Influencing our destiny - and then it gets destroyed so it has to reshape itself - Part 4

The future

Do I think there are too many people on this planet as some people do? Just as the book "Adventures in the Anthropocene: A journey to the heart of the planet we made" by Gaia Vince, Chatto & Windus (I read the review in the article "Ode to humanity" in New Scientist, 28 June 2014, p. 46) seems to suggest that the earth may be able to maintain 10 billion people, I don't think there are too many people on condition we behave differently. E.g. we could stop eating fish so they can recover from our overfishing while those who claim we need omega-3 fats from fish: they are added in many butters. We could stop killing animals (for fun) so their numbers can recover in the wild while meat-eaters can eat laboratory-grown meat (in future). We could use cleaner and renewable energy so rivers, land and sky will be less polluted while we have cheaper energy. We could share more of our wealth over the planet so poor people don't need to join criminals to earn a living or migrate to the rich West and then discover it is less fun here than they expected (indeed, a richer Africa will result in less immigration so immigration is becoming a major problem and may bring the downfall of the rich Western world as it did in the past, never mind how much we try to prevent it unless we share some of our wealth with them what is no longer possible as here countries became poor and thus the wealthy have to share which they probably won't do). We could live closer to or in cities in smaller houses and apartments (e.g. tablets assure we don't need a separate room to store our books) while there will be more space elsewhere for nature to recover (this is happening as growing numbers of people live in cities but of course these cities should be properly organised so people feel safe, including parks (large and small) where children can play while cities should not become a burden on the surrounding area). But are we prepared to change our behaviour? Although many people do change, many others believe those who say we can't for instance produce sufficiently our own energy (we can combine old and new during the transition period) although there are already examples that proof they are wrong. In addition, sometimes politicians decide policies against the will of the electorate while other times the electorate support the policies (e.g. concerning fracking) and thus I fear that probably this planet is not able to support everyone. For instance, air-conditioning in private homes can be powered by solar energy because most people need it when the sun is shining while today, during very hot days the electricity network is sometimes overused because too many people are cooling their home. But I am not alone to believe that one day we may be able to live in a sustainable world (remember the song 'Imagine' by John Lennon, a visionary and thus shot) as many journals start publishing about this.

How do I (and others) envisage the future?
I think the future of humanity will become mixed or dark-skinned people if indeed climate will continue to become warmer with more sunny days; white people will be more likely to develop skin cancer and to prevent this they will breed with darker skinned people. Cross over the white race (and thus many of the powerful of whom many are (white) supremacist climate change deniers for the excuse they can continue getting wealthier, will cause their own demise). And thus it will be full circle: after our sin for whatever so we had to leave Africa (e.g. destruction of nature and thus food resources in Africa, maybe by burning down forests to have more grassland and killing too many animals to dress us (= out of paradise) as we still continue doing in many countries), we have the return to a dark skin (although maybe white people had their time to revenge their past suffering during their exclusion from Africa as still today albino black people suffer abuse in Africa, simply for being born white (and thus being driven out of Africa into Europe and Asia increased the survival chances of white people)). Also nature may again become more important in the life of humans now we start realising what we are destroying (although we will continue defeating most if not all illnesses and even wild animals that are responsible for our fear of nature as in the past they killed many humans). And thus the race that destroyed most of our planet while enforcing its own ideas, including its religion, on the whole planet may be gone, although leaving the legacy of having removed dangerous diseases and animals. Of course, this will happen gradually: many white people prefer white people without being racist, but after many generations to come, only racists will remain pure white as they and their off-spring will refuse to mix (similarly for the other races). 

We are already starting to change our DNA, both unconsciously as people mix but also knowingly using science to cure genetic and other diseases by means of gene therapy. Many white people love sunbathing because they love the feeling of the sun and a brown skin colour but they also know it is dangerous as it can cause skin cancer. Still, they prefer a brown skin above a white one and continue going to beaches where also darker-skinned people are present they start to appreciate. As a result, people start mixing so their children will be darker skinned and thus beautiful while it is also a better protection against the damaging effects of the sun. The above is because of love (although some people like others for their money). However, we also start changing our DNA very specifically using gene therapy. There are still more failures than successes with the use of gene therapy but the successes are becoming more common and the failures start to decline as our knowledge increases. Gene therapy enables us to cure genetic diseases or even prevent they can cause any harm. Some people may try to use these techniques to advance their own children, trying to deny them their own nature and change their DNA so they can be superior to others. I don't believe in that because societies need all kinds of people (hairdressers as well as doctors) or societies collapse while interfering with our DNA can have unknown effects. But I may be wrong and people may never use this technique to advance themselves against others. Of course, preventing people suffer from genetic or other illnesses by using genetic engineering is different from forcing certain unnecessary changes. Also, stem cells will be used and artificially-made tissues (e.g. blood cells so donors are no longer needed while there will be plenty of blood). Already people are talking about living very long in future although it should be for everyone.
In future, few energy producing plants (gas, wind or solar) will continue to support large users such as trains and metros until they too may become independent (if ever) while most other things can use locally produced energy, preferably alone.
But we will also use other products to help us functioning in future. One of the best examples are computers but certainly tablets, one of the major inventions since we controlled fire although some of the older generation are still opposed and think e.g. that reading means reading a book without understanding that the content of the book is more important than the book itself and thus can be read on tablets; in addition, many people can now also write and publish their own stories or newspapers (such as this blog). Indeed, such a small device allows us to do almost everything we like: take pictures, make artistic changes or not and show them to others, read books and magazines wherever we are without destroying forests, meet new people or stay in contact with friends very far away or in the next room, even have (intimate) relations with people at a distance with the added advantage of not getting STD (although some abuse this by filming it and then threatening to make it public = blackmail that should be very severely punished to prevent people do this). But also medical health products are developed that can help people with disability (for instance give deaf their hearing or allow people without legs to run during the Olympics) while machines can do dangerous work or move us over the earth. When we accept sun energy (and other forms) can be used, it will be possible to travel to wherever in the world without even having to stop while producing little pollution (maybe we can even use materials that don't need oiling) while tablets can always be charged to stay in contact with people.

And thus the future will be a time when people will work less while being helped by technological advantages. Of course, this means we have to change our way of living, i.e. share our work and earning. At this moment, many powerful resist this (compare article with my previous publication) as they continue to claim people should continue working harder for less money except for the few who spread these claims as they benefit. But, it is simply impossible to have full employment when half the population is without work as is the case in some countries, unless people accept they work less by sharing the workload. There will be resistance but in the end, people will accept that less may be better. People may think that is boring but after some time will realise this is not (ask most pensioners how they enjoy life). Then people can travel in their free time or study or play theatre and enjoy life on condition they earn enough to be able to spend money in their free time, and thus wealth should be shared (so the rich no longer need to claim they have to earn more each year for their hard work because what some people earn in one year they can use for the rest of their life to discover the beauty of our planet while their job can be done by someone else). We then enter the time of what religious people call the 'time of the Messiah' (remember, religion is on the rise and fall): people will still have to work but much more relaxed as they work together for the common good (i.e. work is done by more people with the help of machines) and thus can enjoy life (as was already happening until the crisis reversed this in many places). Politicians will continue to introduce better rules as I think party policies will no longer apply because individuals get elected who vote for the best laws and not in opposition of the ruling party until even laws are perfect and then computers will be able to take over the order of the world while humans can enjoy life and do what they like within the law (e.g. cameras film people who don't stop at traffic lights and computers send the penalty via email and check whether the bill has been paid while already some public transports (e.g. DLR in London) operate on their own except during busy time when humans help). Of course, there will be a last resistance by the ruling powers who will loose their influence. But ones science has discovered everything and laws are perfect, they don't need to change any longer and everyone can live as equals, without one person being more important than the other. Then the 'age of the computer' (or call it god) will have arrived, on condition computers are properly educated to recognise correct from incorrect. Watch science-fiction films: the only thing people do is travel (space) to discover things for themselves and this in a sustainable way or they don't get far. But for normal people, most will stay the same: they were always born to live and die without leaving a trace behind. Still, these transition periods should be guided so people will not loose everything in a short time and thus sharing the available work is one possibility, or having a good benefit system if we don't want to share our work while the rich should accept they need to earn less. And don't get it wrong, I am not introducing these changes as I have no powers; others do. And it should be for the good of everyone but there are those who do it only for their own benefit. More about the future in another article or read about it in scientific and political journals.

Planet Earth is like our body: it doesn't matter that individual cells (e.g. blood cells) or individuals come and go as long as the whole structure remains. Nice creatures have a function in the future world (e.g. the HIV virus will stay as we start using it to cure people while there will come a day that the ill-making virus will be exterminated; dogs are loved while wolves hated by many although the latter have a function in the world to remove the weak so populations remain healthy as long as the numbers of wolves are within limits). And when the individual dies, it can be recycled by another living organism or become part of the earth, maybe even become oil or gas while one day our planet may be recycled by another planet or star or is lost forever.

If you think you can add something to this series of articles, I am more than happy to read your comments and suggestions to improve these articles. Many is still new and thus from what I describe and predict some may be confirmed while others dismissed as wrong, but without thinking, they can't even be looked at. For instance, those who claim the Gaia theory is wrong would stop the science and stop studying the interactions between the different parts on our planet while I believe we are just starting to discover the bigger picture by adding the details. Similarly, we need to find solutions for the increasing use of technology and how to solve the resulting unemployment (e.g. drones may deliver packages in future and thus what will we do with people who delivered in the past or who will be able to buy something if only a few are earning?).


Popular posts from this blog

Brexit, refugee crisis and the EU

(7i) Return to (travel) business in times of a virus

(20b) Coronavirus statistics: how to present data about cases and mortality