Talk:2030s/Archive 1

Anniversary
The 2030s will mark the 100th anniversary, except 2029, of when it was the time of the Great Depression in the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose and Ricardo (talk • contribs)

Literacy

 * ✅. Mankind reaching a literacy level near 100%: I think it's notable. --bender235 (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose It would be notable if he was a notable futurologist, but our article only claims he's a (notable) demographist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What characterizes a "futurologist"? What kind of academic degree does he have to have? A "Master of Future"? LOL. Or let me say it this way: why is a demographist not qualified to make demographic predictions? Or: why is a futurologist (what ever that is) more qualified to do so? --bender235 (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

*Comment If you look at what Wikipedia classes "20s", then it says it will "begin on January 1, 2020 and will end on December 31, 2029".
 * Oppose "near 100%" is ambiguous. At what point does the adjective near become appropriate? 95%? 99%? 99.9%? Every day we may grow slightly nearer to achieving full literacy. It is not as if there will be a sudden jump from 90% literacy to 99% literacy. Furthermore, the demographist predicts that near 100% literacy will be achieved by 2030, not during the 2030s. This may be a bit more relevant in the 20s, then, though not much.74.70.106.13 (talk) 02:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Considering the proliferation of "netspeak" and the obvious signs that kids are becoming more and more illiterate everyday (how many of you can seriously say you don't see the rapid decline of spelling and grammar ability?), I find the claim that we'll have 100% literacy in the future to be the most laughable thing I've read today. Maybe if that was a typo and it was supposed to read "near 0%", I would be more inclined to believe it. - 72.152.153.224 (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. I think that this is relevant and that personal predictions, such as those made by 72.152.153.224, are irrelevant to the discussion about whether the prediction by a qualified expert is relevent.  Further, I believe that a notable demographist is perfectly qualified to make a prediction in his area.  I will admit that the point made by 74.70.106.13 is valid though. Zell Faze (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. I think it is relevant. If you look at some of the world's current literature rates, it will be a remarkable improvement. However, I see the other side of the argument, in that "near 100%" isn't exactly helpful.