefully between them. However, Angola will take exception to the agreement, sparking some sporadic unrest within the area for a short period.
2006-2008 C.E. There will be a major clash between the countries of Zaire and Zambia over tribal-held lands that currently divide them. This problem will surface when one of the smaller, currently less vocal tribal elements shifts political sides following the death of one of their senior statesmen. This problem will be solved in the old-fashioned way—through marriage.
Present-2035 C.E. There will be continual clashes, from moderate to severe, that will occur in the region presently occupied by Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Iran, and extreme southwest Russia. (See section on war.)
2009-2012 C.E. Problems will erupt initially between the governments of Afghanistan and Tadzhikistan, and will quickly spread first to Uzbekistan, then extreme northern Pakistan. By 2012 C.E., the Himachal Pradesh and Punjab areas of extreme northern India will be involved. (This will probably not be a military problem, but it will certainly involve substantial civilian unrest throughout these regions.)
2000.2100 C.E. There will be continual minor flashes of conflict on borders separating Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam, as well as their shared borders with China. Most of these clashes will be at the instigation of local warlords within the nearly inaccessible mountain regions. Toward the end of this hundred-year period, they will taper off to none, and there will probably be a reestablishment of more permanent border lines between Laos, Vietnam, and Cambodia based on natural terrain features. The islands currently under dispute between China and Vietnam will be relinquished to Vietnam in exchange for concessions in fishing in the Gulf of Tonkin.
2000-2005 C.E. Russia and Japan will settle their disputes over islands due east of Hokkaido.
2025.2026 C.E. Malaysia will absorb the state of Brunei.
2010-2012 C.E. Islands north of the Torres Strait will be deeded by Australia to Papua New Guinea (Saibai, Boigu, Talbot, Turnagain islands and Warrior reefs.)
The important message here is that people of the world, regardless of tribal affiliation, will have to begin to recognize that retaining such tribal affiliations and protecting the tribal culture is OK, but it cannot be done at the expense someone else. There is room for intercultural respect, and by showing such, one is not selling out a religious or political belief. In fact, if such cooperation and respect does not develop, then our planet is doomed to eventual destruction from within.
Marriage
I've developed a unique perception about marriage through the years of remote viewing. It has come from having so many couples asking for help in one way or another. What they asked for usually had nothing to do with their relationship: It was more day-to-day stuff like asking for help in deciding how they were going to pay a mortgage, or what they should do with the proceeds from the sale of their company, or maybe something even simpler, like where to put the garden next to their house, or where did my wife lose her ring. But it was unavoidable that I would get some degree of insight into their current or ongoing relationship(s).
What did I see there?
It wasn't so much the individual couples who provided insight into marriage, but over the years, it was the summation of their input. When you get something from a few couples it might not be correct, but when you pick it up from many, you can say that it might be true.
Local television, newspapers, magazines, books, periodicals, church publications, polls, questionnaires, textbooks, etc., have all been hammering about how marriages are going down the tubes at a rapidly increasing rate. Divorce rates are going up as we speak, and the sudden great influx in broken homes is very threatening.
But . . . my sense of these things, is that none of this is really true. Yes, divorce rates are climbing, but marriages are not failing as miserably as one would think. The two figures do not mean the same thing.
We live in times when information has become the new commodity. There are polls for everything. And because there are polls, we have developed a whole system of definitions that are very black and white and have well-defined edges dividing them one from the other. It's always a multiple choice, and we have to always check this or check that in a column.
As an example, circle the following:
Married: YES NO
Divorced: YES NO
Circling NO under married and YES under divorced implies that one has not been living with someone very happily for twenty-five years, which may not be applicable to a number of couples I know.
Circling YES to married and NO to divorced implies that someone is happily married, when they may have been living separate for many years. Again, this is a very large assumption.
My experience has been that when it comes to relationships, one cannot assume without asking some very specific questions. I've known people who have been living together for longer than thirty years but who were never married. In another case, I've known a very dear couple who, has been living happily together for twenty-two years. Both have been married the entire time, but neither to each other. Before you run off on a tangent, I must add that they are of opposite sex.
But, then there are same-sex couples who have lived together for a very long period of time as well, who of course are not married. Not because they don't want to be, but simply because someone's or some group's view of morality dictates they should not be. In reference to at least two of these cases, the relationship between these couples has lasted longer than anyone I know that is married to the opposite sex. One couple is male; the other is female.
I know of some couples who have been divorced a number of times, but almost immediately and continuously remarry. Do we total the number of years they are married, or do we total the divorces and give more weight to them? I myself have been divorced twice and married three times. My total number of married years since age twenty-one is twenty-seven. The total number of years I have been unmarried are four. My longest marriage of course, my last one, is the current one. We have been happily married for a period of nearly fourteen years, and I hope another fourteen. My first wife remarried, and as far as I know still happily is. My second wife was also looking to remarry the last I heard. My point is that this figure that no one ever looks at is important when you start evaluating the vows of matrimony. Just because some go wrong once or twice, doesn't mean they aren't wedded to the idea.
Having spent some time remote viewing a number of cultures, across a number of historical periods, I have concluded that the way in which we look at marriage needs to be fully reevaluated. Our current rules don't make any sense. They are designed to follow not what works but what our current religious and political dogmas dictate, even when these dogmas go against the grain.
Because these dogmas change from culture to culture on a decade-to-decade basis, they are arbitrary, and probably cause more problems than they are worth. They are certainly less functional. We have only to look at the currently ending millennium for some very good examples of why things should change.
It wasn't too long ago that a man could be married to as many women as he wished (in fact there are still some states and countries that allow this.) There may or may not be anything wrong with this. But shouldn't the rule apply both ways? A woman can't be married to as many men as she would like to be. Why not?
Not too long ago a man could divorce his wife by throwing her out the front door and denouncing her in public four times. He got to keep the kids, the house, the wares. Now the man drags his own suitcase out through the front door and the wife gets the kids along with the house in most states.
Before some of my female readers jump with joy, remember that in some very large and supposedly modem countries, the woman can still be thrown through the door and denounced four times. Scary as it might seem, in some cases they can even be murdered in view of witnesses and without recourse.
At one time, there were no rules about the minimum age at which one could marry, a custom that still exists in four or five countries. Guess who made up that rule? Also, there are still countries that make very little distinction between marriage and slavery. The wife is chattel, is kept absolutely ignorant, subservient, and in some cases is beaten on a regular basis—usually in the name of religion. I think the same group of guys made that rule up as well. The scary part here is that when you talk to some of the women who live under those conditions, they will tell you how honored they are.
Popes used to be married . . . oops, pardon me, they only lived their lives with a woman, they were never officially married. However, they were viewed as married enough that their sons could assume their estates and power after they died. In some cases, those estates included huge amounts of church property.
Before all you Protestants walk off shaking your heads and tsking at the Catholics, you might look at some of the brutality carried into marriage by some of your early church leaders. Women and children alike suffered abominably under the pendant of religion—nearly all religions. In some countries today they still suffer for those very same reasons.
At one time kings changed their wives like clothing, some still do. When divorce was viewed as OK, the women got to live out their days in a convent somewhere (God forbid they try to remarry, like the king), and when it wasn't OK, they simply lost their heads or took a short fall out of a castle window.
So, when we begin to address marriage, we have to take into account the period we are referencing, then we have to be very careful not to date the material. I believe it's easier doing a metanalysis on the paranormal than it would be to do one on the sacred act of marriage.
Looking at today, I believe we are standing on a threshold in history that may actually be the doorway to the fairest period of all, at least when it comes to marriage. Now if only we can shuck the final remnants of hair shirt that seem to cling to the process.
In light of the above, by the year 2025 C.E., marriage will finally be recognized as any union between two human beings, under the following conditions:
1) Where one human being voluntarily lives with another human being, for the sake of sharing in all of life's hardships and benefits, they will be considered married.
2)Where one human being dies while under the day-to-day care of another human being, to whom they are not related by blood (an officially recognized act of unconditional love), they will be considered married.
3) Where two human beings share in the difficulties of protecting, providing for, and raising a family—children (whether their kids or someone else's won't matter), they will be considered married.
There will be addendums, of course. A few of these will be as follows:
1) Sex won't be a mediating factor—neither the sex of the individuals involved, or the fact they might be or might not be having any. If they are having sex, with whom won't matter.
2) Marriage will not require a religious or political blessing. NOTE: I said it won't require one. Having one will still be thought of as a nice confirmation of their vows to one another.
3) While residing as a couple under contract of marriage, all matters of support, such as taxes, responsibilities, bills, ownership, etc., will be equally shared.
4) All matters of support, such as taxes, responsibilities, bills, ownership, etc., that are brought into the marriage as individuals will remain individually held.
5) Divorce will be supervised by courts and no longer affected by lawyers. In other words, the rules won't change from case to case, or be based on income.
While this will probably be something very close to the rule within the United States, and some of the Western European countries, it will not be prevalent throughout the world. In fact, by 2025 C.E., women's rights in a number of countries, such as parts of Africa and the Middle East, will have reverted to their more primitive concepts.
Women's rights will become a hot topic within the United Nations by 2008-2010 C.E. These issues will help to usher in a growing conflict within many of those regions of the world (see section on war.) The only way these "customs" will be altered will be through outside intervention.
Men and Women
By 2005-2008 C.E., changes in the attitudes and lifestyles of men and women will change—perhaps not radically but distinctively. By the end of that three-year period, a new form of clothing style will be ushered in. It will be called "utilitarian."
Basically, it will be a new clothing design genre, consisting of a more androgynous look. This will begin with a form of jumpsuit, not unlike something you would have seen on Star Trek twenty-five years ago. The only differences between men and women in these designs will be the color or piping that covers the shoulders. Initially, colors will be fairly bright and different, however these will quickly give way to moderation.
By 2015 C.E., hairstyles will become more and more similar. Men and women alike will begin to share the same styling when it comes to their locks.
For men, dyeing the hair will become more prevalent, as well as having the hair cut in layers. We will begin to see men with streaks of color in their hair, as well as decorative touches like glitter and the like. Initially this will be happening in places of recreation, like dance bars, discos, or nightclubs. Women will begin to wear their hair in much shorter cuts. Some women will even prefer to go bald, at least partially, beginning with the shaving of the sides, and progressing to fully shaved heads. Of course, those who do will be sporting some rather unique and decorative tattoos on their craniums (both permanent and nonpermanent).
By 2005 C.E. tattoos will be fully back in vogue, but they won't be permanent. New dyes will be developed that will be impervious to water or other fluids, even sweat. The only way to remove these tattoos will be with oils specifically designed to loosen them. Initially, women will wear more tattoos than men will.
Tattoos will be a means of sharing something about ourselves with those we meet—the automatic or unspoken word. Some tattoos will be highly erotic, while others will make very loud statements concerning mental state. By the year 2020 C.E., there will be almost as many tattoo parlors (for temporary tattoo design and application) as there are nail/hair parlors today. The single greatest use of the temporary tattoo will be to emulate clothing not actually being worn.
By 2020 C.E., an entirely new scent business will have come into being. Rather than designing aftershave for men and perfume for women based on odors, these new companies will be designing "scents" based on pheromones.
Pher-o-mone /'fer-a-mon/ n [ISV phero- (fr. Greek pherein to carry) + -mone (as in hormone)] —a chemical substance that is produced by an animal and serves esp. as a stimulus to other individuals of the same species for one or more behavioral responses—pher-o-mon-al /'fer-a-mo-n'l/ adj (Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition).
Worn on the skin, these pheromones will essentially key off specific responses in men and women when they meet. These responses will range from sexual arousal to the desire to eat. In some cases, they will make the person objectionable—being worn like the scent of a guard dog.
A secondary business will stem from the first, in which scents will be developed to neutralize the originals—so that one may walk among the living without being manipulated. If you think this sounds far-fetched, I will tell you that by the year 2025 C.E. some of the scents that will have been developed will have such power that they will be legally outlawed or at least forbidden to minors.
Pheromones will also be used as part of the behavior-modification techniques utilized in criminal rehabilitation. (See the sections on crime and law.)
By the year 2020 C.E., a new form of jewelry will be available. It will be much like the old "mood ring" that everyone remembers from the 1960s. However, in this case, it will cover a greater portion of the body. Upper sections of skintight jumpsuits will actually change color across the spectrum based on the emotional condition of the wearer. For those less inclined to the risqué, decorative armband-type bracelets, necklaces, and scarves will come in a multitude of colors that will shift spectrums dependent on the wearer's mood.
As fallout from military developments, by the year 2015 C.E., we will begin to see segments of clothing and jewelry that will mimic their surroundings, chameleon-like. If a person is standing against a neon background in a nightclub, his or her jewelry and segments of clothing will mimic this—changing and jumping from background element to background element.
Older Population
What will the older population think about all this? I can only speak for myself. It'll be great.
By 2029-2030 C.E., we will have access to whole new categories of chemicals and materials genetically based in origin. One of these enzymes will operate something like the trigger mechanism in the cells of trees found in northern climates. Injected, it will actually seek out cells involved in wrinkles, causing them to reinfuse with fluids, thereby eliminating those unsightly lines. Initially this will only work on the crow's-feet around the eyes and with lip lines. But with time, people will at least appear to age much more slowly.
Sometime very soon, perhaps as early as 2002 C.E., male-pattern baldness will be fully eradicated. Men will be able to control this problem with pills. This will be unveiled by the same company that currently produces a semieffective cream. (Something similar to this was announced in television commercials sometime during the first or second week in May, approximately nine months after I made this prediction. I've left this in, since I've been unable to verify specifically whether or not it is the same as what I have predicted.)
By 2009-2010 C.E., recreation for the aged will finally be taken seriously. Many of the now-operating health spas, workout clubs, and gyms that cater to the middle-aged and younger will convert to "Senior Clubs." These clubs will organize and manage recreational packages specifically designed for and catering to the more mature.
Most of them will offer assistance with "coupling" or "friendship bonding," as it will be called by then. It will be a very sophisticated and computerized matching or mating system for essentially one-night stands.
For those who feel this is morally objectionable, there will be just as many operating under the banner of the local church, as not. For by the year 2006 C.E., the single greatest recognized disease (dis-ease) of the aged will be loneliness! It will be viewed as the number-one killer. All of our formal organizations, including churches, insurance organizations, hospitals, etc., which by then will be getting most of their funding from the more mature, will be addressing this as an issue.
By the year 2015 C.E., most will acknowledge quality of life as more important than length of life, thus putting a whole new outlook on life that will reverberate throughout culture.
By 2010 C.E., there will be a new drug for improving sexual activity well into the seventies. Hotels, motels, and vacation packages will be specifically designed to entice the older lovers through their doors. This will be somewhat accelerated by 2020 C.E., following development of the new pheromone scents previously discussed.
A more serious problem to the older population will center on consumption. By 2006-2008 C.E., the numbers of older citizens (those above the age of sixty-five) will rise significantly, and continue to rise for at least a seven- to eight-year period. The proportion of money being spent by the elderly versus the younger generation will begin to polarize the overall population on specific issues centering on consumption.
Notice I said "being spent" above. Issues surrounding services or support through government-controlled agencies will still be coming primarily from taxes. These are areas primarily supported by taxing the young.
The younger generations will suddenly find that many of these services are being driven primarily by the old; subsequently many of these programs will be costing the young more than they might be willing to provide.
This issue will have to be addressed. So, by the year 2015 C.E., a commission will be set up to address some of these grievances. Since the commission will primarily consist of the elderly, further polarization will occur, eventually resulting in a minor revolution within the below age forty-five population.
As a result, there will be a number of significant changes in how we currently view major issues within our culture. Some of these include the following:
1) By 2020 C.E., stringent guidelines will come into being that begin to restrict medical services that prolong life or their availability. These services will no longer be provided simply because they are available. They will only be provided when there can be assurances that the quality of life will be present as well. Who will make these judgments? Like it or not, in some cases the courts will have to make these decisions. However, most will be made by families, and these decisions will be supported by the elderly in most cases.
2) By 2020 C.E., assisted suicide will become a lawful choice. There will even be a government program that helps alleviate the burden on insurance companies, which will be required to pay off on life insurance policies for those who chose suicide over a prolonged illness. As much as some organized religions will balk at this, it is inevitable. In fact, it will be the creation of new religious organizations and modification of older organizations that will be the primary supporters of these new policies. This will require at least two significant and landmark decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court prior to the year 2016 C.E.
3) Tax considerations for people who care and provide for members of the older generation will be considerably broader. They will be expanded to at least an equal footing with the considerations for the care and raising of children. By the year 2009 C.E., we will see new "older brother/older sister" organizations being formed, where there will be dual mentoring between the old and the young. Young people will be allowed to adopt older individuals, much as they adopt children today. By 2015 C.E., there will be agencies handling these adoptions.
And of course, everyone is interested in what is going to happen to Social Security. If I simply said it doesn't exist in the year 2025 C.E., this would probably instill panic within many. So I will try and describe what I see in a little more detail.
By the year 2010 C.E., at least 50 percent of the current social security system will be supported privately. By 2020 C.E., it will cease to exist as we currently understand it.
Citizens, civil employers, state, and federal governments will still have to invest in programs for the future support of the elderly, but these programs will have been privatized as "for profit" investment firms.
These firms will be heavily monitored and governed by strict state and federal laws, but essentially they will be motivated and oriented toward profit making. What will be unique about them is the fact that no one firm will be isolated from another. Excessive profits by one will be shared with the others, and excessive losses by one will also be shared with the others. Each firm will be oriented toward different investment strategies and their employees will be hired or fired based on their ability to effect positive or negative results.
Citizens will have the choice as to which firm they can belong, some being more high risk than others. The amount of return at time of retirement will be based on a minimum to a maximum investment over time. Of course, those who invest more can expect more. Those who invest the minimum will receive the minimum, but it will be possible to invest less at higher risk and thereby make more as a result. That should appease the hidden gambler in those who want more control.
The greatest enticement to support this changeover from the current system to the new will be generated by how the process is controlled—that is, who actually says where the money will go, or what will be done with it. By 2020 C.E., investment decisions will be made by the citizen(s) through direct links such as the Internet.
These changes will not be without problems. The system will require at least two significant governmental patches (single allotments of funds from the overall budget) to survive past its development stage. One will take place about 2012 C.E., the second about 2018 C.E.
Within the next one hundred years, the single greatest population growth will take place in Asia, followed by Africa, North/South America, then Europe (primarily Central Europe.) While the population will nearly double in Asia and Africa, it will rise significantly less in North America and Europe. South America will rise by at least a third.
There are extremes that occur within populations. One might look at them as spikes in a graph. I've listed the top three of these spikes under each major topic or heading on the following charts. These are generalizations to show where activity will probably be spiking at quarter points over the next one hundred years.
A number of other areas are primarily covered more exclusively under specific topic titles in other areas of this book.
Most of these graphic spikes do not occur exactly on the dates listed, but fall within a few years one way or the other. The important thing to remember is that these are gross generalizations and there will be variances within the primary groups. Saying the unemployment will be extremely high or spiking in Southeast Asia in 2025 may not mean in all countries. The economy might be booming in Vietnam during that time period, while being on the average significantly worse in other Southeast Asian countries. So, these are intended to be general guides.