As someone who is just about to enter the workforce, I’m a bit nervous at my prospects for the future. I remember in my Environmental Classes hearing about how water was already scarce and wars were likely to occur over access to the stuff. Yet, I keep seeing on the news that data centers keep on getting pumped out. Cars and fossil fuel-based energy grids used to be the biggest culprits of resource of pollution; yet, these data centers are now requiring us to massively increase output! Not only that, but many are being set up in rural areas (where the people don’t want them) and sucking up all the already scarce water from the farmers.
It appears that resource wars have already begun. The United States has invaded both Venezuela and Iran with the likely goal of securing access to cheap oil, and Trump seems heck-bound on securing rare Earth minerals (such as from the DRC or Ukraine), going as far to threaten invasion to get them (as is the case with Greenland).
And, I truly feel so bad to worry about these issues. I recently watched a TedEd talk where an escaped North Korean woman thought it was nice that we were worried about climate change but pleaded us to also give hear to humans rights abuses. Yet, the “shining beacon of freedom” that is the United States is now doing such abuses! Yet again, East and West stare each other down in what appears to be another Cold War, with an even greater emphasis on civilian targets (as seen with drone and missile based attacks on infrastructure) than before. Who should get the priority? The humans living under oppressive regimes or our grandchildren who are going to be dealing with the environmental disasters we have wrought?
I feel so bad for everyone involved. Big business continues to trample on little guys across the world, governments continue to oppress their people and each other, and all the while God’s most beautiful gift of a livable planet is being wasted with fleeting attempts to make money.
The only positive side I can see right now is the research being put into space travel. Perhaps our resource woes could be fixed if we can perfect asteroid mining technology (but it is sad that we have to rely in other bodies to sustain our insustainable hunger in the first place).
Hopefully, you guys have some good news. It has been a bit of a depressing year so far, but I’m praying it gets better!
Many things in the world are now better than 70 years ago. There is also a growing awareness that we are dependent on the nature & climate and should act to prevent the worst scenarios from happening - humans have destroyed much and the path still goes towards a worse future if nothing is done.
For most people, acting for a better world is not the number one priority. When the safety and wellfare of my family or my own life is threatened, people feel forced to act in ways they would otherwise not do. Ensuring livable conditions for humans is part of the work to prevent the ongoing destruction of nature & changing climate.
Major obstacles on the way towards a better future are outdated attitudes and greed. Unfortunately, the majority of those in the position of power tend to represent both obstacles - they have adopted the outdated (destructive) attitudes of the past and they tend to serve wealth (mammon) and/or are greedy for political or economical power. It is at least partly our fault that we have lifted such persons to positions of power.
The future is not hopeless. As believers we wait for the return of Jesus. Even if the return is delayed, we could improve the living conditions on Earth. We have already needed knowledge and technology, and better technology is developed every year. It is just the matter of deciding how to use the resources. Currently, much of the resources goes to actions that makes the situation and future worse but that could change - if there is will.
That is an important part of the challenge but not the only one.
As you mentioned, availability of fresh water is becoming a growing concern. Some rich countries along the Persian gulf can make fresh water from the salty sea water but in most of the drying areas, that is not possible. When the belowground aquifers are emptied, there will be no possibilities for cultivation of food. When the drinking water becomes too expensive, the alternatives for the poor people are dying or emigrating.
Destruction of natural ecosystems affects humans in many ways. Mere calories do not provide wellfare, so transforming the natural ecosystems to maximized food production may lead to other serious problems. Climate change and alien species may also destroy the possibilities to produce food. The ongoing loss of the coral reefs is an example of that.
I no longer try to guess at the future because the current situation in the U.S., which used to be an example for everyone, has made it all uncertain.
There are some signs that are hopeful: If Russia’s coming defeat doesn’t lead to total chaos, one of the worst players on the globe could be removed from the picture. If the mess in Iran leads to the end of the Islamic barbarism, another major bad actor could also vanish.
At the same time, greed drives politics in the U.S. and other places, so my honest view right now is that poverty is going to get worse, which will cripple the U.S. economy, which in turn will hamper everyone else. And around the globe, pests from distant lands threaten not just entire species but in many cases entire ecosystems.
And AI is a factor the effects of which we can’t predict at all (though I hate calling it AI because it can’t actually think).
Those two scenarios are unlikely, unless God interferes.
Russia is a large country that may experience a period of instability if the current leader is replaced violently. Russia may stay a decade or two in a state of relative weakness but in the long term, it is the largest country in the world and has natural resources that may give it an advantage that helps it build the economy after the war ends.
Messages from Iran suggest that the attack has given a common enemy for groups that were critical towards the current regime. Surviving the attack is a political victory to the current regime. They probably manage to give the impression that USA lost the war with Iran, even if they loose much infrastructure and soldiers. The regime would probably need to loose close to a million armed men (military & paramilitary) before they would be in a state of relative weakness.
Interesting question to ponder. I think China will continue to grow and dominate the world economy. They have declining workforce, but due to their long term planning and government structure, have invested heavily in robotics and automation. Plus they have a lot of natural resources. The US will continue to decline but still be a big force. As to what kind of work will be safe with AI and such, that is hard to know. In medicine, the procedural specialties with be pretty safe, the more cerebral diagnostic ones, not so much. In health care, I think the jobs running technological advances will be there forever. If you learn how to maintain and perform MRIs, PET scanners, ultrasounds etc, you will alway have a job. It is sort of ironic, machines will have the thinking jobs, people will do the grunt work.
The clinic I go to uses AI in diagnosis: they input symptoms and it spits out possibilities. Someone described it as being like on the show House where the team brainstorms possibilities. It doesn’t make the diagnosis, it serves to remind the docs of any they might have overlooked.
I see a drop in population and far less people available for service type jobs in many of the wealthier countries (which has already happening but which will become more critical). As a result, I see the rise of countries previously thought to be third world or developing countries (like Nigeria for example) and the decline of so called first world countries. The question is how we handle this challenge. There are a few possibilities.
More automation, even service robots.
More children as people value parenting more. (But this will increase the demand for service personnel in the short run)
A reversal of the current anti-immigration foolishness, which I think is highly likely – even unavoidable. The question is whether it happens before the appeal of the countries which need it has declined to a point where it can no longer solve the problem.
Indeed. The question is whether the rest of the world follows this horrible example or they learn from this mistake.
Indeed. AND this is implies a different example for the world to follow increasing the trend to less faith in the ideals of democracy and free world values. This trend is already extensive in the younger generation of many first world countries as they become frustrated with how poorly things are going. Personally, I see instabilities in both democratic and authoritarian governments, but history suggests democracy is the more unstable. The problem is the stability of democracy depend on the population maintaining high education and particular values (particularly ones which support compromise). Until we achieve social stability in this regard, democracy will lack stability and likely decline.
Yes! Populations has been increasing in areas where the water supply cannot support it. But this is a largely a local problem for those areas and the response is obviously a shift of population to other areas where fresh water is more available.
The Good news is “Do unto others with Love as You would have others do unto You”, NOT Do unto others as others have done unto You(Unless it was in Their Love). LOVE Thy enemies which means you have no enemy. Forgive Seventy times Seventy. The teachings of Jesus are “Our Hope” for the path is Narrow. Jesus also Said “My Kingdom is not of this World” and at sometime We will be in His Mansion. Here We try to do Good Works as Born again of Our Father Like Him, This is my Future. When the Body Expires, “Commend Thy Spirit to Our Father”.
Europe has been an excellent example of sticking to their guns in the face of trial. The fact that Germany is rearming once more indicates that their reliance on the United States for security guarantees (especially after Trump has threatened time and time again to withdraw it) is waning. This also indicates that the European Union could likely become a major player in the future. Judging by how modern the continent is getting (i.e. anti-monopoly laws, high speed rail, working on their own space agency, etc) indicates that they have the potential to pick up the slack as the United States begins to decline.
Yes. It seems obvious that the rich countries with low fecundity become dependent on immigration and/or automation.
Here (Finland), populist parties speak against immigration but at the same time, companies and statisticians use numbers and trends to show that we cannot maintain the current economy and healthcare without immigration. Population size has been slowly growing but that growth is totally dependent on immigration - without immigration, there are not enough of births to compensate for the mortality.
There has been much speculation about the reasons behind the drop in family sizes. There seems to be many reasons. One of the reasons is a lack of helpers. In the past, several generations lived in close contact and the (female) relatives helped to take care of the children. When grandmothers and the other relatives helped wih childrens, mothers had better resources and could get more babies. In urban societies, small core families try to cope without a large social network of helpers. The society values education and other achievements that postpone the reproduction of women and gives a model for a life where large families are seen as a negative burden. In this situation, I do not see any easy solutions for increasing the family sizes, except immigration from countries that still have a culture where large families are seen as a positive matter.
We all grow old and need someone to take care of us during our last days. When that happens, would you prefer to be handled by robots or real humans? If the answer is humans, then the logical conclusion should be to accept at least some amount of immigration.
Yes, if the unification of the rules and markets continues. EU has been weak because it has been a loose coalition of countries with selfish interests and any major decisions have needed the acceptance of every member country. Internal politics within each country has halted or slowed the unification at the level of EU. The current trend has been that the nationalistic parties have gained more political power and have tried to picture EU as the ‘devil’ that tries to rob national benefits. A counteracting force is the geopolitical situation between two selfish and unpredictable nations (Russia and the current USA). Those two nations force EU towards better military and economic defence and also towards more investments to technological research.
I have read that the former military weakness of EU is at least partly caused by USA wanting to have some sort of military hegemony in the region. A military hegemony has given an economic advantage to the USA-based companies that sell military equipment, software, etc. That has changed as the focus within USA has turned more towards internal (/local) than trans-Atlantic matters. EU is forced to step up.
Shifts of populations are difficult in a world where borders limit movements. Countries try to prevent a mass influx of immigrants through their borders. We are talking about hundreds of millions of refugees globally.
Most people would like to stay in the region close to their origin but that may be difficult if the larger region suffers from the same problems and there is no local aid. If the emigrating people are forced to move to distant areas, we end up with the problems related to illegal immigration.
I was including death in those populations shifts. But perhaps this reveals an exaggeration of the problem. Many now simply use imported bottled water. And thus an increase the price of bottled water the more likely result. Looking up current regions with dependence on imported bottled water include countries in the middle east, though there is high consumption in other areas like Mexico, Britain, and Germany due to preference and/or less trust in public water.
Bottled water is expensive. When husbandry becomes impossible, many drop to such powerty that buying bottled water is impossible. Available wells may also become owned or ruled by people who demand payment for the well water. Although it is cheaper than bottled water, the poor do not have enough of money for buying water. If there are no organizations delivering drinking water as humanitarian aid, the only alternative may be walking long distances to the nearest river or other water source and use that water, even if it would be polluted.
Emigrating demands moderate health (/strength) and often some resources. The poorest people may become so weak that their only option for a population shift is death. That reduces the number of potential environmental refugees trying to reach other countries but the fate of the neglected poor, including their children, may be seen as an ethical problem.
I’ve recently come to a better understanding of the topic through self-observation.
It really is a question of when, and not if we.
Even with the best stewardship of the planet, we will eventually reach what I call “Resource Zero”. Not that we will ever run out of stuff, although it still could happen. Eventually, with the things we pull out of the ground, it will either be too costly or too cumbersome to go any further.
In a weird and macabre twist of Fate, our only way out completely is to cease to exist before that happens.
Or a bit easier to swallow; find someplace else to go to.
In theory, maybe. In practice, humans have been talented in inventing alternative solutions. When prices rise to very high, methods that have been too expensive become profitable. If some expensive stuff can be replaced with something cheaper, that will happen. If the old technologies become too inefficient, new methods are developed.
I assume that we will have cheaper space travels before the most critical resources are depleted on Earth. At that point, we can start to utilize space rocks.
The critical problem may be that the prices of some stuff may rise so high that the poor cannot afford products that depend on that stuff. That will widen the welfare gap between the rich and the poor. When the poor feel that they have nothing to loose, they are prone to desperate actions. Rebellions, crime and other social disorder are likely to increase in such a situation, especially in countries where the welfare gap between the rich and the poor gets wider. If the rich want stability and safety in their surroundings, the best way may be to pay taxes or give donations that are used to improve the welfare of the poor. The alternative may be to live in prison-like conditions, surrounded by high walls and armed guards and fearing the day when someone attacks.
