The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century

The Next 100 Years by George Friedman has an interesting premise, to say the least. To anyone who thinks of a declining America, you can forget about it. The 21st Century will still be one dominated by the United States. What will be the ascendant powers that challenge the US? China, India, Russia,

Show More

or an Islamic coalition? No, too many internal problems for them to overcome. The next powers will be an increasingly powerful Turkey, Japan, and Poland! He gives interesting reasons why, but you'll have to read it for yourself.

The book was just written, so he does mention the current economic situation as a blip that will not have long term ramifications. He seems to write more from a military perspective than an economic one. His main theme is that powers who control the ocean control the world, and America is the only country in history to control the entire ocean. The US also actively discourages other countries from building substantial navies, though he does sound a bit vague as to how this country does that. Global trade occurs because the US implicitly allows it, since it is the only country that can entirely blockade another without anyone else being able to stop it. He also cites that the main crisis next century will be a global labor shortage and countries will actually compete for immigrants, thus the US will have the lead there as well. But some of my incredulity is how that he discounts China, Russia, and India for some good reasons and states that the next great powers will be Japan, Turkey, and Poland! So he's still on his Japan kick. Also, he says the US will be the first to develop alternate energy from solar arrays in space! I thought he was a kook at first, but upon reading most of the book I think he makes some interesting arguments.

Show Less

George Friedman's company, STRATFOR, consistently releases excellent analysis of world events and global trends, and I thought his previous work, "America's Secret War," continued his trend of thought provoking inquiry. A book based on predicting the next 100 years of history is ambitious and

Show More

Friedman' analysis is interesting. He challenges the reader to ignore common sense and instead view countries through their constraints and potential responses. From these tools he extrapolates a vivid imagining of the future's potential history. His scenario plays upon the continued dominance of the United States and its contention with regional powers such as Japan, Poland, and Turkey. Although it is speculation, Friedman bases his prediction on the geopolitical priorities of countries. I especially liked his breakdown of U.S. priorities, and his recounting of U.S. history into 50 year cycles of economic and political development. His excursion on the future of war and its technology is fantastical at times, but it serves as a reminder of how military planners think, which was new to me. Friedman grounds many of his speculations in realistic assumptions about how nation states may act, and presents a very 'big-picture' view of the world.

Friedman's analysis and focus on the 'big picture' however leaves out many potential variables. I enjoyed his discussions on geography and demographics, but India only warranted a short paragraph in the middle of the book. Africa is not mentioned to which I must assume he believes it may be inconsequential, which reflects current foreign policy biases. Furthermore, given the rise of non-state actors and transnational issues such as organised crime, disease, multi-lateralism, etc. as policy priorities, it would have been nice to see them addressed. Friedman believes they may not be in the scope of his predictions which look at long term motivations, but these, including leadership, have the potential to change the course of history in a country. Climate change was address as an afterthought in the final two pages of the book, and Friedman states that technology will be the deciding factor in solving the issue. Friedman focuses on the nation-state and realism is his under-lying philosophy.This of course discounts other constructivist and neo-liberal view points of the world which may have informed the reader on the variety of possibilities in the international arena. The book is interesting, but Friedman's narrow take on how history is being made left me feeling that he left out important ingredients that could have influenced his predictions.

Show Less

It is a great effort to predict what would be the course of the next 100 years, as the author says, it is possible to see the tendencies from actual era, and how things will evolve, shaping possible future events, it is not possible to forecast the details, just the process to understand what is

Show More

happening today is worth to read this book.

Show Less

I liked the geopolitical perspective. Never thought of American dominance as being based on controlling both oceans and being located between the two big oceans. Interesting. But when he gets into the coming war and space dominance, I'm not interested. Nor do I care for the point of view that the

Show More

main focus of every nation is about jockeying for world power. Depressing.

Show Less

In what might initially be considered an act of hubris the author in this book actually makes some sense in describing scenarios for the near future. Using forecasting models based on history and human tendencies within the context of current research and a pending worldwide population reduction,

Show More

geopolitics for the 21st century is explored and predictions are made for challenges to U.S. hegemony. Running counter to the prevailing thought of some, the author believes America is still in its ascendency as the dominant world power. However, challenges will come through a mid-century war (Turkey/Japan) and an end of the century borderland struggle with Mexico. In between, technological advances in space and energy will change the way war is waged and spark the global economy. Normally not the type of book I read, nonetheless I found this intriguing. Before I succumbed to cynicism, I considered all the changes (technology to black swans) that occurred from 1900-1999. From this perspective, many of the things the author discusses seem at least plausible.

Show Less

A profoundly odd book mostly made up of a large number of hard-to-believe predictions. the actual geopolitical logic behind his arguments is interesting, but there are too many leaps. number of hard-to-believe predictions. A hundred years from now this will be a real curio. I put it in a ziploc

Show More

with a note to my grandson!

Show Less

For nearly 1 year, I nibbled on this book. It's a difficult listen; in order to absorb the details, I listened to part two in small swabs.
While some may criticize the author's predictions, I enjoyed the geopolitical crystal ball...in small doses.

Goes off the table a little bit, but overall very helpful

An interesting look at the geopolitics of the 21st century. It’s of more interest as a starting point for thinking about geopolitical issues rather than as a prediction for which you can expect any accuracy. Friedman barely mentions India, for instance, which with a population of a billion is

Show More

going to be significant on the world stage even without factoring in issues of climate change. (Friedman states in the epilogue that he isn’t dealing with climate change in his analysis, though he thinks it’s real; given that rising sea levels will threaten Bangladesh just when India’s glacier-fed rivers are drying up, I think he’s missing a big geopolitical faultline.)

He also makes no allowance for disruptive technological change; his idea of a space-based military infrastructure overseen by manned space stations in geosynchronous orbit might have made sense back when Arthur Clarke was envisioning manned communications satellites, but it looks quaint and outdated in 2009. My power company just signed a contract for space solar power, which Friedman is anticipating will take another 40 years to take off; it’s as if he didn’t notice the Ansari X Prize has already been awarded and that upcoming investment in space will be through private industry, not massive government projects.

The book is worthwhile for the thoughts it can provoke, but don’t go rearranging your 401k investments based on its predictions.

Show Less

How do you forecast the future of the world? Expect the unexpected. What shape will warfare take? Where will power arise as the century unfolds? What will be the role of China, the Muslim countries, Russia? Friedman takes a stab at predictions that are worth considering.

Interesting read. Wondering how accurate he is. Time will tell.

While Friedman has a birds-eye view of present-day circumstances, the fact remains that the farther into the future Friedman travels with his crystal ball, the more speculative and questionable his outlook becomes. I am surprised that Friedman has not collaborated with one or more novelists, as the

Show More

genre of futuristic science fiction would probably be a more effective vehicle for conveying his more long-range speculations.

Show Less

I read quite a bit of material from George Friedman’s articles from his intelligence report and without having done so, I probably would not have read this book in the first place. A geopolitical forecast for the next 100 years seems a futile attempt even for a person with too much time on their

Show More

hands. He was very forthright in saying that the details were not the focus of this book and that the scope was to provide ideas about how the world might shape itself over the coming century.

What impressed me the most about this book was not anything to do with what was written in it; rather that anyone who saw me reading this book would press me for the very details that were not important to what Friedman had in mind. Mostly people were looking to validate their own premonitions about what they think will happen in the future. So this book to them was the magic eight ball. To me this book was an open ended argument that relied on history and current affairs to give an idea of what could happen over the next century. Friedman did a good job of combining economic, social, and political circumstances to show what could evolve along with technology in different parts of the world.

I should say that I agree with him 100% about the Russians. This is how I came across his intelligence report through his company Stratfor, and subsequently to this book. Time will tell how much of the details he gets right, and if the story unfolds in the way he tells it. I suspect that even if the details of this book are right on, future generations will not fall back on it as prophecy or use it to change course. In fact, there are no answers in this book, just premonitions, which makes it difficult to give this book any strong value. It was an interesting read though.

Show Less

This book was an interesting, if speculative journey into the possibilities of the future over the next hundred years. The author takes analysis of past trends and makes some interesting theories around the future. Who knows if there will be any truth to these predictions but it was an interesting

Show More

read on the environmental and political environment.

Show Less

In a sense, I’m divided: Do I give this book four stars or five stars?

Ironically, the things I like most about this book make me want to rate it a four. I love the book because it’s highly engaging, easy to read, and at times refuses to take itself (and the art of forecasting) too seriously.

I

Show More

also love the book because it’s irreverent. Friedman’s “geopolitics” – as a kind of Greek or Shakespearean tragedy where the actors are not in control of themselves and even smart characters cannot help succumbing to the logic of their situation—is kind of an affront to the work of peace researchers, political scientists, and policy wonks of different varieties who try to prescribe solutions like doctors.

As Friedman points out again and again: “One interesting facet of geopolitics is this: there are no permanent solutions to geopolitical problems.”
[Imagine if this mantra was stamped above International Relations, Political Science, and Peace Studies Departments! Imagine if it was on the wall of the State Department. ]

In a book where so many outrageous predictions are made – on the logic that when looking to the future one has to be prepared for the outrageous – one has to wonder what the actual value of the forecast is.

I actually think the theory behind the book and the journey he takes us through is the most important part of the book – not the specific details of the forecast (which are sure to be wrong in more than a number of ways).

I see Friedman’s work as – in a way – an iteration of Nassim Taleb’s Black Swan and Anti-Fragile. Key points from that book: most forecasters are charlatans; predication is a liberal art; the things one doesn’t know are as important as the things one knows.

So, does Friedman understand that he is a charlatan, involved in a kind of quackery? I think he does. (It's hard to be quack if you know you're a quack). I think he lays out a vision of geopolitics that is straightforward, but that is well-qualified. I think he is also pretty clear that he expects to be wrong in a number of ways. He also acknowledges that practical leaders tend to focus on the short-term problems – as they should. Does Friedman know that predication is a liberal art? The answer is a resounding yes! Does Friedman understand the value of the things he doesn’t know? Yes again!

So here we have a harmless piece of engaging quackery. But to gain five stars, the book should be more than that, shouldn’t it? I think the book does go beyond merely the engaging and entertaining for one reason – it teaches us through practice not to take the future for granted and to expect the unexpected. As far as quackery goes – one based in history, geography, the liberal arts, and the things one doesn’t know – this quackery seems to me highly advanced. I’m not sure! I’ll have to give it another read.

It also throws out a challenge to other International Relations scholars – don’t forget the enduring realities of geopolitics.

"There are no permanent solutions to geopolitical problems” – perhaps I will have that tattooed to my forehead!

Show Less

For the first few chapters I was sold - some fascinating analysis of the forces that shape culture and history.

Unfortunately these were the ones that largely dealt with the past and present. When it came to discussing the future (most of the rest of the book), it totally jumped the shark.

At one

Show More

point the author writes "this may seem like science fiction". Well, yes, but *bad* science fiction - you know, the kind that is unintentionally steampunk because it doesn't recognise just how many anachronistic assumptions it projects into the future?

It is kind of pointless to delve into a point-by-point rebuttal, as there is no reason why I should be any better than the author at predicting the future. But I can probably summarise my disquiet in a couple of themes:

1. Technology - The author massively underestimates and seems quite blind to the impact of technology, especially computing. The internet only gets a passing reference and is not linked to any major factors in the author's thesis. Worse yet, some of the author's most important points are founded on assumptions that are already being eroded by technology in 2013. Case in point is the surveillance and command-and-control imperatives that the author believes will lead to the US establishing "battlestars" in space, which in turn will lead to "World War III" .. yet we are already seeing advances in terrestrial drones outstrip even what the author believe battlestars will be capable of in another 30 years.

2. Sovereign States - there seems to be an underlying assumption that sovereign states are really the only actors on the stage that will shape how history unfolds. It all feels very 18th century - I'm not even sure this is true now, let alone for the next 100 years. It ignores the fact that people are getting harder to control en-masse thanks to globalisation and communications (who predicted the "Arab Spring"?), and it diminishes the influence of other forces, like corporations, or even nature (climate change or not). I'd believe the author's moon settlements more if he cast them as products of private enterprise - lead by the likes of Elon Musk aka Tony Stark - rather than a phoenix-like re-emergence of massive government space programs.

Rating the book is an unexpected quandary. On the one hand, I was engaged enough to enjoy reading to the end. However it was more with comic relief than any sense that I was exploring what might really happen this century. And for a book that is purportedly to be about the future to leave me totally incredulous is kind of the ultimate sin, hence the 1-star.

So unless you are an academic who needs to research everything, I think time might be better spent re-watching something like "Terminator", or "The Day After Tomorrow" - far more enjoyable, and probably just as likely visions of the future. Or more constructively, read Black Swan, because they too seem to be missing from this story.

Show Less

Even though I found this book well founded in history analysis and with solid deduction processes I can't help but to feel dissapointed. The American centrism of the author's logic reminds me of those U.S. people who have never been out of the country, and can't conceive that anything important is

Show More

going on out there.
Friedman asumes that he can compare in the same terms cultures with six thousand years of history to cultures a couple of hundred years old.
Also, the absolute belief of the author in the U.S. technological superiotity astounds me. Compared with other developed countries, the U.S. has definitely been lacking in technology development in different areas (take clean energy production, for instance). And Friedman believes that this is going to change because of the U.S. war capabilities? He might find out that other countries were busy getting ahead during peace time....

Show Less

Friedman is all about geopolitics. He believes politicians and other "powerful" people are limited and constrained by forces beyond their control. By tracking those forces, he hopes to paint the broad strokes of the 21st century. Initially skeptical, I found his reasoning plausible and integrated a

Show More

great deal of the reading I've done on modern history. He emphasizes the unintended consequences of decision makers, who take risks and make assumptions that don't hold up. Probably the shocker is that he sees America at the brink of war with Mexico (?!) by the end of the century. The creepy thing is, as one who grew up in the Southwest, he makes sense! Another fact that has yet to appear on American public consciousness is that the global population explosion is over. Already. And this single demographic will dramatically affect real estate, immigration (nations will be competing for 'em), and changes in the social relationships of families. An excellent read.

Show Less

Very readable for non-fiction. I always take prediction books with a grain of salt, since so many variables can affect the future. Friedman's predictions are mainly geopolitical in nature, and are intriguing and are based on some solid observations on long-term historical trends and traditions.

A

Show More

good book to read and spark debate over where the world is headed politically in this century.

Show Less

The first half of this book is very interesting as the author talks about current trends and makes some intriguing predictions on what he thinks will happen geopolitically over the next 100 years. I thought it was very interesting till about 2040. Then he started talking about wars between

Show More

particular nations and I thought the analysis was based on to many variables to take seriously.

The first halfish of this book is very much worth reading.

Show Less

To some extent, a pop version of Skowronek. Speculates about the future of the US across the 21st century.

An interesting read, though as you would expect, it becomes more difficult to imagine the further out in time the author goes.

The book focuses on geopolitics and the impact of geopolitics on war strategy. The author looks back in history to frame his geopolitics, and thus misses the technological

Show More

dimensions of war strategy that we see today in Russia's "meddling" in the elections of multiple countries. Geography may be destiny, but I suspect other dimensions are more important than the author cares to acknowledge, or to incorporate into his thesis.

Regardless, there is a lot to think about in this book, and many of the topics he discusses you can see playing out in the news around you. His discussion of the importance of hypersonic weaponry for example seems very timely.

Show Less

A great over view on how geopolitics works and how we arrived at the status quo. A contrary view of the US declining. Its just the opposite and he gives reasons why. I disagreed w some of his outcomes. Where do the Russians go? But still a good try and an interesting read.

Provocative narrative of what the future holds - centered around the US. Some very interesting predictions and surprises.