It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


A few things I expect to change in the new decade

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 03:25 AM
I was considering posting a reply to 12 Things That Became Obsolete This Decade (posted by tothetenthpower) and I kept encountering the same problem. There are a lot of things out there which are on very untenable ground, or in some cases have already had the final nail beaten into their coffin, but which have so far been preserved well enough to almost appear alive, even stable, largely because 2008-2009 were really bad years in a lot of ways and that may have slowed progress on many fronts.

So you may want to brace yourselves to see some very common things become considerably rarer between 2010-2020.

#1 (o)___)>. Non-Internet Television (that thing with number 1 is supposed to be a bullet. Yes I know that's not the kind of bullet the expression refers to.)

TV's days are numbered. Why?
A1. The consumer is sick of paying for cable and getting 25-33% commercials for his money.
A2. The consumer would really like for his TV to become a 30"-72" computer monitor in front of his couch, and in the age of lightweight computers and wireless everything (including recharging) they can finally have it.
A3. The consumer wants to continue enjoying TV and movies with friends, even in a world where friends no longer go to each other's houses or necessarily see each other face to face.
B. The creators don't want to lose out on money just because they can't get air time, or you weren't home to tune in, or because you're watching pirated versions online instead.
C. The cable companies don't want to be locked in to just a hand full of major content providers fighting over big money. They'd rather charge a very large number of somewhat smaller content providers to be carried on a non-neutral network.
D. Advertisers want to know what their getting for their money in ways that Nielsen ratings just can't provide.
E. Computer manufacturers would like to see a computer in every home in the industrialized world (and in so doing bring down the unit cost without necessarily lowering the retail price), which will happen if computer becomes the new TV, although some of us would probably be operating with a bare bones model that's not significantly distinguished from a TV hooked up to a Playstation 2 (i know there is a 3, that's deliberate).
F. The straw that breaks the camel's back will the development of an economical heads up display, quite possibly in spectacle form, allowing you to shed a 50 pound burden and use one visual display for all of your electronic devices.

2. One or even both of America's major political parties.

The Republicans appear to be under the most imminent threat as conservative movements not explicitly tied to the party structure have begun to carry a lot of the weight of opposing the Democratic majority. If the Republicans can't significantly cut into the Democratic majority in 2010, this opens them up to the possibility of independent or third party candidacies in the spirit of the "tea party" when 2012 rolls around, IF such a movement can put forward a presidential contender of Ross Perot's caliber or better. Such a movement would not have to carry a single state to put the Republican Party in a fight for its life. They would have to take 40 seats mostly from the same party. They can take the 40 seats from either party, as long as they get them. Taking 40 seats from the Republicans in 2012 after a stalemate in 2010 would force the formation of a conservative coalition just to maintain a functioning opposition party. Taking 40 seats from the Democrats (actually it might not be a full 40: it would be 40 minus any number the Republicans gain in 2010) would put the Republicans in an even more precarious position, as they would find themselves sharing power in a majority coalition, and run the risk of fueling their rivals even with their successes. That last scenario in particular could hypothetically result in a third party plurality in the House at the same time as the House was called on to decide a presidential election between a Democrat and a 3rd Party as early as 2016. If that happened, Republicans could theoretically side with the Democrats in an effort to check the growing 3rd party and end up further alienating conservatives, resulting in an implosion of the Republican Party, some of whose members might think about reinventing themselves as "New Blue Dogs" for lack of a better term.

But these same possibilities are dangerous for the Democrats. Their recent gains could ebb fast in 2010, which is conducive to the coalition scenario above. If purple districts start heading back to the red end of the spectrum, moderates may start to feel pretty lonely in the Democratic party, and could even get saddled with the blame by more liberal democrats in the event that the Obama administration goes down in flames come 2012. This, combined with a fracture in the Republican party, could invite the beginnings of a small tea-party like Democratic insurrection, which could follow a few steps behind a conservative 3rd party (in the event that such a thing ever got off the ground). So if the Republicans go, the Democrats need to brace for impact as well, although that assumes a continuation of today's high intensity politics in order to fuel such a rebellion over an 8-16 year time frame.

3. Public libraries in working class towns

The public library is rapidly becoming a free internet cafe and video rental store. They can cut their staff and payroll, their size and rent, and their equipment to provide more internet access to more people at a universally affordable price, and in so doing generate badly needed revenue for city governments, particularly in poorer cities where personal computer ownership is lower. All they've got to do is get rid of all those old books and shelves and librarians that often times sit there doing nothing for months, just waiting for an unsupervised child to come along and destroy them while his mom is on the computer. Even this could end up going right back out within 10-20 years of its conception though if universal computer ownership is eventually achieved, ie: possibility #1.

4. Telephones as we know them, including cellular

In all fairness, we will still be carrying devices in our pockets that allow us to conduct voice conversations remotely, but when that stops being the primary reason consumers need them, the form and function will change even more wildly than they already have. The main hold up is creating a hands free input system that works as fast or faster than a mouse and keyboard. That in and of itself adds enough functionality to current high end phones that they become legit computers in the eyes of average consumers.

5. The taser

I know full well that this is wishful thinking but I hate those freaking things, and I think their elimination from our society, the bankruptcy of every individual who ever made a dime off of them, and the castration of everyone who ever used on inappropriately is a dream worth keeping alive in the new decade, so it's on my list, against all odds.

This list is not coming along very quickly, so I'll break for now. I do intend to move beyond just the things I expect to disappear. There are also some things I expect to appear and some events I think are reasonable to anticipate, but I've stayed up so late that it got early again already and I need some sleep.

posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 06:47 AM
This may be just a little bit premature but I told you so.

It's new years eve. Rush Limbaugh is dying and Fox News is about to go off the air. Bye Bye GOP.

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 02:08 PM
reply to post by The Vagabond
I just NEEDED to mention this.

Why are almost all people so IGNORANT? I thought ATS' motto was ''deny ignorance''

How come then something,that I knew at age 4 is not known by almost anyone.
The so-called NEW DECADE has NOT begun.

Are people rally so impressionable and gullible that ,just like with 1999 ending and 2000 arriving people said the 20th century ended or the third millenium began ? Are you kidding me?

Can't people have simple logic nowadays and some common sense.

one century is a 100 years, not 99.

When YEAR ONE ( 1 AD) began, on Jan 1st year 1, that meant it only BEGAN, not that it already ended.
Same logic is used as you go along.

dec 31st 99 AD means that 99 FULL years have ended. not 100.

999 AD dec 31st means that 999 full years have passed, NOT a thousand.

1999 AD dec 31st people allover the world celebrated New Years and "greeted" supposedly the 21st century. How has humanity fallen so low on the intelligence level ?
Can't people count to a 100 anymore?
1999 ending signified that 1999 full years had ended, NOT 2000 FULL YEARS, which means the 20th century HAD NOT ENDED and there was no greetings to the 21st century that year.

Yet people,as impressionable monkeys saw that the NUMBER changed from 1999 to "WOW" 2000,and so without any logic assumed it meant the beginning of the 21st century for some reason.

only 99 years out of the 2oth century had ended by that point(dec 31st 1999) and only a full year later (dec 31st 2000) did the 20th century END and by Jan 1st 2001 the 21st century HAD BEGUN.

We have only completed 9!!! years of the first DECADE of the 21st century, we have NOT past the 1ST DECADE YET!!
the first decade will be completed by the end of dec 31st 2010.

And starting January 1st 2011 the 2ND DECADE will BEGIN.

sorry,but it bugs the crap out of me for this blatant mistake peopel always make.

otherwise ,cool post.

[edit on 1/11/2010 by Valeri]

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 06:10 AM
reply to post by Valeri

I swear, I tell you that TV and American politics are going away while they are at the height of their excess, and you want to talk about the calendar. It beats the weather- but not by much. I'm not saying that I don't appreciate your careful attention to detail, I'm just saying that it struck me as tangential and silly and doesn't provoke a lot of meaningful thought, as you will soon see.

So... We clearly don't know exactly when the world began, and so we are not counting from an objective point of origin. We just picked a semi-arbitrary point in time and started counting years, not decades, from that point. For purposes of historical reference we have taken to referring to periods of time larger than a year by burning a digit- and sometimes adding another semi-arbitrary qualifier such as "early" "mid" or "late"- the borders of which blur depending on who you talk to and whether or not they believe a given decade had a "middle" part.
So it's arguably more accurate to say that the first decade began in the year 10 than to say that the 201st decade will end with the coming of 2011. The years 1-9 are simply loose can cannot be handily grouped into a full decade- which I suppose could be why nobody ever talks about the "Otts" like they do about the 20s-90s- maybe it takes 10 full years for everyone to get comfortable with a decade's label. (don't ask me why nobody talks about the teens- I'm pretty sure it has to do with us all having repressed memories from high school, but if you want a full theory things might get kind of graphic).

I just NEEDED to mention that. If it annoyed you and didn't seem to make any sense, then we are even.

[edit on Tue 12 Jan 2010 by The Vagabond]

[edit on Tue 12 Jan 2010 by The Vagabond]

posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 06:48 PM
reply to post by The Vagabond

fair enough.
But still, what I said cannot be argued in any way. Ask any person with common sense of when a year begins and when it ends and what signifies the beginning of a new century. And if someone doesn't have any 5-year old logic anymore,I suppose asking a historian etc always helps.(though the person WILL be embarrassed)

Now if we talk about just a random decade and not specifically the FIRST(or second-tenth) DECADE of the 21st CENTURY(or any other century) then there is really no difference between the decade of say 2003-2012(Jan 1st 03 until Dec 31st 2012 is exactly ten years) or the decade 2009-2018 than there is of 2010-2019

Oh yeah, if you meant 2010-2020 as TEN years a.k.a. a DECADE in your OP, then I must say you are obviously incorrect. If you emcompass the whole of 2010 and the whole of 2020 as well, then it is 11!! years, not a DECADE.

So really,it comes down to what time-period did you really mean ?

from like feb 13th 2010 until feb 13th 2020 ? (eg)

In thta case it almost entirely doesn't encompass the year 2020 etc. and so the point(from a time calculation standpoint) is lost. And if you use the words DECADE please be truthful to it's true meaning,which is 10 years.

I know this may nto be that important,but it does astound me how people can't get their heads around something that kids learn in the second grade or so.

posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 03:27 AM
From the time period that suits me best in retrospect if I should happen to get lucky right on the border-line, naturally. You need to understand that this mysticism and prophecy stuff isn't an exact science... and with me even science isn't really an exact science.

new topics

top topics

log in