Population 7 billion. Changes ahead.

by Lion Cask 91 Replies latest social current

• 

  BurnTheShips

  Yes, BTS, but is it sustainable? Under current conditions I would say not.

  Sure. But with better technology, we can do more with less, or we can access things we could not before. Necessity is the mother of invention.

  There is also the question of who will be in charge. China and India are emerging as the two new world economic superpowers.

  It doesn't matter, in fact, it accelerates the process.

  China and India are emerging as the two new world economic superpowers.

  See above.

  But who will be the world's militarysuperpower 50 years from now?

  There will be none. There will likely be regional powers, and they will be forced to cooperate. Economic prosperity in a globalized economy demands trade, and war disrupts trade. We can all either trade, ignore each other, or fight wars. Only the first option benefits all involved. Advanced, rational nations can't fight wars like the old ones any longer.

  The great worry is the backwards medieval cultures accessing advanced technology and causing disruption.

  BTS
• 

  james_woods

  Well, the Email did not go through, BTS - I will have to see what is wrong next week.

  We are under some pretty tight firewalls here at IBM.

  Or, maybe I just didn't spell the address right.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Just PM me yours.

  BTS
• 

  Mad Sweeney

  The great worry is the backwards medieval cultures accessing advanced technology and causing disruption.

  Exactly. The sooner we can grow up and not need religions anymore the better off all mankind will be.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Religion isn't the problem, it is fanatical intolerant extremism that is the problem.

  BTS
• 

  sabastious

  I have said it before- the population increases of the world must be curtailed soon.

  You can't curtail population very effeciently. I'd say we need to make better technology before we worry about stabolizing the WORLD population. Too many cultures to deal with, too many soveign governments. We need better technolgoy across the board: energy, transportation, less waste etc etc.

  -Sab
• 

  Curtains

  lion cask

  7,000,000,000,000 I think that's three too many zero's. The above figure would be 7 trillion Quite right, I've used too many zeros. It should be 7,000,000,000. Seven milliard British scale. My bad for not proof reading my OP before hitting the submit button.

  my humble apologies to you Listener, I was so certain Lion cask would not make such a simple error
• 

  freydo

  All it would take would be a few nukes detonated at around 100,000 feet or one giant solar flare to fry the electrical grids world-wide and there would be instantaneous mass starvation. There might be some empty seats at the Super Bowl.
• 

  Lion Cask

  I was so certain Lion cask would not make such a simple error

  To err is human, and so is typing too fastttt.

  All it would take would be a few nukes detonated at around 100,000 feet or one giant solar flare to fry the electrical grids world-wide and there would be instantaneous mass starvation. There might be some empty seats at the Super Bowl.

  Well now, that's a little less optimistic.
• 

  Lion Cask

  Economic prosperity in a globalized economy demands trade, and war disrupts trade. We can all either trade, ignore each other, or fight wars. Only the first option benefits all involved. Advanced, rational nations can't fight wars like the old ones any longer.

  Neat graphic. But no more war on a large scale requires cooperative rationalisation and sharing of limited resources and the question is how will that happen? The quick answer is, in the absence of revolutionary developments in alternative energy and raw material utilisation, it won't. Demand for resources will not abate, it will increase exponentially in all sectors. The burgeoning economies of India and China absolutely depend upon traditional resource exploitation and acquisition outside its borders. For the time being, China will continue to use its economic clout to get what it wants. This is a fact of commerce. When manufacturing heats up, China wades in and grabs hold of resources like metals, oil and fibre and it does so by outbidding everyone else in the world. For example, China can absolutely afford to drive the price of copper through the roof (as it has on a number of occasions) because all its other input costs are low. Those other input costs cannot stay low forever and when that happens the dynamic will have to change. Will it be a different economic dynamic? Perhaps not. Nations, in particular superpowers, are not known for their willingness to tighten their belts and reign in their consumption of resources when they can simply take what they want from other nations. Superpowers have always waged war over resources and it is still happening in the modern world, notwithstanding shallow justifications like "war on terror and elimination of WMD". China may not be keen to take on the West to get what it wants, but the world is a big place.