Megachange : the world in 2050

[Atheist-Lite]

That's right. You don't need to invoke the farfetched to end the human race. Sometimes just sleepwalking in a gradual straight line will eventually lead to the waters edge and eventually drowning without you realising. No need to change anything or use the past as a reminder.

[Hermit]

I know what happened to the Rapa Nui - Easter island. They had a thriving community till they were faced with Europeans.

They had not. The first European to actually make contact with the inhabitants was Jacob Roggeveen in 1722. He estimated the population to be 2-3000 in number. Archeologists estimate that number to have been 10-15,000 just a few decades earlier. This precipitous decline would indicate a disastrous turn for the natives' society well before the first European contact. Roggeveen saw no more than the dying embers of Easter Island's civilisation.

The most plausible explanation for this decline is the production of the hundreds of those famous statues, the moai, the largest of which weighs 86 tons. To transport these to their chosen sites they basically deforested the island. Consumption of a natural resource - trees - was unsustainable, leading to environmental disaster and consequential destruction of that society. No ingenuity got them out of it. That was my point when I used it as one of the examples I cited that "Yes, predictions are notoriously unreliable, but that does not mean dangers with catastrophic consequences do not exist, nor that human ingenuity will inevitably get us out of the mess. Entire societies were wiped out by environmental disasters that were caused by the actions of those societies themselves."

[Tyrannical]

Hot fusion's got a lot more chance. But even that is looking slim, just at this moment.

Actually, fission nuclear power using Thorium as fuel is a much better prospect in the medium term. Both China and India see the potential and have operating Thorium reactors already, while they develop the technology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#Co ... er_station
I quote :

"India's Kakrapar-1 reactor is the world's first reactor which uses thorium rather than depleted uranium to achieve power flattening across the reactor core.[35] India, which has about 25% of the world's thorium reserves, is developing a 300 MW prototype of a thorium-based Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR). The prototype is expected to be fully operational by 2013, after which five more reactors will be constructed.[36][37] Considered to be a global leader in thorium-based fuel, India's new thorium reactor is a fast-breeder reactor and uses a plutonium core rather than an accelerator to produce neutrons. As accelerator-based systems can operate at sub-criticality they could be developed too, but that would require more research.[38] India currently envisages meeting 30% of its electricity demand through thorium-based reactors by 2050."


Thorium is much more abundant than uranium. It is cheaper. It is safer - almost zero chance of Chernobyl style accidents. it produces less nuclear waste. It cannot be used to make nuclear weapons. The only real downside is limited development of the technology - which India is rapidly overcoming.

Plutonium core? I bet they bread the plutonium too. Sounds like it can be used to make nuclear weapons.

Thorium reactor designs date back to the 1980s, so it makes you wonder what the real hold up is.

[JimC]

I know what happened to the Rapa Nui - Easter island. They had a thriving community till they were faced with Europeans.

They had not. The first European to actually make contact with the inhabitants was Jacob Roggeveen in 1722. He estimated the population to be 2-3000 in number. Archeologists estimate that number to have been 10-15,000 just a few decades earlier. This precipitous decline would indicate a disastrous turn for the natives' society well before the first European contact. Roggeveen saw no more than the dying embers of Easter Island's civilisation.

The most plausible explanation for this decline is the production of the hundreds of those famous statues, the moai, the largest of which weighs 86 tons. To transport these to their chosen sites they basically deforested the island. Consumption of a natural resource - trees - was unsustainable, leading to environmental disaster and consequential destruction of that society. No ingenuity got them out of it. That was my point when I used it as one of the examples I cited that "Yes, predictions are notoriously unreliable, but that does not mean dangers with catastrophic consequences do not exist, nor that human ingenuity will inevitably get us out of the mess. Entire societies were wiped out by environmental disasters that were caused by the actions of those societies themselves."

That's the way I heard it too, in various documentaries over the years... However, it is perhaps worth noting that such complete environmental stuff-ups seem to be the exception rather than the rule...

[macdoc]

Thorium reactor designs date back to the 1980s, so it makes you wonder what the real hold up is.

Currently cheaper to do it with uranium - thorium is the fall back as uranium dwindles - that's my understanding.

Also all thorium reactors require some uranium to operate ( that may be the plutonium role here )>

[Hermit]

I know what happened to the Rapa Nui - Easter island. They had a thriving community till they were faced with Europeans.

They had not. The first European to actually make contact with the inhabitants was Jacob Roggeveen in 1722. He estimated the population to be 2-3000 in number. Archeologists estimate that number to have been 10-15,000 just a few decades earlier. This precipitous decline would indicate a disastrous turn for the natives' society well before the first European contact. Roggeveen saw no more than the dying embers of Easter Island's civilisation.

The most plausible explanation for this decline is the production of the hundreds of those famous statues, the moai, the largest of which weighs 86 tons. To transport these to their chosen sites they basically deforested the island. Consumption of a natural resource - trees - was unsustainable, leading to environmental disaster and consequential destruction of that society. No ingenuity got them out of it. That was my point when I used it as one of the examples I cited that "Yes, predictions are notoriously unreliable, but that does not mean dangers with catastrophic consequences do not exist, nor that human ingenuity will inevitably get us out of the mess. Entire societies were wiped out by environmental disasters that were caused by the actions of those societies themselves."

That's the way I heard it too, in various documentaries over the years... However, it is perhaps worth noting that such complete environmental stuff-ups seem to be the exception rather than the rule...

That was one. I cited three. How many more do you want? And how does the appeal that we are just dealing with exceptions - if that is what you want to call the given examples - affect my closing remark?

[Pappa]

I am an optimist in relation to the future of humanity.

We have seen numerous predictions of disaster.

Rachel Carson in 1963, in her book "Silent Spring" predicted widespread ecological disaster due to pesticide pollution, and poisoning of the entire natural environment. Did not happen. Why? Humans are smart and learned to make low toxicity and biodegradable pesticides.

Dr. Paul Ehrlich in his 1968 book "The Population Bomb" predicted population growth to the point where people could not be fed and a billion plus deaths from starvation,. especially in India and Pakistan from starvation. Did not happen. Why? Humans are smart and learned to make crops that produced more food per acre.

The Club of Rome, in their 1973 book "Limits to Growth" predicted resource limitations such that the world would be out of oil by the year 2000. Did not happen. Why? Humans are smart and found lots of new sources.

Nuclear warfare, Nuclear winter, Y2K, Ozone depletion etc etc.

There are always new disasters which will destroy the world. There are always people who will gloss over the failure to destroy the world this time and say it will happen next year.

Note the following.
1. Humans are smart!!
2. We learn.
3. When one disaster looms, we react to prevent it.
4. When a resource becomes limited, we find more of it or find an alternative that will do the same job.
5. Above and beyond all the above, humans are on a massively steep learning curve. We are learning more about the world and the universe every day, and each new piece of knowledge empowers us and allows us to do more and more. Producing the things the human species needs are becoming easier and easier, and cheaper and cheaper, and we make more and more, and discover new things to make all the time.

There is an old saying : every day in every way I am getting better and better.
This applies to the whole human species.

While we may have had a green revolution which massively improved crop yields, it's not really fixed the problem of feeding the world's poor. World population just increased and we were left with more people starving and dying than we had before anyway. Plus... the green revolution is unsustainable in a variety of ways. Yes, we increased food production, but we rely extremely heavily on petrochemical based fertilisers to maintain that. That's obviously unsustainable in itself, but it also causes other problems like localised pollution and a more generalised nitrification of the oceans, which is very damaging.

Yes, humans are smart and tend to find solutions, but that might not always be the case.

Also, this whole thread has reminded me about a special issue of the New Scientist called "Ecopolis" a few years about the potential of sustainable megacities of the future.... here's one of the articles:

ecocity_ns.pdf

(183.75 KiB) Downloaded 20 times

[mistermack]

One or two things we DO know for sure about Easter Island.
One is that it's a small Island. Two, It's trees DID disappear. Three, it's population was madly religious/superstitious.

Whatever did for them, it's not something that you can extrapolate to a warning for the world.
It's a tiny unpredictable special case.

[Hermit]

One or two things we DO know for sure about Easter Island.
One is that it's a small Island. Two, It's trees DID disappear. Three, it's population was madly religious/superstitious.

Whatever did for them, it's not something that you can extrapolate to a warning for the world.
It's a tiny unpredictable special case.

Another couple of things we know with equal certainty is that the population declined radically and rapidly before contact with Europeans, and that it was due to an environmental disaster caused by an unsustainable consumption of a natural resource.

For the third time, yes, predictions are notoriously unreliable, but that does not mean dangers with catastrophic consequences do not exist, nor that human ingenuity will inevitably get us out of the mess. Entire societies were wiped out by environmental disasters that were caused by the actions of those societies themselves. What you call a tiny special case, proves that, as do the other two examples I cited. And the word "unpredictable" does not make sense in this context.

Now I anticipate more special pleading.

[macdoc]

Easter Island was also furtherest away from the Asian dust cloud that fertilizes islands over time. Likely no one factor but deforestation and infertile soil certainly could be major factors.

I understand that dust fertilizes reefs and fisheries as well.

[mistermack]

Another couple of things we know with equal certainty is that the population declined radically and rapidly before contact with Europeans, and that it was due to an environmental disaster caused by an unsustainable consumption of a natural resource.

For the third time, yes, predictions are notoriously unreliable, but that does not mean dangers with catastrophic consequences do not exist, nor that human ingenuity will inevitably get us out of the mess. Entire societies were wiped out by environmental disasters that were caused by the actions of those societies themselves. What you call a tiny special case, proves that, as do the other two examples I cited. And the word "unpredictable" does not make sense in this context.

Now I anticipate more special pleading.

No we don't know what you claim about their decline. It's highly likely, but we don't KNOW it.
I think the loss of trees is quite rightly a big clue. Assuming that fishing is harder without boats of some sort.
And people who are THAT religious are highly unpredictable. Who knows how they will react to a disaster?

I think that there's very little to be learn't. Except what's already bleedin obvious anyway.

We already know it's unwise to use up a vital resource to satisfy superstitious beliefs.
If people get as mad as that again, I suppose it would be a useful reminder. Can't see it meself though.

[Seth]

[

While we may have had a green revolution which massively improved crop yields, it's not really fixed the problem of feeding the world's poor. World population just increased and we were left with more people starving and dying than we had before anyway.

The problem of the world's poor starving is NOT a production or capacity issue, it's POLITICAL. People in Somalia are starving because the warlords who control Somalia are deliberately denying them food that has been delivered to the docks as a weapon of war and genocide.

The same is true of every region where people are starving. It's not about a lack of food...we have idle croplands in the US...it's a matter of political, social and economic will.

[JimC]

One or two things we DO know for sure about Easter Island.
One is that it's a small Island. Two, It's trees DID disappear. Three, it's population was madly religious/superstitious.

Whatever did for them, it's not something that you can extrapolate to a warning for the world.
It's a tiny unpredictable special case.

Another couple of things we know with equal certainty is that the population declined radically and rapidly before contact with Europeans, and that it was due to an environmental disaster caused by an unsustainable consumption of a natural resource.

For the third time, yes, predictions are notoriously unreliable, but that does not mean dangers with catastrophic consequences do not exist, nor that human ingenuity will inevitably get us out of the mess. Entire societies were wiped out by environmental disasters that were caused by the actions of those societies themselves. What you call a tiny special case, proves that, as do the other two examples I cited. And the word "unpredictable" does not make sense in this context.

Now I anticipate more special pleading.

I agree that this example (and others shows that human populations can be severely impacted by environmental degradation of their own making; I am certainly not optimistic enough to suggest that such scenarios are impossible, or even unlikely. However, there are also plenty of examples of populations living in a sustainable fashion. What some of the more pessimistic of future watchers imply is that a massive human disaster caused by resource depletion and environmental degradation is virtually inevitable.

I will at least allow for a reasonable chance that hunan ingenuity and technological improvements will allow us to make our way through the problems to a more sustainable future.

[macdoc]

However, there are also plenty of examples of populations living in a sustainable fashion.

Plenty?? I know of only -
hunter gatherers of which almost none are left 40,000 years in Aus paleo, Inuit 14,000 years, paleo, North American indians 12,000 years some agriculture but paleo,
The new guinea highlands - some agriculture - still ongoing but under threat - 40,000 years

The long term ones were in areas not subject to glacial forces tho certainly subject to the climate change.

The Bushmen were certainly 10s of thousands of years and gone in my lifetime....

ah forgot - west coast native Canadians, some tribes maintain an ongoing sustainable culture.

Lots??? how about ...almost none.

Cuba is considered the closest to sustainable as they already have hit peak oil and ( barely ) survived it.

[Hermit]

I agree that this example (and others shows that human populations can be severely impacted by environmental degradation of their own making; I am certainly not optimistic enough to suggest that such scenarios are impossible, or even unlikely. However, there are also plenty of examples of populations living in a sustainable fashion. What some of the more pessimistic of future watchers imply is that a massive human disaster caused by resource depletion and environmental degradation is virtually inevitable.

I will at least allow for a reasonable chance that hunan ingenuity and technological improvements will allow us to make our way through the problems to a more sustainable future.

We're pretty much on the same page with that. My comments here are aimed at the overly sanguine predictions of economic growth and well being in the opening post. The 20 economists' views are definitely slanted.