He is not optimistic about what is coming. He sees, in much of the world, environmental degradation, resource scarcity, and ethnic rivalries feeding on each other and spiraling countries downwards towards chaos.
One thing he points out, over and over, is the Western idea of forcing countries to have multi-party democracy and elections, when the country has neither a literate electorate or a functioning structure, is a recipe for disaster, as the "parties" generally just reflect ethnic conflicts, and things degenerate into chaos, crime, and war. He believes that sometimes a country will do better with a strong, virtual dictator, than with forcing a democracy on them before they are ready for it.
He sees the Caucasus and Central Asia as the probable coming flashpoints, as many of the countries there are small, barely functioning, surrounded by powerful neighbors, and have oil. In situations like these, and in West Africa, when someone arises from a shantytown to seize power, they are generally utterly uneducated, thuggish, and thus more violence and looting of the state ensues.
One analogy he uses is that of a limo speeding down a bumpy road. Most of the world is outside, begging, with a very few, living well, inside the limo. From U.N. figures, 50% of the world has no electricity, 33% has no access to medical care. Most live in nothing resembling a democracy or in a country with a functioning government, as we know it.
Thoughts?