Essay Abstract

Herein I discuss the present state of humanity. Nations are still struggling for hegemony and supremacy and, their influence on global affairs is determinant for the future of humankind (similar to the situation around World War II). Despite the global economical, social and political instability, we should work together to improving our lives and the lives of the generations to come. Science and techonology have always played a fundamental role in human history and still they have much to say in this respect. First, I identify the major players; then I propose the ideal that should steer humanity: well-being and a united world. To this end I single out our most important problems and concurrently propose some viable solutions. The key factors to succeed are education, work, wisdom, and union. After we humans reach a stable stage, we can relax and enjoy the future.

Author Bio

Israel has a Ph. D. in experimental condensed matter physics, he just finished a Postdoctoral stay at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada and he is now looking for a new position.

Download Essay PDF File

Dr. Perez,

I read your essay with interest. (I also remember your essay from last year.) I agree that "the problem is quite complex". Indeed, I believe that the problem of achieving a long-term-sustainable global civilization is impossible, if we assume a global population of 10 billion or more. I argue in my essay "Just Too Many People: Towards a Sustainable Future Earth" that a primary goal in steering humanity over the next several centuries must be to decrease the population to levels (~1-2B) present in the 19th century. This is not a popular argument (as perhaps indicated by my low Community Rating thus far), but I believe that this issue should be discussed rather than suppressed.

Alan Kadin

    Dealing with the current over population is clearly one issue to be addressed in steering the future. But another one is that are far too many aging cities and associated infrastructure irreversibly using up the limited natural material resources.

    Hi Alan and Denis

    Many thanks for reading my essay. Indeed, overpopulation is a big problem. I believe that by the end of the century the population will no longer grow and must probably will decrease. Right now we are more than 7.2 billion and the planet is capable of sustaining this number. Of course, we are wasting a lot of resources and it is hard to tell for how long the planet will tolerate this number. I agree that less population would be better but reducing the population to 1 or 2 B is a solution that cannot be implemented in the short or mid term. Besides, governments should agree on this and create laws (as in China) to limit the number of children per family. I don't think this is feasible in the short term and we need to seek other viable solutions. The world is so dynamic that making plans for several centuries is not practical.

    I do think we could do so many things to improve our world in the following decades. First we should address some basic problems: First, citizens are not informed and aware of the problem, so they behave naively when using resources. Second, they most of the times do not care even if they are informed. Thirdly, most industries and governments do not worry much about pollution and energy consumption, since they do not design sustainable programs to reduce the energy consumption and natural resources. We need to change a series of negative habits first. I think that our priority should be the well-being of the planet. This should be the ideal to follow. If the planet is ok and we live in harmony with it, we are guaranteeing the well-being of future generations.

    I'll take a look at your essays asap and comment on your threads. I wonder if you have an idea or estimation of how long the planet can sustain human life with 2 or 7 billion.

    Cheers

    Israel

    IP

    The growth of the US and other technology lagging countries such as China now, Japan after WWII, etc. is the lagging countries simply copy the developed technology of the US and Europe. Creating the new technology is extremely expensive. Coping is cheap. The developing countries can be more profitable with fewer resources devoted to advancing technology. Therefore, their growth can be faster until their technology catches the US. Remember Japan in the 50s to 80s had high growth, they were lecturing us about lifetime employment of workers, and they were buying Hawaii and California (they had to do something with their US$). Then the 90s happened. Their technology approached the US. Gone were the lectures as they started laying-off people and they slowed the purchase of the US. Now China is lending the US money - they too must do something with the US$.

    I suppose we will have to go through the Japan experience until the world catches up to us. Technology drives economic and military power.

    I think China has implanted a bad policy to deal with their overpopulation. I think you got it.

    Growth can be much more if we use the density (people per arable area) of China, India, or Japan and apply it to all developing nations. However, you commented on the density of Europe, which will probably be the standard. The usual European war and cold periods (starvation), solved the population problem.for Europe.

    "Would it be possible to achieve a stable state in which all countries could live in relative peace in harmony, with

    no poverty and good quality of life?" Yes, see my entry .

    "If we would like to have a united world and attain these goals we would have to work together for the same ideals." No we wouldn't. We just need to prevent war.

    "That the world will unite and work together in the short term, seems to be, at this moment of history, utopic." Almost all the essays have suggestions with little chance of happening. My last comment "The barons are organizing." suggest the required action is already happening. Look at the conditions that forced the barons to action. They are all present in the US today. Many today are already taking action toward a thing like the Magna Carta that I suggest is a new constitution. The TEA party (they want a smaller Federal Government) is becoming stronger. The secession movement is small but growing. Many are writing books and article s suggesting constitutional amendments (Friedman, M. R. Levin, R. E. Barnet, etc.). The path toward the kind of constitutional change is already happening. I hope the leaders of today are as smart as the leaders in 1787.

    I note the people suffering the most are in politically unstable and low structure sophistication (tribe organization). The first thing to do is to change the political structure.

    Hodge entry .

      • [deleted]

      Dear John

      Thanks for leaving your comments and reading my essay. There are some points you raised that draw my attention.

      JCH: The growth of the US and other technology... ...do something with the US$.

      All other countries after WW2 never surpassed economically the USA. Japan was demilitarized and its political system was replaced. China, on the other hand, is close to surpass the USA (and has no military restrictions) and when this occurs things will look different because the USA will be second in the list. Obama has complained that China is not playing fair but IMHO the USA isn't either. Apparently, China wants to play a major role in world affairs, let's see what happen in the following years.

      JCH: The usual European war and cold periods (starvation), solved the population problem.for Europe.

      I agree that these events have to do with the decline of the fertility rate in Europe, but, these are not the only factors: economy, politics and moral values have changed since then, they are important too.

      JCH: "The barons are organizing." suggest the required action is already happening... ...The path toward the kind of constitutional change is already happening.

      I was not aware of this. I need to do my research to get the deeper feeling of what you say. My guess is that the world will be united when no barriers and competition exist.

      JCH: No we wouldn't

      Why?

      JHC: I note the people suffering the most are in politically unstable and low structure sophistication (tribe organization). The first thing to do is to change the political structure.

      I agree, although it is not a rule.

      Regards

      Israel

      Dear Doctor Perez,

      Your essay was exceptionally well written and it was impeccably organized. I do hope that it does well in the competition.

      Regards,

      Joe Fisher

        Dear Joe

        Thanks for your wishes. I wish you the best too. I haven't read yours but I'll do it asap.

        Regards

        Israel

        The "No we wouldn't." comment.

        I think we do not have enough understanding to be able to determine the one ideal to advance humanity. Therefore, picking an ideal leaves us venerable to forces we don't understand. Also, I think the appropriate ideal must change as technology changes.

        We would have to be in the same world government that controls the only military to prevent war but not competition.

        The organizing is happening in the US and perhaps Europe. The other areas of the world need to first attain the "State" type of organization as defined by Diamond. I note a large part of Africa and the middle east is organized as tribes with one tribe overseeing other tribes as defined by Diamond). For example, this is the reason for the fighting in Syria.

        I agree with the no barriers and competition. No barriers to money or people movement such as the US between the states. But not between Europe states (nations).

        I would like to list your essay as a reference for my essay in a comment. The suggested text is "The following essays may be viewed as added references in the introduction of this essay: ...".

          Dear Author Israel Perez

          You have raised the issue and very specific core.

          10 points for : " Hopefully by then, there will not

          be borders, poverty, or wars"

          Hải.CaoHoàng

            It seems that you think that technology is driving the world, although it is important I do not think it is the only and most important factor. I think political and economical interests have more influence in global affairs. We have seen this in the past.

            Actually, the UN is promoting human rights and above all democracy and freedom. It appears that for the USA these are the ideals the world should follow.

            Regards

            Israel

            Dear Hoang

            Thanks a lot for reading the essay and for the high score. I'm glad you enjoy it. I'll read yours asap.

            Regards

            Israel

            Dear Israel,

            Very well written essay with a lot of data and information. A very easy read, indeed

            A bit of the logic bothers me:

            You rightly say "that the world will unite and work together ... ... Seems to me at this moment of history, utopic" and later you emphasize "this is the most troublesome part". But, then you ignore this stark reality and say "the first step is then to agree what we want for our future."

            So two questions:

            Q1: who all are included in your "we" and "our" ? To some extent groups have already formed with different members in the "we" and "our" for a whole lot of reasons. Will your ideas accommodate multiple groupings?

            Q2: why can humanity not have more than a single ideal. After all, how can anyone going to bed again on an empty stomach, or suffering for the third time in 2014 from water-borne illness care about global warming and its impacts?

            I believe that the diversity of life circumstances and the dramatically differing hopes and expectations of all who comprise humanity throw a wrench in your recommendation.

            To be fair, I invite you to read my essay and tell me what you think of my idea that preserves different ideals and seeks to build on human diversity.

            Thank you

            -Ajay

              Hi Israel,

              I agree with Ajay that it is a well written essay, I enjoyed reading it. He has raised some interesting questions.

              I like that you have clearly set out what you regard the problems to be and addressed them in turn.It makes it easy to follow and seems very organised and well informed. It's a historical, political, economic and sociological account that is rather optimistic, though you will not speculate beyond the end of the century.It would have been interesting to hear your view on the kinds of technologies that might be useful in steering the future. For example, the increasing use of computer technologies might reduce consumer consumption of resources as more and more people live their lives online. You might also have used that science and technology section to introduce some physics.

              Growth rate of population may be dropping but the carrying capacity of the Earth is also dropping from pollution, soil erosion, desertification, drought, flood, building on land that could be used for food production. To feed the population we have relied upon mechanized agriculture and fertilizer use. It is a question whether alternative fuels will be able to replace oil for agriculture and fertilizer production, as it becomes harder to find and extract. That as well as the a fore mentioned problems threaten the high productivity needed to sustain the billions that will need feeding.

              You wrote " Once our basic problems are solved, we will relax and enjoy our lives, just like retirees.Of course, this will not imply that progress will stop, it will mean that we have reached stability and that the world is united." Really? If only it were that easy.

              Good luck, Geoorgina

              5 days later

              Hi guys

              Sorry for not replying before, I have been very busy days but I'm back. I thank you for reading my essay and leaving some comments. As I mentioned in my essay the problem is very complicated and it would require several Ph. D. theses to address all problems.

              Ajay:

              I would like to address your questions.

              Q1:

              When I say "we" or "our", I refer to humans. In modern civilization, we have erected institutions and organizations to steer politics, economy, science and technology, culture, military forces, etc. These kind of organizations are devoted to shape the world. They are the ones that create new tendencies and define our present style of life. So they should be responsible for making sure the well being of the global population. I would suggest the creation of global projects to guarantee food supplies, water and some other basics to all humans. The UNESCO is one of these organizations but it has not been effective in achieving its objectives. So, despite that countries are struggling for hegemony countries need to strengthen these kind of agencies.

              Q2:

              Of course we could have many ideals, but lets say, that I'm encapsulating many ideals in just one: well-being. This ideal has many implications. Well-being means a good quality of life for everybody, it implies many of the basic humans rights such as: the right to live a worth life, the right to have a nice job, right of freedom and happiness, health, food, etc. My vision is that we should have a world in social, political and economical equilibrium and we need to have clear from now on what we want for the future.

              I thank you for the invitation to read your essay and indeed I'll do it asap.

              Cheers

              Israel

              Hi Georgina

              Thanks also for reading and commenting, I appreciate it. I have some comments on the points you raise. Unfortunately, the space in the essay is limited and I indeed wanted to discuss something more.

              I mainly do research in condensed matter (and also in the foundations of physics) and I am aware of some potential technologies, but I'm also aware of their limitations. I could talk about superconductors, silicene, graphene, lithium batteries, solar cells, nuclear energy, etc. But to be honest, not all of them are viable solutions, there are some serious problems. We are still working on this. Today, electronics is reaching the limit of miniaturization. Chips cannot be made smaller and if we do not find a solution to this, energy consumption will not be reduced. There are some promising lines of research, but it would take several decades before they become a reality (if possible). For instance, if we could invent a superconductor that could work at room temperature, we would be able to solve many problems with respect to energy consumption and distribution. Unfortunately, although important advances have been made, the problem has shown to be really complicated for more than century. Some physicists claim that we are close to understand the mechanism of superconductivity and if this is true there would be a revolution very soon. I have some misgivings about this.

              It is hard to predict what new technologies will dominate in the following decades. But the most promising source of energy that will gradually replace oil is electricity. Electricity will be mostly produced by solar cells, better batteries and nuclear plants. This may occur in the following two or three decades. Electric cars are already produced in mass (see for instance the Tesla car). So, electric cars will replace gasoline cars also in the following two decades reducing the emission of CO2 and other gases. A study on the current CO2 content in the atmosphere showed that the Earth would require at least 50 years to reabsorb this gas. About 90% of CO2 is produced by industries and the rest by people. Unfortunately, in the following 50 years, it is probable that we will increase the emission of CO2 and if we do not reduce the emission now, it would take a century or more for the Earth to absorb this gas (assuming that we do not destroy our forests, etc.). Already, people is working on developing technologies to reduce the emission rate.

              With respect to your concerns on the capacity of the Earth to sustain life, I'm quite confident that we will reach an equilibrium. This is just the law zero of thermodynamics.

              A hudred years ago, when global population was less than 2 billion, environmentalist had similar concerns. They even predicted that the Earth would not be able to sustain more than 4 or 5 billion people by the middle of the XX century. Now we are more than 7 billion and I think that the world population will reach a maximum by the rest of this century (less than 12 billion). I'll tell you something. Today the world production of food is enough to feed about three times the current population, the problem is not production but distribution of wealthiness in the world. Whereas in the USA people get fruit from China or the middle east, in Africa people are suffering from famine. My view is that the world population will reach a natural equilibrium, specially driven by the present global cultural and economical tendencies. We see this in Europe.

              Really? If only it were that easy

              Not that easy, but if our species do not get extinct in the following two centuries, we will reach an equilibrium.

              I thank you for your wishes and I wish you the best in the contest too. I'll take a look at your essay and comment on your thread asap.

              Best Regards

              Israel

              Israel,

              A very professional essay. We have agreed in the past and I'm glad to agree with your views again. I was somewhat concerned for a while that you had downplayed the role of scientific advancement in our long term development but I suppose your quite comprehensive basic list brought the balance back. For me it seems that human failings are largely beyond our control to steer, but advance through better understanding of the universe is potentially always within our grasp, even if we often take too long to grasp it.

              In an ideal world you identify many key problems and aims, now all we need I suppose is an ideal world and more intelligent way of thinking to reveal better understanding and apply change sensibly!

              Your affinity for the foundations of physics should allow you to see the self apparent results of a journey beyond Earth-centrism by Bob and Alice in my essay. Unfortunately it may then be a little too large for those on Earth. I wonder what you think.

              Thank you. Best wishes

              Peter

                P.S., I will use the following rating scale to rate essays:

                10 - the essay is perfection and I learned a tremendous amount

                9 - the essay was extremely good, and I learned a lot

                8 - the essay was very good, and I learned something

                7 - the essay was good, and it had some helpful suggestions

                6 - slightly favorable indifference

                5 - unfavorable indifference

                4 - the essay was pretty shoddy and boring

                3 - the essay was of poor quality and boring

                2 - the essay was of very poor quality and boring

                1 - the essay was of shockingly poor quality and extremely flawed

                After all, that is essentially what the numbers mean.

                The following is a general observation:

                Is it not ironic that so many authors who have written about how we should improve our future as a species, to a certain extent, appear to be motivated by self-interest in their rating practices? (As evidence, I offer the observation that no article under 3 deserves such a rating, and nearly every article above 4 deserves a higher rating.)