
2012 Is Bullshit; 2020 Is When We'll Be in Trouble (2012) - edward
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/8gvbg5/2012-is-bullshit-2020-is-when-well-really-be-in-trouble
======
pushcx
Looks like he's been writing for a while, including sticking his neck out
quantitatively in a 2017 blog post:
[http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamica/quantitative-
prediction...](http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamica/quantitative-prediction-
political-violence-2020s/)

The linked short interview was probably prompted by his 2012 paper:

> Extending the sequence of 1870, 1920, and 1970 forward suggests that the
> next instability peak shouldoccur in the United States around 2020. This is
> a simple projection, rather than a scientific prediction (which requires an
> understanding of mechanisms bringing about outbreaks of political violence;
> see Turchin, 2006a). The analysis of structural causes of instability waves
> is beyond the scope of this article and will be pursued elsewhere(Turchin,
> forthcoming)

[http://peterturchin.com/PDF/Turchin_JPR2012.pdf](http://peterturchin.com/PDF/Turchin_JPR2012.pdf)
(And yes, for the conspiracy theorists, you can search the DOI number to
confirm this really was published in 2012.)

------
sesuximo
Not shown: the millions of other predictions of trouble that didn’t turn out

------
WheelsAtLarge
He has a good point. Violence does go in cycles. People are happy to start a
war when they haven't experienced the consequences it brings but they change
their views once they experience the destruction and horrors.

The fact that he was able to pin 2020 is probably luck.

~~~
EmilioMartinez
He didn't "pin" it though. He said it was going to be a peak of a 10 year
period.

Being that 2020 is a round number, I wonder how many other (more
unsofisticated) doomsayers simply guessed.

------
pluto9
Predictions like this are made all the time, nearly all of them wrong. A few
are bound to be correct(ish) by sheer chance, and when they are, people dig
them up and think they've found something clairvoyant.

This prediction isn't even that accurate. 1870? The major upheaval around that
time started a decade earlier. So if we're allowed to fudge the numbers by 5
or 10 years to make a pattern appear, who's to say the next upheaval isn't in
2025 or 2030? And is 3 instances of anything (1870, 1920, 1970) even enough to
call a pattern?

~~~
mywittyname
I'd call it a pattern, and I'd say it has a sound foundation. There are lots
of generational patterns within society, like how family fortunes are lost by
the third generation.

But I think the biggest issue with it is that societies don't operate on the
same timeline. Generations are kind of fuzzy to pinpoint and society's
response to them largely depends on their options.

~~~
pluto9
Generations may play some role, but I think the extent of that is unknowable.
On the other hand, I think it's pretty easy to attribute these upheavals to
outside influences and circumstances of the times. The abolition of slavery
arguably came about because of the industrial revolution. Moral arguments for
abolition had existed for centuries. They just weren't widely accepted until
machinery made them economically convenient. Then and only then did people
become "enlightened" enough to end the institution.

During WWI, many men left the country and women moved into the workforce and
other positions of greater influence in society. When the men returned, a
conflict was inevitable, and the suffrage movement came to a head.

I assume 1970 is referring to both the Civil Rights movement and the hippie
movement. Both happened when the baby boomers were in their 20s, so I suppose
there was a bumper crop of young people at the time, and the hippie movement
was defined by a pretty narrow age range. So those may have been generational,
but not part of a larger pattern that I can see.

As for the current day, civilian resentment of police brutality and overreach
has been building for decades, with much of it being a result of the war on
drugs. I believe it's in the limelight now due to the internet and the
existence of camera phones. The militarization of police is also more visible
because they increasingly dress like soldiers, and this is a constant symbolic
reminder of their attitude towards civilians. This change in apparel is a
direct result of the GWOT. Military gear (both new and surplus) is now cheap
and easily available. There's also a tacti-cool veteran culture that arose out
of the wars, and everyone from cops to airsofters to Call of Duty players
likes to emulate it. Add the COVID-19 mess to this mix and you have a recipe
for disaster.

Still, it remains to be seen whether 2020 is actually part of this "pattern"
anyway. No fundamental shift in society has occurred yet. So far it's just
been a rough year.

------
theandrewbailey
> There are too many political entrepreneurs who are all trying to get power,
> and they get frustrated, which is how revolutions start: when members of the
> elite try to overturn the political order to better suit themselves.

So which elites are funding, and are ultimately behind today's violence?
Unfortunately, any possible answer is a conspiracy theory.

~~~
davidwf
I don't think that there's a conspiracy in any way!

The way that I interpreted this article and how it fits into the current
moment is that there's a substantial portion of those dissatisfied with the
current political order of permanent minority rule by people who have
substantially different values from themselves who could be considered part of
the "elite" of society in terms of wealth and influence.

That's not to say that there's a conspiracy theory! Coastal elites are
certainly not the only people protesting, not everyone that's elite is
dissatisfied with the current order, etc., etc. But IMO the current situation
can be characterized as one where a large group of people, including but not
in any way limited to a portion of society's "elite" grouping, are attempting
to overturn the political order to better suit their values.

~~~
raarts
It sounds like you want to say conspiracies don't exist. Do you? Because many
have existed in history. Many exist today. People conspire. To get power,
money.

This is not a conspiracy theory but fact :) conspiracy theories can be true.

~~~
davidwf
Sure they can! However, in this particular instance, I was simply pointing out
that, in contrast to the OP's statement that " _any_ possible answer is a
conspiracy theory.", there is a possible narrative where a group of society's
elites can indeed be participating in the protests not because of some hidden
motive, but instead because their own values genuinely align with those of
other, non-elite protesters.

There are certainly _also_ conspiracy theory narratives that can fit the
situation if one is so inclined that way. :-)

------
loopz
Or conversely, 2020 is when we got our shit together.

~~~
NonEUCitizen
7 months left...

~~~
chkaloon
November, to be more precise

~~~
coldtea
As if elections ever changed much?

~~~
EForEndeavour
Well, one election in particular certainly changed 2016-2020 "much."

~~~
SomeoneFromCA
Not sure if Clinton would have been better than Trump. Clearly not in trade.
And doubt with the pandemic response.

~~~
raarts
Probably wouldn't have withdrawn from the Middle East and Afghanistan
either...

------
ianai
Quick read, but ultimately pretty shallow.

~~~
rgoulter
SlateStarCodex's review of Turchin's "Ages of Discord" has some more
discussion [https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/02/book-review-ages-of-
di...](https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/02/book-review-ages-of-discord/)

------
theonemind
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychohistory_(fictional)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychohistory_\(fictional\))

------
xikrib
Just a reminder how much Vice sucks

> Peter’s theory is the result of the hard work of a modern, living, and well-
> respected scientist rather than a bunch of dead dead Central American dudes
> whom hippies like to talk about while taking heavy psychedelic drugs

Yeah they're dead because they were fucking slaughtered by the same forces at
play in today's "violence"

~~~
pluto9
Ironically this "theory" sounds like an observation someone would make while
stoned.

------
koheripbal
Seems it was a real prediction...

[https://www.google.com/search?q=peter+turchin+2020&source=ln...](https://www.google.com/search?q=peter+turchin+2020&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2012%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F30%2F2012&tbm=)

------
bigdict
A Seldon crisis right there.

~~~
smitty1e
Who is the Mule?

------
akhilcacharya
On a tangential note:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychohistory_(fictional)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychohistory_\(fictional\))

------
smitty1e
I guess that predictions and lottery tickets have similarly long odds.

Predictions are much cheaper, though.

------
chkaloon
"how revolutions start: when members of the elite try to overturn the
political order to better suit themselves." \- Kind of against the
conventional definition of a revolution.

~~~
gumby
Is it? All revolutions are started by powerful groups from the elite who
enlist people lower down in the hierarchy to help them. I cannot think of a
counterexample, not even the Russian Revolution.

------
apl002
is this verified to be 8 years old? The prediction was completely correct but
the shortness of the prediction makes it a bit suspicious. Although I have no
idea why someone would fake this...

