janelane wrote:

communication

Communication will be ubiquitous and rich worldwide. For affluent populations, everything will 'talk' all the time. Because of the intense need to boost productivity even further, these populations will have access to extremely efficient and powerful agents and services to assist them. Your fridge will know what you have (and don't have) to make that caserole for this friday's get together. It will order it through the local grocery's supply chain and the items will be delivered to your door or place of work just in time.

Personal communications will be embedded in your clothing and all the objects around you. Your alarm clock will be synced to NTP sources. Your jacket will have microphone and video displays built into the sleeves and collars, which will automagically combine with your identity device, which will allow for secure broadband communications for news, mail, video and voice streaming. All of these devices will be rooted in time and place, providing context for the user. So as you enter a store, your video display will allow you to securely purchase items. As you enter your doctor's office, your device will authenticate and allow for the exchange of health information, scheduling, and billing. The network will allow for the intelligent collaboration of the devices as an agent for you. As you are driving to an appointment, the devices will calculate your position and plot your estimated time of arrival, notifying your meeting mate that you will be late.

All services will be rooted in context, but there will be a conscious choice to allow this information to be captured and shared. Most segments of the world population that have access to these tools will enable this feature, deciding that the loss of privacy and anonymity is worth the productivity. In most cases, you will simply not be allowed to carry on commerce without them, since all commerce systems will require at least some form of electronic authentication. But the 'have-nots' or 'choose-nots' will emerge, bringing a section of the population which will not have access to the tools or chooses not to lose their liberty and independance and remain blank in the system. This sub-culture will be rooted in the Do-It-Yourself ethic in order to survive.

information availability

I think that information availability will be at the highest possible point imaginable for society. As I mentioned, I think that it will be split between those who are willing to trade productivity for liberty and those who aren't, but the degree of transparency will be unprecedented. Part of this will be because of the degree of productivity desired. Open systems provide the most fluid and friction-free environments for information exchange, commerce, and ultimately productivity. So when you think about simple things like buying groceries, having a clear shot through the entire supply chain will be a tremendous advantage for every link in the chain. This might also have the added benefit of creating new value rather than stifling it. More intermediaries will be needed to federate certain components of the supply chain and reputation/customer service will be key. Those that can quickly adapt their chains to provide optimal results will win, but they have to have more than just one or two players to be successful. When you look at basic infrastructure things like markets, communications services, and even transportation, it's easy to see that we'll have to give up some control to gain capabilities. I can see that you'll have a few lanes of traffic devoted to automated driving, and that will cut down tremendously on commute times for those willing to have their location and telemetry controlled and viewed.

government structure

This is hard to tell. For the last decade or so I thought for sure that governments would yield to corporations or other global spanning entities (cliques?), but with 9/11 and the WoT, I'm not so sure. I would say that the lasting institutions of the world will not go quietly into that good night, whether public or commercial. And so we're bound to see a long long tail of continuous dragging of feet towards to inevitable. In a lot of ways, government's role in the world is almost moot. They set up boundaries to getting a lot of things accomplished, and are almost always at the root of why something bad happens rather than something good. There's a very short list of things that government can do that other entities can't, and that's only because of existing jurisdictional power and the ability to collect vast sums of money, both of which are waning in the 21st century. For sure, government is going to buckle under the same pressure as the commercial world to 'get wired' and 'get with it'. People are not going to accept the fact that they can get important things accomplished with a vendor and it takes eons and mounds of paperwork to do relatively little with the government. Particularly when you talk about healthcare and massive social policy, there's a role. I just don't know how much of it is going to be positive or even progressive when you look at the grasp that religion has on current leadership.

language

This will lesson as a barrier. Other things might pop up to take it's place (cultural, economic, religious), but I think that the Net, commerce, and just progress in general is making the world a smaller place, so language barriers will lesson. Whether it's the universal translator or a highly bi-lingual world, either will pay the bill.

outsourcing

This is already here today. Although nascent, there are HUGE value chains formed out of standards and collaboration. Look at WalMart. Everything is driven to provide deep transparency through the chain. As other industries get forced to adopt this kind of agility, you'll see tremendous value and opportunity spring forth. Healthcare is a massive (accounting for nearly 15% of world GDP, rising to 25% in the next 20 years) industry that will reap tremendous benefits from adopting these techniques. The current system is so mired in early 20th century business process that it's literally caving in on itself and causing massive economic shifts in the world today. The rising population coupled with the baby boomers is a worldwide problem. Not only are you going to see costs continue to spiral upwards until these efficiencies are put into place, but they're going to be the catalyst to tremendous social change. The quote about Japan's demographics is real. There simply won't be enough people paying into the tax system to fund those that are dependant on it unless costs drop and efficiencies rise. They will lose their footing as an economic power as their population drops when that generation dies off. Germany is in even more rough shape. You will have to see some backing off of their immigration policies and some encouragement on family and procreation to keep them stable. So outsourcing will become a very big component of the world economic system, more than it already is. The big question will be who benefits. China is obviously the best positioned, but I wouldn't count the US out. Despite all the damage done in the last 10 years or so, we're still the most innovative and productive nation in the history of humanity. Having things like the rebuilding of the gulf coast as a motivator could give our populace a new found confidence that anything is possible and SHOULD be done. We haven't had something like that to make us feel good and be energized since WW2. Maybe the Apollo missions, but I don't think that was as real for people as the war.

The real dynamic that I see is that the world will be at it's pinnacle in terms of capability and productivity, however, instability will minimize much of those gains so that we won't actually move the needle much more than what we had a few years back. Sure, we'll have breakthrough new drugs, highly efficient infrastructure and massive economic growth opportunities, but natural and man-made 'disasters' will wreak havoc with societies. Since a great section of the population will not have access to all of these tools and capabilities (economic, geographic, philosophical, whatever), then we won't get the benefit of all this 'security' that these things will be sold upon. Natural disasters withstanding, I don't think humanity will really understand what's going on until it comes to a head and all religion and government is essentially destroyed. It will be the only way that 'security' can be achieved, since those will be the only things standing in the way of people living their lives without disruption. The only exception I can see to this is the consumption of fossil fuels. If it runs out before 2020, then we're in big trouble and that could cause a world wide calamity. But if that transition isn't as painful (for whatever reason), then I do think that populations will just get sick of fighting for this or that dogma and say 'GET RID OF THEM ALL!'

RE: The Year 2020