End of Our Time

Johnestauffer

Most of the world aspires to have the same standard of living as exists in the US and most of Europe - with all of the devices and technology we enjoy today.
Will we reach a point at which the globe cannot support 100% of the population living like many of us do?
Will the less fortunate countries eventually unite and try to achieve wealth through force of arms against others?
Will the lifestyle of the US & Europe continue at its current level or will it decline as others countries improve?
 

Leo Caesius

Banned
You're forgetting that this standard of living is not universal even within the US and Europe. There's a huge (and growing) gap between the elite and the middle class, which is itself shrinking, not to speak of the working class. More and more people are born into or fall into poverty. There are people in the US and in Europe who lead lives not recognizably different from the average citizen of what we'd consider a Third World nation. On the other hand, there are many individual CEOs that command a salary larger than the GDP of many countries.

I personally don't feel that this will ever change. In a global economy, all things being equal, I do feel that a thin veneer of prosperity will spread across the world, but there will always be a huge division between the two separate ends of the spectrum. Ultimately a country's prosperity should be judged by the size of the division. If Bill Gates were to move to Ethiopia, Ethiopia would not become one of the most prosperous countries on the face of the planet, merely by virtue of the fact that it claims as a citizen one of the most wealthy.

The problem is that in most of the world the population will grow beyond its ability to feed itself. The banner example of this, IMHO, is Egypt, a country that has a shadow of an economy dominated by its tourist industry. Much of the country is completely unlivable, and the parts that are inhabited are filled with humanity. I don't want to think about what kind of a future such a country has; it will likely continue to be heavily dependent upon foreign aid unless something drastic happens.

Another problem is the fact that, as countries move to become self-sufficient (often with the help of countries in the WENSA world), they discover that there's nothing they can do that we can't do cheaper and in greater quantity. The banner example of this is African farms. Even if African countries could feed themselves, it would still be cheaper for them to buy American produce. Thus there's really no incentive to become self-sufficient.

So, in short, there will never be a point where the globe can support 100% of the population "as we do," because the US and Europe do not support 100% of its citizens at the median standard of living. At best, as cities become linked into the global economic network, the inhabitants of those cities will attain something like life in the WENSA nations (or a reasonable facsimile thereof), but life outside of the cities will probably continue as it always has. As anyone who as visited individual cities outside of the WENSA nations can attest, this is frequently the case. Any attempt to extend a universal standard of living outside of them is unfeasible and would inevitably result in holding the dynamic centers of the economy (ie. the cities) behind.
 

stodge

Prosperity ?

I'm not sure I agree with Leo's argument though I understand where he's coming from. I'm not sure if this is as much Future History as AH but I'll have a go.

The paradox we now face is that while the "developing" world, and especially China, forges ahead economically in an attempt to achieve the economic prosperity of the "developed" world, those developed countries are coming to the realisation that the processes of industrialisation and consumption which led to their achievement of economic prosperity have had serious consequences on an environmental level.

We are concerned about global environmental damage now - what about when 400 million Chinese all have cars and cities like Beijing are in a permanent state of gridlock ? What about air travel - we know the terrible damage air travel is doing to our atmosphere yet air travel is increasing - use of air to convey freight is increasing and what happens when 400 million Chinese all want to go abroad on holiday ?

With oil already at $55 a barrel, how will economies fare if demand continues to rise and supply remains static or falls ? How will economies manage if and when oil is $100 a barrel, or $150 a barrel ?

There is plenty of evidence that behaviours can change very quickly if need be. My guess is it will take a series of major environmental disasters to provoke a change in human behaviour but it will happen. By 2050, I think a new breed of environmentally-aware politics will emerge. Not Green, as we now understand it, but different. A resurgence in nuclear power generation along with greater taxation on energy consumption making foreign travel much more expensive.

There may be a reduction in human populations in some areas but overall I'm optimistic. Given what we accomplished in the period 1900-99, I'm convinced that solutions to issues such as Global climate change can be devised before 2100 - perhaps a method for managing the atmosphere itself ;)
 

eschaton

Anyone read Jared Diamond's new book yet? He touches upon this in the latter half of it. Essentially, the crunch is even though world population growth is slowing down, world consumption of resources is growing at a faster and faster rate. I recall reading in another book that if China used resources like the U.S., they would need the resources of four earths to survive.

Anyway, I think it's inevitable that standards of living in the U.S. will decline, though a great deal of headway could come simply if we were not so wasteful. Europe uses less water and power than us, and still has a fine standard of living. That said, the world cannot survive even on the European standard of living.

The real hell is not going to be the economic inequality, but the end of capitalism. Whatever you think of its merits, capitalism requires a constantly growing economy, and at a certain point in the next century, it will be impossible to grow the economy any further, barring space opening up new resources.

After we reach the 'full earth' crisis, I think there is only one of two possibilites for economic structure. Either the world will become feudal again, with the wealthy stagnant but controlling nearly all, and hoarding the wealth they have and occasionally squabbling among themselves, or the world will have some varient of socialism. It's impossible for me to imagine how to deal with a lack of resouces and a fragile ecology without at least some aspects of a centrally planned economy placing limits upon what businesses and individuals can and cannot do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top