1
   

The stuff that's going to happen over the next century.

 
 
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2003 08:06 pm
I view overpopulation as the last and greatest threat to world stability.

The infastructure, diplomatic ties and information communition needed to recover from any significant economic recession are in place. The world has the needed infastructure to band together to discourage layoffs, cheap labor and place employment requirements on multinational corporations if the economic recession gets worse.

As environmental issues get worse and worse, science will likely catch up. With a little bit of additional research, a way to neutralize nuclear waste will undoubtedly be found making it the one viable energy source that produces virtually no waste. Cheaper and more efficent ways to purify sea water are being found. Scientists are already researching ways to reverse the effects of pollutants released into the atmosphere. Once the effects of Bush's maniacal emmisions standards reductions get scientifically documented, they'll undoubtedly be reimplemented with even more stringent requirements.

Iraq sets a precedence of the US unilaterally without legitamate reason deposing world dictators and replacing them with democracies. {Tongue in Cheek} Hopefully, the US continues this trend and regardless of and short term consequences, someday, all nations will be democratically run. History has proven repeatedly proven that two democracies will never be forced to engage in war and that the populations oof democracies will become more aware of world affairs, will come under western influences towards issues such as liberty and will disengage from terrorist acts. So I see the risk of terrorism and war steadily decreasing.

A few decades from now, Star Wars, the national missle defense system will be operational and will eliminate the risk of nuclear winter. Risks from biologically created viruses as well as ground based nuclear weapons still exist. But the damage from such threats will be localized. Vaccines to any biologically created viruses will be created before their effects will be worldwide.

The world is developing economically. Both India and China have rapidly progressed over the past two decades since they opened up their borders. They will soon become economic juggernauts. And they by themselves account for over a third of the world's population. Other nations will undoubtedly follow suit once the UN gives into pressure and allows for better oversight of the IMF and World Bank and the mechanisms of tyranny and dictatorship are torn down and replaced with democracry and stable infrastructure.

Science is increasingly finding the cures to more and more diseases. Some day soon, no man will ever have to die from AIDs or cancer. Infact, many of the effects of old age will be reversed and ways to stop the aging process itself will soon be discovered.

This in essence is part of the problem. People are getting to be older and older, less and less are dying from disease, and the impoverished populations of the third world are reproducing at an incredible rate. While middle income families are practicing contraception and family planning, much of the world remains impoverished and is insisting on having many children. The population is already at six billion and rapidly increasing. And until poverty itself is eliminated, an event that will probably take centuries, there is little hope that the growth rate will stabilize. If the population continues to expand without control, resources will rapidly be depleted, democracy will once again fall to tyranny, and nations will engage in wars for critical resources. And there is little hope of avioding this scenario. All the contraceptive education in the world will not be enough to stop this process, they'll merely serve as speed bumps. As long as poverty remains a reality, so will the threat that overpopulation poses to world stability.

Is there any solution to this problem?

Please contribute your own thoughts on the future direction that humanity and the world is headed and the policies we must undertake to atleast sustain our current level of stability and peace.

If you want to hear a more active discussion on this issue, check this out.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,107 • Replies: 25
No top replies

 
Centroles
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2003 08:07 pm
There is one and only solution I can think of for the problem of overpopulation. Someone somewhere must engineer a rapidly spreading painless airborne virus whose only effect is to make all sperm generated by men who are infected by it infertile.

a.) No one would be hurt by such a virus.

b.) People would still be able to have sex as normal as only the potency of sperm is effected.

c.) The effects are hardly powerful. In order to reproduce one would simply need to undergo artifical insemination. Once the procedure becomes common, it would also become incredibly cheap. Insurance would probably cover it. So any one with health insurance would be able to have children. And those who are too poor to afford insurance probably wouldn't have been able to insure, raise and educate their children anyways.

d.) Poverty would die off with each generation as only those who can afford to care for and educate their children would raise them. If some can't afford the procedure, they probably can't afford to give their child a good life anyways.

e.) Adoption rates would skyrocket. All children would be ensured a good home and a good chance at a good future.

f.) Resource consumption will fall with the drop off in populatiion and be better distributed among more people. Humanity would prosper.

g.) All the annoying fundamentalist religious people that wind up advocating terrorism wouldn't be able to have offspring and thus wouldn't be able to poison the minds of younger generations.

f.) Unemployment would virtually disappear.

g.) There are probably many other advantages I've left off.

Disclaimer: I'm not serious, I'm not actually advocating this. No need to contact the FBI. I'm merely making a point, similar to the essayist who wrote that the rich should eat the poor in order to highlight class differences in England.

In reality, I'm just hoping that the billions we've poured into NASA will pay off someday and colonizing the moon will someday indeed become a reality. Space exploration and colonization is the only real shot we have at attaining sustainable growth inspite of the booming growth rate. But that's obviously not happening any time soon.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2003 08:38 pm
Your "predictions" (I'm not really sure if that's what you intend them to be or if they are just musings..) seem to vary greatly with respect to "the future". How long into the future are you thinking? Are these things you envision in 25 years? 50? 400?

Hard to comment with some insight there...
0 Replies
 
Centroles
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2003 09:04 pm
They're just musings about the direction the world is headed. No particular time frame in mind. I personally think we're doing just fine regarding every issue except for overpopulation.

I'm particularly interested in hearing the predictions of others. So please share yours.
0 Replies
 
Centroles
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2003 11:01 pm
No one has opinions on the direction this planet is headed!!!
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2003 11:21 pm
Richard Leakey wrote about neo Malthusian "creed'. Its his great plague also. the carrying capacity of the planet , with complete agrarian reform and divvied up goods , is about 10 billion according to somew early predictions. I have no idea and dont wanna be around for the soylent green days
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2003 10:03 am
Re: Discussion: Future Trends In Global Progress and Stabili
Centroles wrote:
Science is increasingly finding the cures to more and more diseases. Some day soon, no man will ever have to die from AIDs or cancer. Infact, many of the effects of old age will be reversed and ways to stop the aging process itself will soon be discovered.

This in essence is part of the problem. People are getting to be older and older, less and less are dying from disease, and the impoverished populations of the third world are reproducing at an incredible rate. While middle income families are practicing contraception and family planning, much of the world remains impoverished and is insisting on having many children. The population is already at six billion and rapidly increasing. And until poverty itself is eliminated, an event that will probably take centuries, there is little hope that the growth rate will stabilize. If the population continues to expand without control, resources will rapidly be depleted, democracy will once again fall to tyranny, and nations will engage in wars for critical resources. And there is little hope of avioding this scenario. All the contraceptive education in the world will not be enough to stop this process, they'll merely serve as speed bumps. As long as poverty remains a reality, so will the threat that overpopulation poses to world stability.[/b]


IMO, from all you've mentioned so far this issue is the real biggie. The increasing life expectancy of people around the world will be our undoing (as a species). It has the potential to unhinge both our social and economic order as well as defeat any environmental changes we might try to put in place.

As odd as is may sound, if there is an inherent human right to clean water, food, housing, medical care, etc.. then there also has to be a social obligation to die. We can't continue to extend the average life term indefinately and also continue to support new life without depleting all of our resouces.
0 Replies
 
Axon
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2003 10:29 am
It's quite possible we'll get wiped out by an asteroid too.

With the current exploration of Mars and Jupiter's moons, we might colonise - technology permitting of course.

However, I think the issue of overpopulation will be decided for us, either through disease or infertility. Perhaps it's already started and in the near future population will be seen to be falling. Ultimately, there is a limit to the amount of humans the earth will support, so unless we do colonise, overpopulation will be our downfall.

Sorry to sound so pessimistic.
0 Replies
 
Centroles
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2003 10:42 am
Axon, the immune system is extremely versatile. This is why humanity was never wiped out by a virus. This is why even the most potent viruses like the cold, sars etc. often fail to kill us and even AIDs take 15 years to become lethal. Not to mention that medicine's rate of making vaccines, and our ability to discover and isolate new viruses is rapidly increasing.

I don't see a very high chance of a new virus randomly evolving that can spread quickly and can't be contained.
0 Replies
 
Centroles
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2003 04:07 pm
I think this could be a very lively discussion if more poeple are simply willing contribute their own perspectives on this.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2003 04:22 pm
About 75K years ago, there was a major event that almost wiped the planet free of people. was it vulcanism? an asteroid?. Its interesting to speculate that our immune system is so "versatile", yet, without our own continuing intervention , the population grew at a less than geometric rate. Now, with better immunization, we are approaching a logarithmic growth rate. We are manipulating our numbers with immunization against the age old killers that threaten the greatest population areas.
Your " answers" get close to state eugenics. WHo are the people we wish to raise up? who are those we spray?
0 Replies
 
Clary
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2003 04:26 pm
How about the most immediate geographical threat - the collapse of La Palma in the Canary Islands which will cause a tsunami of gigantic proportions and sweep away everything on the east coast of America for 20 miles inland, as well as all the other Atlantic coasts. This 'will happen in decades' according to some scientists. It will really change our political world, won't it? As well as being a tragedy of immense proportions for millions of people.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2003 09:14 pm
only on the east coast Clary. Folks west of Philadelphia wont even know that something happened . Americas big enough to withstand the loss of a hundred million people from Miami to Boston.
anyway, the La Palma event wont happen till the slide zone gets waay more lubricant , its still too connected to the mountain ridge. All those doomsaying "scientists" are members of our professional organizations and the ones that are the most strident are hawking books. Sort of a scientific tabloid race.
0 Replies
 
Clary
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Dec, 2003 02:59 am
True, I went to a lecture by someone who had written a book, and there have been TV programmes on it. However, while you may sit complacent in the west - and I can sit complacent on my hill in England - you must admit that WHEN it happens it will be somewhat devastating to the world as we know it. Cynics may say the loss of NYC and Washington would enable new life to start but ..! Like the Minoans and Myceneans.
Malthus and post-Malthusians have always preached overpopulation doom - I wrote just such a manifesto as Centroles on the evils of having lots of children in the 60s. I am a believer in Gaia, the world as organism able to heal itself, and I don't give time to doom merchants who think our paltry doings can endanger the planet. Mostly we just endanger ourselves.
0 Replies
 
Axon
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Dec, 2003 07:10 pm
Centroles,

'I don't see a very high chance of a new virus randomly evolving that can spread quickly and can't be contained'.
Quote:


No, and the dinosaurs didn't see the asteroid that in all probability, wiped them out for good!

I don't know what you're basing that on - perhaps you've not been to Africa recently!
0 Replies
 
Centroles
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jan, 2004 03:15 am
i'm basing this on millions of years of evolution. the immune system has always managed to fight off any new viruses. This is why even the infamous HIV takes decades to do sufficent damage. In a few decades, medicane will probably reach the point where any such virus can be anaylized and cured within days if not hours. It seems highly improbable that something new will evolve within those few decades needed for medicane to advance even more that can rapidly spread and will rapidly kill off the species when this hasn't happened to any organism with a complex immune system in millions of years of evolutionary history.

the only way such a virus can emerge is if people themselves design as a weapon of sorts. that's one possibilty that i do fear.

but perhaps in a similar fashion, one can develop such a rapidly spreading virus that kills no one but renders all those who are infected by it incapable of having children by natural means. only those rich enough to can afford to undergo the neccesary artificial insemination protocols. but these procedures will drop in price significantly as they are performed more and more. nevertheless the poor will rapidly die off and the middle class will be the new poor. in a similar fashion, relgious fanatics that don't believe in artificial insemination including islamic extremists will be unable to propagate their hate through their offspring. unemployment, overpopulation, pollution and insufficent resources will all be problems of the past. as resources become more plentiful, democracy will thrive and spread.

developing such a specific virus to do a specific task will someday soon be possible. we've already mapped out the entire human genome. we're learning all the rules as to how the nucleotides will be translated to amino acid chains. we're familiar with the chemical properties that will determine how these amino acids will fold into proteins and subsequently how these proteins will interact with eachother to direct their own translation, and various chemical reactions. it's just an incredibly complex process, an intricate jigsaw puzzle. once we fit together all the pieces, and discover all these rules, we can program them into a super computer and have it do all the work for us. someday soon, i predict we'll be able to enter a person's single cell into a computer. it'll translate their entire specific genome (can already be done with in 24 hrs for a fee of only 10,000) and will use it to determine not only how the person developed and how everything in their body interacts within itself to make the person the way they are, give them the problems the have etc. then finding a cure becomes even simpler. perhaps the actual genome itself can be changed in a fully grown person someday simply by using a virus that modifies the genome of each cell it comes in contact with and will propagate itself without harming anyone else. in fact these virus vectors with a few quick modificatoins will be what spread the virus.

This is proteomics, the art of understanding any problem entirely fromt he perspective of specific proteins. It is the future.
0 Replies
 
Centroles
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2004 07:15 am
no one has inputs of their own?
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2004 03:55 pm
Centroles,

Notice that as a population ages it should get smarter and more efficient. Very Happy This probably makes any absolute population figures, like the 10 billion mentioned earlier, moot.

Second point,
Any epidemic that has the possibility of being nearly 100% lethal must have a minimum population density to survive. Plague apparently reduced Europes population by about a third and that was in a succeptible population who had never seen it before.
In order for a disease to get the job done (kill off humanity) it must be of low enough toxicity so it can be transmitted from person to person. If not quickly fatal then immunity often develops.

So I suspect that the population bomb or disease will not wipe out humans although I suspect it has already lowered living standards and probably quality of life.

IMO the only thing that could wipe out all humanity would be a nuclear disaster or a celestial event. If one of those doesn't happen in the next few thousand years we should be pretty well dispersed throughout the Galaxy and then humanity (as a genome) should be in pretty good shape until the Milky Way itself reaches the end of its allotted time. That probably won't be next week Exclamation
0 Replies
 
Portal Star
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2004 04:03 pm
Centroles wrote:
There is one and only solution I can think of for the problem of overpopulation. Someone somewhere must engineer a rapidly spreading painless airborne virus whose only effect is to make all sperm generated by men who are infected by it infertile.

a.) No one would be hurt by such a virus.

b.) People would still be able to have sex as normal as only the potency of sperm is effected.

c.) The effects are hardly powerful. In order to reproduce one would simply need to undergo artifical insemination. Once the procedure becomes common, it would also become incredibly cheap. Insurance would probably cover it. So any one with health insurance would be able to have children. And those who are too poor to afford insurance probably wouldn't have been able to insure, raise and educate their children anyways.

d.) Poverty would die off with each generation as only those who can afford to care for and educate their children would raise them. If some can't afford the procedure, they probably can't afford to give their child a good life anyways.

e.) Adoption rates would skyrocket. All children would be ensured a good home and a good chance at a good future.

f.) Resource consumption will fall with the drop off in populatiion and be better distributed among more people. Humanity would prosper.

g.) All the annoying fundamentalist religious people that wind up advocating terrorism wouldn't be able to have offspring and thus wouldn't be able to poison the minds of younger generations.

f.) Unemployment would virtually disappear.

g.) There are probably many other advantages I've left off.

Disclaimer: I'm not serious, I'm not actually advocating this. No need to contact the FBI. I'm merely making a point, similar to the essayist who wrote that the rich should eat the poor in order to highlight class differences in England.

In reality, I'm just hoping that the billions we've poured into NASA will pay off someday and colonizing the moon will someday indeed become a reality. Space exploration and colonization is the only real shot we have at attaining sustainable growth inspite of the booming growth rate. But that's obviously not happening any time soon.



On a purely biological level, this would be bad because it's artificial selection instead of natural selection. Among many other reasons.

I agree that overpopulation is a problem (especially in India, China) but I don't think it's overpolulation directly so much as the political/military struggles overpopulation leads to, and the spread of disease. Another problem will be biological homogeneity because of the destruction of natural land and farming. When there is less species diversity, everything is more suceptible to disease and famine.

There are actually pretty good sources pointing to the earth not being overpopulated - because it is not near its carrying capacity, but I disagree with those sources.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2004 04:22 pm
That AIDS takes so long to be lethal has nothing to do with the ingeniousness of our immune system. It's just the way it works -- it does no tissue damage, it just coopts a population of your lymphocytes. Eventually, it reproduces enough that your body can't generate enough new lymphocytes to fight off opportunistic infections. Our "highly-evolved" immune system is no more effective than the "primitive" but brutally efficient immune system of the shark. The cold virus doesn't kill us because it has evolved not to. Pathogens that expediently kill their hosts have little chance to be passed on, whereas ones that coexist with their host for a considerable amount of time have a very good chance of being passed on to new hosts and reproducing some more, especially if they make you sneeze. This is one of the reasons influenza (the current avian flu excepted, since we don't know what's going to happen with it) isn't as lethal as it used to be. Yes, the people who survived were generally better able to fight off infection, but the surviving strains had also evolved to be less virulent.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The stuff that's going to happen over the next century.
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 03:59:23