Mankind's Survival Depends on AI/ML, Time to focus on mankind's future

[Arthur Hanson]

With the world's population tripling so far in my lifetime, we will need to advance our sciences in literally every area to survive on this planet. The environment is being stressed at every level at an ever increasing rate and the destruction is compounding leaving us less time to deal with the numerous blow ups and disruptions that are already here and picking up speed. The ever increasing amount of social, economic and military conflict is increasing at an ever increasing rate as is the suffering of human condition in ever more parts of the world, including so called advanced countries. Degradation of social, economic and environmental areas is accelerating at an unprecedented rate. We will need new thinking that vastly increases our ability to use existing resources and at the same time deal with social problems caused literally by to many people. While advancing science in all areas to cope with the myriad of challenges before us. Not only will we have to advance our technologies, but our social and governmental structures to keep up with the numerous challenges before us. If we don't deal with these the greatly advancing military power of government and non-government terrorist groups will do it for us in ways so horrible, they are unimaginable. This destructive power will only increase as our environmental, social and governance become more fragile at an ever-increasing rate that should now be obvious to all. Advancing tech at an ever-accelerating rate is our only hope to buy the time we need until the over population is dealt with. Collaboration on an unprecedented scale will be key and the technologies to do this have advanced dramatically. It is now time for tech to focus on these key challenges before us for that is the only way to buy the time we need. The alternatives are worse than most can ever imagine. It is now time for the tech sectors in all areas and political areas to focus on mankind's future on this planet. Any thoughts, comments or additions welcome and sought, I would at least like to see the solutions in my lifetime, which at 68 is not a long time in the scheme of things. The tech world is the place to start since, so far, our politicians are failing.

 

[JohnK.Jennings]

With the world's population tripling so far in my lifetime, we will need to advance our sciences in literally every area to survive on this planet. The environment is being stressed at every level at an ever increasing rate and the destruction is compounding leaving us less time to deal with the numerous blow ups and disruptions that are already here and picking up speed. The ever increasing amount of social, economic and military conflict is increasing at an ever increasing rate as is the suffering of human condition in ever more parts of the world, including so called advanced countries. Degradation of social, economic and environmental areas is accelerating at an unprecedented rate. We will need new thinking that vastly increases our ability to use existing resources and at the same time deal with social problems caused literally by to many people. While advancing science in all areas to cope with the myriad of challenges before us. Not only will we have to advance our technologies, but our social and governmental structures to keep up with the numerous challenges before us. If we don't deal with these the greatly advancing military power of government and non-government terrorist groups will do it for us in ways so horrible, they are unimaginable. This destructive power will only increase as our environmental, social and governance become more fragile at an ever-increasing rate that should now be obvious to all. Advancing tech at an ever-accelerating rate is our only hope to buy the time we need until the over population is dealt with. Collaboration on an unprecedented scale will be key and the technologies to do this have advanced dramatically. It is now time for tech to focus on these key challenges before us for that is the only way to buy the time we need. The alternatives are worse than most can ever imagine. It is now time for the tech sectors in all areas and political areas to focus on mankind's future on this planet. Any thoughts, comments or additions welcome and sought, I would at least like to see the solutions in my lifetime, which at 68 is not a long time in the scheme of things. The tech world is the place to start since, so far, our politicians are failing.

I feel the same and I like the way you tied together all the threads. What give me hope is how the Semi industry has enabled us to do so many of our daily activities at progressively lower levels of energy consumption. One big problem is all the other large scale, high energy activities that push in the opposite direction e.g. war as a means of conflict resolution. That's not an area of expertise for me; I despair of it.

 

[Barnsley]

I feel the same and I like the way you tied together all the threads. What give me hope is how the Semi industry has enabled us to do so many of our daily activities at progressively lower levels of energy consumption. One big problem is all the other large scale, high energy activities that push in the opposite direction e.g. war as a means of conflict resolution. That's not an area of expertise for me; I despair of it.

When there are leaders who have mindsets rooted in yesteryear , then "might is right" will be the only solution they know.

 

[Xebec]

Having followed Peter Zeihan a bit, the major problem of the next 30-50 years might not be over population, it may end up being de-globalization and *under* population that needs solutioning.

Basically -- if you look at the demographics of some very major populations centers (China, most/all of Europe, Japan, etc.) - those populations have likely already peaked. Obviously this isn't true for everywhere in the world, but it looks like the exponential growth of the last 50-60 years will not continue, and may even begin to substantially reverse within that 30-50 years. This is occurring at the same time interest in the US for continuing the Bretton Woods trade agreement is waning (populist presidents, less interest in global affairs, etc.).

The "under population" problem becomes visible sooner as an "aged population" problem. If you look at China, each younger generation (40-60 vs 60+, 20-40 vs 40-60) gets smaller leading to less workers being available to fund the state and pensions for older folks. At some point the oldest generation ages out, but the problem continues because less and less people had kids due to costs, etc. (Think kids cost a lot more for people in the city -- than they did on the farm, where the kids could be put to work).

Further if the Bretton Woods trade system breaks down, this greatly compounds the plight of the aging populations in major areas as they'll lose access to markets and goods, making it even harder to sustain those aging populations. Lastly, the environmental changes in progress will make things more expensive for everybody. Here are some interesting source material on aging populations and trade: https://zeihan.com/end-of-the-world-maps/

P.S. I recognize this argument isn't fully inclusive of all scenarios -- there some other countries are and will still grow (via babies and immigration), and there are other localized areas are already facing grave overpopulation challenges -- so we still need investment to address there, but that may not end up being the 'biggest problem' the world faces in the next 50 years.

 

[Tanj]

Zehan treats demographic shifts as a disaster axiomatically. He ignores other factors like increasing health expectancy, which leaves a potential balance of productive people with deep experience being better than ever before. To be sure, lots of behaviors will need to change to realize the potential. Everything from retraining to expecting career diversity to scrapping the "seniority pyramid" to modifying retirement ages and restrictions .. for sure, a lot of changes. But still we already changed hugely in the last 200 years since rural populations with half the life expectancy.

 

[Xebec]

Zehan treats demographic shifts as a disaster axiomatically. He ignores other factors like increasing health expectancy, which leaves a potential balance of productive people with deep experience being better than ever before. To be sure, lots of behaviors will need to change to realize the potential. Everything from retraining to expecting career diversity to scrapping the "seniority pyramid" to modifying retirement ages and restrictions .. for sure, a lot of changes. But still we already changed hugely in the last 200 years since rural populations with half the life expectancy.

I definitely agree there are a lot of counter arguments to his positions - but I'm not sure over population is going to be the biggest challenge anymore. Climate change, cold wars / trade wars, and stagnating economies (Japan already) due to aging workforces in some areas seem like pretty big bears too..

I also would be careful to extrapolate further in the future, the increasing life span and quality of life. We've already addressed a lot of low hanging fruit in this area, and the environmental damage is probably causing some downward pressure to QoL that is compounding over time. (Though there's also a LOT we don't know about human health and there could always be a big breakthrough over the horizon)..

 

[Tanj]

Japan did not stagnate because it aged out, it is mostly because it got rich. Within 2 generations it successfully transitioned from low cost workshop to needing to outsource that because expenses are high and life is mostly good. That rapid transition made it harder than the USA, which took roughly 4 generations, but is a problem here, too. China is going to have a hard time with both a more rapid transition than Japan but also a transition which has not included everyone, maybe not even half, and will struggle with that internally. Elsewhere around the world the prosperity goal is visible, a global village of communication even behind web walls, but there are widely varying prospects for climbing the ladder. That is related to demography but not the same.

Automation is already redefining what this means. Onshoring is likely to cause the USA and Europe, with Japan, Korea and a few other places, to redefine supply chains, globalization, and the need for different age groups in their work force. Arguably the USA needs to redefine how people from 30 to 70 participate much more than it needs to worry about where the children are.

We may be stalling out in the 80s for average lifespan. Japan in the high 80s. Health could be much better, the problems with USA demography do not relate to lack of knowledge, more to lack of availability. Heck I live in a prosperous city with a good health insurance, and the time to wait to see a doctor for non-fatal issues is (direct household experience) 3 to 7 months. Amazing. Yeah, there are places with pollution issues too, I am lucky. But where I differ from Zeihan is he is looking at macro issues while the daily experience is a zoo of micro-issues which we are letting fester, unrelated to the macro as yet.

 

[Paul2]

Zehan treats demographic shifts as a disaster axiomatically. He ignores other factors like increasing health expectancy, which leaves a potential balance of productive people with deep experience being better than ever before. To be sure, lots of behaviors will need to change to realize the potential. Everything from retraining to expecting career diversity to scrapping the "seniority pyramid" to modifying retirement ages and restrictions .. for sure, a lot of changes. But still we already changed hugely in the last 200 years since rural populations with half the life expectancy.

Russia has shown that even extremely bad demographic prospects are not an impediment for starting a full scale war, and an 18th century style landgrab.

I see many current issues to be exactly the consequences of semi-religious belief in technology led growth, and economic interest driven world politics solving all the problems.

There is no technical or economic solution to Russia, and Mainland China, but there is an obvious military one.

Technology is not solving much social problems, and in cases it does, there is no guarantee it will keep doing so forever.

"China will not attack America for as long as they can sell us their Iphones" theory is very baseless

 

[Xebec]

Russia has shown that even extremely bad demographic prospects are not an impediment for starting a full scale war, and an 18th century style landgrab.

"China will not attack America for as long as they can sell us their Iphones" theory is very baseless

There's another side to the Russian coin which is they're doing this now while they still have the manpower, and to gain even more manpower by grabbing more people.

As for China - I agree, though they can't sustain any kind of a long term war against the US given the key to their economy is trade with the US and allies. They're dependent upon energy and food imports. Though that doesn't preclude them from trying to do a 'quick war' with the USA which is scary for the humans involved.

 

[tonyget]

Zehan treats demographic shifts as a disaster axiomatically. He ignores other factors like increasing health expectancy, which leaves a potential balance of productive people with deep experience being better than ever before. To be sure, lots of behaviors will need to change to realize the potential. Everything from retraining to expecting career diversity to scrapping the "seniority pyramid" to modifying retirement ages and restrictions .. for sure, a lot of changes. But still we already changed hugely in the last 200 years since rural populations with half the life expectancy.

Zehan apparently doesn't pay much attention to AI development. With the current speed of advancement of AI，tons of people are going to lose their job. In the future，a large population could very well be a burden rather than asset，this possibility can not be ruled out.

 

[tonyget]

Russia has shown that even extremely bad demographic prospects are not an impediment for starting a full scale war, and an 18th century style landgrab.

I see many current issues to be exactly a consequence of semi-religious belief in technology led growth, and economic interest driven world politics solving all the problems.

There is no technical or economic solution to Russia, and Mainland China, but there is obviously a military one.

Technology is not solving much social problems, and in cases it does, there is no guarantee it will keep doing so forever.

"China will not attack America for as long as they can sell us their Iphones" theory is very baseless

Russians are no stranger to hard time. From the collapse of tsar Russia to Soviet union，from the collapse of Soviet to modern day Russia，each time Russian people bear heavy suffer. But they can withstand the harsh conditions，and over time Russia will become a powerful nation again.

 

[tonyget]

There's another side to the Russian coin which is they're doing this now while they still have the manpower, and to gain even more manpower by grabbing more people.

As for China - I agree, though they can't sustain any kind of a long term war against the US given the key to their economy is trade with the US and allies. They're dependent upon energy and food imports. Though that doesn't preclude them from trying to do a 'quick war' with the USA which is scary for the humans involved.

Unless the US has confidence in intercepting all incoming nuclear warhead，there won't be a full scale war between US and Russia/China. Why do you think Nato doesn't give Ukraine long range missiles，they don't want Ukraine to attack Russian home land. The risk of pushing a nuclear power to the corner is not something anyone can bear.

And you are right，US trying to de-couple from China is not a smart move at all. Because as long as China relies on trade with the US，the likelihood of war is minimal，that is a leverage the US has by trading with China. De-couple with China will only lose that leverage thus increase the chances of direct conflict.

 

[Xebec]

Zehan apparently doesn't pay much attention to AI development. With the current speed of advancement of AI，tons of people are going to lose their job. In the future，a large population could very well be a burden rather than asset，this possibility can not be ruled out.

With the advent of industrialization tons of people are going to lose their jobs. Same with computers..

But it didn't happen because there's always something else to do.

 

[Paul2]

As for China - I agree, though they can't sustain any kind of a long term war against the US given the key to their economy is trade with the US and allies.

China will live worse, but not totally NK level terrible.

Only 20% of mainland's economy is trade, and it is going down.

More importantly, they will probably still live better than, say, Russians if they will dare to go on military adventures in the region.

AND Xi probably got many times more lobbyists in the West working for him than Putin ever dreamt of.

Every American billionaire with a factory in China is automatically a five star lobbyist.

My main point from all of this: the scare "you will tank your economy if you attack this, and that" does not work pretty much at all.

And if China will attack, then they will know that they will suffer much less economically than Russia does now. That will grow their ambitions even bigger.

Mainland's central bank moving its reserves, and gold out of the US to prevent them being seized is a sure indication that they are up to something in the near future.

 

[Xebec]

China will live worse, but not totally NK level terrible.

Only 20% of mainland's economy is trade, and it is going down.

More importantly, they will probably still live better than, say, Russians if they will dare to go on military adventures in the region.

AND Xi probably got many times more lobbyists in the West working for him than Putin ever dreamt of.

Every American billionaire with a factory in China is automatically a five star lobbyist.

My main point from all of this: the scare "you will tank your economy if you attack this, and that" does not work pretty much at all.

And if China will attack, then they will know that they will suffer much less economically than Russia does now. That will grow their ambitions even bigger.

Mainland's central bank moving its reserves, and gold out of the US to prevent them being seized is a sure indication that they are up to something in the near future.

The Russians are self sufficient on food; the Chinese are not. It could get much uglier for China...

 

[Paul2]

The Russians are self sufficient on food; the Chinese are not. It could get much uglier for China...

Please check trade statistic for Russia again. While Russia been a major grain exporter, but people don't eat grain. Most of it goes for milling abroad. This is the same as Russia having to import petrol.

On the other hand, China will be certainly nowhere near survival level food shortages. If you take that cities lived without riots at the peak of food rationing during COVID, China can reduce its food consumption many times over.

 

[tonyget]

With the advent of industrialization tons of people are going to lose their jobs. Same with computers..

But it didn't happen because there's always something else to do.

Well，we shall see

 

[tonyget]

The Russians are self sufficient on food; the Chinese are not. It could get much uglier for China...

Firstly，is there anything prevent China/Russia from importing what they need from non-western world（apart from high-tech stuff these countries don't produce）？Russia is doing exactly that as we speak

Secondly，since you mentioned about food security，then fertilizer must be part of it. China/Russia/Belarus dominate the fertilizer export market，if they stop supply fertilizer，don't you think it's the rest of the world who will face food shortage problem？Sure you can grow food without fertilizer，but the yield will be terrible as we saw what happened in Sri Lanka. At the moment the West exempt Russia/Belarus fertilizer export from sanction list，because the West knows very well that they cannot afford to do so. But if the situation deteriorate in the future，Russia/Belarus could threaten to cutoff fertilizer supply，it will be interesting to see how the West react to it.

Thirdly，I found this article. As of 2021，China's dependence on imported crops is 19.4%. Imported crops is mainly used for animal feed. Which means if Chinese people don't eat meat，food self sufficient is not a problem. And when lab grown meat technology mature in the future，even meat self sufficient is not going to be a problem anymore

https://www.163.com/dy/article/GTUR9LPF0519DDQ2.html

 

[Paul2]

Thirdly，I found this article. As of 2021，China's dependence on imported crops is 19.4%. Imported crops is mainly used for animal feed. Which means if Chinese people don't eat meat，food self sufficient is not a problem. And when lab grown meat technology mature in the future，even meat self sufficient is not going to be a problem anymore

Yes, mainlanders went from almost vegetarian to biggest meat eaters on the planet within one generation. Eating pork is above all saying to yourself that you are living richly.

Mainlanders were going nuts during the CoVID period specifically over pork going missing "like it was back in Mao's time"

Why Mainland imports meat? Because it's agriculture, and farming in particular is surprisingly terrible. Nobody with brains goes into food production. Food production jobs there = low status.

 

[Paul2]

Firstly，is there anything prevent China/Russia from importing what they need from non-western world（apart from high-tech stuff these countries don't produce）？Russia is doing exactly that as we speak

Secondly，since you mentioned about food security，then fertilizer must be part of it. China/Russia/Belarus dominate the fertilizer export market，if they stop supply fertilizer，don't you think it's the rest of the world who will face food shortage problem？Sure you can grow food without fertilizer，but the yield will be terrible as we saw what happened in Sri Lanka. At the moment the West exempt Russia/Belarus fertilizer export from sanction list，because the West knows very well that they cannot afford to do so. But if the situation deteriorate in the future，Russia/Belarus could threaten to cutoff fertilizer supply，it will be interesting to see how the West react to it.

Thirdly，I found this article. As of 2021，China's dependence on imported crops is 19.4%. Imported crops is mainly used for animal feed. Which means if Chinese people don't eat meat，food self sufficient is not a problem. And when lab grown meat technology mature in the future，even meat self sufficient is not going to be a problem anymore

https://www.163.com/dy/article/GTUR9LPF0519DDQ2.html

View attachment 1060

This needs a big big clarification:

China makes packaged fertilizer, but both natural gas, phosphates, and potash for their production are imported from the same Canada, and Morocco.