As you know, I like reviewing predictions of the future that were made in the past.
This one is called “The Future of Man as an Inhabitant of the Earth” by Kirtley F. Mather, and appeared in print in 1940.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27824704?seq=1”:https://sci-hub.st/https://www.jstor.org/stable/27824704
…
For starters, we can discard geological disasters, such as the cooling of the Earth’s interior, for many scores or hundreds of millions of years.
“Surface temperatures of the earth, the most important item in any consideration of its long-term habitability, are determined by the receipt of solar energy distributed through atmospheric agencies”.
The worries that the Sun may die and that the Earth will change orbit can both be discarded. Ditto concerns about a collision with comet, planet, star or other. We can also discard any concern about the Sun going supernova.
“The geologist may expect … prospect of 1½ to 2 billion years into the future.”
Many people have a greater concern about “the next few centuries”.
“Changes in climate will doubtless occur just as they have in the last few thousand years” ie. since the ice ages. “There is no basis for predicting … whether for better or for worse”. “the disappearance of existing bodies of glacial ice as a result of rapid amelioration of climate in the not-distant future would, if it occurrred, be a decidedly mixed blessing”, “sea level would be raised 150 to 160 feet the world around … buildings in metropolitan areas … the importance of such a change is immediately apparent. But from the geologists’ point of view these are relatively trivial matters”.
Comment by mollwollfumble. I see this as a remarkably modern take on climate change for a publication date of 1940.
“It is generally understood that man is a part of nature. He may be something more than an animal (that depends largely on definition)”. “The animal species that in the past that have been able to maintain their existence for more than 2 or 3 million years are relatively few in number. No matter how successful it may have been temporarily in multiplying and spreading over the face of the earth, each has become extinct in a geologically brief span of time. Perhaps a half million years might appropriately taken as the average … If the average applies, we may expect half a million years of existence more of our kind.”
“But does the average apply? … man is the world’s foremost specialist in transforming environments to bring them within range of his powers. … Man need have no fear … speed of changes of one sort or another in their environment.”
“Are resources adequate to keep man supplied with what he needs? … renewable resources … nonrenewable resources … man is exhausting that store of mineral wealth in a few hundred or at most a few thousand years … petroleum in the United States … would, therefore, be exhausted in less than a third of a century”.
Comment by mollwollfumble. This pressages the Club of Rome’s predictions 32 years later. It is wrong because, quite apart from this vast underestimate of mineral resources, once a mineral product has been moved from the lithosphere to the anthroposhere it can be retained in the anthroposphere virtually forever if desired. So there is actually no such thing as a nonrenewable resource, not even petroleum as the carbon can be captured from the air. And no, the US’s petroleum was not completely exhausted before the year 1970.
“Lest we become too pessimistic … gasoline … can now be manufactured from coal and other rocks containing carbon. … (for most nonrenewable resources) renewable substitutes are already known, or potential sources of alternative supply … to meet our current needs for at least 2,000 to 3,000 years.”
“The all-time maximum population of the United States will be attained about the year 1970 and will total little more than 150 million souls”.
Comment by mollwollfumble. Population of the US is now 330 million and rising. Although wildly wrong, the prediction was not stupid. The “total fertility rate” in the US dropped below sustainability levels for the first time in 1972 and has stayed at or below population sustainability levels ever since. A lot of the population rise since has been immigration.
“Automobile steering wheels made from soy beans … more of the renewable resources … the pressure for political control of metalliferous ore … is lessened … swords into ploughshares”
“Is there land enough? Is there sufficient fertile soil to provide adequate food and in addition the plant materials for the ever expanding chemical industries? … Yes, there is enough and to spare … cultivation of 2 billion acres by the methods now in vogue in Great Britain would provide an optimum food supply for the entire population of the earth … 2 billion acres is less than half the half the present cultivated area which in itself is 12% of the land area of earth. … mankind need have no fear that increasing populations will place an impossible burden on the available sources of food”
Comment by mollwollfumble. I would never have expected that, but it is happening and I was wrong.
“psychical and spiritual problems that must be solved. … How can 2 or 3 billion human beings be satisfactorally organised for the wise use and equitable distribution of resources … the future of mankind depends on finding and applying the correct answer to that specific question.”
“In conclusion, the outlook of the future of man as an inhabitant of the earth is far from pessimistic … greater emphasis on the development of intelligence and good will.”
Comment by mollwollfumble. The date of 1940 begs comparison with Heinlein’s “For us the living”, which was written in 1938. “For us the living” describes a utopia with equitable distribution of food and wealth. Startling to me is that despite both being written in the middle of WW II, the influence of warfare on human survival is ignored in both. The claim in the present article that warfare is only caused by greed for non-renewable resources screams “false” to me, but time will tell.