What's wrong with [your part of] the world? Is the future bright? 2050?

[Armageddon]

I don't think anything will change much in the next century.

Because soooo little changed in the past century, or the one before that...

The biggest thing to happen in the last century was the abolishment of slavery. Yes there were a lot of technological advances but that's how it's always been. The world will be here long after we are gone, that's how I view global warming. I agree USA won't be a super power at all after this century. I think capitalism is the best economical system to have if the US government wasn't messing it up.

[miguel]

Yes kconan, I do hope that dictators understand that with internet/smartphones the world can see human rights violations in real time.
But that's one thing. The civilized World will condemn and maybe even send troops to take out the regime but they can't stay there forever as the population will claim the territory again and eventually consider their saviours as the oppressive regime.
Democracy is something as natural to us as going to the supermarket and find stuff that we can buy. But for those countries, democracy has to be learned and that takes generations and culture changes most of the time. Many countries still have clans and leaders as region rulers, while we have mayors and don't carry AK47's around in a 4x4 van...

Armageddon: it's not the US fault that capitalism fails from time to time. In 2008 everybody had their fingers in the honey pot, the clever ones took them away before the pot blew.

[Andail]

The biggest thing to happen in the last century was the abolishment of slavery. Yes there were a lot of technological advances but that's how it's always been. The world will be here long after we are gone, that's how I view global warming. I agree USA won't be a super power at all after this century. I think capitalism is the best economical system to have if the US government wasn't messing it up.

Exactly where on Earth was slavery abolished in the last century? In western Europe slavery has been illegal since the end of the middle ages or something, whereas in some parts of the world there is still slavery, so that statement is only almost correct if you mean the USA, in which case you should probably avoid having a purely American perspective in an international forum.

Also, the 20th century has seen a gazillion improvements all over the world. Penicillin, refrigeration, sanitation, decline in global poverty, etc.

Sure, there will always be ups and downs. We seem to be in a bad spiral of regimes that turn increasingly undemocratic, and in some countries (at least in Scandinavia) we seem to stubbornly destroy our welfare system and become less egalitarian. But in larger perspective I'm pretty optimistic. Save perhaps for the global warming.

[Stupot]

The future is not Orange anymore (it's EE), but I think it is still bright.
There will always be problems in the Middle-East, at least for the next 50-100 years.
I can't envisage another war on the scale of WWI and WWII, certainly not in Europe, but I am looking somewhat curiously towards Asia, where China seems to be flexing her muscles more and more recently.  But these are all disputes about tiny useless islands... No one is going to invade poland or anything like that.  I'm actually kind of excited for North Korea at the moment.  Kim Jong-un really seems to be doing things differently to his father and grandfather and while he's unlikely to suddenly open the country up any time soon, he does seem to be taking steps in the right direction (although his insistence on firing rockets is a little provocative).
Economically... I haven't got a clue about global economics, but we've obviously hit a low point in the past few years, so things should start getting noticeably better soon.  Hopefully we'll all be enjoying a bit of prosperity sooner rather than later.  I'm hopeful that will be the case, anyway.

[Khris]

Btw, saying capitalism has failed is a bit like saying democracy has failed. Thankfully, nobody has said it yet.

The world will be here long after we are gone, that's how I view global warming.

That's a really bad attitude. You can use that same logic to justify almost any atrocity. I'm not saying "go protest the industry right now" (I do nothing of the sort myself), all I'm saying is "don't propagate using such stupid hand-waving when talking about a serious issue".
Also, it's "climate change". There are (small) parts of the world who are in fact cooling as a result of it.

[Bernie]

What I don't like how our market and financial systems are based on constant growth. This seems like a really bad idea. It can't always get better and bigger. there's also a more or less inbuilt currency devaluation. Another thing is outsourcing - we have stuff made where it's cheap but pay no attention HOW these things are made, and under what conditions people have to work in some countries.

[Atelier]

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned a human population boom. It just makes sense that less people would solve countless problems, and I can't think of a single reason why having a smaller population is a bad thing. Can anybody else? (I'm not talking about a microcosmic population obviously, so no risk of a population bottleneck or restricted gene pool).

[tamatic]

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned a human population boom. It just makes sense that less people would solve countless problems, and I can't think of a single reason why having a smaller population is a bad thing. Can anybody else? (I'm not talking about a microcosmic population obviously, so no risk of a population bottleneck or restricted gene pool).

There is a global trend of more people (women) getting education. Together with better healthcare this is moving us towards population decline.  However, rather than population it's consumption that has the bigger effects on the environment. ( And backwards wastefull means of production. ) And in general the educated have more money to be wastefull. So it's not all positive.
If the population of China would eat meat like the people in the "west" this globe would be too small many times over.

Here is a clip I found insightful:

Hans Rosling: New insights on poverty


As for my part of the world. (Apart from supporting wasteful means of production.) I think there are some big problems concerning the patent system, privacy and engaged citizenship.  And indeed with how economist seem to have stopped the sane tradition that would include questions of morality and ethics in their thesis.

And although I feel very privileged being born in Europe, there seem to be a growing inequality in access to things like education and the justice system. I think that is a harmfull direction. Perhaps a sign of the traumatized border between private and public.

But I also noticed the older I get the less of a pessimist I became. I think technological developments and the growing emancipation of more and more people make me hopefull somewhere.

And then of course there's wolves in minecraft, while everyone knows it makes more sense to have slime pets.

[miguel]

I just want to add this comments from David Attenborough. Not saying I agree, but actually it goes towards my opinion on 3rd world countries not having a chance becoming prosperous. Ever.

Humans are plague on Earth

This statements are fresh and started a polemic debate among scientists. To us, I believe is something more to feed our debate.

[Armageddon]

Btw, saying capitalism has failed is a bit like saying democracy has failed. Thankfully, nobody has said it yet.

The world will be here long after we are gone, that's how I view global warming.

That's a really bad attitude. You can use that same logic to justify almost any atrocity. I'm not saying "go protest the industry right now" (I do nothing of the sort myself), all I'm saying is "don't propagate using such stupid hand-waving when talking about a serious issue".
Also, it's "climate change". There are (small) parts of the world who are in fact cooling as a result of it.

I don't think 'climate change' will have any effect upon humans in the far future, might kill one species of mountain beetles, I don't know. And by far future I mean by the time the sun becomes a red dwarf and kills us all.

And thus concludes my participation in this thread, everyone will hate everyone after a few posts. Also I was quoting George Carlin about the whole 'The earth will be here long after we're gone.' thing.

[Atelier]

Sorry, I didn't notice that kconan had already mentioned population growth.

Together with better healthcare this is moving us towards population decline.

Naturally it's the complete opposite. Less people are contracting or dying from diseases, more babies are being born healthy, and people are living much longer.

However, rather than population it's consumption that has the bigger effects on the environment.

They are related because population is the limiting factor here - if the population increases then consumption increases even further. So curbing population growth as well as getting people to consume less is equally as important.

Basically, with regards to the cause of many of the problems we have and how to deal with them, I agree with David Attenborough.

[tamatic]

Sorry, I didn't notice that kconan had already mentioned population growth.

Together with better healthcare this is moving us towards population decline.

Naturally it's the complete opposite. Less people are contracting or dying from diseases, more babies are being born healthy, and people are living much longer.

However, rather than population it's consumption that has the bigger effects on the environment.

They are related because population is the limiting factor here - if the population increases then consumption increases even further. So curbing population growth as well as getting people to consume less is equally as important.

Basically, with regards to the cause of many of the problems we have and how to deal with them, I agree with David Attenborough.

But yeah, you make presumptions that better education and healthcare make the population grow. This is clearly not the case, just look at developed countries where emancipation thrives.
A privileged person, however, uses more than tenfold the resources a poor uneducated (breed like poor uneducated) person does. The primary problem isn't population: thats just one of the lazy answers cooked up by people like D Attenborough.

[Atelier]

But yeah, you make presumptions that better education and healthcare make the population grow. This is clearly not the case, just look at developed countries where emancipation thrives.

It's not a presumption... if there are less people dying and more people being born, the population will increase. I can't think of any situation where better healthcare would cause a population decrease, it's completely antithetical. I'm not sure what you mean by emancipation here.

In the article Attenborough is saying that there are too many people in underdeveloped countries: "We keep putting on programmes about famine in Ethiopia; that's what's happening. Too many people there. They can't support themselves â€" and it's not an inhuman thing to say. It's the case."

So yes the primary problem isn't overpopulation in Western countries (where food and water seem practically infinite), but I'm saying there's not enough resources to go around in underdeveloped countries. The quality of life if so low partly because the fertility rate is ridiculously high, for reasons other than healthcare (I would say culture but I'm no sociologist). Also overpopulation doesn't only cause depletion of resources. Problems more relevant to the Western world include more unemployment, lack of housing, more crime, overcrowded schools/prisons/hospitals, more pollution, and a greater strain on public services.

[Khris]

I don't think 'climate change' will have any effect upon humans in the far future, might kill one species of mountain beetles, I don't know. And by far future I mean by the time the sun becomes a red dwarf and kills us all.

"The world will survive, so let's ignore it" is how I read your previous post. This didn't really do anything to alleviate that. If that's what you think, fine. I'm not going to argue with utter ignorance.


Atelier: less children dying etc. will lead to more people, but living in the developed world, where women are empowered as opposed to being baby factories, is a bigger factor here. The average age in Germany is rising for instance (and has been since at least a decade), and the work force can no longer pay adequate pensions for seniors.
It's a fact that fertility rates go down all over the world. (Fertility rate = number of children per woman, source)

I can't think of any situation where better healthcare would cause a population decrease, it's completely antithetical.

I can, and no, it isn't. Better healthcare usually correlates with better education, and that means access to contraceptives and less unwanted pregnancies, family planning, older parents, no kids at all.
In developing countries, for lots of people, getting lots of kids is still the only way to secure a halfway decent living. If we change that (and we're doing it), fertility rates goes down (they do).
Some suggest the world population will stabilize in 2050.

[tamatic]

It's not a presumption... if there are less people dying and more people being born, the population will increase. I can't think of any situation where better healthcare would cause a population decrease, it's completely antithetical. I'm not sure what you mean by emancipation here.

It is a presumption. History shows if you have a save environment and know how to prevent having kids you don't get as many, it's not a miracle.

In the article Attenborough is saying that there are too many people in underdeveloped countries: "We keep putting on programmes about famine in Ethiopia; that's what's happening. Too many people there. They can't support themselves â€" and it's not an inhuman thing to say. It's the case."

He is simply skipping a few steps. I don't call him lazy for nothing.

So yes the primary problem isn't overpopulation in Western countries (where food and water seem practically infinite), but I'm saying there's not enough resources to go around in underdeveloped countries. The quality of life if so low partly because the fertility rate is ridiculously high, for reasons other than healthcare (I would say culture but I'm no sociologist). Also overpopulation doesn't only cause depletion of resources. Problems more relevant to the Western world include more unemployment, lack of housing, more crime, overcrowded schools/prisons/hospitals, more pollution, and a greater strain on public services.

You don't show to have any idea where most of the food and goods in the west come from I think.
Also, apart from a minority of western countries, there been less crime, less lack off housing, less crowded prisons and less polution, even just taking these last 10, 20 years. So I don't think I will be convinced by what you are trying to say here.

[Atelier]

I can't think of any situation where better healthcare would cause a population decrease, it's completely antithetical.

I can, and no, it isn't. Better healthcare usually correlates with better education

I was referring to tamatic seeming to suggest that better healthcare was part of the cause of a population decrease, "together with better healthcare" (as in, a stand-alone factor), and was talking about healthcare on its own; but you're right of course.

Also, apart from a minority of western countries, there been less crime, less lack off housing, less crowded prisons and less polution, even just taking these last 10, 20 years. So I don't think I will be convinced by what you are trying to say here.

Those are some good stats but they're irrelevant. They can only be applied in context if the population of Europe was increasing exponentially, but it is not. I was talking about a hypothetical human population boom as it's a prediction thread, I didn't mean the population is spiraling out of control as we speak, but it is in some places...

I'm no 'demographist' and I clearly need to do some reading before getting into all the causatives My original question still stands though, why would having a smaller global population be a bad thing? I genuinely want to think of some reasons.

[tamatic]

Those are some good stats but they're irrelevant. They can only be applied in context if the population of Europe was increasing exponentially, but it is not. I was talking about a hypothetical human population boom as it's a prediction thread, I didn't mean the population is spiraling out of control as we speak, but it is in some places...

Well we had us breeding like rabbits in the west just 3 generations ago. And you are right to say it's culture. But how did the culture switch? I dare say general education and healthcare are the biggest factors. And they sure not stand on themselves.  You need the means to lift people from porverty, emancipating women as well as others. And most "poor" countries have been doing just that. Like Hans Rosling said Africa had more progress than any others. Climbing from our middle ages to the last century in just a few decades.

I'm no 'demographist' and I clearly need to do some reading before getting into all the causatives My original question still stands though, why would having a smaller global population be a bad thing? I genuinely want to think of some reasons.

Well thats a legitimate question. But Attenborough is just wrong.
And I can't see hurt in few less people either. But it's not the real problem.

Hehe, made me think, in my take of things earlier I forgot cheap oil running out. But yeah I am stil not pessimistic.

[Cuiki]

This will make me sound like a monster, but in my opinion, one of the problems in developed countries is not so much overpopulation itself as is the combination of low birth rate and ever-growing life expectancy (at least that's what the case around here is). That can't be very good in terms of economy, as old people usually aren't part of the workforce anymore, but they do get their pensions (which I'm not saying are not well-deserved). I know this will sound unreasonably harsh, but let's face it, they often do represent a burden for other people. They need to be taken care of, they need a lot of medical attention and other aid. Yeah, it's all fine, they've done their share in life, they've been where we are now, they do deserve all that, but what I'm saying is, I simply don't get the point of trying to live as long as you can at all costs. Isn't that just prolonging the pain? (Based on the assumption that old people are generally not very content with their lives, and always suffering from some disease or another) When you see someone taking at least 10 different medicines, some of them just for lessening side effects, or lessening side effects of medicines used for lessening other side effects, and when you see them doing nothing but struggle, you kinda wish they'd just say "to hell with this", and.. you know. But some people have a hard time accepting the ways of the nature, and just want to live forever. I don't know. I don't want to derail the topic too much, but I'm kinda curious as to what other people think about all that.

[miguel]

Like Hans Rosling said Africa had more progress than any others. Climbing from our middle ages to the last century in just a few decades.

Now this is simply not true. Some countries in Africa do manage to give the rest of the world the idea that they have all the facilities developed countries do. Things as basic as clean tap water or electricity can only be found in capitol cities, while the rest of the country is pretty much still in the dark ages. This is a fact (even in South Africa) all over the continent. And then there's corruption. Mr. Rosling probably had his pockets full when he decided to tell that huge lie.

In my opinion, Mr. Attenborough is telling us to take care of our problems because nobody can save Ethiopia and the likes. It is very sad, but it can't be done. In 2010 there were 925 million hungry people and while it would be possible to feed them all, the gap from being fed and becoming productive nations is too big that nobody will take the effort. And the fact is that they are being left to die. All the support and charity they receive is funded by "laundry" money and most of it never reaches the starving populations. In fact, most of it sponsors militia groups and weapon trade.
We sure are lucky people.
 

[tamatic]

Like Hans Rosling said Africa had more progress than any others. Climbing from our middle ages to the last century in just a few decades.

Now this is simply not true. Some countries in Africa do manage to give the rest of the world the idea that they have all the facilities developed countries do. Things as basic as clean tap water or electricity can only be found in capitol cities, while the rest of the country is pretty much still in the dark ages. This is a fact (even in South Africa) all over the continent. And then there's corruption. Mr. Rosling probably had his pockets full when he decided to tell that huge lie.

I don't think there is this lie you are talking about. Rosling is clearly speaking about the rate of progress here.
Also you seem to have the idea that these utilities were for the common people back in the last century? Don't forget that the common people here would initially still be using waterpumps, washboards and warm their houses with coal till only later into the century. Todays infrastructures only just came to be, and indeed also had kicked off first in the cities.

In my opinion, Mr. Attenborough is telling us to take care of our problems because nobody can save Ethiopia and the likes. It is very sad, but it can't be done. In 2010 there were 925 million hungry people and while it would be possible to feed them all, the gap from being fed and becoming productive nations is too big that nobody will take the effort. And the fact is that they are being left to die. All the support and charity they receive is funded by "laundry" money and most of it never reaches the starving populations. In fact, most of it sponsors militia groups and weapon trade.
We sure are lucky people.

It all sounds nice reading it in his pleasant voice. But that doesn't mean he is right.
The food problem is a primary a problem of distribution and artificial scarcity. And indeed corruption and carelessness do feed into those. But, for example, to claim there is just to many mouths is a lazy fallacy and ignores the real problems.

You mention fed nations VS productive nations, ironically the countries that are richest in resources (being extracted from) often are those with the biggest development/inequality problems. The truth often seems that we eat from their fields, drive on their oil and call/email eachother using their metals. So who is being fed?
To then just, more or less, claim there are to many mouths -while we trow away more than half the food and stil live in abundance- just shows grotesque ignorance.

And even still things are moving forward. Global poverty is on a historical low and declining. Hell, only this day and age it's widely seen as something that is unnecessary, unjust and unnatural. The old cultural narratives that would blame the victims are making place for enlightened views. More and more people get watered and emancipated. As living standards and life expectancy go up birthrates do go down.
That doesn't mean we will run out of problems now does it? So Attenborough imo should have made way more clear that it's about our habits and not feed this myth about food and overpopulation.

While it's true that with current method and, more generally, our wastefull habits we won't last long. There are enormous technological developments happening.  As they say "the stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones."  Production methodes ect are getting more and more economical each day and can't do much else than liberating even more people. -not in any hollow retorical way-
And the same with our habits. Be it by law or by educated "choice".

So yes, I am convinced in the broad sense the best is yet to come. Maybe with some birth complications, can't totally let go of doom scenarios.