World Conditions in 50 Years

[Michael]

What will the world be like in 50 years time?

How do you see what the world will be like then?

[j000han]

What will the world be like in 50 years time?

How do you see what the world will be like then?

much as i would like to respond to that,
i just can't see the future projected that far.
sure in the overal sceme of things (the big view so to speak),
50 years is not a long time yet at this point i have no sufficient overview on the situation as it is (reality) to make sensible a extrapolation.
so...
i would like to ask you what do see as a realistic scenario one year from now?
The best case scenario is??

the worst case scenario is??

[Thomas Knierim]

OK, here is what I think.

More of the same for the next 50 years. More people, more pollution, more environmental problems. The planet will become even more overcrowded and living conditions will become rather unhealthy in some places. The industrial output of China, India and other Asian nations will grow and greatly contribute to the world's environmental problems.

Europe's original population will continue to shrink, but immigration from other parts of the world will increase. As a consequence, Europe will host a multicultural and multiracial society. Islam may become the predominant religion in Europe. North America will be able to maintain its military hegemony, but not it's economic predominance due to the rise of China and India.

The occurrence rate of natural disasters will continue to rise, particularly storms and floods. Many coastal areas and cities will face crisis situations. Drinking water will become scarce in many places. Due to migration and increased global trade, diseases will spread faster around the world. Oil supply will last, but it will become unsustainable at some point. The gap between rich and poor will widen.

While all of this spells doom, I think that a great paradigm shift will take place, a shift in awareness so to speak. I don't know when this happens (if at all in the 21st century), but if things become dramatic enough I am sure that it will happen. People must eventually abandon the industrial/consumer society, because it is unsustainable. That means, corporations will eventually lose the grip the have on the planet. Political control will undergo major restructuring.

Cheers, Thomas

[MelissaTaylor]

Take a look at this if you haven't aready:

thevenusproject.com


I personally think that this is one of the greatest ideas anyone's had in a long time.
It could be what we need to solve most of the world's problems: poverty, economic depression, corruption, climate change...

But realistically, how well would it work?
How open minded would people be to the idea?

Tell me what you think.

[Thomas Knierim]

I hope you don't mind that I merged this thread with the venus project thread, since they deal with the same topic.

I wasn't aware of Jacque Fresco's work or the venus project and I am quite impressed with his futuristic architecture. Somehow it reminds me of early James Bond movies. However, the first things that came to my mind was: do these "pods" have air conditioning and central heating? Are glass roofs a good idea in a tropical environment? What about insulation, integrated solar panels, unit-level recycling systems and all the gamut of sustainable architecture we already have today. Furthermore, most buildings are designed as sculptures which stand out from the landscape, rather than being integrated in it. OK, maybe that's just a different aesthetic point-of-view, but you see what I am getting at. The architecture strikes me as a hypercharged version of 20th century structures, rather than ecologically sustainable architecture.

Well, maybe that's just a minor point. The thing that I have real problems with is: a) the role of science and technology, and b) the resource-based economy. Somehow, the underlying assumption of Fresco's utopia appears to be that money is the root of all evil. If money could be eliminated from the equation, then science and technology would be used to build a better society. I doubt both of these assumptions.

First, I don't believe that science and technology alone can provide the foundation for a harmonious and peaceful coexistence of mankind with itself and with nature. Some degree of spiritual awakening appears to be necessary for that. Without a global change in consciousness, a global change in society is not possible. Science and technology can be used for both good or bad ends. They alone cannot steer society in a better direction. I think we have seen that in the 20th century.

Second, I find Fresco's version of a resource-based economy rather vague. Fresco needs to explain how trade and industry (which are obviously part of his utopian vision) are supposed to function without money and without free enterprise. In particular he needs to explain what drives the production and exchange of goods and services in a resource-based economy. Finally, he needs to explain why this economic model is superior to the ideas that have been tried, such as communism and planned economies.

The venus project raises many question marks in my mind.

Cheers, Thomas

[MelissaTaylor]

I hope you don't mind that I merged this thread with the venus project thread, since they deal with the same topic.

Nah, I don't mind. :]


First, I don't believe that science and technology alone can provide the foundation for a harmonious and peaceful coexistence of mankind with itself and with nature. Some degree of spiritual awakening appears to be necessary for that. Without a global change in consciousness, a global change in society is not possible. Science and technology can be used for both good or bad ends. They alone cannot steer society in a better direction. I think we have seen that in the 20th century.

If you watch the second zeitgeist movie, "Zeitgeist: Addendum" which explains the idea of the Venus Project, you'll see that they emphasize the fact that the first change we must make is within ourselves, the "revolution of the mind" if you will.


Second, I find Fresco's version of a resource-based economy rather vague. Fresco needs to explain how trade and industry (which are obviously part of his utopian vision) are supposed to function without money and without free enterprise. In particular he needs to explain what drives the production and exchange of goods and services in a resource-based economy.

Yeah, I agree that there are a lot of holes in his plan that need to be filled.
That's one thing that bothers me, is that he hasn't explained exactly how it's all going to play out.
I must add that Fresco doesn't intend for this to be a "utopian" society. He said in "Zeitgeist: Addendum" something along the lines of: "This society isn't going to be a perfect society, it's just a lot better than what we have now. We will never reach perfection." Well, it sounded better when he actually said it...


Finally, he needs to explain why this economic model is superior to the ideas that have been tried, such as communism and planned economies.

Many people compare Fresco's plan to communism and such, and they fail to realize that the difference between Fresco's plan and communism is that Fresco's plan lacks a governing power, which in communism the governing power is often suppressive towards the people.

Economically, I believe that the difference between a resource-based economy and communism is that in a resource-based economy, people are allowed to take what they need and want as they please, and in communism, the people are given a certain amount of resources by the government.


If you haven't watched the zeitgeist movies, you should:
zeitgeistmovie.com
They're very interesting. :]
The second movie particularly talks about this topic.

[Pyotr Izutsu]

I think Thomas' vision of the world 50 years hence is pretty plausible. However, I would add two things:

1.) Peak Oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil) is going to make things even more turbulent, economically and politically. It will also, to some extent, reverse the trend of globalization as the price of energy skyrockets. Imported food and far off vacations will become too expensive for most people. Instead, we will see an increasing focus on local production networks.

2.) While we are certainly headed toward a shift in the prevailing order, a "bifurcation point" to use the language of world systems theory, I would like to point out that this shift in consciousness need not be positive or progressive. History suggests that chaotic situations are often the breeding grounds for tyranny. This means it's just as likely that the current system is replaced by one that is even more authoritarian as it is that it will be replaced by a more egalitarian model.

There's a lot of fear, frustration, anger, and uncertainty about the future. And people in these conditions often turn to radical ideologies. Recent events in the US are good example of this; I'm referring to the recent shooting at an abortion clinic and the attack at the Holocaust Memorial, both perpetrated by members of far-right fringe groups.

The corollary of #2 is that it's our responsibility to try and make sure that this shift is progressive, democratic, and harmonious.

[Pyotr Izutsu]

About the Venus Project: I think that there are some fine sentiments and interesting ideas expressed on their website, but there's also a startling lack of detail about how a "resource economy" would function. I find it strange that a former engineer could draw up such a vague proposal!

This entire hypothetical society seems to be based on the platitude that "money is the root of all evil", and the assumption seems to be that if we could just get rid of money our problems would solve themselves. This doesn't strike me as a very well-though out idea. The Zeitgeist movies are a load of bunk, by the way, and their association with this project makes me even less inclined to support it.

I do agree that the modern economic system needs serious reform, as well as economics as a discipline. Mainstream, neo-classical economics as suffers from what Alfred North Whitehead called the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness", which is basically mistaking abstraction for reality, or in the words of Korzybski, mistaking the map for the territory. Just because a model is mathematically consistent doesn't mean it describes anything in the real world, and increasingly the "maps" of neoclassical economists don't match the "territory".

This is especially apparent when it comes to dealing with environmental problems, since the neoclassical paradigm insists on seeing the market as an isolated, closed system, rather than as an open system embedded in the biosphere. As a result, most mainstream economists simply write off environmental factors as "externalities" that can be easily accounted for by automatic price adjustment mechanisms. There is simply nothing in this worldview that can account for the possibility that we are rapidly running up against biophysical limitations. And the idea that limitless growth is possible or desirable runs counter to the basic laws of thermodynamics.

However, there is an awareness of the problem. In contrast to the more vague utopianism of the Venus Project, I would suggest checking out the work of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, E.F. Schumacher, Herman Daly and Robert Nadeau. Their work addresses many of the same issues the Venus Project does, but they do so in a more rigorous and practical fashion.

[kris]

I cannot say how the world is going to look tomorrow let alone how it will look 50 years from now. However predicting future 50 years from now is lot safer than predicting tomorrow's state since if I am wrong you will all have forgotten what I am about to say.

I am a short term pessimist and a long term optimist. In other words, I think things will eventually get better but they will probably get lot worse before they get better. Long term optimism is rooted in faith and short term pessimism is based on extrapolation of current events.

That said, I think the biggest source of problems in the world will be the quality and quantity of population growth. Come to think of it, quality and quantity of population is also the reasons why the world is in so much turmoil today.

A corollary to the population growth is the issue of resources. Oil is not the only resource that will peak. So will many other; most dire will be the resource called potable water. This will lead to wars for scarce resources.

Worsening of environment will start to reverse the gains in the quality of life that have come from industrialization.

And if we have a big nuclear conflagration, which is not unlikely, all bets are off. It is not looking pretty at all. Besides, what about 2012? :D

What can save the world? I don't think people will change (for better) on mass scale. 50 years from now, enlightened few will still be carrying on their struggle with the deluded masses.

[Michael]

What can save the world? We. We can mitigate what will happen by extending ourselves or rather recognising ourselves. The paradigm is already changing within each of us. The challenge is to recognise what it is saying to each of us. For each of us have a path to take. It will not be easy. Very few of the understandings we now hold will be able to sustain us. The greatest challenge is not to submit to dispair in the face of what is coming but, once again, to recognise the possibility of being ourselves.

[sonrisa]

Thomas-- North America will be able to maintain its military hegemony....


-- I disagree Thomas. We are bankrupt, or damn near to it. The Chinese are not gonna bankroll us indefinitely, infact they are dumping t-bills & talking about replacing the dollar as the international currency even as I write this post. This will be an economic disaster, even more so than the Depression (let's call it what it is) that we are currently experiencing. The Govt will have to stop the military spending in order to deal with domestic issues. Either that or deal with widespread civil unrest, possibly even secession. Hopefully it won't come to either of that, but people are not gonna put up with this bloated wasteful military spending forever....