Three hard Truths for Humanity

I like very much the 3 hard truths. They were the most recent output from Shell's scenario group. Arguably they were the most practical output ever from that source. They set down 3 basic trends which would determine the future of the global energy sector for the next 10-20 years. Number 1 is about resing demand, as population growth and development continues. Number 2 talks about supply bottlenecks and challenges, as established hydrocrabon sources dry up or become less accessible. And number 3 raises the global CO2 challenge as something to have increasing relevance.

The scenario group were a bit unlucky, because just as they were launching their analysis, global recession hit. Hard truth number 1 suddenly looked decidely dodgy, and the general conclusions from all 3 hard truths seem to have gone into cold storage. In my view, this is about timelines. The global recession has given cause for pause, but the mega trends remain robust. As the world recovers, the hard truths will have their day again. They are a better compass for Shell than anything short-term.

Anyway, I was thinking. What if the boffins who were behind the 3 hard truths were given a slightly broader scope? The energy sector for 10-20 years might be broad enough, you might say. But let's extend it, to humanity for the next 100 years. What would the 3 hard truths for the whole human race be?

Here is my solution. I won't claim it is very good. It is just meant to get you thinking.

My hard truth for humanity number 1 would build directly from energy hard truth number 3. Climate change. Humanity is only 200 generations or so old, but our actions appear to be disturbing a global balance of much longer duration, which takes some risks that 200 generations might struggle to become 210 or even 202. We seem to be placing a lot of optimistic hope that science will bail us out as usual - that our understanding and technology will respond in time. How do we know it will?

I've been doing a lot of walking lately, and have started observing nature more than my previous habit. The balance of the planet is so fragile, and our race is shaking that balance quite violently. Whether it is wind or the rain or temperature shifts, you only have to observe flowers and trees to think how critical geography and climate is to the planet. Everything starts with geography and climate. Read "Guns Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond if you are not convinced. Why are Dutch brusque, or Swedes early birds? Start with geography. Play with climate and we take big risks.

Hard truth number 2 is about population imbalances. Maybe we can cope with overall population growth. Living longer is wonderful, and maybe we can adapt to the consequences of a higher average age. I'm more worried about gender imbalance. Look at the ratio of males to females in people under 30 in much of Asia. For various reasons - one child policy, social preferences, scientific advance - we will have a generation or two with far more boys than girls. What do boys of 20 do? First, look for girls. And if there aren't enough girls, what then? History says the answer is - go to war. Are we setting the planet up for a more violent era, just when science makes that violence much more dangerous?

Hard truth number 3 is also about gender, and may be more controversial. I lived in Sweden, and believe I observed the start of the next consequence of female emancipation. Please accept that I believe female emancipation to be a wonderful advance in society. The Swedes are the best example of it on the planet. But I believe there what is happening is that female emancipation starts to become female dominance. Look at women in Sweden and they walk tall, proud, confident. Great. Now take a look at the men. I thought I saw a trend to the opposite - cowering, insecure, almost beaten. Where might that lead, as far as roles in reproduction are concerned? Any decline in male fertility obviously has consequence to the race.

So those are my 3 humanity hard truths - climate recklessness, imbalance in gender numbers, threat to male fertility. What would your 3 be?

Just as the 3 hard energy truths don't point to solutions, nor do my 3 hard humanity truths. What we are supposed to actually do about these imbalances I have no idea. But it would not be a bad agenda for some group to investigate.

One follow up. One thing you can do with trends is a technique called "clashing". In that, you take 2 trends and consider them together, to lead to new insights of further trends. You can do that with my 3 hard truths. So what if we have too many men at the same time as they become less fertile? What if climate changes affects food capacity while male fertility declines? Chairman Mao may be ahead of us all - the one child policy may have driven hard truth number 2, but may have already saved humanity in that it has mitigated hard truth number 1. A great example of the law of unintended consquences!

I've just read "The secret life of bees" - quite a feminine emancipation book as it happens, and very good - and was thinking about bees with relation to the 3 humanity hard truths. Apparently bee numbers are dwindling, and no-one really knows why. On my walks, I see bees playing a critical role in nature - Einstein reputedly predicted the end of humanity following the end of bees. Bee numbers are wildly skewed male to female. And the queen offers the ultimate end game of female emancipation? Bees are some sort of clash all three hard truths

I'm very happy to admit that I'm out of my depth here, speculating wildly from a position of zero expertise. But I do think humanity hard truths is a good concept, as humanity needs to understand the big picture and react just like energy companies need to within their sphere. So I know I pose a good question here, even if I don't suggest a particularly good answer. So, rise to the challenge. Find better ones.