Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

reddit_liberator OP wrote

If civilization as we know it continues, humanity's standard of living will be permanently stunted

But will it be worse compared to a primitivist/hunting and gathering lifestyle?

0

anarcho_archiver wrote

A lot worse, even in the best case scenario it would be much worse. In a regular h/g lifestyle, you are able to forage and hunt for food, admittedly your diet will be relatively lean by modern standards, but you'll have food.

In about 40 years, even if we predict optimistically, we simply just won't have food, or at least you won't have food assuming you're middle/lower class. It will not even really be a question of afford, because nobody will care about affording things anymore, if they see food, and they are physically able to stuff it inside them, they will, laws be damned.

You can forget about rationing, strict rationing will only remain a luxury for the best functioning areas of the most stable nations. Drinkable water? Unlikely, unless you're particularly wealthy in the right part of the globe that has top of the line desalination technology and the infrastructure to ration it. Global warming, pollution, and civil unrest will have taken their toll. Ironically, flash floods and heavy rainfall will be much more common, especially in the tropics, but unfortunately it won't be drinkable and it will absolutely tear through shelters, erode land, and drown countless people.

Even finding air to breathe will be an active concern on your mind. I'm not just talking about air pollution, that's the least of your concerns. Even in the early 21st century, we can see oxygen levels starting to go down due to global warming, overfishing deforestation, and destruction of plankton and algae in the ocean. By this time in the future, the CO2-oxygen cycle will be FUBAR, many sea creatures and land creatures (including us) will simply not get nearly enough natural oxygen and many will die, the rest will suffer.

Link if you're interested in reading more about this specific phenomenon

I haven't even gotten into the threat of automation, rising sea levels, debt crises, growing wealth inequality, etc. So, in short, yes, being a hunter gatherer would be way better.

2

reddit_liberator OP wrote

In about 40 years, even if we predict optimistically, we simply just won't have food, or at least you won't have food assuming you're middle/lower class.

What if you engineer it instead of conventional growing methods?

These things seem to be based on the idea that we wont be able to technologically combat the problems.

0

anarcho_archiver wrote

Mind you, this is the optimistic prediction, so I did assume that lab-grown meat and plants are available. However, realistically people have been predicting that we'll be able to produce large amounts of food synthetically for years, and despite tons of research in that direction, we have made relatively little progress.

Even assuming huge breakthroughs, we simply don't have nearly enough energy, resources, or infrastructure for that matter to feed even a significant portion of the population with it. The cost for making it commonplace would cost tens of billions of dollars and several years of combined effort. It'll likely only be for the upper class at best.

2