i dont think it will exist as a subject thus it will have no name as Wright Morris said, 'The past is usless. That explains why it is the past"

maxwell

i think the names are given based on what happen at that particular time. since during our time there have been major inventions such computers, internet and many more i thinkit will be called THE INVENTION AGE

Well, the psychologists might have to come to our aid on this one. What will the 21st century be remembered for? The global warming age? The age of emotion - Hgic hoax? The terrorist age - Bin laden? I have run out.
What I find fascinating about the question Mr. Kitching has put before us concerns the fact that the people who lived in that generation did not think/attach those labels to themselves. That was the work of other generations that found a convenient label to describe an era. I am convinced that no man living between the 5th-15th Century in Europe thought of himself as living in a dark age.
I am curious, are the labels that we have chosen to use in our description of past eras permanent or are they going to change depending on the needs of future generations? But for now, we should explore the question on the floor, how will future generations remember us?

This is a very interesting thread as it is marvelous to imagine what the folks of the future (well I would call them “ALIENS”) will think about the 20th Century in their era…Perhaps the following:-

1.REVOLUTION OF POLITICAL CHANGES:-
The century where the general public in many countries want to halt the corrupt dictatorships who thwart democracy. For example in some countries like:- Egypt, Bahrain, Tunisia, Libya..(especially in the Arab Countries.

2.DOOMED AGE:-
The century with a lot of natural disasters. Eg:- Recent ones in Japan like an earthquake and Tsunami on 11th March 2011.

3.BIZARRE AGE
I guess people in the future may find our age weird to some extent because of our Leap Year calendar. Currently we follow the Georgian Calendar with a leap year in a rotation of every four years. (Next one is in 2012) Well I think as there will be many developments taking in the world in the coming 100 years, they might change the calendar. Imagine :- 50 days in a month and total of 1000 days in a year…!!

4.AGE OF DISPARITY
After 100 years they may see our era to be of the times where everybody didn’t have a say in decision – making leading to gender inequalities. In their era most of the world’s population will be well-educated about these insignificantly low issues.

I think my list will go on and on and on, therefore there is too much to write. Hence, I think I am able to evaluate some kind of problem and that is writing things about today will be hard because as we are in the current era we have so much to write.. This can be biased as well.

Too much information leads to ambiguity..

We shouldn't forget that in our age, in two world wars and numerous civil wars we have killed more people than all the wars since the beginning of recorded time combined. Yes there is technological advance but it has been used both as a tool of destruction and welbeing. I believe our age will be called the LAST AGE OF INHUMANITY as we seem to have started to emerge out of it recently.

Let me have a shot at my own question. This is only one possible answer, so keep them coming.

I think our age may be remembered as the age of inequality. Perhaps even the age of morally unacceptable inequality.

For the bulk of human history, the vast majority of people have lived in what we would now describe as poverty. It is only in our age that a significant minority of the human population has achieved a vastly different material status. Meanwhile, a continuing majority suffer from preventable disease, shortage of food, violence, political instability - and our grandchildren, once they have addressed the situation, will condemn us (which generation - mine or yours?) for permitting such a state of affairs to arise. We are accustomed to inequality - we have grown up with it; so it is easy to imagine that it is somehow a natural state of affairs, but historically, such colossal differences are not.

What do you think?

I think our age would be known to others in a hundred years as the nuclear age. Considering what is going on in Japan I presume we are going to gradually shift away from nuclear energy and find a safer alternative. This great source of energy if it does fade out would be a landmark by which our generation would be remembered. I guess.
Michael Djan

An interesting suggestion, Mr. Djan.

But see the following article written by a erstwhile trenchant OPPONENT of nuclear power for whom the Japanese situation has provided evidence IN FAVOUR of nuclear power!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima

What do you think about the logic of his argument?

I agree with Rueben when he says that our age will be known as the democratic age. Most states have become democratic and people in autocratic countries are rebelling (e.g. Libya). People believe they have a say in whatever law is passed or method of governance adopted in a country. More than ever, women are now making their voices heard every where and women empowerment programs are all over. Moreover, sects in society which were considered misfits have left the shells they were hiding in and are now making their voices heard, all in the name of democracy.

Well given recent events, Osama's assasination, the Arab revolt, the civil wars in some African countries...

the Chaotic age... or .. the age of insecurity.

I read the Fukushima article. Mr. Monbiot makes a very interesting confession. A case of short-sightedness. It can be very easy to see the good in something that shows little ill but may have pestilence hidden underneath, just waiting a bit longer.

He sees reason with the use of nuclear energy because the effects of disaster are not extensive? The Cherynobyl Disaster necessitated the evacuation of neighbouring numerous individuals not counting those that died. Those that didn't die also suffered genetic mutation.
Their children suffered deformations as a result of the disaster.

Isn't even an ethical question? Considering the far-reaching consequences, would it be prudent to build these huge juggernauts but still bear the risk of endangering not just the people at present but those coming later on.

He talks of British dams wiping out exotic fish but fails to realise that there is such a thing as nuclear waste which is extremely difficult to deal with. It definitely is not like throw a banana peel in the bin. Personally, that which can be mopped up, has to be beneficial.
Until we can address certain safety concerns by relying on our enquiring nature as humans, we cannot accept Mr. Monbiot's logic.