S <\/p>\n
When we think about futurism, often we imagine cutting-edge technologies like bionic arms or weather machines for colonizing Mars. But if we really want to make it for another few centuries, we're going to need something that Iran has already got. <\/p>\n
To understand Iran's breakthrough, we need to go back in time to 1993, when President Obama's science adviser John Holdren was trying to figure out how big the world's population could get before there was a major energy crisis. A respected environmental scientist, Holdren offered up a famous scenario based on the world's population at that time. <\/p>\n
At that time, Earth held 5.5 billion people (compared to today's 7 billion), who consumed 13 terawatts of energy annually. Of course, they were not consumed equally: people in the developing world consumed on average 1 kilowatt per person, while people in the developed world consumed 7.5. Holdren suggested that given current population growth rates, the world would need 8 times more energy to fuel its 14 billion people by the end of the twenty-first century. Which would mean total collapse of the ecosystem, peak oil, and likely both. <\/p>\n
That sounded crazily horrific, so Holdren asked what would happen if the population only boomed to 10 billion, and everybody had equal access to energy. Even if everybody only used on average 3 kilowatts, the world would still require 30 terawatts of energy annually by the end of the twenty-first century. <\/p>\n
S <\/p>\n
Following up on Holdren's research, population biologists Paul Ehrlich, Ann Ehrlich and environmental scientist Gretchen Daily decided to reverse engineer the scenario. They wanted to figure out what the ideal population size would be, if we wanted people to have access to 3 kilowatts, without destroying the environment. In their calculations, they assumed a twenty-first century where people would adopt more carbon-neutral sources of energy, like solar. They also assumed that some animals would go extinct, but that enough would be brought back from the edge of extinction that our ecosystems would remain stable. <\/p>\n
The result? The Ehrlichs and Daily found that the most the planet could bear at that level of energy use would be 2 billion people, roughly the world's population in the 1930s. <\/p>\n
Confronted with numbers like that, it's tempting to throw up your hands and give up on humanity's future. How could we ever get the world's population back down to 2 billion from its current 7 billion? Actually, it can be done and it's been done before, on a smaller scale. <\/p>\n
A few years before Holdren described his population scenario, there was already one country in the world whose leaders were deeply worried about the economic and environmental costs of rising population. In Iran, during the 1980s conflict with Iraq, the Ayatollah Khomeini instituted new government regulations that encouraged women to have as many children as they could to build a \"Twenty Million Man Army.\" As a result, Iran's population grew from 37 million people in 1979, to 50 million in 1986. This was, according to journalist Alan Weisman, \"the highest rate of population increase the world had ever seen.\" <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Follow this link: <\/p>\n
How Iran Became One of the World's Most Futuristic Countries<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" S When we think about futurism, often we imagine cutting-edge technologies like bionic arms or weather machines for colonizing Mars. But if we really want to make it for another few centuries, we're going to need something that Iran has already got Continue reading