Global Risks Report 2016 11th Edition was produced for the World Economic Forum held at Davos Switzerland. Produced from a year long study, it included experts from around the globe conducting 10 workshops in 6 different regions. Anyone wanting to engage in their own risk management can read the document here. One of the chapters of the study details the Global Security Outlook 2030 and envisions three possible divergent outcomes. It starts on page 30.
These outcomes are based on current trends already underway and as with any multiple choice question the answer could be D, all of the above. Even the white paper itself describes these 3 possible futures or any combination of them as dystopian.
“The three scenarios may come across as somewhat dystopian, because they are extrapolations of existing, negative trends.”
The report mentions that the future is not written yet and can change for better or worse but, in classic globalist white paper fashion, does not mention the interests that commissioned the report are the creators of the existing negative trends.
The World Economic Forum represents the corporations and governments responsible for all current negative trends listed. Interstate Conflict=bombing the third world back to the stone age which leads to Large-scale involuntary mass migration and State Collapse or Crisis causing Profound Social Instability resulting in Failure of National Governance in favor of International Governance which is the stated goal of the World Economic Forum.
Strong Regions: This outcome envisions a future where the city state has started to replace the nation state as the main vector of “governance” because the national government is no longer needed as the population is herded into mega cities. Mega regions would act in concert with each other and form a global government, the paper warning that governance may be authoritarian. Strongly resembling the concepts pushed by Rockefeller and Ford Foundation supported America2050 and the recently announced U.N. Strong Cities Network. The text clearly explains populations will be moved through social and economic means by withholding resources there for undermining traditional democratic processes.
“Refocusing some security efforts at the level of the city could be another contribution. As urbanization gathers pace, cities will increasingly rival states as the most natural level of government for harnessing technology to deliver public services and security. Devolving resources from national to municipal levels and creating new ways for city leaders to collaborate on security matters may also be faster than reforming established mechanisms for multilateral collaboration among states.”
Walled Cities: This scenario describes a near future where the world economy has almost completely melted down and society is even more divided along social and economic lines. The “haves” getting more and separating themselves from the “have nots” in a breakaway civilization type setup. The title of this assessment says it all as the elite retreat to protected areas away from the mass of humanity and governments struggle to keep a lid on a population that is not to happy with the program. All wealth and resources would be located in the wealthy compound areas with the mass of poor left to fend for themselves.
“inequalities of wealth, income,health, environment and opportunitycontinuing to pull communities apart.In wealthier nations, the middle classesare hollowed out by declining wagesand dwindling public goods. Thosewho can afford it are increasinglyretreating to gated communities andturning to the private sector for whatwere once public services, divorcingtheir interests from the commongood.”
“even clean air become increasinglycommoditized and traded betweenthose who can afford them. Witheconomic and political elites feelingever more identical and distant fromcitizens, states lose their ability tobring people together around a sharednarrative or identity. Trust is eroded, asis the social contract between citizensand government”
War and Peace: The scenario predicts a major global conflict that will have a heavy toll on all sides within the next 15 years out of which a new global government will emerge. A third world war where to major superpowers collide and non-state actors(transnational corporations and banks) jockey for position, power and profit playing all sides off against one another. World War 3 will be followed by complete control over a much reduced population by an authoritarian world government made up of a council of stake-holders(the elite) that will decide what is best. There will be no room democracy as all decision making will come from unelected technocrats. It is interesting to note that all three scenarios end up with some form of global governance which is the stated goal of the World Economic Forum.
“The result is a stripped-down global system in which the liberal ideals of freedom, democracy, justice and equality are no longer put forward as a paradigm to which all should aspire.”
“Armed non-state actors on both sides seek to leverage the conflict for their own ends, forcing the parties to the war not only to fight each other, but also to engage in hybrid conflicts against third parties.”
“All three scenarios reflect uncertainty around the future role and ability of global governance institutions to deliver on security. In an ideal world, a strong global body would have the tools and standing to mitigate conflicts involving either terrorism or competition between great powers, and to contain and resolve peripheral conflicts. “