What does your future hold?

[NinjaNanna]

Well we've been living in Aust for almost 4 months now (only 2 to go) and one thing that I've noticed is the number of programs being aired in regards to the future and the current problems we are facing.

In no particular order of priority (you can decide on that for yourself) the main vital ones are:

• Population Growth
• Climate Change
• Aging population
• Sustainability

All of these seem to be converging to create the perfect storm. Now this should be apparent to anybody regardless of your religious persuasion. To be clear this is not me sprouting Armagedon prophecy, personally I don't know and don't particularly care if this is the end times coming. Personally I give us a 50/50 chance of coming through the next 50 years with our current living standards even remotely intact.

The problem as I see it is that poulation is spirialling out of control, by 2050 the world wide population is on track to double. At the same time our fresh water reserves are running out, we are building over the most fertile land to accomodate the expanding population, our land is becoming less and less productive due to intensive farming and salinity problems. The fish stocks are running out. How are we going to feed all of these people?

On top of this much of our infrastructure is approaching maximum capacity, the tax base for society is slowly shrinking and this is going to rapidly increase in the very near future as the aging population retires from the work force either by choice or due to lack of physical capacity. This is primary a problem for "developed" cultures we are not used to taking care of our elderly. There is a very expensive time for our society about to hit us hard.

On top of all of this scientists are telling us there are major and time critical problems within the environment which will also have to be addressed at considerable financial and societal cost.

Regardless of your religious belief, God (if you believe) is not going to intervene and fix our woes so that society can go on as it is, so that leaves only us and the Engineers and Scientists to come up with effective solutions to dig us out of this very large hole.

One particular aspect of the perceived solution that is getting air time over here is the work that Japan is doing on robotics. There is hope just around the corner (within 10yrs) of there being many varied and useful domestic robots. This brings me to the point of this post, will the robotic revolution be a good thing? If you look back through history and even to today, the most properous economies have a huge pool of cheap labour? The more educated this pool gets the more prosperous the economy becomes and the better living conditions get.

Robots are the ultimate slave, will they free mankind from the burdon of labour, and if they do then what? At present the engineers are working on assistance robots which will assist with the most immediate problem of caring for our aging population, but the ultimate goal is obviously to have robotics take care of all tasks. If mankind successfully addresses the other immenent dangers it is conceivable that within 75yrs we could have completely automated food production and distribution systems, imagine that robotics growing, harvesting and shipping all of our food without any human involvement at all? All the current waste could be eliminated, world hunger and famine could be solved forever.

In my view the 21st century will be make or break for mankind. We need to find a way to live sustainably on this planet, that means defining a minimum and a maximum standard of living and then determining the carrying capacity of the world so that we can bring population growth under control. We need to educate people about the global impact of continueing to breed, failure to bring this under control threatens mankind just as seriously as nature. We need to dispell the false doctrine of continous economic growth for prosperity which also spurs on population growth. We need to turn our minds to fixing our environment so that it can continue to support us. We need to address our food production technology and the way in which we use our water supplies. We need to address our wastefulness, both material and energy. We need to wean ourselves as quickly as possible from dirty power to clean re-newable sources.

We are approaching the perfect storm, failure to adequetely address any one of these issues will effectively make any efforts towards the others null and void. If we do crack this problem the 22nd century could potentially be the golden age of humanity. But just as likely is it will spell the end of mankind if we cannot put our cultural and religous differences aside. If we can not set aside our own selfish personal desires and look to the greater good.

So what do you think?

[Motu]

There are still plenty of bridges to jump off...or you could try a tall building if you are so worried.

[nutjob]

I think that was a fucking long post

[ellipsis]

....soylent green...

[Milts]

An interesting post, and some definite concerns which need to be addressed in the next century. However, I'm not overly worried for a number of reasons.

At the end of the 19th century, you could have said the same thing. Machines were replacing jobs left right and centre, technology was shifting the way society viewed everything. Trains meant people could easily visit places far beyond what they would have thought possible. Colonised nations were starting to ask for independence, AND european citizenship. The 'yellow peril' had many kiwis believing that we would be overrun by asians who initially came for gold but would then take over our society. And on top of this, you had the most devastating war known to humans at the time (WW1) followed by a flu pandemic which killed millions upon millions. Then there was the stock market crash in the late 1920s, millions more starved.

Post world war two, countries were reeling from the economic impact of war, while again technology had made a number of jobs redundant. Woman's rights were going to destroy society, we were falling into moral decay (damn hippies). Affordable cars revolutionised transport, but life continued. People, and children, were watching murders at home on TV. Rock and roll was going to undermine society. The atomic bomb was going to wipe out humanity (this was actually a pretty legitimate concern, and we were pretty lucky to avoid it tbh). The red threat was going to destroy the world. Etc.

The main constant throughout is the consistently reasonable living conditions of the middle to upper class in 1st world countries, and the living conditions of the upper class globally. Whether due to science, politics, or shifts of ideologies, the world has overcome most of those barriers. The only real difference in the future is climate change, and once those with resources become desperate enough, science will get all the funding it needs, and one way or another I think there is a very good chance some kind of solution will be found. It may involve completely rethinking lifestyles and priorities, but look how much of that has changed in the last two hundred years anyway?

Basically, the world's always falling down. People (and technology) have proven remarkably able to adapt thus far. There's no real need to panic more than in the past IMHO.

[Headbanger]

These are the Golden years.

[awayatc]

my future?

2 years is a long way to sit on f*ckn demerits
100 is a f*ckn small number....

my future looks f*ckn bleak......

[NinjaNanna]

I completely agree with you Milts, the world is always falling down, the only part that I see considerably different is the sheer weight of population. Historically societies have generally been self sufficient in the neccessities of life. If they had shortfalls then the population was kept in check. These days it doesn't seem to be the case, if a poor country is incapable of supplying its own food and water (I'm refering to long term not short term crop failures and natural disaster) then aid kicks in and continues to allow marginal settlements to continue in subsistence. If a rich country is unable to supply its own needs then it simply purchases what it needs.

Recently as part of the election campaign here in Australia, Dick Smith produced a documentary about population growth and in particular Australia's policies toward managing it (or as it turns out lack of policy at all). Australia is one of the countries where population is meant to double within the next half century, albeit only through immigration. Following the screening of the documentary there was a televised debate that addressed some of the issues raised. One of the guests on the panel was an ex president of the Australian liberal party, I was disgusted to here him outwardly scoffing at what had been presented, in particular he was laughing at the prospect of food and water shortages, he openly laughed at the prospect sighting that Australia currently exports 1/2 of its produce.

What was screemingly obvious to me but seemed to totally escape this man was that if the population doubles as expected then there will be none left to export!!! On top of that very real statistics are showing that despite increased technology farm productivity is dropping due to major salinity issues and overall decreased fertility of the land due to intensive farming. To add another blow to this much of Australia's farm land which previously was owned by Australian families is being bought by multi-national companies. This equates to Australians no longer being in control of their own food destiny. As demand for food increases these companies are there for one reason, to make money, whoever has the most money can buy the food, to bad if Australian's can't afford it.

This isn't just happening in Australia, in a recent David Enborough documentary we were told about may European, Middle East and Asian countries buying up large properties in Africa for the sole reason of sureing up their own food supplies....


So yes while I agree with you that the sky has always been falling, I beleive the sheer scale, due to population, of what is coming will dwarf any famine, natural disaster or war history has ever none.

Unless of course we do something about it.

[Milts]

The effects of overfarming are interesting, particularly in light of those population stats. I wonder how much research is being done towards entirely new methods of farming which could be done in even more of a factory environment (think in terms of hydroponics)? I doubt it would yield as good produce, but it would be interesting to see if it is possible to the scale required. It's also a very good point about population growth no longer being 'naturally regulated' by restriction of resources as it has been in the past. Here is where contraception comes in...

Despite being the only species to put ourselves outside the natural regulation of population via international/national aid, we are also the first to produce contraception. It's uptake in the west, where much value is placed on the quality of life of the individual and less on the raising of a family, has resulted in low or negative population growth. Given increasing globalisation and the (very arguable) increasing influence of western philosophies in some areas, it will be interesting to see whether contraception takes off in countries which currently have a high birth rate. Of course, the pope condemning the use of condoms even to prevent the spread of HIV is hardly helping the issue, but that's another topic altogether...

As depressing as it is though, in extreme times normal human beings have resorted to extreme measures. I can see a potential future where these issues become very real and the result is a nazi-like (literally) immigration policy and regulated population growth. To be honest, if the lifestyle of the western world is threatened significantly enough, I suspect it will respond in full with an armada of strict laws, brutal enforcement, and no tolerance of ideals or practices which threaten their loved way of life. The fact of the matter is that legal ownership of businesses and enterprise will mean squat if a country feels significantly threatened, and ownership (via nationalisation) is nine tenths of the law.

Cool thread by the way.

[NinjaNanna]

And again I find myself nodding in total agreement with what you are saying.

When the GFC hit I changed my thinking in that the next major war would be fought over oil or religion. Now I believe it will be fought over failure to repay national debts and most likely triggered by moves to Nationalisation.

Food production will change, vegetables could be grown in warehouses, green matter composted back into the soil it was grown in and that soil re-used to grow a different crop which would realise the ulitmate in best practice crop rotating. I also beleive that cropping will go vertical, take strawberries for example how many rows could you grow in a green house if you grew them in channelling and them stacked them 20 channels high as well. Surely there are many many different crops that this would work with. The single biggest problem that I see with cropping future is the need to add "energy" which is effectively fertility back into our soils, principly we use fertilizers for this, I was totally shocked to learn that many of these are derivitives of oil!!! What teh hell happens when that has run out?

Sometime in the future perhaps meats will be produced using stem cells in vast vats. Imagine growing only the best cuts of prime rib with out the need to breed or grow or slaughter the cow. Bit sci-fi I know but maybe its possible.

According the David Enborough doco, the best way to reduce fertility, as you aluded to, is to educate women, provide them with contraception and increase living conditions. State enforced sterilisation campaigns such as were in place in India don't help long term and are human rights violations. China's one child policy worked for a long time but has also had far reaching consequences to their society, primarily not enough women and also major problems with an aging population.

It will be an interesting century a good deal of which I and my children will see.

[mashman]

throw off the shackles of the financial system and set your society free . You cannot successfully address any of the above issues whilst there are financial constraints in place. If you can't sell it, you'll never see it, irrespective of how useful it was.

[Grasshopperus]

throw off the shackles of the financial system and set your society free . You cannot successfully address any of the above issues whilst there are financial constraints in place. If you can't sell it, you'll never see it, irrespective of how useful it was.

You sir, are an idiot.

Market forces will eventually motivate people to think long-term, for example; the farm that practices a farming technique that causes a long-term profit loss will have to change to satisfy the profit motives of the shareholders.

As for the original posters other concerns, you're saying the pop will double by 2050 but the tax base will shrink? Straight contradiction here. OK, Fresh water supplies will become relatively scarce but decanting fresh water from sea water is easy, it's just that it costs slightly more than nothing (the cost of fresh water). Not that this is too relevant to most of the retards who currently buy bottled water for $1+/liter in NZ anyway. People will have to think before they wash their car every week or take a bath or other such luxuries.

But seriously, scared idiots are easy to control and to sell to. That's you.

[Woodman]

Basically the overpopulation is what is fcuking the place. Its basic maths.

Personally I have given up worrying cos the leaders of this world are hung up on economics and looking after people at the expense of the environment (environment= where we all live).

We are a selfish species and this is what will lead to our demise.

[NinjaNanna]

You sir, are an idiot.

Market forces will eventually motivate people to think long-term, for example; the farm that practices a farming technique that causes a long-term profit loss will have to change to satisfy the profit motives of the shareholders.

As for the original posters other concerns, you're saying the pop will double by 2050 but the tax base will shrink? Straight contradiction here. OK, Fresh water supplies will become relatively scarce but decanting fresh water from sea water is easy, it's just that it costs slightly more than nothing (the cost of fresh water). Not that this is too relevant to most of the retards who currently buy bottled water for $1+/liter in NZ anyway. People will have to think before they wash their car every week or take a bath or other such luxuries.

But seriously, scared idiots are easy to control and to sell to. That's you.

The tax base reference was in relation to the short term (next 20yrs) problem of an aging population and our current infrastructure defeicts

Yes de-salination works and for many populations is their only source of water and yes they will play a major factor in our future water supply, mind you they'll be a lot of them to water all 13 billion of us, not to mention supply enough water for our crops. Plus we've only got 40 yrs to build all of these on top of all the other infrastructure we'll need to service twice as many people. To make it even more challenging, de-salination takes a lot of energy so it also further burdons the clean energy puzzle that needs to be solved.

You call me an idiot, that's fine, not everybody will be part of the solution many will always remain part of the problem.

[mashman]

You sir, are an idiot.

correct.

Market Forces etc... i'd rather that we did something because it was a prudent move forwards for all of NZ, not just for those who make money for a living in the Market. Yes i'll have a sniff of realism before i go to bed, and then head off to work tomorrow bright eyed and bushy tailed and pay my share etc...