Looking at the Future of Life on Earth
A friend sent me this wonderful piece in which Popular Mechanics lists its top predictions on what life on this planet will be like in the year 2050 and beyond. I hope you’ll check it out; it’s really worthwhile, and it’s presented in a very readable format.
Most of this stuff is bound to happen if we can keep our civilization from derailment from one cause or another. But therein lies the rub: nothing in these predictions is even remotely dystopian, and how likely does it appear that our society can remain on an even keel, given what we’re experiencing in the world today?
For example, it’s almost assured that climate change alone is going to have radical effects on the way we live our lives. If we don’t change course in a radical fashion–and damn soon–we suffer loss of land mass, desertification, food and water shortages, massive storms, ocean acidification, loss of biodiversity, torrents of climate refugees, and more frequent and intense wars to protect the increasingly precious remaining resources.
This ignores trends in the direction of fascism, via the progressive dumbing down of the population and cutting off access to information, nuclear war, the rise of terrorist states, and so many others.
Here’s something most people haven’t considered, but it appears extremely likely: artificial intelligence that exceeds humankind’s ability to control it. Here’s a Ted Talk from philosopher/scientist Sam Harris; again, it’s an extremely worthwhile way to spend 15 minutes of your life.
I’d love to think that my grandchildren’s lives will be dominated by healthcare technologies that seem miraculous from our standpoint today, but I have trouble convincing myself of that.
At the close of the second of two hells known as WWI and WWII, few expected the era of widespread prosperity and social progress that we struggled for in the 1950’s and 1960’s. As a result of the Powell memo and other aligned efforts, the money power of the country has reasserted itself, and an era of corruption rivaling the Guilded Age has descended upon us. We cannot know the future, but when enough people get sick enough of the status quo, and a better future appears possible, people tend to stand and fight for it.
Regarding AI and other potentially wayward technologies, I’m reminded of what Henry Adams wrote to his brother, “I firmly believe, that before many centuries more, science will be the master of man. The engines he will have invented will be beyond his strength to control. Someday, science shall have the existence of mankind in its power, and the human race commit suicide by blowing up the world.”
Let us hope that we soon demonstrate the strength to control our engines, to understand our impacts on the natural world that sustains us, and to act firmly an decisively to mitigate them.
Craig,
Interesting conclusion just released from a US study into land required for energy production .
“Coal, natural gas, and nuclear power all feature the smallest, and nearly identical physical footprint, of about 12 acres
per megawatt produced. Solar and wind are much more land intensive technologies using 43.5 and 70.6 acres per
megawatt, respectively. Hydroelectricity generated by large dams has a significantly larger footprint than any other
generation technology using 315.2 acres per megawatt. ”
By for the least land impact is Under ground coal mining which uses less than 0.5 an acre.
This kind of statistic is what motivates Clean coal/sequestration research.
You may want to look up “footprint.” It has essentially nothing to do with acreage.
It’s funny; the pro-nuke/anti-renewable energy group talks incessantly about land use and power density. It’s not that they don’t have a point, rather that it’s one of about 20 criteria that come into play.