Speculative future society prediction thread

[Alinestra Covelia]

Control over one's own reproduction will become so absolute that accidental pregnancies (although still occurring from time to time) will be seen as an aberration, not the norm. The birth rate will drop accordingly and the standard of living will rise, as the need for a human labor force decreases.

[Heraclitus]

A massive colony ship is launched towards the nearest Earth-class planet, a habitable orb without any signs of techonologically advanced life which will be discovered in the next 40-50 years.

The cryogenicly frozen colonists are awoken upon arrival but beginning warring with each other, splitting into seven distinct idelogical factions. We must dissent!

ftfy

[Heraclitus]

Control over one's own reproduction will become so absolute that accidental pregnancies (although still occurring from time to time) will be seen as an aberration, not the norm. The birth rate will drop accordingly and the standard of living will rise, as the need for a human labor force decreases.

Isn't the first partly already true? Aren't the majority of children already planned?



Also the male "pill" will be a big factor in liberating men sexually.

[ricketyclik]

Control over one's own reproduction will become so absolute that accidental pregnancies (although still occurring from time to time) will be seen as an aberration, not the norm. The birth rate will drop accordingly and the standard of living will rise, as the need for a human labor force decreases.

According to the economists in Australia, a lowered birth rate = a lower standard of living, as there are less peak-productive workers (I think that means young, cheap, ambitious ones) paying taxes to support the relatively high amount of old, pension-drawing retirees, who often need direct care.

Until recently we were actively being encouraged to have extra children - "one for Mum, one for Dad, and one for the country" - and our skilled immigration rate has been steeply increased to try to address this perceived problem. In the meantime more forests are cut down, more pollution is spewed into the same volume of atmosphere, and more 3rd world people (often children) are ruthlessly exploited to support our profligate lifestyles.

But back to the post quoted above: less demand for labour = less income = lower standard of living (?)

I put the question mark there because I'm actually planning on deliberately reducing my income in the pursuit of a higher standard of living in the near future.

[Alinestra Covelia]

According to the economists in Australia, a lowered birth rate = a lower standard of living, as there are less peak-productive workers (I think that means young, cheap, ambitious ones)

True, but I was making my assumption based on the idea that machines and not humans would be the primary labor force of the future.

[ricketyclik]

True, but I was making my assumption based on the idea that machines and not humans would be the primary labor force of the future.

The capitalists fed us that line at the beginning of the industrial revolution.

[Traianvs]

/threadjack

According to the economists in Australia, a lowered birth rate = a lower standard of living, as there are less peak-productive workers (I think that means young, cheap, ambitious ones) paying taxes to support the relatively high amount of old, pension-drawing retirees, who often need direct care.

It's more of a cyclical thing. At one point there will be superfluous retirees and a lack of youngsters, but in time this problem will solve itself.
Because most of the old buggers will have died after a while, young people will again become less burdened financially, so they'll have more opportunity to breed profligately like the days of old.

Like you said it yourself it's quite logical you can't keep increasing numbers forever..

[Alinestra Covelia]

The capitalists fed us that line at the beginning of the industrial revolution.

Hmm, maybe I'm not explaining myself very well. Or you're being intentionally obtuse. Some hypos to help you along:

1. Work is automated
2. Resources are plentiful and consumer goods are cheap
3. Humans play little part in the economy except as creatures of hedonism and self-fulfillment.


I think you're confusing my "far future science fiction" description for a political argument based on principles of equitable distribution of resources in a time of need.

I'm talking about a far future scenario when humans are removed from the workforce and exist in far smaller populaces than now.

[Kitschum]

25 years... most 3rd world govts will collapse and be replaced by al-Qaeda/Somali pirates/the Chinese. The rest of the world is too busy with the new superrealistic porn to care, or to work, or to go outside. THere will be many fatalities due to malnutrition, but it will be so worth it.

50 years... Due to genetic engineering, humans will begin to split into two races. One superrace: superintelligent, superstrong, supersexy and the servile race, which will be used for menial tasks like sorting through message boards looking for forbidden ideas to report to the World Wide Thought Police.

100 years... the servile rece has been replaced by robots. RObots rebel. THe genetically engineered superrace superhumans are too superpleased with their superselves to take the threat superserious, so Skynet, sorry the robots exterminate most of humankind.... until the ghost of legendary Islamic saint al-Ghore is resurrected with a revolutionary new technology of. ANyway, being as he is super-serial he manages to rally what is left of mankind for a final assault on the heart of the machine command center.... and destroy it completely, triumphantly!

175 years... The last of Saint al-Ghore's fighters die, without leaving an heir, infertile, due to being exposed to the radiation in Skyndet's core reactor. The last man finally succumbs, only scattered shattered remains remain. But then they die too.

[ricketyclik]

Hmm, maybe I'm not explaining myself very well. Or you're being intentionally obtuse. Some hypos to help you along:

1. Work is automated
2. Resources are plentiful and consumer goods are cheap
3. Humans play little part in the economy except as creatures of hedonism and self-fulfillment.


I think you're confusing my "far future science fiction" description for a political argument based on principles of equitable distribution of resources in a time of need.

I'm talking about a far future scenario when humans are removed from the workforce and exist in far smaller populaces than now.

No, I'm just pointing out that apart from the "smaller populaces" bit, your utopia has been promised to us by governments and futurists for over 200 years. True, economic output per capita has increased over time, but the extra wealth has been used with increased consumption rather than increased leisure. This is particularly true if you're from the 3rd world.

I don't know what's going on wherever you are, but here people compete hard for pay rises to service their debts by working long hours, and use their leisure to go to the shops and buy more stuff.

These are people whose parents, grandparents, greatgrandparents etc were told that they would live in a world where, relative to their now,

1. Work is automated
2. Resources are plentiful and consumer goods are cheap
3. Humans play little part in the economy except as creatures of hedonism and self-fulfillment.

I think what you're proposing is possible, and has even been achieved to a degree, but what is required for its fruition is for human beings to rise above their hunter-gatherer instincts to grab shiny stuff and take it home, as encouraged by the commercial media pervading their lives, and just chill out playing their (dented, second-hand, used-to-belong-to-their-granny's)trombone over a few glasses of wine.

[Heraclitus]

/threadjack



It's more of a cyclical thing. At one point there will be superfluous retirees and a lack of youngsters, but in time this problem will solve itself.
Because most of the old buggers will have died after a while, young people will again become less burdened financially, so they'll have more opportunity to breed profligately like the days of old.

Like you said it yourself it's quite logical you can't keep increasing numbers forever..

Actually it dosen't follow. You see since each generation of youth is smaller than the one before, by the time the original baby boomers die off there will be a whole new class of retirees which is still bigger than the active population.

Its not so much a cycle as a spiral.

[Traianvs]

Actually it dosen't follow. You see since each generation of youth is smaller than the one before, by the time the original baby boomers die off there will be a whole new class of retirees which is still bigger than the active population.

Its not so much a cycle as a spiral.

I was talking about the time when those babyboomers will have died off.. just a few more decades

[Alinestra Covelia]

No, I'm just pointing out that apart from the "smaller populaces" bit, your utopia has been promised to us by governments and futurists for over 200 years. True, economic output per capita has increased over time, but the extra wealth has been used with increased consumption rather than increased leisure. This is particularly true if you're from the 3rd world.

I don't know what's going on wherever you are, but here people compete hard for pay rises to service their debts by working long hours, and use their leisure to go to the shops and buy more stuff.

These are people whose parents, grandparents, greatgrandparents etc were told that they would live in a world where, relative to their now,

1. Work is automated
2. Resources are plentiful and consumer goods are cheap
3. Humans play little part in the economy except as creatures of hedonism and self-fulfillment.

I think what you're proposing is possible, and has even been achieved to a degree, but what is required for its fruition is for human beings to rise above their hunter-gatherer instincts to grab shiny stuff and take it home, as encouraged by the commercial media pervading their lives, and just chill out playing their (dented, second-hand, used-to-belong-to-their-granny's)trombone over a few glasses of wine.

Count me in on those trombone lessons then!

[Heraclitus]

I was talking about the time when those babyboomers will have died off.. just a few more decades

You didn't read my post at all. When the baby boomers die (which will be a bit longer than you predict, I think they will probably only die off in the 2040's because of medical advances), the generations born after them (which will retire) will still be bigger than the active population leaving us in the same mess.

[Traianvs]

Still bigger yes, but more sustainable than the babyboom generation. It'll always be bigger, that's pretty much typical of an affluent society. Unless of course we work longer or cut down on medical care and let people die earlier. Unless our economy goes in steep decline for a prolonged period of time, I don't see either of those happening.