Megachange : the world in 2050

[Blind groper]

This is the title of a new book. 20 of The Economist magazine's most senior writers collaborated in their best guess about what the world will become in 40 years.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/46683664/The_Sti ... ld_of_2050

Generally, they are very optimistic, and believe the world will become a better place. The pace of change will increase and the world will be a very different place. Here are a few things the book suggests.

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.

By then 70% of the population will live in urban centers, versus 50% today.

Food production will increase to cope.

A major demographic change may cause problems, with an aging population. Fewer young to support more elderly.

At least one new pandemic will strike (bird flu?) before 2050. However, overall, health will improve with new vaccines and new treatments. Some old enemies of humanity will fade, or even become extinct.

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

Technology growth will accelerate. Computers will no longer just crunch numbers. They will generate masses of new data, which scientists will struggle to keep up with. Age care robots will be common. Mass production, including the new 3D printers, will make goods cheaper and more readily available.

Languages will no longer be a barrier between societies, due to new and very sophisticated translation technologies.

Deaths in war will continue to fall. Direct action in war may reduce, with fewer battlefield human soldiers, and with new computer driven drones, machines and cyber-soldiers in action.

Wealth will increase, especially among the poor and middle class of developing nations. The gap between rich and poor will shrink.

Science will blossom, and especially genetics.

In short, the authors see a time coming where health and lifespan increase, wealth grows for everyone, and major innovations will change society for the better.

So, are the authors correct? Do you take an equally optimistic view of the next 40 years, or do you think disaster looms?

[mistermack]

I think the most practical thing that will change is the way people get information.
The internet will take over, and there will be no tv, or radio. (although they will still be available on the net).
And you will have an entire wall as a screen. Or maybe specs that give the same result.

You will be able to self-diagnose using software, and order your drugs and treatment without seeing a doctor. Except for the most complicated cases.

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.

AND THERE WILL BE NO FUCKING PUBS LEFT IN ENGLAND.

[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. There are several regions that are dependent on food aid during the good times, a few bad harvest years globally is all it will take for mass famines in the undeveloped world.

[Faithfree]

So, are the authors correct? Do you take an equally optimistic view of the next 40 years, or do you think disaster looms?

Crumple responding in 3..2..1..

[Blind groper]

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. 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?

[Blind groper]

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.

[Rum]

So, are the authors correct? Do you take an equally optimistic view of the next 40 years, or do you think disaster looms?

Crumple responding in 3..2..1..

+
You beat me to it!

The world has improved immeasurably for many many people, even if in some parts it is less so over the last 40 years. The world as it is now could not have been predicted 40 years ago so who knows about the next. I am up-beat myself, though we will have some nasty surprises on the way!

I won't be around mind you. I have other plans. ..unless I make it to 100, which I don't think I want to.

[Atheist-Lite]

Economists are like astrologers. Population is on the brink of a non-linear collapse. I could spend hours explaining the technicalities, the how even, but why bother when people are happy with their astologers. I'd be like the guy taking the ciggy out of the mouth of the guy just about to be shot, and I'm not that cruel. Keep your 2050, if it gives you comfort in your last years on earth.

[Rum]

Economists are like astrologers. Population is on the brink of a non-linear collapse. I could spend hours explaining the technicalities, the how even, but why bother when people are happy with their astologers. I'd be like the guy taking the ciggy out of the mouth of the guy just about to be shot, and I'm not that cruel. Keep your 2050, if it gives you comfort in your last years on earth.

You don't know a damn thing and your reveling in your own negativity and trying to spread it around you like a green smelly gas is actually quite repellent.

And it is spelled 'astrologers'.

[Atheist-Lite]

Economists are like astrologers. Population is on the brink of a non-linear collapse. I could spend hours explaining the technicalities, the how even, but why bother when people are happy with their astologers. I'd be like the guy taking the ciggy out of the mouth of the guy just about to be shot, and I'm not that cruel. Keep your 2050, if it gives you comfort in your last years on earth.

You don't know a damn thing and your reveling in your own negativity and trying to spread it around you like a green smelly gas is actually quite repellent.

And it is spelled 'astrologers'.

I know the appropriate spelling for bullshit. It isn't negativity. I'm a realist.

[Rum]

Economists are like astrologers. Population is on the brink of a non-linear collapse. I could spend hours explaining the technicalities, the how even, but why bother when people are happy with their astologers. I'd be like the guy taking the ciggy out of the mouth of the guy just about to be shot, and I'm not that cruel. Keep your 2050, if it gives you comfort in your last years on earth.

You don't know a damn thing and your reveling in your own negativity and trying to spread it around you like a green smelly gas is actually quite repellent.

And it is spelled 'astrologers'.

I know the appropriate spelling for bullshit. It isn't negativity. I'm a realist.

You're a twat.

[Atheist-Lite]

Economists are like astrologers. Population is on the brink of a non-linear collapse. I could spend hours explaining the technicalities, the how even, but why bother when people are happy with their astologers. I'd be like the guy taking the ciggy out of the mouth of the guy just about to be shot, and I'm not that cruel. Keep your 2050, if it gives you comfort in your last years on earth.

You don't know a damn thing and your reveling in your own negativity and trying to spread it around you like a green smelly gas is actually quite repellent.

And it is spelled 'astrologers'.

I know the appropriate spelling for bullshit. It isn't negativity. I'm a realist.

You're a twat.

You need a enemy. I guess it grinds your gears that I don't reflect that. And yet with some reflection you might see why the global recovery is destined to fail, and the spiral of industrial collapse take its place in that? Why a uncontroled population collapse once underway will sweep rich and poor nation alike into the maelstrom, leading to potential human extinction and certain destruction of the current global paradigm, civilization collapse or whatever you want to call it.

[Drewish]

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

[mistermack]

I don't get it. Why would a falling population be a problem?
If the Earth's population dropped back to five billion, why would we be any worse off than when it was last five billion?

And an ageing population isn't necessarily all bad news. People can work longer these days, because they stay healthy for longer, and the work isn't so physical. And it's a self-regulating problem. If the world can't afford to provide enough care for the elderly, they won't live so long.

The biggest problem I see in the future is that it's possible that the money will run out, because just a few people will have it all.

There's a limit to how much a billionaire can spend, so we could end up with nearly all of the money just sat around in inflated property, which only billionaires can afford to own.

So nobody will have jobs, or be able to afford to live.

{blow me, I think it's started already !! )

[Tero]

I'm not planning to be here 2050.

It's your planet. But here is a tip: quit sending stuff to Africa, and let them keep their diamonds. They turn it all into babies.