
Ask HN: What are pressing issues that will affect humanity this decade? - oatmealsnap
50 years? 100 years? This year?
======
andyjohnson0
10 years:

\- Increasing disruption caused by climate change. Extreme weather events,
environmental refugees, conflicts over water, famine.

\- Antibiotics becoming increasingly ineffective

\- Living in a massively connected world. Emergent diseases, trans-national
political movements, terrorism, weakened states pushed to the point of
collapse.

50 years:

\- Severe disruption caused by climate change. Large-scale movement of people
and animals from uninhabitable areas, frequent resource conflicts.

\- Food shortages caused by habitat depletion. Famine and death. Breakdown of
international trade.

\- Pressure towards authoritarian government systems as a response to the
above. Fascism, militarism, large-scale conflict.

100 years: No idea. Singularity? Aliens arrive?

------
alecco
1) Drought, expensive food, lack of freshwater (e.g. California, Nevada,
Pakistan) NASA video on groundwater reserves
[http://vimeo.com/42607107](http://vimeo.com/42607107)

2) Big Data takeover by government (citizen profiling) and private sector
(financial and health discrimination)

3) Youth-based uprisings changing the political landscape (driven by
unemployment)

But I think all these issues will play a wake-up call. Societies will become
less self-centered, with less nationalism, less exceptionalism, and with more
involvement and cooperation. There is already a rise in positive social
activism. Kids are watching less TV and young people don't read newspapers, I
love that! Lies are quickly demystified on places like Twitter.

The negative impact will matter mostly on how early people decide to get
involved.

[http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/freshw...](http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/freshwater/embedded-
water/)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination)
($0.30/gallon in US, not viable)

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8moePxHpvok](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8moePxHpvok)
Adam Curtis on "Oh Dear"-ism

~~~
alex_doom
> Lies are quickly demystified on places like Twitter.

On the flipside they're also spreading quicker.

------
IsaacL
This decade: 1\. Growing sovereign debt - it's not something democratic states
seem to be able to solve. 2\. Weakened/collapsing states in Eastern Europe,
the Middle East, etc. The Arab Spring showed that revolutions rarely lead to
stable, prosperous regimes - more often, you just end up with years or decades
of anarchy and instability. 3\. Global tilt: the relative decline of America,
and it's effect on international geopolitics. Westerners will realise how much
their preaching to the rest of the world was dependent on having the biggest
army. Russia and China grow increasingly more daring. The BRICs build their
alternative world bank (it's a real project, Google it) and an alternative
international financial system starts to form.

100 years: 1\. Climate change/environmental damage. This won't kill us all, I
think, but could majorly lower our quality of life. 2\. Overpopulation/mass
migrations. Nigeria's population is predicted to be over a billion by the end
of this century - an 8-fold increase. India's population growth isn't slowing
down either. It does look as though humanity's population will peak at around
9/10 billion - but this will be predominantly within the most unstable
regimes. Expect mass movement of refuges, further destabilising governments in
advanced economies, fuelling further growth in mass surveillance, etc. 3\. The
singularity. This one _could_ kill us all. Or it could become the AI
philosopher-king that solves all our other problems.

------
cytzol
Don't listen to _me_. Edge.org asks a question to a hundred or so clever
people every year, and collects and posts the result. The 2013 question was
"What should we be worried about?", and you can see the answers here:
[http://edge.org/responses/q2013](http://edge.org/responses/q2013)

------
ChrisNorstrom
● Kim Kardashian divorces Kanye West and they fight over their child.

● One of the guys from "One Direction" comes out as gay.

● Kate Middleton's exposed nipple at an event sparks outrage from the Queen.

I think my predictions are a more realistic portrait of the things media and
society find important. _For those who don 't get it: I'm trying to say that
"people's ability to know what's important, care about what's important, and
change what's important" are the 3 most pressing issues._

------
nkoren
3 pressing issues for this decade:

1.) Automation, intelligent agents, and the end of wage labour as a means of
redistributing money. Unconditional Basic Incomes will need to be phasing in
by the end of the decade, or else we'll be in substantial trouble.

2.) Solar becoming cheaper than petrochemicals, increasingly high-density and
fast-charging forms of electricity storage, and the very substantial
disruptions (both positive and negative) this will entail. Geopolitically,
Copper and Rare Earth Elements become the new oil.

3.) The collapsing legitimacy of Western Democracy as an institution, as it
crumbles under the pressure of crony capitalism and a pervasive surveillance
state. Western democracies will look more and more like China, rather than
vice versa, prompting increasing Ukraine/Brazil-style unrest throughout the
Western world (particularly acute if issue #1 is not dealt with). Many will
propose new forms of governance (ala Liquid Democracy) but they won't be
implemented within this timeframe.

Top three issues in 50 years:

1.) Climate change impacts will be maximally hitting the fan at this point. A
significant migration away from flood- and storm-lashed coastlines. Adaptation
measures (eg. seawall construction) will be big business; cowboy
geoengineering efforts will be one of the main thing that starts wars.

2.) This will be right around peak population (~9.3 billion). Combined with
pervasive automation, standards of living will have risen dramatically,
particularly in Asia and Africa. Although technologies will generally be more
efficient and ephemeral, the combination of rising population + rising wealth
means that peak resource consumption will be right about now. Competition over
resources will reach its peak.

3.) Driven in part by the above conflicts, and in part by the dramatically
falling cost of spaceflight (~2 orders of magnitude cheaper than than today),
it will now make sense to begin importing significant amounts of energy and
material from beyond the Earth. The opening of this frontier will entail a
host of political, legal, and commercial conflicts.

(#1 and #2 are really the killer issues here. This is the moment when
technological civilisation gets has to thread the eye of its needle.)

Top three issues in 100 years:

1.) How to support a sharply ageing and decreasing global population?

2.) How to integrate sentient AIs and highly modified humans into society?

3.) Sovereignty for the small-but-growing off-world colonies?

~~~
tedsanders
I politely disagree with all 3 of your pressing issues for this decade.

1) Automation of human jobs has been happening since the beginning of the
industrial revolution. It may end up being a serious problem for us, but I see
no reason why the next ten years will be so different than the last 50. [Edit:
Maybe it was a mistake to mention the industrial revolution. My main point is
that why will the automation from 2014-2024 be significantly different than
the automation from 2004-2014? I agree that automation will continue, but I am
skeptical that we'll hit some breaking point.]

2) Solar is getting cheap, I agree. Nonetheless, there's no way in a mere ten
years that we can manufacture TW of solar panels and upgrade the grid to
handle them. The grid is extremely capital intensive, and power plants and
power lines have lifetimes of ~50 years. Again, I agree with your assessment
of the trend, but disagree with the timespan. 10 years from now things will
look similar to how they look today.

3) Collapse of Western Democracy because of capitalism and pervasive
surveillance? It hasn't happened in the last fifty years; what's different
about the next ten?

~~~
bicknergseng
For 1),

I think the difference is the mechanism of automation. The cotton gin meant
the millions cotton pickers were out of cotton picking work, but this was
being somewhat offset by increased low-skill, low-intelligence factory work
elsewhere. Inventions disrupted and enabled greater individual productivity in
single verticals of work: cotton picking, logistics (steam engines), circular
saw, etc. These productivity innovations enabled a single person to do the
work of dozens or hundreds.

Today, robots are removing the need for a human at all in not just one but
effectively every low skill, low intelligence job. We're not far from a world
where the great automated farms that feed the majority of the US are run by a
few people making sure a swarm of end to end farming machines aren't broken
down. This will happen in the next 10 years. Slightly different robots are
already automating logistics in warehouses, and soon they'll be driving our
commercial trucks. They'll fly our planes, build our buildings, our cars, our
electronics. Oh, you say, but someone needs to build the robots. Robots build
the robots. They build the robots that build the robots. There will need to be
people who design and program and repair the robots, but none of that is low
skill or low education; the cotton picker of today couldn't build or design or
repair a robot. It's impossible to predict the future, but the nature of
accelerating returns suggests that in the next 50 years we will replace almost
every low skill job worth automating. Notable exceptions are human facing jobs
in the service industry, though I expect innovation will change things pretty
wildly there as well. Looking at you, accountants.

The TL;DR: the difference between today and the industrial revolution is that
robotics is capable of automating almost any low skill job, rather than
enabling greater productivity for humans doing the job.

~~~
tedsanders
My main point is why will the automation from 2014-2024 be so qualitatively
different than the automation from 2004-2014 such that society will be forced
to phase in unconditional basic incomes or else be in substantial trouble?
(And to be clear this is the question for nkoren. I agree with everything that
you said. :D)

------
egeozcan
Combination of mild temperatures and plenty of water is what makes the most
difference towards a better life. Two rules:

1) Heating a room up is easy, cooling it down is hard. High temperatures
exponentially decrease the productivity and/or increase the need for energy.

2) It is very hard to purify water and clean water is very scarce. Water is
the most important dependency of life.

So my answer would be:

1) Lack of clean water supplies

2) Global warming

3) Disastrous combination of both

~~~
tedsanders
That's an interesting point about temperatures, but I don't think that's the
main concern we should have about global warming. People living in Arizona
don't seem to be significantly worse off than people living in North Dakota.
And a few degrees will not change much in terms of heating and A/C. I think
the real worry of global warming is what it will do to ecosystems.

------
Kapura
1\. The biggest issue that we're going to encounter this decade onward is
continuation of automation of jobs that real people used to have. As computers
and machines continue to upend more and more of the labour market, we'll
increasingly see an ageing population lose their jobs to robits and then just
not have any skills that are relevant in the technocratic labour market.

Along with that, I'm unconvinced that schools (American public schools, at any
rate) are doing enough to prepare today's children for tomorrow's economy.
Some big names have come out in support of more techno-centric curricula,
specifically stressing the importance of learning to code, but I feel that
will not be enough.

Instead, we need to be reinvesting in art and creativity (along with more
robust rosters of STEM classes) because, as of right now, true and good art
cannot really be supplanted by our new machine overlords. I want to live in a
future where the artist coming out of university is viewed as a greater boon
to society than a CS major, because quite frankly I don't think that making
code that can do in a tenth of a second what used to take a flesh'n'bone
person ten seconds to do is really super important to humanity.

2\. Somewhat related, I think that the gap between the rich and poor is again
going to come to a head. Occupy wall street was a bunch of foolish people
thinking that being upset would be enough to affect change. I think that the
next wave of this sentiment will not be so naive. In my opinion, the way to
"fix" this is to start taxing ALL income and capital gains of over $150,000 at
20% scaling up to 35% for when somebody is making more than a half million
dollars per annum. That money would be, for real, just given out to the rest
of the people, no strings attached. Tying back to my first point: the labour
market won't need as many labourers (especially those who can't computer good)
but I don't think that we should hold it against the people who were trapped
in the wrong time for working. This is, of course, wishful thinking because
congress's policies are dictated much more by money than what would be good
for the general population.

3\. I still don't think that the shit has hit the fan in terms of the Snowden
disclosures. I think that the revelation of the shameful acts of US
intelligence gathering has irreversibly altered America's place in the world
in ways that won't become apparent for a good while yet. I believe that we're
starting to get to better grips with what a global communication/data
infrastructure means for society as a whole, and a big challenge will be
defining, for the global population, what should and should not be done with
this technology.

~~~
bubbleRefuge
_in my opinion, the way to "fix" this is to start taxing ALL income and
capital gains of over $150,000 at 20% scaling up to 35% for when somebody is
making more than a half million dollars per annum._ This would be more trouble
than its worth and confuses real wealth with financial wealth. Modern fiat
money is essentially a digital currency controlled by the banking system and
congress. Its like bitcoin with Congress and the banks authoring the
algorithm. It follows that quantity of money is never a problem in a fiat
money system, its the algorithm for its creation/allocation that is the
problem.

Economics is about maximizing consumption and the goal should be to give all
people the opportunity to consume what they need. Real wealth = the goods and
services that are produced and consumed in the economy and ultra rich people
do not consume very much of it. Yeah, they hoard financial assets -thereby
hurting the economy- which tends to reduce circulation of money which leads to
reduction of income for everyone else. Yes, this income leak can be solved by
taxation and re-distribution. But this is politically painful. Maybe it would
be better to give on to Caesar what is Caesear's and let the rich keep their
hordes because money sitting in a bank doing nothing is irrelevant. Would be
better to focus on distributing wealth to the middle and lower classes on a
much larger scale through government spending and reduction of taxes.
Proposals 1) Payroll taxes to be paid by Fed for workers. 2) Income or Job
Guarantee program with living wage and full benefits. 3) Massive federal
infrastructure spending on a WWII like scale. Triple down on the deficit. 4)
Regulate, Regulate , Regulate. Get money out of politics. 5) Online/Mobile
voting system mandate. 6) De-financialize the economy: Return banking system
to pre 1980's model where banks make loans and hold them. Strict controls on
financial leverage. No borrowing using financial assets as collateral. 7) Tax
rentier income higher than earned income.

------
Blahah
I'll focus on what I know, just one issue:

We'll run out of food. In about 2025 the global population will start to
surpass what can be sustained by the available arable land in the world. We
can't use more fertilisers or water (because most crops under intensive
cultivation are already close to their theoretical maximum yields). We can't
just use more land because it's not suitable for agriculture because of
salinity, contamination, substrate or climate.

We are essentially fucked: unless we can increase the maximum yield potential
of a whole suite of staple crops by ~50%, or make about 50% more land
available for food production, famine starts to become a really big problem.
It hasn't been that big of a problem since the mid-1900s. Famine means war,
disease, death. Some of the most atrocious things humans have ever done were
done because of famine.

There are some promising scientific efforts to raise potential crop yields
underway, but as someone working on them I can tell you they probably won't be
ready in time without massive changes in science funding or a series of lucky
breakthroughs. It's still worth trying really, really hard, because this is
the least painful way to prevent disaster.

An alternative is to completely restructure the way we produce food. Vertical
farming is attractive if we can find the raw materials to make it happen, but
that won't be feasible until people are already starving.

Another alternative is for everyone to stop eating meat. Animals are ~5-10x
less efficient to produce in terms of input resources per calorie output than
plants. I hope this happens. Cows first, then sheep, then pigs. Wiping out
those three would have us covered.

After about 2050 the world population peaks and starts to decrease, then
things get easier. But there's a good chance a whole shitload of people die
very young, very painfully in the meantime.

~~~
cm2012
Max world population will cap at 9,000,000,000 in 2050, not so much more than
the 7,000,000,000 we have today. In actual risk of starvation, changing some
meat farming to plants would solve supply issues pretty quick.

~~~
kaybe
Assuming climate change doesn't get the better of a major percentage of our
harvests.

~~~
ASpring
Our current rate of climate change is a terrible thing, don't get me wrong.

But as the planet warms, our current(mostly depleted) cropland will produce
less while places closer to the poles will start being cultivated for similar
crops.

~~~
kaybe
Let's hope it will work out like that.

A warmer world in equilibrium would not be the problem; our main problem is
that we are set up for this configuration as stable (location of cities, local
knowledge, crops, culture, ..) and it will be hard to adapt on the way to a
new equilibrium, because the conditions are constantly changing.

------
wtvanhest
I don't know enough about food, water, antibiotics etc. but I do know a lot
about finance, especially US based finance. Here are the issues that will be
hugely pressing and very difficult to solve in the next 10 years.

1) Retiring baby boomers have no savings, retirements and no plan for
retirement. Over the next 10 years, a lot of people will be entering
retirement age in the US with no plan for surviving. Demand for government
services will increase dramatically, many people will be very upset when they
find out that they barely have enough money to eat.

2) Student loans should cause a drag on the economy as many, many young
Americans will be pressured by paying nearly 10% of their income (which
represents a much larger percentage of disposable income). Savings rates will
be negatively impacted as well.

These two issues have no known solution and will both be huge underlying
issues facing Americans in the next 10 years. They are certain, not
hypothetical.

~~~
maxerickson
The internet says there is about $1 trillion in outstanding student loans. If
you assume that they are repaid fairly quickly, that means something like $2
trillion of payments.

That's enormous, but only in the ballpark of $15,000 per working person in the
U.S. Spread it over a decade and it's still not a payment I would wish on
anybody for no reason, but entirely manageable (and presumably only a portion
of the payment represents an actual economic drag, some people get quite some
benefit from schooling).

~~~
wtvanhest
1\. Why would you assume they will be repaid fairly quickly?

2\. $15,000 per working person in the US is a massive number of dollars per
person. The medium US income is only about $50,000. Even if you spread the
number out over 10 years (which would of course also increase the total
interest paid), you are talking about $1,500 a year, which would be roughly
100% of people's discretionary income.

3\. The number is growing and will continue to grow forever which means that
the drag increases overtime, not that it gets paid off.

4\. The student loans any individual borrows may individually benefit them
relative to others, but there is no reason to believe that the total revenue
(salary) grows at the same rate as the drag caused by the increase in debt
service on a macro scale.

Its $1 trillion + interest that will drag on the economy for many, many, many
years. You can't look at the trees in the forest to rationalize away the
problem this huge debt load will have on the economy.

~~~
maxerickson
Well, I didn't worry too much about that aspect of it since you had already
said 10% of income towards them.

But now you are complaining that $1500 is too much.

~~~
wtvanhest
The bottom line is that a trillion dollars and growing is a massive drag on
the economy. There is no way around it. As the number grows it becomes a
bigger and bigger problem. We need to fix our college education system to make
it much, much more affordable.

------
angersock
This decade? For America?

1\. The continuing deliberation about how much privacy is useful, and for
what.

2\. The continuing erosion of the middle class.

3\. Legacy Rails applications.

------
dobbsbob
1\. disappearing democracy due to totalitarian levels of spying everywhere

2\. riots over collapsing economies

3\. education costs

50yrs Potable water worth more than gold in some countries

100yrs Potable water priceless

~~~
derefr
Why, exactly, can't we desalinate the oceans, if potable water really becomes
an issue?

~~~
a3n
We will. If you're rich, you'll be able to afford to drink it. Nestle will
likely be one of the providers, and there will be others just like them.
[https://duckduckgo.com/?q=nestle+water+ceo](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=nestle+water+ceo)

~~~
patmcc
Desalinated water is cheap enough to drink if you're anywhere above abject
poverty, really: much less than $1 per cubic meter in Israel and Singapore,
for example. Literally fractions of a cent for a litre. It's everything else
we use potable water for that makes desalination expensive.

------
jaegerpicker
Over the next 25 years or so

1\. The continuing destruction of the worlds Ocean/Aquatic ecosystems. We are
far more dependent on free flowing clean water and the ecosystems tied to it
than most realize.

2\. The coming explosion of biological technology. This could be massively
positive or negative depending on how it shakes out.

3\. Revolution/Information control wars. Arab Spring, NSA scandals, and groups
like Anonymous all seem like a prelude to me. The Internet was a game changer
in numerous ways. On the internet real groups of people can have massive power
and in part effect real change. A lot of people are starting to see that power
and want to control it.

------
ZenoArrow
There's plenty of issues to deal with, others have highlighted some that I
feel will be important, but what I hope happens in the next minute is we
realise the issues will not be fixed by top down design but by the coordinated
actions of those at the ground level, i.e. by us. We may not have directly
caused the issues, but it's still up to us to fix them.

I feel that what Kapura said about the Occupy movement is partly true, I do
believe it did some good in raising awareness, but being pissed off is not
that effective in building positive change. The whole street protest thing is,
in my opinion, more about what feels right than what works, and it's time for
us to be pragmatic.

Awareness building is important, but what's even more important is building a
viable alternative to our current system, a viable alternative that doesn't
require strongly held political beliefs in order to be compelling. Part (and I
should stress only 'part') of that viable alternative will be technology that
serves the needs of the many whilst helping us to have a better symbiotic
relationship with the world we all live in. Start thinking of what that tech
might be like. As Alan Kay said, the best way to predict the future is to
invent it.

------
dmlorenzetti
In time spans like a decade, what people will think of as most important will
be freedom issues (democratic and anti-democratic movements around the world,
individual privacy concerns, efforts by religious groups to enforce their
preferred societal norms).

In the longer run, the issues that threaten humanity as a whole, rather than
as individuals, are as important. Things like: (1) Water/energy availability,
both singly and combined. (2) Global climate change. (3) Local environmental
quality (air, water, food). Of course, all of these are linked, but when
working on solutions it still makes sense to think about them individually.

------
ars
Water, Water, and Water.

Despite the press we'll be fine for energy and climate.

~~~
maxerickson
Energy and water are largely fungible.

~~~
dllthomas
I don't think we can trivially turn (fresh) water into energy (yet?), so I
wouldn't use that word. It's true that with enough energy, we can generally
get some water purified (and distributed).

~~~
maxerickson
Fair enough, but if you aren't worried about energy you shouldn't be very
worried about water.

~~~
ars
The problem is that salt water is not available everywhere. Pumping water
everywhere will be a problem.

~~~
dllthomas
A problem mostly solved by abundant energy.

------
subrat_rout
1\. The Ocean is broken. [http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1848433/the-ocean-
is-broke...](http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1848433/the-ocean-is-broken/)
2\. Rampant deforestation and extinction of several species that we will never
see again. 3\. Population explosion (in long 50 years) 4\. Pollution of air,
see and all form of terrestrial water sources.

------
a3n
Eventually:

Water: too much in some places, not enough in other places.

Increased starvation and disease, from drought, mono-cultural industrial
production of food from the likes of Monsanto and ADM, and constant and
spreading low grade war from national militaries above and local militarized
police forces below.

Economic catastrophe caused by revolution or effective dissolution of the
United States and other current economic leaders.

------
gmuslera
Climate, inequality and death/unbalance of ecosystems (and their respective
consequences) for 50/100 years. For the near term, economic crash,
balkanization of internet and death of IP agreements between countries.
Somewhere in the middle the formation or at least becoming more evident of new
country blocks and alliances (maybe tied with how internet will get
balkanized)

------
moron4hire
1\. The ability of people to not live in fear of their government. Regardless
of whether or not there is an actual risk of something unfair happening to a
person at the hands of their government, their police, etc., if people live in
fear of it, they will become sheltered, paranoid individuals.

2\. The ability of people to not live in fear of their community. I think
people sequester themselves into Facebook echo chambers because they don't
know that there is nothing to fear of people who don't 100% agree with them.

3\. The ability of people to not live in fear of themselves. The ability to
stop placing faith in the systems that others provide us, to act as a
sovereign individual and find ones own path, to take personal "risks" (which,
certainly for 1st world citizens, don't much amount to real risk) to be able
to do more meaningful, productive work that is more beneficial to our fellow
man. We aren't going to solve the worlds problems by listening to our parents
and our guidance counselors and going to a "good" college and getting a "good"
job. The only way to save the world is to ignore the advice of the people who
broke it in the first place.

It's a pretty easy formula. Just eliminate fear.

------
irremediable
Hopefully, diseases of the rich -- things like obesity, dementia and old age.

I say "hopefully" because I'm not wholly convinced that many countries will
continue to be rich. I really hope so.

------
TrainedMonkey
Read this: [http://www.globalissues.org/](http://www.globalissues.org/)

To know what issues we will encounter in the future you need to know what
issues exist now.

------
monkeyspaw
\- Fair natural resource utilization (water, petrol, etc.)

\- Increasing political instability in totalitarian regimes

\- America will struggle with not having such a high standard of living
relative to the rest of the world.

------
finishingmove
1\. Money as the driving force (instead of knowledge)

2\. Competitive mentality (instead of collaborative)

3\. Collateral damage caused by 1. and 2. (instead of care for our fellow
human beings and our environment)

------
tbirdz
In 10 years time the most popular languages will still include C, C++, Java,
C# and friends.

------
elgabogringo
\- Global Sovereign Debt / Currency Crisis

\- The US Police State

\- Increased Chinese, Japanese rivalry/aggression

------
gesman
\- Mixing disease consequences for causes and seeing pain killer drugs as a
cure.

------
NotDaveLane
1\. Weather 2\. Water availability 3\. Antibiotic effectiveness

------
csmithuk
Politics, politics, politics.

Like the last 50 decades at least...

------
drjesusphd
50 years: global shortage of oil and natural gas

~~~
tedsanders
I think your answer is most likely to be correct. Oil won't disappear today or
tomorrow, but it's very hard to imagine the technology that needs to be
developed so that oil is still cheap and plentiful in 2100. BP has some good
reports on this issue ([http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/energy-
econom...](http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/energy-
economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy-2013.html)). If we don't solve
the energy problem, there is a reasonable chance that humans in 2100 will have
a worse standard of living than those today. Seriously.

------
FiddlerClamp
1\. Global warming

2\. Lack of privacy

3\. Inequality (the 0.1%)

------
teamonkey
Money, Money, Money

