I want to write a novel that takes place sometime in the latter half of this century (let's say 2075), where the premise is that we've more or less achieved what could be described as a Solarpunk society globally, albeit not a perfect utopia. I am just an amateur, so don't hold your breath for the next literary masterpiece, but I am hoping that, if finished, it could at least inspire some people to envisage a better future. The novel itself will only use this as the setting, as a contrast to the often bleak and dystopian visions of the future - the plot will not be related to how this was achieved.
I am currently looking for inspiration for the world-building. What have happened between now and then on a big scale, particularly in terms of geopolitics? How did the tensions of today resolve so that we eventually landed in a Solarpunk society? I am happy to read both critical analyses of probably futures as well as speculative fiction on what could become, but that still remains rooted in the realm of the possible. The world should be mostly stable at the point of the novel, but many turbulent things could've happened on the way there.
A few examples of things I am looking for:
- Which regions/peoples gained independence? Are The Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland reunited, is Scotland independent from the UK, is Catalonia a sovereign state? Other examples outside of Europe?
- How have e.g. the African Union and/or the East African Federation progressed, and what role do the play on the global scene? What about other would-be superpowers?
- How did what today looks like an uncrossable divide between the left and right in the United States resolve? Was there ever a new civil war? What did that look like? Are they still united? Any new states?
- Has the United Nations undergone any changes to become a more effective organization?
Have you read or seen anything like this that you could share? Articles, books, movies, TV-shows etc.? Do you have any thoughts of your own you would like to share?
Yes, the decline in power of the petrostates would need to be handled well, and would definitely be important in figuring out how the overall landscape looks.
I think perhaps both could work at the same time (which I upon rereading see that you mentioned further down!)? More autonomy to regional entities within countries, but more collaboration on larger issues inside unions such as EU and AU (it would be difficult to avoid centralized power being forced down on local communities though). Maybe instead of seeing the EU moving towards a federal state, maybe we see the US moving towards something like the EU? There are several nations in Europe that would only be mid-sized states in the US, so I always found comparing single European countries to the US makes less sense than comparing the US and EU directly.
Interesting, I never thought of these bodies in that light before. I think the source of the lack of political credit is largely due to the ineffectiveness of the Security Council and the veto vote. I think a big change to this would be paramount for UN to work as some kind of "world government". And there is a fine line between such an organization being a force for good or a force for evil.
Ok, may I put in a personal theory in there? One thing I would like to see is a kind of "soc-dem" wing that would take its inspiration from anarchism rather than marxism (talking purely about political theory there: most soc-dem see politics through the prism of class-struggle whereas anarchist see the class struggle as real but just as one of the many facets of oppression). This movement would focus at sabotaging the means of oppression by a simple mean: dilution of power. A diluted power allows for very quick action when there is consensus but very slow ones when there is not or when it is imposed.
Disclaimer: I am kind of a UN fanboi. The UN is criticized for being overtly consensual. That's kind of what I want a government to be. How many organizations of this size do not receive much criticism for what they do but rather for what they don't do? There is no consensus for the use of force, then there is none. This is not a veto thing, many people think the veto is invincible but there is actually a procedure to overcome it. How otherwise would have Russia been expelled from UNCHR and sanctions against it decided?
UN is the place for diplomacy, where goodwill has a chance to overcome idiocy and obsolete grievances. Does not work every time but this is a place to count your allies, to gauge your reputation and see how the world judges what you are doing. Things it puts in place do not make headlines because they are largely consensual yet they are responsible for the seamless working of the international aviation and international post, diseases eradication, saves millions of refugees lives every year, does pandemic surveillance (several pre-covid pandemics like MERS or SARS were contained thanks to them), prevents nuclear war through the IAEA and so on. Most people are not aware that it created a global currency reserved for states.
I don't exactly ascribe to the [theory stating that it is a de-facto anarchist organization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_(international_relations)) but a government that people do not see as a government because the one thing it does not have is a police and an army sounds very close to what an anarchist government would sound.