Having been born in 1952, I wonder what the world will be like in 2152.  I think I know and it gets pretty ugly. 

First, I've been hearing all my life that, "If we don't do something now, in the present, the future will not be at all like the past."  The concern was best expressed by Paul Ehrlich in "The Population Bomb" and Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" of the 1960s.  The former wrote of exploding human populations and the latter of the loss of songbirds in the US to pesticides.

We have slowed population growth and controlled polychlorinated biphenols in the USA, but problems still exist worldwide in those arena.  As a lifetime environmentalist and now a writer and editor working on a global scale, I'd like to add my perspective.  In brief, to those who say we need to act now to save the planet, I'd like to say, "Too late."

That is, the damage is done and I see no real hope for major change.  Why am I so pessimistic?  I'm not really.  China gives me hope, not the US.  People can undo some damage.  But we already live in an irreversibly changed world.  At 2 a.m., I won't take too long to explain.

We lost the last clean air in the 1960s in the US and globally soon after.  If we stopped all pollution today, it would take quite a while to get clean air again.  I remember a US population of 200 million that now is 306 or more.  When push came to shove on the environment, President George W. Bush denied the existence of climate change and encouraged the purchase and sale of bigger vehicles and wanted people to burn more gas and pollute more, although not in those words.  My point is simple.  America's leaders are mostly against controlling growth and pollution.  I have news for them.  I've done the math.  At current rates of growth, the entire planet will be made of human beings by the year 3000 all the way down to the core.  That is, current growth rates are simply unsustainable.

Similarly, we need ten acres of earth per person, since only 5% can be cultivated.  The rest is mountain tops, deserts, or covered in ice, making growing food difficult.  In 2000, when I last did the math, we had seven acres per person.  Scientists talk of "the world's weed patch" as the globe spreads weeds from continent to continent.

So, here's my prediction.  Major species like lions and tigers will be gone in the wild, probably in my lifetime and certainly by 2152.  We may even lose them to extinction.  After all, the "Right Whale" the one good for oil, is almost extinct as are many other whale species.  By 2152, any large mammals and birds that compete with humans will be extinct.  Say goodbye to elephants, wolves, lions, bears, tigers, elk, and most species of deer.  Small survives.  Big becomes food and trophies.

The oceans will become mostly ocean deserts.  Most coral reefs will be under 20-30 feet of water taking much of the ocean's diversity with them as sea levels rise.  Many coastal cities such as Shanghai and New York will also be under water.  It is simply too difficult and expensive to build sea walls that high over expansive areas.  The "saving" of New Orleans will be one of the first attempts seen to be futile.  The core of the city may remain, an island surrounded by concrete seawalls and water, seawalls that become increasingly problematic over time.

Third world coastal cities will simply vanish as will many islands.  Life is aggressive and will move inland, but much of south Florida will be historic and no longer above water, for example.  Many species will simply perish, but many more, the weedy ones, will survive.  Black rats and house sparrows will always be with us.  But species like the Eurasian Tree Sparrow may lose ground to the House Sparrow.  The oceans themselves, our private dumping grounds, will become more and more lifeless.  More and more whale species will disappear, but many small species will as well.  In the 1960s, about 10% of seabirds had plastic in their stomachs.  That is now 90% and forecasted to 99%.  The trash from the Tsunamis will still be circling in mid-ocean.

The loss of the oceanic conveyor belt may make it interesting.  In theory, we could go from hot to cold, with ice sheets advancing again given life by changing air circulation in the arctic.  Who knows.  More likely, the loss of most of Greenland's ice by 2152 will open up new areas for mining.  Forget the polar bears.  They are already in trouble and nobody cares enough to stop global warming.

The main problem, as I see it, is selfishness.  We need to put people first, so the environment is put last.  China gives me hope, having seen the land.  Eastern China is a megacosm of the future.  We will be looking at a heavily used planet with, as one friend said, "No trees larger than 4 inches (10 cm) in diameter."  Water will still be available, but heavily used and polluted.  No one wants to cut back on their resource use when others, locally or globally, do not.

The worst part? Syria.  Hungry, deprived people spreading across borders in seek of food once we exceed our ability to feed 10 or 20 or 30 billion people.  After all, birth control is a bad word in many corners of the USA.  We still reward large families with tax benefits and government donations for food and other things.  The Gini coefficient is predicting unrest as more and more wealth is in the hands of the few, the 0.01% who control 50% of the world's resources.  While people starve, other people build car elevators in their homes like Mitt Romney so he doesn't have to use the stairs.  Things could get very, very ugly.

However, what is called the "dynastic cycle" that has operated for thousands of years will take over.  Collapses of dynasties are very ugly and the USA has not had a national budget for several years (one of the reasons I retired early was the uncertainty with my government job and things have only gotten worse.  But after this cycle ends, and we lose several billion people to starvation, a new cycle will begin.  Hopefully, we will have learned something.  But I doubt it.  Cycles usually continue.