The Next Years is a book by George Friedman. In the book, Friedman attempts to predict the major geopolitical events and trends of the 21st century. The Next Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century [George Friedman] on narledikupttemp.ml *FREE* Author interviews, book reviews, editors' picks, and more . Editorial Reviews. narledikupttemp.ml Review. site Best of the Month, January "Be Add Audible book to your download for just $ Deliver to your.
|Language:||English, Spanish, German|
|Genre:||Politics & Laws|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Sign up for free]|
The Next Years book. Read reviews from the world's largest community for readers. “Conventional analysis suffers from a profound failure of imagi. powers Turkey, Poland and Japan. The Next Years is a Join Reader Rewards and earn your way to a free book! . See all books by George Friedman . Book design by Elizabeth Rendfleisch. Library of Congress Cataloging-in- Publication Data. Friedman, George. The next years: a forecast for the 21st.
From here, it starts to go downhill. Sound crazy? When he talked history, I was right there. Man, I liked it. When he began making predictions, I wavered. I could follow and nod along with his projections for the next ten years, but after or so I considered the material to be poorly narrated speculative fiction.
If one of his major players and he acknowledges this fact does something wildly tangential and alters the dynamic, everything else falls apart down the line. The author completely ignored impact of technology on future societies. This already has begun. Just think how world is different nowadays due to automatization.
The only problem in increasing production of the future societies will be resources not amount of workers. Only the most creative parts of society, engineers, sciencists and so on, are important.
I doubt did for example future Pakistan could provide more well educated people than Russia only because they will have bigger population. He doesnt described the third possibility of Russian future, because he did not liked her. Depopulation of Russia, not only stopped but start rising recently. The government invest huge money in switching trends, and to become a exporter of goods not only resources.
But he doesn't doing this investing in factories, trying to compete with existing industries in western europe. Russians investing in the technology of the future, to have strong positition, before rivals will emerge. Read about rusnano corporation. They know that can not win with Germany in industries, already well developed.
If we start thinking in the future in this way, that shrinking population is even better due to shrinking resources, the Europe or Russia are in much better position than for example Brazil which will have to feed millions of not useful at all workers, replaced my machines. Automatized Russia, still can feed the unemployed population using own resources. Does Pakistan with maybe even milions or african countries, will have this possibility?
Read raport of British ministry of defense -global trends to The modification of human genome, technical unemployment, robots.. That is the future, where the future of Russia will be determined. To become a global superpower, one of many with the united States, or dissapear completely in a nuclear blast wuth a country who invaded terrotiry.
Russia will have probably huge problems in the future, but comparing with another parts of globe they will be lucky ones due to huge underpopulation, described as weakness.
The overpopulation and civil not interstate wars, will the main problem of future socities. Aug 23, Daniel Clausen rated it it was amazing Shelves: 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.
As Friedman points out again and again: Imagine if it was on the wall of the State Department. 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. Key points from that book: 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!
Yes again! So here we have a harmless piece of engaging quackery. 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. Oct 27, Bruno Gremez rated it it was ok. In this version, George Friedman tried to predict possible geopolitical events and major trends of the 21st century.
A little bit in the spirit of "The rise and the fall of the Great Powers" by Paul Kennedy, he analyses the strengths and weaknesses of a large number of important countries in order to forecast how the world could look like in the next 2 or 3 decades and who would dominate it.
George Friedman, contrary to many, speculates that the US will retain their dominance. To some exten In this version, George Friedman tried to predict possible geopolitical events and major trends of the 21st century. To some extent, his argumentation is based on some objective and strong facts, the main ones being the very favourable geopolitical location of the US, with direct access to major oceans and no border shared with direct enemies, and the availability of a wide range of resources to support such dominance.
Another strength of the US is its formidable and tested ability to easily assimilate migrants in a century that will inevitably be characterised by major immigration, especially from the Southern to the Northern hemisphere. A major shortcoming of this analysis to my view is that too little emphasis is placed on the impact of climate change. This is surprising since it is already happening and will have immediate effects on geopolitics.
How will climate change impact major countries, including the US? How will the US cope with scare water resources? What will the US do when its agriculture is affected by climate change and water scarcity? How, when and where will that cause new conflicts? It is really unfortunate that George Friedman failed to reflect on these imminent and fundamental changes and their effects. Instead, the book speculates on major technological advances that may take place in the course of the 21st century in order to figure out how the world could look like towards the end of the century.
This part of the analysis appeared to me to be futile, for two main reasons. First, it seems a bit presumptuous to anticipate the kind of technological progress that human kind will bring in 80 years from now, while nobody had imagined the upcoming importance of internet 25 years ago for instance.
How could anyone, with any sort of reasonable certainty and scientific accuracy, foresee how the world will have changed technologically 25 years from now, let alone towards the end of the 21st century.
Second and more importantly, many of these technological advances will according to me be determined to a very large extent, directly or indirectly, by our global efforts to cope with and address the causes and effects of climate change.
But, as explained, the importance of the issue of climate change has unfortunately not been recognised by the author. Review by Bruno Gremez Heath Harper. Most of the futurist stuff I read is very technology centric. In this one, the forecasts for technology are actually quite modest, and instead most of the thought processes center around geopolitics, or as Orson Scott Card calls it "The Great Game. Probably not going to stop anytime soon However, he doesn't seem to anticipate the idea of women gaining power in the world outside the home, and what changes that might cause Personally, I suspect women leaders will be less hell-bent on so much war.
Fortune and glory are nice if you can get them, but not really worth risking life and limb and mutually beneficial relationships. Boring, steady progress is the safer bet. Also, he spend much of the book talking about population dynamics: The Great Depression Ahead: He doesn't bring up robotics until about the s, and even then it's more in the context of wars in space An interesting book, but the perspective is far too traditional in my opinion.
Change is in the air, surely, but I think there's more to it than just different wars An exciting book that almost reads like an alternate world science fiction novel. Friedman's main argument is that the United States will remain the most powerful nation in the world also in the 21st century. Current rivals like Russia and China will be swept away, and quite soon too, only to be replaced by new challengers such as Japan, Turkey and later Mexico.
So, how likely is this? Friedman admits that he will get details wrong, but believes that the overall direction of 21st century histor An exciting book that almost reads like an alternate world science fiction novel.
Friedman admits that he will get details wrong, but believes that the overall direction of 21st century history is predictable. We'll see in 90 years. I think that many of his arguments are sound, based as they are on fairly permanent strategic imperatives and national interests; I also think that his technological predictions are fairly accurate. I am more doubtful about some of the things he doesn't mention. The book has a very narrow focus on the relationship between the United States and its main rivals, while India, South America and Africa are only mentioned sporadically, if at all.
I would be very surprised if India won't play a bigger role than predicted here, for example. And I didn't see the European Union mentioned at all. Swept away during the first few decades of the 21st century, presumably, but under what circumstances?
Friedman also wrote a book on "The Coming War with Japan" some twenty years ago, and he has written a book on what the next decade will bring. The first scenario hasn't come to pass yet, and maybe it would be worth getting the second book and read it ten years from now, just to see how his prediction skills really measure up.
Nov 01, Nick rated it it was ok. This book started out great and then became completely tedious and absurd. Friedman did a great job of laying out his vision for the next 30 years or so. He describes the economic, political, social and demographic forces that are shaping the world. That part was well worth reading and seemed fairly plausible. The second half of the book reads like someone explaining "an awesome game of Risk" they played in excruciating detail.
The circumstances leading up to this World War Three are also absurd, This book started out great and then became completely tedious and absurd. The circumstances leading up to this World War Three are also absurd, in my opinion. What is worse than what is in the book though is what he left out. Apparently Africa will not be important. It is barely mentioned, as is South America. India won't matter much either. He also spends almost no time talking about future technology other than for war making.
Overall I would not recommend downloading this book. If you get it for free, then I would recommend reading just the first half or so of the book. Oct 11, Chris Dietzel rated it really liked it.
Incredibly fascinating yet disturbing. Friedman relies on the very true saying that "history repeats itself," then sets about identifying the economic and social trends that could lead him to predict future events for the next years. This is the fascinating part of the book. Friedman admits many of his predictions could be wrong, yet has a sound basis for all of the things he writes about. The disturbing Incredibly fascinating yet disturbing.
The disturbing aspect of the book comes from the author's outlook on geo politics and war. Most notably, Friedman is a big advocate of war and argues for its many benefits.
May 22, Maria rated it liked it Shelves: Friedman hypothesizes what the future will look like using geopolitical theories and trends based on populations, resources and historical precedents. Why I started this book: Predictive books are fascinating, especially if you read them years after they are published.
Like this book of Why I finished it: Friedman was very clear on his logic and his assumptions which made them more believable. However I couldn't refrain from an eye roll or two as he talked about how s were going t Friedman hypothesizes what the future will look like using geopolitical theories and trends based on populations, resources and historical precedents.
However I couldn't refrain from an eye roll or two as he talked about how s were going to be a golden age of immigration as countries competed with themselves to attract workers. Cause in , everyone hates Mexicans and refugees.
I also didn't quiet believe the Japan and China scenario But I was encourage by the belief that America is not on the way down. Plus the predicted break up of China was more believable after watching this History of Everything. Aug 11, Leajk rated it did not like it Shelves: Since I'm interested in forecasting, especially demographic forecasting, I was excited to see that there was a chapter on population and thus bought the book.
As other reviewers have already pointed out the book is overall unfocused. Sure it was an interesting perspective for me as a non-American citizen to consider, but it really had quite little to do with the Jihadi Since I'm interested in forecasting, especially demographic forecasting, I was excited to see that there was a chapter on population and thus bought the book.
Sure it was an interesting perspective for me as a non-American citizen to consider, but it really had quite little to do with the Jihadist issue. The actual issue at hand seems to be that Friedman wants to assert that European power is waining and that the American age is coming.
Then for the much anticipated chapter on population. Friedman explains, as should be well known by now that birth rate in the Western world is declining. He also mentions that the US has a higher birth rate than Europe as a whole , which is true, but he goes not go on to analyse this fact in any way. Indeed he just asserts: What about the coming American age? In fact he actually uses population trends as an example of the waining of the European age and an advantage for the US.
It is possible that he thinks that the US has more potetial for population growth since he has earlier asserted in the Overture that the US has more underpopulated both in general and in relation to areable land than other countries, and thus has a growing potential for labour. But that seems a bit of a stretch.
Especially since his theory of population decline only deals with the cost of having children and the low infant mortality. Both of which are standard ingredients in looking at demography, areable land less so in modern times although it could be relevant to the issue able to support more labour immigration, possibly There is really no futher point made in regards to population.
Friedman uses in a round about way for saying that bin Laden hated the US because it respects its women. Or rather bin Laden wrote: You use women to serve passengers, visitors, and strangers to increase your profit margins.
You then rant that you support the liberation of women. That is that they think that women should be confined to the homes while modern economies center around the fact that women are part of the work force. So, the US and Al Qaeda have different views on women, that is not really any major news in demographic research right now.
He also analyses demographic data as if the feminist movement was only a side-effect of economic growth, rather than an effort of progressive women and men. There is no comparison made between actual economic growth and rights given to women e. Switzerland, one of the richest countries in the world, did not have fulll rights for women to vote until the s. As it turns out there is no need for me to take him seriously either, in the next chapter he makes the most bizarre division of Europe where Denmark is included in Eastern rather than Scandinavian Europe.
I simply gave up. Jul 08, Jonathan Sargent rated it it was ok. This is most likely because I'm just coming off reading Samuel Huntington's incredible Clash of Civilizations so bear with me. Someone will pick this book up in a years and die laughing at the complete lack of a single citation. If you're going to use history and present day events as a tool for predicting the future, it might be a good idea to back up what you're saying. But I digress. We get a nice history of where the world looks today and where potential conflicts will arise.
I'll agree with him here mostly, he points out the demographic changes that are taking place and how the geography of a nation-state affects it's past and future trajectory. But he focuses entirely too much on two very flawed arguments. Rational actors: History is full of people making very dumb, irrational decisions. The future will be no different. It's a nice theory, but it breaks down quite quickly in practice. Very little mention of institutions, genetics, philosophy, religion.
These are HUGE factors that play into what happens in the future but Friedman thinks the entire future of the world is going to be dependent on America consuming resources and making sure there are enough Mexicans to care for our old people.
After a few chapters of describing the state of the world, Friedman goes into full LARP mode and just makes assumption after assumption about the next years of the world. I would be more convinced of his arguments if every previous decade wasn't built upon each other like a deck of choose your adventure books. Well China or Russia might take one of these three paths Silly, silly stuff. There is more to power than money and geography.
Far, far more. Curiously enough one of the main features of the book is how America must go to war in order to continue to be wealthy. Well conveniently enough Mr. Friedman is the CEO of a intelligence agency whose success is predicated on American international power reigning supreme.
How convenient. The Next Years tricks you into thinking it's about futurology. Feb 20, Ed rated it liked it. The best way to approach the future is via the Peter Schwartz The Art of the Long View strategy of developing alternative scenarios about the future in order to 'learn from the future' about the present: Jacques and Friedman provide two such scenarios, though I would like someone to add a scenario around environmental issues that neither This book forms a useful balance to Martin Jacques book When China Rules the World.
Jacques and Friedman provide two such scenarios, though I would like someone to add a scenario around environmental issues that neither author really includes. Friedman got me thinking very differently with his contrarian thesis that America will dominate the 21st century.
Ultimately he failed to convince me and he would have benefited greatly from Martin Jacques insights if only to counter them. Friedman is also big on geopolitics and did show me how his Mahanian thesis contrasted with Jacques that is more Mackinder: But ultimately, his greatest weakness was his fondness for naval power and his seeing the 21st century as a re-run of the 20th with little head for the potency of land based sea skimming missiles that already exist rather than come in mid 21st century.
The western Pacific and The Gulf are already untenable operating spaces for carrier battle groups in the event of war against some one other than a third rate military power.
And Friedman gives no sense of how US military dominance will be paid for. He reminds me of some late Roman stating how superior the phalanx is without noticing that the economy has collapsed and there is nothing to pay the army with.
Still the book taught me some more about thinking about the future and also how highly paid geopolitical consultants in the field earn their big money preaching to historyless mono-cultural clients with absolute certainty.
Jul 25, Vicki rated it liked it Shelves: This was an interesting book in which the author attempts to predict what will happen in the world over the next years. I wish I could give it 3. Some of the predictions left me bummed out, particularly the one that space will inevitably be militarized.
The author argues that the control of space will be just as crucial to being on top of the hierarchy as controlling the seas is now. It does make so This was an interesting book in which the author attempts to predict what will happen in the world over the next years. It does make some degree of practical sense, but I just really hate the thought of space becoming militarized. He posits Turkey and Japan as coming rivals for power with the US, and he has some dire predictions about the intersection of the relatively small Gen X and the unfriendly immigration policies spurred on my the section on this issue would be interesting tandem reading for another of my goodreads books called The Age Curve by Kenneth Gronbach, which I really enjoyed.
I don't know if I necessarily agree with that, but it's interesting to step back from current events to try and see the overall pattern over time.
I'd recommend this one for those who enjoy contemplating how the future may unfold are interested in stepping back for a more long-term perspective on contemporary issues and events. Jul 25, Owen rated it really liked it. If this guy gets one more thing right he will vault into the 5 star range. I'm sure he's at home now, holding his breath. This is the single most well-thought out book about the future I've ever read.
It came highly recommended and delivered across the board. It's also the most optimistic futuristic book, particularly from an American perspective.
He is also entirely in the minority I blame cable news, personally. He thinks we will solve the enrgy crisis with a form of something imagined by Tesla, he thinks China will dissipate as a world power, Japan and Germany will rise again, then Poland, Turkey and Mexico will become the major players along with the US Germany and Japan.
He makes a pretty compelling case, actually. Particularly the Mexico piece- I just don't see how that will not be a problem in a few decades he says 8 ish, but I think it will come to a head before that. We took the southwest from Mexico, and shortly, there will be more peoplein those states who identify themselves as Mexican than people who identify themselves as American. I found the entire book interesting and easy to read.
Worth the read for any serious thinker. Mar 31, Rodrigo rated it liked it. To talk about this book I'll use a word Friedman uses as a disclaimer: I mean, I enjoyed it indeed and, even when English is not my mother language, reading it was fast and easy.
Sadly we cannot say whether he's wrong or right, and most of his readers will be long dead when the events he's foreseeing will or will not occur.
Nevertheless it was really interesting to get a sight of what the world could be like in 60 or 70 years. Some things sound perfectly logic and probable: In the book, Friedman attempts to predict the major geopolitical events and trends of the 21st century. Friedman also speculates in the book on changes in technology and culture that may take place during this period. Friedman predicts that the United States will remain the dominant global superpower throughout the 21st century, and that the history of the 21st century will consist mainly of attempts by other world powers to challenge US dominance.
Although mainly about the geopolitics and wars of the century, the book also makes some economic, social, and technological predictions for the 21st century.
In the s, the conflict between the US and Islamic fundamentalists will die down, and a second Cold War , less extensive and shorter than the first , will take place between the United States and Russia. It will be characterized by Russian attempts to expand its sphere of influence into Central and Eastern Europe , coupled with a buildup of Russian military capabilities. During this period, Russia's military will pose a regional challenge to the United States. The United States will become a close ally to some Central and Eastern European countries, all of whom will be dedicated to resisting Russian geopolitical threats during this period.
Friedman speculates in the book that the United States will probably become a close ally of some Eastern European countries: Around , a Polish-led military alliance of countries in Eastern Europe will begin to form, which is referred to in the book as the "Polish Bloc. In the early s, the New Cold War will end when the economic strain and political pressure on Russia, coupled with Russia's declining population , and poor infrastructure , cause the federal government of Russia to completely collapse, much like the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Other former Soviet countries will fragment as well. Around this time, China will politically and culturally fragment as well.
The book asserts that the rapid economic development of China since will cause internal pressures and inequalities in Chinese society. Regional tension in mainland China will grow between the prosperous coastal regions and the impoverished interior regions. Friedman gives two possible scenarios: He works on the assumption that fragmentation is the most likely scenario.
In the s, the collapse of the Russian government and the fragmentation of mainland China will leave Eurasia in general chaos. Other powers will then move in to annex or establish spheres of influence in the area, and in many cases, regional leaders will secede.
In Russia, Chechnya and other Muslim regions , as well as the Pacific Far East will become independent, Finland will annex Karelia , Romania will annex Moldova , Tibet will gain independence with help from India , Taiwan will extend its influence into mainland China, while the United States, European powers , and Japan will re-create regional spheres of influence in mainland China.
In the s and s, three main powers will emerge in Eurasia: Turkey , Poland , and Japan. Initially supported by the United States, Turkey will expand its sphere of influence and become a regional power , much as it was during the time of the Ottoman Empire. The Turkish sphere of influence will extend into the Arab world , which will have increasingly fragmented by then, and north into Russia and other former Soviet countries. Israel will continue to be a powerful nation and will be the only country in the immediate region to remain outside the Turkish sphere of influence.
However, Israel will be forced to come to an accommodation with Turkey due to Turkey's military and political power. Friedman predicts that Japan will change its foreign policy during this time period, becoming more geopolitically aggressive, beginning a major military buildup. Friedman predicts that Japan will build military strength capable of regionally projecting power across East Asia during this time.
Finally, Poland will continue to lead its military alliance, the "Polish Bloc. Now possessing substantial military strength, Poland will expand its economic influence into what was formerly European Russia , and will begin to compete with Turkey for influence in the important economic region of the Volga River Valley. Around this time, space programs for military use will begin to emerge, and Japan and Turkey will increasingly begin to develop military capabilities in space.
At the beginning of this period, the United States will be allied with all three powers. By , the United States will have been allied with Turkey and Japan for over 75 years. However, in the years after the end of the Second Cold War and collapse of Russia, the United States will gradually become uneasy as Turkey and Japan expand their military power and economic influence. Establishing regional spheres of influence, Turkey and Japan will begin to threaten US interests.
The growth of Turkish and Japanese naval power, and their military activities in space will be particularly disturbing to the United States.