Ed, Lawry,
I'm inclined to Ed's view rather than Lawry's (originals of both below). I
think the problems (and catastrophes to come) are going to be even worse
than Ed imagines. But Lawry's scenario could also be correct if we also
consider time scales.
In the Western countries I think we are going to see considerably increased
unemployment and a wider income/cultural gap between what I'm calling a new
'meta-class' (the rich, the savvy criminal, the scientists, the key
professional specializations) and the rest, draconian immigration control,
and the beginning of steep population decline (we in the West are already
approaching only half of the necessary children for replenishment). There
may be exceptions in the case of one or two small countries with particular
attributes or economic specializations.
In the non-Western countries the population push-pull, already powerful, of
former agriculturalists into a relatively small number of
super-metropolises will continue with consequent rioting, starvation, crime
and epidemic diseases constantly erupting. Exceptions to this might include
China (probably) and Brazil (possibly) over the next generation but in
these cases they will join the scenario above within a generation.
Otherwise, the urbanization (and dense habitation) of the non-Western world
will bring about population decline over the slightly longer time scale
(100 years?).
Now to consider a different important strand. Ever since about 40,000BC
(very possibly due to a particular brain gene mutation -- microcephalin --
as discovered by Bruce Lahn's genetic team at Chicago University in 2005),
when there began an altogether astonishing explosion of innovation (to
stone tools, art, music, artefacts of all sorts) man's existence and
economic patterns have been at the mercy of new innovations. (Before
40,000BC, for 2 million years, there had been hardly any change at all in
the two or three crude stone tools.) More latterly (since about the 17th
century), innovations have sprung up, and industrially developed, at an
increasing rate from the new scientific mode of enquiry. Every year more
than a million new patents are issued and any one of these might produce
major effects -- either into more automated procedures or brand new industries.
We thus have every reason to believe that that man's existence will
continue to depend on scientific discovery and industrial development.
However, we have several good reasons to believe that, although we will
still be highly dependent on fossil fuels for a considerable time to come
(albeit energy will be increasingly expensive), the peak time of the
present industrial era has passed, and that a new energy technology -- the
fundamental basis for all economic activity -- must be developed.
We also have good reason to believe that the alternative energy
technologies being fashionably proposed -- wind, wave, tidal, solar-cell,
nuclear -- are not economically viable. They still require the present
fossil-fuel technology to manufacture their production infrastructures.
Their future maintenance costs are at present totally unknown. Some of them
may be useful in specific locations for local purposes but, so far, all of
them require large governmental subsidies and they simply cannot be
regarded as scalable to replace the present fossil fuel regime in due course.
The cream of today's young scientists are going into two areas -- genetics
and particle physics. The latter may supply a new wonder energy technology
in due course but there is absolutely no clue at present as to what this
might be, never mind when. However, there is every indication that
neo-bacteria will, in the imminent future, be able to manufacture hydrogen
(the perfect fuel) and other primary organic chemicals from sunlight at
very high efficiencies (70-90% compared with 10-40% of present methods).
The big problem with biotechnology (comprised of living systems) is that it
requires exactly the same feedstuffs as agriculture -- surface area,
sunlight, water, a few key minerals. Its early implementation on a large
scale would only exacerbate starvation problems while present world
over-population exists. At a simple level (sugar grown for the production
of ethanol), however, biotechnology has already started; bacterial methods,
still being researched, are only a few years away.
Where will the new biotechnology industries be located? In those countries
in which great importance is already given to genetic research and the life
sciences. These are mainly America, China, England, Germany, Singapore and
Cuba, though several other Western countries also have active researchers
(from which some of the vital breakthroughs could easily come).
So, over the slightly longer term Lawry's optimism will, I am sure, be
realized. In the meantime, however, to a greater or lesser extent in most
countries, I'm afraid it's Ed's world.
Keith
At 11:10 14/07/2010 -0400, you wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: <mailto:[email protected]>Ed Weick
To: <mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Ottawadissenters] Fw: More dismal stuff
The main trends I see are continuing population growth, continued
urbanization (see Mike Davis's Planet of Slums for example), reduced
employment per unit of output (increasing efficiency in production), a
continuing shift of production to the low wage world, and the increasing
importance of the financial sector as opposed to the goods producing
sector in the advanced world. All of this means an exacerbation of the
unemployment problem we have now. I don't think that the world we're
moving into will be a pretty place.
A little over a decade ago I spent a month in a vast slum of Sao Paulo,
then a city of 20 million people. Many, perhaps most, of the families of
that slum were migrants from the countryside who had lost jobs on
plantations because machinery had replaced them. They were stuck; there
was no way that they could go back to the land and grow their own
food. The people I worked with lived in a third stage favela
(slum). Accommodation consisted of very crowded but solid brick-block
buildings. People in second stage favelas lived in shacks cobbled
together out of whatever wood and tin could be found. First stage
favelados slept in cardboard boxes under overpasses.
People did whatever they could to stay alive. Quite a few worked in
hotels downtown, others ran local shops, but many sold drugs and turned to
petty or even major crime. Standoffs and shootings between the police and
drug dealers or criminals were commonplace.
I'm not suggesting that our situation will be like that of Sao Paulo, but
given the kinds of changes now apparent, we will go some distance in that
direction. Our kids won't have the kinds of opportunities we had, and it
will likely be worse for our grandkids. We increasingly hear the word
"deflation", which suggests a prolonged slump and falling prices because
people cannot or will not spend as they did before. Paul Krugman argues
that if people are not spending, the government must, but governments
already have high debts and their powers to tax are diminishing.
Sorry that this posting is a downer, but I'm not an optimist so I might as
well say it how I see it.
Ed
----
At 11:46 14/07/2010 -0400, you wrote:
Good morning, Ed,
I don't have a lot of time unfortunately for posting today, but I do want
to suggest that maybe you are being overly pessimistic. I see a quite
bright future, one in which intellectual contribution, aesthetic
contribution, innovation, enterprise, experimentation, structural
flexibility and adhocracy are the dominant characteristics.
Yes, as it now positioned, much of our population won't be able to make
its way to this. Too many people today are stodgy, unattracted to
eduction, stasis-oriented, entertainment-seeking, and physically unfit.
They would have a very hard time making it in a world of change, action,
and initiative. But here is the point that I think a lot of the postings
here may not appreciate: that these changes will happen over time and that
people -- and populations -- will adjust to the new problems and
opportunities. They won't of course change in perfect sync with the
changing world: all of us tend to be lazy and somewhat reactive, at best
(and there are good reasons for this). So there is a lag, and it is in
that lag that people experience uncertainty and some experience fear and
failure. But by and large, populations adapt to new realities. And, in
my view, those realities will be very friendly to those who embrace
change, action, and initiative.
Of course, these new realities won't happen all at once; indeed, as the
eloquent comments on this list reflect, they started some time ago, and
they will take decades and centuries to become fully evident.
And this brings me to the societal function of death. In the end, a
significant part of the process of change depends on the death of older
people. They take with them old habits, old demands, and old attitudes to
the grave. They clear out space for younger people, younger ideas, and
expectations. Death creates space for innovators, experimentation, and
change. It is also true that death deprives us of a certain amount of
often hard-won wisdom, and, I suppose, we will be ever rediscovering
wisdom that was lost as older people die. To the extent that wisdom is
contextual, this is not bad, but not all wisdom is contextual....
So, for me, the future does not look at all bleak: it looks exciting,
inviting, freeing, and demanding. Those who don't 'get it' will not see
it this way, and I understand that.
What I hope we don't do is drown ourselves in a swamp of despair, and I
see some of the posts here doing that, or contributing to that. Not only
does this tend to leave people at their worst -- is despair and inaction
-- but it also saps the energy of youngsters when it comes to their
addressing their own futures. It is the opposite of pollyanish thinking,
and both are equally destructive.
Unfortunately, a lot of well-meaning activists have fallen into the trap
of thinking that if they scare people enough, people will change. These
activists thwart with this view the very goals they hold, and in the
thwarting they themselves sink into despair and anger, and so become
themselves useless to the processes of healthy change in society.
I hope these notes are of interest.
Cheers,
Lawry
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
