[atheistwithfaith]

I think as more people enjoy higher standards of living afforded by greater relative incomes and affordability of material goods, they will become less willing to sacrifice those standards of living by having many children. So therefore birthrates will fall across the world and we will see a massive increase in the elderly population.

Plus as someone else pointed out, as more and more people gain relative wealth they will shift from being producers to consumers, and as more people consume goods the countries with an industrial/manufacturing base will become richer while those without will fall into recessions and economic stagnation.

[Nick100]

(Original post by OSharp)
Got to say as sad as it is I would probably go for the Nuclear Winter angle. unless they can solve

1> Shortage of space
2> Shortage of food
3> Shortage of Fuel
4> Global warming

In the next 50-100 years

1. This just isn't a problem; the Earth's population is only expected to increase by 57% at the most and will not reach the same population density as Europe or Asia has now.

2. This problem can be averted easily with genetic modification of crops, expanded agriculture, and, later on, by artificially grown meat. World hunger is a political problem; not a scientific or even an economic one.

3. Nuclear fusion will soon be available. In the mean time, we can use nuclear fission, fossil fuels and renewable energy, although with increased emphasis on renewable and nuclear energy. The best type of renewable energy will be space based solar although we are still decades away from that.

4. This problem could have been solved decades ago if the green lobby hadn't opposed the construction of nuclear plants. It can still be solved by replacing fossil fuels with nuclear and renewable, but to reverse the damage will require geo-engineering (which should become available by the end of this century). In any case, the damage done won't threaten the survival of humanity.

[harmony_01]

(Original post by OSharp)
Got to say as sad as it is I would probably go for the Nuclear Winter angle. unless they can solve

1> Shortage of space
2> Shortage of food
3> Shortage of Fuel
4> Global warming

In the next 50-100 years

Really? I was told that we do have enough food to feed several Earths but it was just a matter of unequal distribution. Wonder who is doing that...?

[Arekkusu]

Not all countries can develop because of the nature of the capitalist system. Colonialism and globalisation have hindered less developed countries and artificially preserved the power of Europe.

However after we've pressed the reset button by way of nuclear war or economic disaster, they may be free from their shackles at our expense. Still, with limited resources, not to mention relativism of standards of living, we cannot ever have every country in the world developed.

In this century we will probably see more autocracies, probably running controlled economies on the model of China and India before releasing them into the wild.

[Bonged.]

(Original post by harmony_01)
Really? I was told that we do have enough food to feed several Earths but it was just a matter of unequal distribution. Wonder who is doing that...?

the zionists!

[Arianto]

(Original post by SEHughes)
You obviously can have lots of rich people (in absolute terms) as any developed country demonstrates. I assume this "law of relativity" you're referring to/made up is the idea of relative wealth. Of course some people are richer than others, but that's a different argument.

Why does it need to be half urban, half rural? Why a hybrid capitalist/communist system?

Yeah, I'm not saying you can't have lots of rich people, just that all that money has to come from somewhere, and if anything else if everyone's got lots of money it just means inflation comes in and ruins everyone's party. (All this probably doesn't apply to tiny states like monaco/san marino, I wouldn't know for sure never been there)

Perhaps not half/half, just a figure of speech, but I'm just suggesting that perhaps to maintain a balanced world we can't have too many in the cities (and you'd still need workers for the primary sector e.g. farming/livestock/mining?) In fact we're probably better off with the majority of people in the countryside, but industrialisation requires immigration to the cities I suppose.

There are various examples as to why modern free-trade capitalism is harming not only the environment but also widening the gap between the small band of elite rich and the billions in poverty - I recommend you take a look at The Big Earth Book, it might be super-bias but it highlights a lot of issues.

As for communism, errrrmm frankly it's not individualistic enough for me perhaps capitalist/socialist hybrid would be a better term.

All this in my humble opinion of course, I'd be happy to be argued wrong on anything...

[stanlas]

(Original post by Arekkusu)
Not all countries can develop because of the nature of the capitalist system.

Actually, capitalism can lead to universal development. Consider the last two centuries. While some nations are still significantly poorer than others, virtually every single nation is more developed than it was two hundred years ago. There is no reason as to why the nature of capitalism should hinder development in some countries

(Original post by Arekkusu)
Globalisation has hindered less developed countries and artificially preserved the power of Europe.

Globalisation has helped developing countries as well as developed ones (look no further than China). Also the relative power of Europe has declined over the last few decades (during the advance of globalisation=

(Original post by Arekkusu)
In this century we will probably see more autocracies
.

I disagree with you here. Democracy gives people rights and protection from oppression, which is why many people in current autocracies are fighting and even dying for the sake of democracy. It is unlikely that there will be a net rise in autocracies this century. People will also begin to realise that the 'efficiency' argument for autocracies (i.e. they can respond to events more rapidly than a 'weak' democracy) is invalid, as autocracies usually suffer from high levels of corruption and inefficiency.

[Nick100]

(Original post by Arekkusu)
Not all countries can develop because of the nature of the capitalist system. Colonialism and globalisation have hindered less developed countries and artificially preserved the power of Europe.

That isn't the case at all. For a start, most countries are not free markets; they have corrupt governments preventing development. Secondly, globalisation gives individuals in underdeveloped countries the chance to trade for capital, and thus accelerates the development of those countries by increasing their production.

However after we've pressed the reset button by way of nuclear war or economic disaster, they may be free from their shackles at our expense. Still, with limited resources, not to mention relativism of standards of living, we cannot ever have every country in the world developed.

We have enough resources for every country to become developed. For a start, we've only exploited a fraction of the Earth's surface for resources; the Ocean floor is largely unexplored and large parts of Australia, Central Asia, Canada, Africa and the entirety of Antarctica have not been mined. We also haven't looked to space yet; a single, relatively small asteroid can provide trillions of dollars worth of metals. Our technology will allow us to feed anyone provided that the green nutcases don't try to force us to use organic food. Nuclear fusion, fission and renewable energy will power the world. It should be possible by the end of this century for all 11 billion of us to live "first world" lifestyles.

In this century we will probably see more autocracies, probably running controlled economies on the model of China and India before releasing them into the wild.

Those countries have both shifted away from control; the Chinese government once had as much control over its economy as the North Korean government does today. India was also more controlled in the past.

[atheistwithfaith]

(Original post by Nick100)
That isn't the case at all. For a start, most countries are not free markets; they have corrupt governments preventing development. Secondly, globalisation gives individuals in underdeveloped countries the chance to trade for capital, and thus accelerates the development of those countries by increasing their production.



We have enough resources for every country to become developed. For a start, we've only exploited a fraction of the Earth's surface for resources; the Ocean floor is largely unexplored and large parts of Australia, Central Asia, Canada, Africa and the entirety of Antarctica have not been mined. We also haven't looked to space yet; a single, relatively small asteroid can provide trillions of dollars worth of metals. Our technology will allow us to feed anyone provided that the green nutcases don't try to force us to use organic food. Nuclear fusion, fission and renewable energy will power the world. It should be possible by the end of this century for all 11 billion of us to live "first world" lifestyles.



Those countries have both shifted away from control; the Chinese government once had as much control over its economy as the North Korean government does today. India was also more controlled in the past.

But the cost to access and use those resources is going to be massive. There isn't even any technology on the drawing board for being able to do that kind of thing (extracting resources from the ocean floor / space) let alone being able to do it in a way that results in affordable resources. If it does happen it would end up being either the USA, Euro-Russian, or Chinese interests that make it happen -- and then you just end up back in the same position of having two/three tiers of countries in the world.

[Nick100]

(Original post by atheistwithfaith)
But the cost to access and use those resources is going to be massive. There isn't even any technology on the drawing board for being able to do that kind of thing (extracting resources from the ocean floor / space) let alone being able to do it in a way that results in affordable resources. If it does happen it would end up being either the USA, Euro-Russian, or Chinese interests that make it happen -- and then you just end up back in the same position of having two/three tiers of countries in the world.

On the contrary; deep sea mining has already started and the technology does exist to capture and mine asteroids using nuclear pulse propulsion - and that technology has existed since the late '50s (although since the nuclear test ban came into force and since no private organisations can gain access to weapons grade nuclear fuel it has never been used).

Even if asteroid/ocean mining did create two tiers of countries both tiers could easily be wealthier than the first world countries of today.

[calumsteele1]

end of the world? over kill much.

not much we'll just have to cow tow to the russians and chinese a bit more..