(subtitle: SL Thinks He's A Prophet) Despite being probably the only animal that can project into the future, our intuitive projections have the habit of being very simplistic and wracked with bias and an overactive sense for patterns. With that in mind, perhaps we should unpack some of our assumptions about the future of our species and our planet. The main thrust of my view is that change will not accelerate forever - in fact it will begin to slow. The most common way in which our projections can be simplistic is in extrapolation. A stunning example of this is population growth. We're all familiar with this pattern: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3a/Human_population_growth_from_1800_to_2000.png And of course, we panic. Before long humans will cover the planet, all green space will be lost and we'll eat our babies. Thankfully, perpetual population explosion is a myth. In about 2011/12 the world reached peak child. That means that the number of children in the world today (about 2 billion) is about the most there is likely to be. As societies develop around the world, child mortality and family size tend to fall together. The average children per woman has been falling for some time and is approaching two. Two children per woman means no population growth. (UN stats estimate that, while children will not increase, the population will increase to about 11 billion. That's because the thinner elderly population will be replaced by the larger young population, add a billion for longer life expectancy for children born today to get 11 billion). It's a similar story with climate change. Emissions have indeed been increasing somewhat exponentially and the most prosperous countries (those which generally started earliest on the emissions road) are the biggest emitters. However, the emissions are stable. The countries who emit the most per capita are no longer increasing their emissions. Time will tell whether the number will start to go down - given the steady march of technology I'd call it probable. In the meantime, countries with developing industries (China, India) are still going up the 'exponential' part of the emissions climb, so the future looks questionable globally on that front. Coming back to how we over-extrapolate, whenever we appear to be on the Oh Shit side of an exponential curve, it turns out that we were instead half way through an S curve. All the above isn't much good for a debate. Population and emissions slow-down in the first world is brute fact based on solid statistical data. So I'll do my best to get carried away. I believe this s-curve thing applies to cultural change too, and it's something I believe I am witnessing in my own culture. It seems an eternal fact that older people moan about the breakdown of society and that we'll soon be having orgies in the streets. Except, for many of us, the ideological gap between the 40-year-old and the 20-year-old is noticeably smaller than between 40 and 60 year old. Gender equality, sexual liberalism (if not for ourselves then for others), the emergence of casuality (the proper word is casualness, but that sucks) as a virtue and stiff formality as a vice, these are things that cannot be exponential forever. For example, there is a conceptual limit to how equal the genders can be, isn't there? I'm not saying we're all now enlightened neo-hippy-oids. But there has been a clear shift, most rapidly since the second world war, and most people now believe or feel these things, even if we are at different places in terms of execution or acceptance. That certainly couldn't be said a century ago. To some extent, I even see the development of language and music homogenizing. Call me crazy. But people are still making music in genres and using slang from when I was a teen as if it was still cool. Since when has that ever been normal? Maybe we're getting off the rails now, as music particularly is a broad and multi-faceted discussion. But in terms of culture (and by extension language), I do want to point out that internet media could drive such a slow-down. Media of the past is instantly recognizable by the format on which it is recorded. Is the movie black and white? Grainy? Dull sepia colour? The slightly inebriated crispness of 90s television at the end of the analogue era? The pixelated impromptu journalism of a 2001 mobile phone? But that is less the case now. A video on Youtube from 2010 looks remarkably similar in quality and style to one today. Unless you consciously check the date, you could passively wander into language and opinions from a decade ago in seamless transition from something published yesterday. It is becoming harder to separate yourself from the content of yesterday, psychologically and physically. So there we are.