Megachange : the world in 2050

[Seth]

People will travel a lot less, because of the cost of fuel, and the lack of need for face to face contact, due to the improved net.

Just the one response here.
I note that there is, today, a whole range of electric cars entering the market. The cost of running an electric car, in terms of 'fuel' (electricity for recharge) is very much less than petroleum products.

Not really. Not yet anyway. Electric cars cannot compete without subsidies because the total energy budget for each electric car is much higher than than for a production petroleum fuel vehicle due to economies of scale and the maturity of fossil-fuel technology. You have to factor in all the costs of building, maintaining and servicing the vehicle plus the energy costs of recharging it and apply a convenience factor because electric cars have such limited range and utility to make a valid comparison.

When they manufacture an all-electric Ford F-450 pickup truck that can carry 6000 pounds of cargo and tow up to 24,0000 pounds of trailer that can go 400 miles on a charge and be recharged in 10 minutes or less at any of the millions of gas stations in the country, I'll buy one. But not till then.

New technologies, due to be introduced way before 2050, should permit great range and rapid recharge of such cars.

So, do you not think, MM, that this factor would alter your above prediction?

AT some point the physics bump up against the optimism and optimism loses. There is no guarantee that battery capacity or recharge capability will ever reach the same convenience and utility of the gasoline/diesel engine and fuel distribution network. Because there is no guarantee of this new technology, fossil fuel vehicles will remain the dominant means of transport for the next century at least merely because of the sunk costs of the existing infrastructure and engineering. It would cost the economy far too much to attempt a rapid wholesale conversion to something other than the very mature technology we have now, so it will have to be done very gradually if there is any chance for success.

[Seth]

Far too optimistic. Population growth stalled? That's some serious bullshit. My predictions? Buy guns, you'll need them.

And practice with them. Today I shot a five-round 6 inch group at 1000 yards at the Whittington Center in Raton, New Mexico with my .338 Lapua Magnum Sako TRG-42. And I wasn't really trying hard, I should be able to do better, but that's sufficient for a lethal hit on a human.

[Tyrannical]

World population growth will slow and be essentially zero at 2050, with a total population of 9 billion plus or minus a significant error factor.

Wishful thinking barring a mass famine or epidemic.

Why do you think this is wishful thinking?

Average fertility globally is falling right now. 50 years ago, it was 5.5 children per woman. Today it is 2.6 and falling. By 2050, the United Nations predicts it will be 2.0, which is less than replacement rate.

Not in Africa it's not, and they also predict half that world population increase to take place in Africa.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/world ... ation.html

Growth in Africa remains so high that the population there could more than triple in this century, rising from today’s one billion to 3.6 billion, the report said — a sobering forecast for a continent already struggling to provide food and water for its people.

Africa can't support 3.6 billion people within the next 90 years, and there is a limit to how much food aid the rest of the world can provide them. It'll only take a few bad harvests world wide to turn Africa into a famine derived catastrophe.

[Hermit]

The developing world is growing its economies faster than the wealthier west and may largely catch up economically.

Great. Last time I looked, the wealthiest nation on earth made up 5% of the world's population and consumed 25% global energy consumption. Can you imagine how long the consumption rate currently enjoyed by 330 million people in the US could possibly be sustained if this planet's other 6.7 billion humans joined them on that very same level? There will very clearly be some serious belt tightening coming up not only for the US, but much of Europe. Cheap energy resources are dwindling. There are plenty of alternatives, of course, such as squeezing oil out of shale, but at this stage extraction costs are much higher as well as hugely more polluting. And higher costs mean less affordability. Economies will struggle because of these factors.

China's burgeoning economy will have social consequences. Its growth demands a concomitant growth of skilled and disciplined labour and managerial types. That is to say, its society will increasingly resemble that of other capitalist nations some decades earlier. It will organise and make demands, not just for washing machines, televisions, cars for every household that we so take for granted, but rights and freedoms we are battling to maintain. If China's oligarchic government does not handle these pressures intelligently, there'll be giant ructions, perhaps civil wars, with proportionate repercussions throughout the world. Can anyone remember the quadrupling of memory chips some years ago when a factory making resin for them blew up? That was nothing in comparison to what will happen if Chinese society goes out of control. And of course, many other Asian countries will face the same situation that may result in similar effects.

I wonder if the 20 different contributors from The Economist are part of a conservative think tank, where views are filtered by an exaggerated faith in free enterprise, and the underlying attitude is that as long as we let capitalism have its head humanity will win out. I certainly am not as sanguine about the future as they are.

[Atheist-Lite]

http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/42/wiles.php

Article for the optimists to start their day with.

[Tyrannical]

The developing world is growing its economies faster than the wealthier west and may largely catch up economically.

Great. Last time I looked, the wealthiest nation on earth made up 5% of the world's population and consumed 25% global energy consumption. Can you imagine how long the consumption rate currently enjoyed by 330 million people in the US could possibly be sustained if this planet's other 6.7 billion humans joined them on that very same level? There will very clearly be some serious belt tightening coming up not only for the US, but much of Europe. Cheap energy resources are dwindling. There are plenty of alternatives, of course, such as squeezing oil out of shale, but at this stage extraction costs are much higher as well as hugely more polluting. And higher costs mean less affordability. Economies will struggle because of these factors.

China's burgeoning economy will have social consequences. Its growth demands a concomitant growth of skilled and disciplined labour and managerial types. That is to say, its society will increasingly resemble that of other capitalist nations some decades earlier. It will organise and make demands, not just for washing machines, televisions, cars for every household that we so take for granted, but rights and freedoms we are battling to maintain. If China's oligarchic government does not handle these pressures intelligently, there'll be giant ructions, perhaps civil wars, with proportionate repercussions throughout the world. Can anyone remember the quadrupling of memory chips some years ago when a factory making resin for them blew up? That was nothing in comparison to what will happen if Chinese society goes out of control. And of course, many other Asian countries will face the same situation that may result in similar effects.

I wonder if the 20 different contributors from The Economist are part of a conservative think tank, where views are filtered by an exaggerated faith in free enterprise, and the underlying attitude is that as long as we let capitalism have its head humanity will win out. I certainly am not as sanguine about the future as they are.

If the wealthy 5% stopped sharing their technology with the undeveloped world we'd have no over population problem.

No industrialized farming / or modern medicine will ensure that famine and pestilence keeps population size to traditional levels.
Less demand for scarce resources, as undeveloped nations would have no use for oil or raw materials.
Less global warming problems as 95% of the world still would generate CO2 at pre-industrial levels.

[Atheist-Lite]

The developing world is growing its economies faster than the wealthier west and may largely catch up economically.

Great. Last time I looked, the wealthiest nation on earth made up 5% of the world's population and consumed 25% global energy consumption. Can you imagine how long the consumption rate currently enjoyed by 330 million people in the US could possibly be sustained if this planet's other 6.7 billion humans joined them on that very same level? There will very clearly be some serious belt tightening coming up not only for the US, but much of Europe. Cheap energy resources are dwindling. There are plenty of alternatives, of course, such as squeezing oil out of shale, but at this stage extraction costs are much higher as well as hugely more polluting. And higher costs mean less affordability. Economies will struggle because of these factors.

China's burgeoning economy will have social consequences. Its growth demands a concomitant growth of skilled and disciplined labour and managerial types. That is to say, its society will increasingly resemble that of other capitalist nations some decades earlier. It will organise and make demands, not just for washing machines, televisions, cars for every household that we so take for granted, but rights and freedoms we are battling to maintain. If China's oligarchic government does not handle these pressures intelligently, there'll be giant ructions, perhaps civil wars, with proportionate repercussions throughout the world. Can anyone remember the quadrupling of memory chips some years ago when a factory making resin for them blew up? That was nothing in comparison to what will happen if Chinese society goes out of control. And of course, many other Asian countries will face the same situation that may result in similar effects.

I wonder if the 20 different contributors from The Economist are part of a conservative think tank, where views are filtered by an exaggerated faith in free enterprise, and the underlying attitude is that as long as we let capitalism have its head humanity will win out. I certainly am not as sanguine about the future as they are.

If the wealthy 5% stopped sharing their technology with the undeveloped world we'd have no over population problem.

No industrialized farming / or modern medicine will ensure that famine and pestilence keeps population size to traditional levels.
Less demand for scarce resources, as undeveloped nations would have no use for oil or raw materials.
Less global warming problems as 95% of the world still would generate CO2 at pre-industrial levels.

A denial of education attack on the dumb half of the human race where ever it occurs. This might be for the best?

[Clinton Huxley]

Far too optimistic. Population growth stalled? That's some serious bullshit. My predictions? Buy guns, you'll need them.

And practice with them. Today I shot a five-round 6 inch group at 1000 yards at the Whittington Center in Raton, New Mexico with my .338 Lapua Magnum Sako TRG-42. And I wasn't really trying hard, I should be able to do better, but that's sufficient for a lethal hit on a human.

Hoplomaniacs are really quite.....nerdy.....

[Atheist-Lite]

Far too optimistic. Population growth stalled? That's some serious bullshit. My predictions? Buy guns, you'll need them.

And practice with them. Today I shot a five-round 6 inch group at 1000 yards at the Whittington Center in Raton, New Mexico with my .338 Lapua Magnum Sako TRG-42. And I wasn't really trying hard, I should be able to do better, but that's sufficient for a lethal hit on a human.

Hoplomaniacs are really quite.....nerdy.....

What's the chances of the death-spiral in population being slightly faster in the US compared with other parts of the world?

[Hermit]

If the wealthy 5% stopped sharing their technology with the undeveloped world we'd have no over population problem.

If the undeveloped world was given the level of education we have, and the opportunity to develop economies like ours, it would be indistinguishable from us, including the rate of population growth.

Your racism disgusts me.

[JimC]

If the wealthy 5% stopped sharing their technology with the undeveloped world we'd have no over population problem.

If the undeveloped world was given the level of education we have, and the opportunity to develop economies like ours, it would be indistinguishable from us, including the rate of population growth.

Your racism disgusts me.

I agree with the disgust at his racism, but the indistinguishable part worries me...

Population growth, quite probably, but there are cultural dynamics which could make the trajectories of many third world countries (given equal technologies) a damn sight different to ours...

[Tyrannical]

If the wealthy 5% stopped sharing their technology with the undeveloped world we'd have no over population problem.

If the undeveloped world was given the level of education we have, and the opportunity to develop economies like ours, it would be indistinguishable from us, including the rate of population growth.

Your racism disgusts me.

And your naivety amuses me.

We are under no obligation to "give" anything to the undeveloped world, in fact it would be quite foolish to freely give to them the advantages we have worked so hard to "earn". These scary World crises such as over population, global warming, and rising commodity prices is directly related to us giving to the undeveloped world.

There is no evidence that "they" would be indistinguishable from us if given an education and the vague notion of "opportunity". Blacks certainly don't behave or contribute to society similarly to Whites regardless of what education or opportunities are provided.

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/vie ... a_problem/

Nigeria is in no hurry to decrease their population increases. I've no idea how they expect to feed 725 million people.

The United Nations recently published its two-yearly update of world population projections. These suggest that Nigeria could rise to 725 million people by 2100. Western media are shrilly calling for Nigeria to put a check on her population growth.

No way, sorry. We Nigerians are rejoicing.

Africans love children. First for financial security. In the past children helped in the farms and the more of them the better. Today, with little or no social security, children are needed to support their parents in old age. Their contributions constitute an informal pension scheme. And having more children means a better pension.

Second, many children ensure that we avoid the problem of ageing populations. We know that in Europe and America, birthrates are far below replacement level. Their populations are ageing and a huge pension debt is resting on the shoulders of a shrinking number sof their working youths. A day of reckoning is looming for them. Nigerians want to avoid this.

Third, our large population supplies our economy with the dynamic and youthful workforce it needs to grow, as well as huge markets for all types of businesses.

[JimC]

If the wealthy 5% stopped sharing their technology with the undeveloped world we'd have no over population problem.

If the undeveloped world was given the level of education we have, and the opportunity to develop economies like ours, it would be indistinguishable from us, including the rate of population growth.

Your racism disgusts me.

And your naivety amuses me.

We are under no obligation to "give" anything to the undeveloped world, in fact it would be quite foolish to freely give to them the advantages we have worked so hard to "earn". These scary World crises such as over population, global warming, and rising commodity prices is directly related to us giving to the undeveloped world.

There is no evidence that "they" would be indistinguishable from us if given an education and the vague notion of "opportunity". Blacks certainly don't behave or contribute to society similarly to Whites regardless of what education or opportunities are provided.

In the last sentence, the veil of amused cynicism is dropped, and the naked, hate-filled eyes of the beast stare out at a world seen in black and white...

[Hermit]

If the wealthy 5% stopped sharing their technology with the undeveloped world we'd have no over population problem.

If the undeveloped world was given the level of education we have, and the opportunity to develop economies like ours, it would be indistinguishable from us, including the rate of population growth.

Your racism disgusts me.

I agree with the disgust at his racism, but the indistinguishable part worries me...

Population growth, quite probably, but there are cultural dynamics which could make the trajectories of many third world countries (given equal technologies) a damn sight different to ours...

What? Are you trying to argue that if African societies attained European levels of education and affluence, they still could be breeding like rabbits in the Australian Alps? Seriously?



Maaaaate...

You're a mathematician. Try statistics in combination with empirical sociology.

[JimC]

If the wealthy 5% stopped sharing their technology with the undeveloped world we'd have no over population problem.

If the undeveloped world was given the level of education we have, and the opportunity to develop economies like ours, it would be indistinguishable from us, including the rate of population growth.

Your racism disgusts me.

I agree with the disgust at his racism, but the indistinguishable part worries me...

Population growth, quite probably, but there are cultural dynamics which could make the trajectories of many third world countries (given equal technologies) a damn sight different to ours...

What? Are you trying to argue that if African societies attained European levels of education and affluence, they still could be breeding like rabbits in the Australian Alps? Seriously?



Maaaaate...

You're a mathematician. Try statistics in combination with empirical sociology.

No, the population growth aspect is most probably addressed by technological change and education, but that is not the only important parameter in the socio-political trajectory of a given country. What I was complaining about was your broad-brush use of the word "indistinguishable"...