What is the future of humanity?

Oct 2011
3,738
the middle ground
We history nerds, who sense the difficulties of knowing the past, should be the last asked about the future. :D

I give homo sapiens about a 10% chance of learning to play nice on the internet. If that can happen anything is possible. (LOL)
 
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
We history nerds, who sense the difficulties of knowing the past, should be the last asked about the future. :D

I give homo sapiens about a 10% chance of learning to play nice on the internet. If that can happen anything is possible. (LOL)

If Facebook and Twitter are anything to go by, I think you're being overly optimistic.

Me? Cynic, sceptic and misanthrope, why do you ask?
 
Likes: Tuthmosis III

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,336
Florania
Food may be sufficient; then, unlike non-sapient species, humans have needs and wants beyond survival.
Clothing for modesty, transportation, reasonably roomy and clean shelters, glasses for people with imperfect natural eyesight, are all considered "bare necessities".
All countries have their development aspirations:
Least developed countries want the next level: countries that are neither LDCs nor NICs (Newly industrialized countries).
The current list are:
The former USSR with the exception of Estonia (a developed country) and Tajikistan, most of South America except French Guiana and Brazil (Brazil is a NIC), most of Eastern Europe except Greece, Slovenia, Slovakia, and Czech Republic, Iran, Pakistan, Myanmar, Cambodia, Vietnam, Papua New Guinea, Central America except for Haiti, Sri Lanka, North Africa, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Nigeria, Cameroon, Kenya, Gabon, Congo-Brazzaville, Namibia, Botswana, and Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe still enjoys the legacies of being relatively developed for a time), Swaziland.
These countries may aspire to be newly industrialized countries, and they often find it difficult to industrialize.
The last category is "advanced economy".
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Imf-advanced-un-least-developed-2008.svg
Note the blue countries.
Most advanced economies also feature substantially higher resources per capital.
Let's say, if an average Chinese citizen desire the standard of living of an average Canadian citizen, it can mean increasing the 3.7 Global Hectare per capital to 8.1, and this is NOT going to be sustainable, since the Chinese population is about 40 times of Canada.
Even at the current GHA, China is still problematic, and we have Chinese people worrying about aging and shrinking population already.
Imagine a human population at 5 billion.
 
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
Did you mean 50 billion? Or do you actually mean a stable 5 billion to maintain the highest average national living standards?

Perhaps he meant a population of 5 billion in China alone? That's a 400% increase, which will probably happen within 150 years, or less. In 1950, the world population was 3 billion


The argument of eventually running out of resources is sound, assuming earth's human population continues to grow exponentially and there is no world war or pandemic.. My opinion is there will probably be a world war, over resources such as oil.

Simple; population grows exponentially, resources do not. Eventually, we will run out of resources. We can postpone the inevitable but not not avoid it unless we reduce the rate of population growth, reduce total population, and make all resources we use renewable.

We planet is fine. It's not going anywhere. We are.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,345
Sydney
without fossil fuel , the sustainable human population number would be around a Billion
the standard of living about equivalent to the 18th century
 
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
without fossil fuel , the sustainable human population number would be around a Billion
the standard of living about equivalent to the 18th century
That sounds about right, even possibly a bit high. I was thinking more in terms of a total world population about that of the time of the Roman empire.

Do you think population decline will be over a relatively short period, or drag on for a few hundred years?
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,345
Sydney
The number take into account the opening of the Americas and Australia to agriculture and the usage of crop rotation

eventually , this approximate number could be sustained ,
it's not certain if the usual deforestation could be managed , human are very good at desertifying any place

there is three possible scenarios ,
the cliff ...... a sharp downward drop over a few decades
the glide .... a constant decrease , typically managed by some authoritarian rule
the stairs.... a serie of sharp fall followed by short periods of stabilisation
 
Likes: bboomer

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,336
Florania
Perhaps he meant a population of 5 billion in China alone? That's a 400% increase, which will probably happen within 150 years, or less. In 1950, the world population was 3 billion


The argument of eventually running out of resources is sound, assuming earth's human population continues to grow exponentially and there is no world war or pandemic.. My opinion is there will probably be a world war, over resources such as oil.

Simple; population grows exponentially, resources do not. Eventually, we will run out of resources. We can postpone the inevitable but not not avoid it unless we reduce the rate of population growth, reduce total population, and make all resources we use renewable.

We planet is fine. It's not going anywhere. We are.
No, I mean 5 billion total human population. Since we are a petty unimportant species, we shouldn’t look for any saviours; we can only save ourselves.
50 billion is more than the total human population in Legend of Galactic Heroes at the end of the novel.
 
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
No, I mean 5 billion total human population. Since we are a petty unimportant species, we shouldn’t look for any saviours; we can only save ourselves.
50 billion is more than the total human population in Legend of Galactic Heroes at the end of the novel.
Oh,OK . Have not read that novel. Pretty much stopped reading fiction quite a few years ago.

Not sure 50 billion is at all sustainable. I suspect we would run out of resources long before that population was reached.

True enough that humans are unimportant, but I think only in the sense that we're no more important than any other species. But, my species is of paramount importance to me, and I am exceedingly important to myself
 
Likes: VHS

Similar History Discussions