In that note, Robert Bryce has reportedly at length on the shortage of the highly skilled labor needed to build transmission lines. That’s a major reason why a rapid transition to renewables and vast new transmission lines connecting them to the grid isn’t feasible. It’s also why we should either maximizing the existing grid.
Your discussion of skills embodies my concern with the prospects of a shrinking labor force and aging/depopulation that will take place by 2050. If technology requires skills to make them work, what happens when we no longer have enough people with the required skill sets? Does technological advancement stop, or does it regress?
Thanks for the comment. As I am sure that you know, global populations are predicted to start declining in the second half of this century, and replacement rates below 2.1 are becoming the norm.
It is very unclear to me what a shrinking population will mean to future material progress. A growing population has been the norm for all nations experiencing material progress, but it is hard to know if it is an essential precondition.
We do know from anthropology that there have been instances where populations shrink to such an extent that a society "forgets" key skills and technology. The example of Tasmania is the most well known, but there have likely been other examples. It is important to point out that these are examples where populations shrink to a mere few hundred people, so it is not clear how relevant it is our situation.
If I had to guess, I would say that as long as human populations are in the billions, it will not cause a major regression. But if human population levels keep spiraling down beyond that threshold, at some point it will be very hard to keep progress going.
In that note, Robert Bryce has reportedly at length on the shortage of the highly skilled labor needed to build transmission lines. That’s a major reason why a rapid transition to renewables and vast new transmission lines connecting them to the grid isn’t feasible. It’s also why we should either maximizing the existing grid.
Your discussion of skills embodies my concern with the prospects of a shrinking labor force and aging/depopulation that will take place by 2050. If technology requires skills to make them work, what happens when we no longer have enough people with the required skill sets? Does technological advancement stop, or does it regress?
Thanks for the comment. As I am sure that you know, global populations are predicted to start declining in the second half of this century, and replacement rates below 2.1 are becoming the norm.
It is very unclear to me what a shrinking population will mean to future material progress. A growing population has been the norm for all nations experiencing material progress, but it is hard to know if it is an essential precondition.
We do know from anthropology that there have been instances where populations shrink to such an extent that a society "forgets" key skills and technology. The example of Tasmania is the most well known, but there have likely been other examples. It is important to point out that these are examples where populations shrink to a mere few hundred people, so it is not clear how relevant it is our situation.
If I had to guess, I would say that as long as human populations are in the billions, it will not cause a major regression. But if human population levels keep spiraling down beyond that threshold, at some point it will be very hard to keep progress going.
Good thoughts. It is a bit of an unknown. Perhaps AI will be our savior, arriving just in time, as nitrogen fixation did.
I honestly have no idea what to think about AI.
It could be great, it could be apocalyptic, it could be nothing.
Most likely it will be somewhere in between, and I am content to just wait and see.