Megachange : the world in 2050

[JimC]

It's funny how some people regard the Australian Aboriginies as technologically backward when they have some technological advances that show astonishing ingenuity. The overriding factor affecting their development was water (or lack of it). By necessity they needed to travel light in order to cover long distances. The concept of traveling light seems to have been deeply ingrained into their cultural make-up too, taken to the extreme. Why carry fire-making equipment, a weapon, a cup and a knife when you could put them all together (or several functions at least) in the form of a well-designed woomera? Boomerangs were also often multi-functional tools. And even putting aside the other uses, the woomera and boomerang themselves are ingenious weapons.

I agree that they had an ingenious technology, superb tracking skills and an excellent practical knowledge of the local biota, as well as a fascinating and quite complex mythology tied to their culture and links to their land. In itself, it was sustainable and workable...

However, it was self limiting, and highly unlikely to develop alternative ways of looking at the universe, or developing technologies that grow. I suppose the jury is still out on whether cultures that do develop technologies with exponential rates of change are a good thing or not - all I know is that I am part of such a culture, and any musings I make will not change the roller-coaster ride one iota...

[macdoc]

'Splain more - this is new to me ....what the fuck is a woomera..

[Hermit]

Woomera.

[Tyrannical]

It's funny how some people regard the Australian Aboriginies as technologically backward when they have some technological advances that show astonishing ingenuity. The overriding factor affecting their development was water (or lack of it). By necessity they needed to travel light in order to cover long distances. The concept of traveling light seems to have been deeply ingrained into their cultural make-up too, taken to the extreme. Why carry fire-making equipment, a weapon, a cup and a knife when you could put them all together (or several functions at least) in the form of a well-designed woomera? Boomerangs were also often multi-functional tools. And even putting aside the other uses, the woomera and boomerang themselves are ingenious weapons.

I agree that they had an ingenious technology, superb tracking skills and an excellent practical knowledge of the local biota, as well as a fascinating and quite complex mythology tied to their culture and links to their land. In itself, it was sustainable and workable...

However, it was self limiting, and highly unlikely to develop alternative ways of looking at the universe, or developing technologies that grow. I suppose the jury is still out on whether cultures that do develop technologies with exponential rates of change are a good thing or not - all I know is that I am part of such a culture, and any musings I make will not change the roller-coaster ride one iota...

In short, they were adapted to their environment both physiologically and behaviorally.

[Tyrannical]

As difficult as it may be at Ratz - can we shift back on topic and leave the bigots to their fantasies.

•••••

I'm actually fairly skeptical of any rosy view of 2050 as that's a nasty bottle neck of peaking population and dwindling resources and increasingly rapid climate change as I see nothing that will prevent 4-6 degrees C by the end of the century and already the impact is substantial.

Bill Gross has called for a million Manhattan projects to solve the problems.....haven't seen one yet tho I suppose EVs are a start.

Well, it is possible that warmer temperatures and higher CO2 levels could increase the Earth's overall carrying capacity. I can see the Earth turning into a tropical paradise

[Pappa]

It's funny how some people regard the Australian Aboriginies as technologically backward when they have some technological advances that show astonishing ingenuity. The overriding factor affecting their development was water (or lack of it). By necessity they needed to travel light in order to cover long distances. The concept of traveling light seems to have been deeply ingrained into their cultural make-up too, taken to the extreme. Why carry fire-making equipment, a weapon, a cup and a knife when you could put them all together (or several functions at least) in the form of a well-designed woomera? Boomerangs were also often multi-functional tools. And even putting aside the other uses, the woomera and boomerang themselves are ingenious weapons.

I agree that they had an ingenious technology, superb tracking skills and an excellent practical knowledge of the local biota, as well as a fascinating and quite complex mythology tied to their culture and links to their land. In itself, it was sustainable and workable...

However, it was self limiting, and highly unlikely to develop alternative ways of looking at the universe, or developing technologies that grow. I suppose the jury is still out on whether cultures that do develop technologies with exponential rates of change are a good thing or not - all I know is that I am part of such a culture, and any musings I make will not change the roller-coaster ride one iota...

I don't think it was self limiting. Like many hunter-gatherer societies, they stuck with it because it worked and it was less hassle than growing crops. The Aborigines did develop agriculture to an extent, but only cultivated Pituri, their tobacco-like drug of choice. Had they needed to grow food crops I'm sure the step would have seemed insignificant. And with other technologies too, had they needed them, I'm sure they would have developed them, but probably due to the "travel light" cultural ethos, more "advanced" technologies were never a requirement to success.

[Trinity]

Only just found this, and haven't read all the posts, but am responding to the OP anyway.

According to neurologists and studies carried out (using MRI) humans are predisposed to optimism. This is a useful attribute at times, but ultimately it will be our downfall. For as long as we have rose-tinted glasses, we will always believe that there will "be a way". Unfortunately, most humans won't take action and help solve the world crises now, it takes catastrophe and global shitstorms to wake people out of their stupor and apathy and then if it's not sustained, we sink back into a torpor; observing the world through the TV, detached. We have done way too much damage to even hope for an affluent, opulent or comfortable future; our cornucopia is not replenishing and the best we can hope for is a retrograde philosophy, such as was in the last world war (grow your own, mend and re-use, help each other out, teach your kids how to sew/bake/work the land/make things out of wood). That or we need geniuses to devise new ways of using what resources we have with the technology we have NOW and a global shift in attitude to our relationship with the earth we live on and take from.
All the talk (in the OP) of new and better technology, of being able to up food production in relation to population growth and feed the world is unrealistic. What will be used to create new technology? We would have to become exemplary at recycling and energy efficiency and sustainability. Our world leaders would need to work together and stop arguing over who's got what and how much for wealth to be evenly distributed. And what will we have to sacrifice for producing more food? Large amounts of animal farming is unsustainable, GM food and it's affects on life (animal and vegetable)is not researched thoroughly enough to be trusted on a global scale, climate change will cause mass migration of some areas, causing incredible stresses on the environments which become inundated. There's so much I just can't write it all.

It's fine to have optimism, but only when you actually participate and contribute right now. Sitting back and telling yourself it'll all work out in the end is called being in denial.

[mistermack]

The developed world has the answer to massive population growth in some countries, if they choose to use it. And that is too prevent immigration.

Why should developed countries, who have their own population under control, provide homes and jobs for the overspill of countries that don't?

It's already beginning to happen in the US, at long last. It should have happened years ago.
If Africa or the Philippines produces a huge population, then they should find room for them.

I'm sure that the developed world will still provide jobs, if the countries are stable enough to attract investment.

[macdoc]

Well, it is possible that warmer temperatures and higher CO2 levels could increase the Earth's overall carrying capacity. I can see the Earth turning into a tropical paradise

and there might a fairy god mother too.
Short answer - you're wrong.

••••

Japan does not have immigration and is dealing with population decline which has it's own set of challenges.
I think hunter gatherer was self limiting and infanticide a feature.

[Clinton Huxley]

The developed world has the answer to massive population growth in some countries, if they choose to use it. And that is too prevent immigration.

Why should developed countries, who have their own population under control, provide homes and jobs for the overspill of countries that don't?

It's already beginning to happen in the US, at long last. It should have happened years ago.
If Africa or the Philippines produces a huge population, then they should find room for them.

I'm sure that the developed world will still provide jobs, if the countries are stable enough to attract investment.

Hmmm...it's not like developed countries had a deliberate policy to reduce their birth rates, it just happened. Still a fact that one person in the UK or the US uses as many resources as a village in the developing world. Given the demographic time bomb of some European countries, they are going to have to let more people in, not fewer. This is an interconnected world, you can't pull up the drawbridge anymore, everyone is already inside the castle.

[mistermack]

The developed world has the answer to massive population growth in some countries, if they choose to use it. And that is too prevent immigration.

Why should developed countries, who have their own population under control, provide homes and jobs for the overspill of countries that don't?

It's already beginning to happen in the US, at long last. It should have happened years ago.
If Africa or the Philippines produces a huge population, then they should find room for them.

I'm sure that the developed world will still provide jobs, if the countries are stable enough to attract investment.

Hmmm...it's not like developed countries had a deliberate policy to reduce their birth rates, it just happened. Still a fact that one person in the UK or the US uses as many resources as a village in the developing world. Given the demographic time bomb of some European countries, they are going to have to let more people in, not fewer. This is an interconnected world, you can't pull up the drawbridge anymore, everyone is already inside the castle.

Yes, well, in my local nightclub, when it's full, they have a strict one-in, one-out policy.
So if we send ten thousand to Australia, I see no problem in ten thousand Aussies coming here.

But you don't get many Brits emigrating to Nigeria or Afghanistan.
One in, one out. It works.

[JimC]

The developed world has the answer to massive population growth in some countries, if they choose to use it. And that is too prevent immigration.

Why should developed countries, who have their own population under control, provide homes and jobs for the overspill of countries that don't?

It's already beginning to happen in the US, at long last. It should have happened years ago.
If Africa or the Philippines produces a huge population, then they should find room for them.

I'm sure that the developed world will still provide jobs, if the countries are stable enough to attract investment.

Hmmm...it's not like developed countries had a deliberate policy to reduce their birth rates, it just happened. Still a fact that one person in the UK or the US uses as many resources as a village in the developing world. Given the demographic time bomb of some European countries, they are going to have to let more people in, not fewer. This is an interconnected world, you can't pull up the drawbridge anymore, everyone is already inside the castle.

Yes, well, in my local nightclub, when it's full, they have a strict one-in, one-out policy.
So if we send ten thousand to Australia, I see no problem in ten thousand Aussies coming here.

But you don't get many Brits emigrating to Nigeria or Afghanistan.
One in, one out. It works.

Right, I'll have 10,000 Oxford graduates in science, and you can have 10,000 trained bar-tenders from Melbourne...

[mistermack]

Right, I'll have 10,000 Oxford graduates in science, and you can have 10,000 trained bar-tenders from Melbourne...

No problem, if you can tempt science graduates with flies and wallaby stew.
And we'll take all the bar-tenders, so long as they're blond with big tits.

( girls, I mean )

[Blind groper]

About racism
I think Tyrannical is unable to distinguish between technological development and mental development. If we looked at the average Scotsman 2,000 years ago, we would see a pretty damn rough and barbaric individual (and that's my ancestor). The only significant difference between an Australian aboriginal and a European is that the European developed greater technology.

Re population.
The population explosion is over. Fifty years ago, average fertility globally was 5.5. Today it is 2.5, which is barely above replacement rate. The only reason the population continues to rise is due to an increase in average lifespan. By the year 2050, fertility will be 2.0 which is most definitely a lot less than replacement rate. (numbers from United Nations web site http://www.un.org/popin/).

Re food production
The most productive form of agriculture is hydroponics. Assuming a vegan diet, hydroponics crops covering 100 sq. metres can feed the average adult. At that rate, the top one third of Australia (the wet part) could feed 20 billion people. Obviously this is not gonna happen. But to say we will be unable to feed the maximum of 10 billion people that the UN say will develop, is not factual.

[macdoc]

Theory is one thing - actually getting people fed another. It is most likely factual given the distribution issues.