6. Ergo: War. Chaos. Famine. Disease. Death. Apocalypse. QED. (Just kidding, no QED just yet)
Humans only have the wherewithal (and wherewithal usually is a necessity for desire) to care about the well-being of others if they themselves are doing at least OK to begin with first. If Bill Gates and Warren Buffet were starving on the street, I don't think they would care about AIDS in India at all, no matter how kind their souls were. People only donate money to charities if they can cover their own basic needs. People need first food/water/air, then clothing, then shelter, then other basic comforts, and THEN maybe if they're good people they start to think of stuff like achievement or contribution.
This concept of self-interest applies to larger units of human existence. People care much more about their close friends and family than other people. People care more about their own city than other cities. People (including politicans) care more about their own country than other countries. People care more about their own race, their own religion, their own social class, etc. So in a way you could say that even the kindest, most generous people in the world are mostly generally selfish because when they give, they usualy give to a unit of human existence that they are part of... which they care about much more than the longer-term well-being of the world.
All this self-interest is focused on the short-term. Most people care the most about themselves and their immediate offspring, and maybe some about the well-being of their grandchildren, but it's hard for most to care a great amount beyond that. Most people care more about the immediate future than far future. To make an extreme example, if you are currently starving on the street, your primary concern is your next meal, and your concern probably isn't going to be your future grandchildren that haven't even been born yet, much less how the world will look like in 100 years. That example was extreme, but it is generally true for less extreme examples. If the economy right now is in a mess and you're unemployed, you want the government to give a huge stimulus package now, and you probably care a lot more about getting a job now than the fiscal health of the government ten years down the road. Most people in the world are not wealthy or educated enough to care that far down the future. Almost half of the people in the world don't even have access to toilets, and almost half of the world "lives in poverty" (depending on your definition of poverty). So these people have to think about basic sanitation problems and basic survival issues rather than anything else.
2. The Demise of Collective Well-Being
Since most people don't care enough about the collective long-term well-being of the world, that well-being is doomed. Even if all people cared a lot, I still think the world would be doomed, since most people don't have the means to or don't understand how to best contribute to long-term collective well-being. But anyway, not caring just greatly accelerates the process.
3. The Environment.
Earth somehow miraculously developed into a place that provided a good mix of natural resources, atmosphere, and environment for life. In a universe where often temperatures are measured in hundreds or thousands or millions of celsius (or kelvin), and humans are sensitive to even a degree increase in temperature, it seems that earth is teetering with precarious balance between too cold and too hot, either of which would wipe out most life. The degree to which humans are affecting the environment now compared to 100 years ago is different on several orders of magnitude. Self-interest will overwhelm any environmental initiatives. It's only natural that pretty much everyone in the world wants toilets, wants to be able to take hot showers, wants running water and electricity, wants air conditioning... and the people who already have those things would be pretty upset if those things were taken away...restoring those basic comforts would be their top priority if they were taken away. And of course, the desire for non-basic needs are huge as well. Many people want to buy a car, buy appliances, all sorts of stuff. Just imagine of all the people in China in India consumed on average half as much energy and polluted half as much as the average american. Just that alone would utterly decimate the world environment. I think even if everyone in the world were environmentalists the world would still be doomed. An environmentalist still consumes energy and still pollutes to maintain a basic standard of living and basic sanitation and health. And most people in the world are very far from being environmentalists. Most humans are trying to increase their standard of living. It is naive to think that humans can just forever increase their standard of living and have it be sustainable. More on this in the section below on technology.
The world is already overpopulated, which exacerbate all of the above points, and it will only get worse in the coming years. Sure, Malthus was maybe too early in his predictions of world doom, but the guy still has a point. I hate the Chinese government and its policies that violate human rights, but one policy I have to grudgingly admit to agree to is the one-child policy. Without population control, this world is toast. From a purely Malthusian perspective, donating money to save starving children in Africa is helping to destroy the world, not save it.
Some sci-fi movies depict humans eventually colonizing Mars or another planet in another solar system. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I think even if it were pulled off it would be an extremely insiginificant percentage of the human population, and additionaly the resources or effort of making such a move would have a better impact on the human race if those resources or efforts were spent on making earth a better place instead. An analogy would be, let's say I am living in a crumbling house.. and the situation gives me two choices: I could either spend 100,000 dollars repairing my house, or i could spend a hundred million dollars on transportation costs and setup costs of moving to a house in another city. The point that I am trying to make is that space travel and setting up civilization in a new place will be prohibitively expensive, to the point that it will never be worth it to actually do it on a large scale. (sure, some countries might think it would be cool to send a couple dozen people to another planet to live just as an experiment)
4. Human Organization and Government.
Even if all politicans were saints, and there were zero corruption, govt would still be flawed, and you all know the world is very far from scrupulous politicians and zero corruption. Politicans and rulers seek to work towards the benefit of themselves (if they are bad policitians) and their own country(if they are good). If they do not value the benefit of their own country, then they will be deposed, which is easily done in a democracy, and it will still be done eventually in any other system of government. To the politician, even the most corrupt politician who only cares mostly about himself/herself, s/he will still care more about his own country than countries, naturally. Countries are not even able properly protect their own long-term well-being, much less that of the world. Citizens want to have money now. they want to have higher quality of life now. They want to have all sorts of social programs and benefits now. Sure, a good government might be able to sacrifice benefit now for some larger benefit 10 or 20 years later.. but how about 50 or 100 years later? Not really possible on a large scale. Why do some governments still manage the economy so badly that they experience hyperinflation, even though hyperinflation has already happened so many times in the past? Everyone by now knows what causes hyperinflation. It is because it's human nature. If you are faced with a pressing situation now, you will do whatever you can to deal with it now. Add corruption, human folly and mistakes into that equation and it becomes even easier to mess up a whole country's economy.
5. Human technology is finite.
Some people believe that human technology will advance fast enough to solve most of the environmental problems we have and allow perpetual increases in the quality of life. I beg to differ.
We have seen exponential growth in technological advancement in the 20th century, but such exponential growth may not continue forever. Few things in the universe, if any, can maintain exponential growth for too long. I'll skip the discussion of how to define technological progress or growth for now.
Those who have taken differential equations might be familiar with the logistic curve, which looks like this:
I don't exactly think that tech progress will plateau out like this, but I do believe the rate of progress is no longer exponential today.
What some people don't realize is that there are a lot of things that have stumped scientists for a long time and we have made little progress. Believe it or not humans have made little progress in the field of artificial intelligence in the last 3 decades, despite the huge increases in computing power. Computers sucked, and still suck at thinking for themselves, in other words. In the field of how the human brain specifically works, this too remains largely a mystery. I don't believe we will ever discover teleportation ("beam me up scotty") or time travel. Far from it. We won't even ever be able to create a robot that has the true learning ability of a 5-year-old, since we won't even truly understand how the brain works. (hmm unless maybe we make an android..heheh... but that doesnt count as a pure robot) If we were able to track how every individual atom and particle in the brain were moving and reacting, maybe we could figure out how it worked. But as has been proven in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, it's impossible to know exactly what the hell an electron is doing. Anyway, I'll stop my rambling there, this argument could get really long.
Natural resources on this earth are finite, and energy on the earth is finite. Technology cannot change this fact, it can only help us alleviate the problem slightly. The only glimmer of hope for the human race to maintain its current rate of consumption of energy several hundred years from now is to unlock the energy stored in mass, that is, using nuclear fission or fusion to turn mass into energy a la E = mc2. I'm not a particle physicist, but I don't think we're going to be able to pull off anything much better than the nuclear power plant technology (nuclear fission) that we have now. Particle physics is another one of those fields where there is a lot of theory and hand-waving and not much progress. From a long-term perspective, I don't think the human race is currently spending enough money and effort on this. Then again, I am also human, and to be honest I care more about the next chance I will get to date a pretty girl than particle physics.
Right now, in the grand scheme of things, the world economy is actually doing ok considering that most of it is still functioning, and the world is relatively peaceful.
Only in times like this, do countries have the extra luxury of spending money on something like, huge particle colliders, and even now, the world is only spending a couple billion or so on them. Such particle colliders may be the key to amazing technologies, such as aforementioned producing energy via nuclear fusion. Such a technology may be the key to saving the human race eventually. Perhaps from a global long-term perspective, all the countries in the world should be pouring half of their national budgets into collectively advancing technology that will save the world 100 years or whenever down the road. But nobody will do this. The governments of the world having too many short-term issues to deal with to care enough about making such advances.
Humans are really just a speck of dust compared to the universe. There are just some universal truths and the way things work that just can't be changed fundamentally by technology (although there are a lot of things that can be changed)
7. Apocalypse.
When people, or countries, become desperate, they will do more desparate things, naturally. Sure, many people did't support the war in Iraq, but what if hypothetically the price of oil were $5,000 per barrel, causing american standards of living to drop by half, and invading iraq would surely provide huge amounts of oil? Hell, if one day I can't even afford to pay for basic transportation and hot showers I would probably support anything that could help me get that back. Again, you could raise many arguments about oil alternatives etc. but I was just trying to illustrate a point: when people's most basic standard of living is threatened, they will resort to unscrupulous actions, and the same goes for countries. When attacking or coercing another country to get crucial natural resources is several times more cost-efficient than procuring that crucial resource itself, many countries will resort to such aggressive tactics. There are a lot of things a country can do (like threats) before resorting to outright warfare... but eventually it will escalate into outright warfare. The UN and most international cooperation will break down. It will be World War III... and perhaps it will be a war that will never end. Countries will be forced to militarize aggressively just to protect themselves. Warfare doesn't necessarily have to be using guns and bombs... warfare using computers or economics can work well too obviously. Anyway this will only aggravate environmental and natural resource problems, which will in turn make countries even more desperate. This will be a vicious spiral that will escalate into apocalypse. Most of the human population will quickly die, some from warfare but mostly from disease and hunger.
