What is the most important engineering problem of our future?

[IMDWalrus]

The biggest problem we're going to have? People.

The world's population is somewhere around 6.5 million right now; in ten years, according to a quick and unscientific measurement, we could very well have another million on top of that.

Finding ways to provide food and water, to create shelter, to have medical care, to transport people and goods, and to keep our world and all of its inhabitants alive and in one piece? It's going to take a lot of work from all kinds of disciplines to solve some of the problems that come with more people.

Engineers are going to be key in solving some of these problems, transportation and housing being two of them.

It's a broad answer, yes, but why not focus on everything instead of just one piece of the puzzle?

[KenWittlief]

Im sure IMDwalrus meant billion - but it leads right into a thought I was just having about the importance of our social structure as a species.

70 years from now almost eveyone who is alive today will be dead

there are 6.5 billion people alive today

there doesnt have to be 6.5 billion or more people in the world 70 years from now - its totally a social problem

if only 1 out of 500 couples reproduced, and only had one child each, then 70 years from now there actually would be only 6.5 million people on the entire planet

think about that for a while

what oil problem?

what food problem?

what housing problem?

what clean air / water / environment problem?

its not our technology that is causing us grief,
and its not a lack of advanced technology,

its us!

[Beth Sweet]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

Im sure IMDwalrus meant billion - but it leads right into a thought I was just having about the importance of our social structure as a species.

70 years from now almost eveyone who is alive today will be dead

there are 6.5 billion people alive today

there doesnt have to be 6.5 billion or more people in the world 70 years from now - its totally a social problem

if only 1 out of 500 couples reproduced, and only had one child each, then 70 years from now there actually would be only 6.5 million people on the entire planet

think about that for a while

what oil problem?

what food problem?

what housing problem?

what clean air / water / environment problem?

its not our technology that is causing us grief,
and its not a lack of advanced technology,

its us!

Just for the record, on this planet there is enough space and food for everyone, the problem lies in those who have what is needed and don't share what they have.

[KenWittlief]

there is enough space and room for people to survive (at this point), but there are not enough resources for every person on the planet to have a 4 bedroom house, 2 cars, 4 computers, 5 TVs, all the food they can eat...

there are only so many acres of land that can be farmed. Once the population gets above 1 person per acre, or 2 people per acre of farmland, people will starve.

but why do we need to let our population grow that large? what benefit is there to having 6 billion, or 10 billion people, instead of only 1 billion, or 100 million...?

I cant see any benefit to having the surface of the earth covered with humans.

Maybe this is part of the engineering question - how can we prosper without the need for a constantly increasing population?

What science and technology advancements would allow us to turn the size of our population back, way back? To allow our standard of living to continue to improve, with less and less people?

[ChrisH]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

Maybe this is part of the engineering question - how can we prosper without the need for a constantly increasing population?

What science and technology advancements would allow us to turn the size of our population back, way back? To allow our standard of living to continue to improve, with less and less people?

The first one is hardest to deal with. We live in an economy that demands ever increasing levels of production to stay "healthy". If we all just consume at the same rate we are now for the next ten years, our economy would collapse, because it depends on growth to work. Fixing that is going to be a severe shock to the system.

The second one is easier. As people's standard of living rises, the number of children they have decreases. In some countries today, they are staying afloat population-wise through immigration, not reproduction. Italy is an example as I recall, but that was in the media so I'm not sure how accurate it is.

[Bill Moore]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

there is enough space and room for people to survive (at this point), but there are not enough resources for every person on the planet to have a 4 bedroom house, 2 cars, 4 computers, 5 TVs, all the food they can eat...

there are only so many acres of land that can be farmed. Once the population gets above 1 person per acre, or 2 people per acre of farmland, people will starve.

That's a fair statement for todays conditions, but not going forward. Already our farmland is being converted from food sources to non-food product sources. Soy beans to diesel fuel, corn being used to make plastics . . . our main farmlands will become a battleground between producing enough food for a growing population and satisfying our desire to have unlimited cheap material resources.

The major engineering challenges for the future will be related to agriculture -- genetic engineering to squeeze greater yields per acre, hydrologic engineering to allow us to crop currently non-arable land, and bioengineering to create microorganisms that will turn any marginal bioresidue into useful product.

It doesn't matter when the price of oil becomes "too" high, it'll still take 3 generations before the population weans itself off the excess energy we think we need.

[KenWittlief]

getting as much food per acre of land is still a dead end path, if the world population continues to increase.

If we scaled the population back, then none of these things you mentioned would be necessary.

[Bill Moore]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

getting as much food per acre of land is still a dead end path, if the world population continues to increase.

If we scaled the population back, then none of these things you mentioned would be necessary.

Theoretically you have a point; it just doesn't work in practice. Even in dictated societies where population control has been tried, they only succeeded in slowing growth down, never actually stopping it.

You argument is similar to the old Zero Population Growth movement (something like 2.4 children per family) which would sustain the current world population numbers. But what about the "immortality dreams" of the future (i.e., nano-mechanisms that can enter cells and turn back the aging process). Right now, an expected lifespan is about 3 to 3.5 generations long and that is increasing. What happens when we increase that lifespan to 6 or more generations through improved medical technology? At some point the ZPG number will drop below 1.0 due to life expectancy itself. Unless something catestrophic happens (war or disease) the increase will continue.

Short term, this world needs to focus on renewable resources, including products from our farmlands, but this won't stop or control our population growth. The only long term answer to controlling the population on earth (that isn't inhumane) is to access new resources by populating other planets.

[Chris Hibner]

I hate to continue the thread down a side path, but...

I agree with Ken that population growth is going to be a big problem in the future. In many ways, it already is becoming a problem.

One problem that I see quite often is society's lack of acceptance of people that choose to not have children. Since my wife and I fall into this category, I have had to endure everyone's opinion on this (mostly negative). The one that gets me is that we are "selfish" for our choice. Since I agree with Ken's point about overpopulation, I hardly think that our choice is "selfish". In a lot of ways it's the opposite.

Anyway, I just want to give another "heads up" to people to have an open mind about other people's choices, and to not continue to spout old-fashioned beliefs without first thinking about them.

(As a side note, I support everyone else's choice to have kids. It just irks me when people think that what they choose to do is the "right way" to do things.)

Back to the thread:

I think the most important engineering problem of our future is to find a replacement for fossil fuels. Fossil fuel is used not only to fuel our vehicles, but also to generate electricity, heat our houses, run manufacturing plants, and also make things like plastics, medicines, and many other materials. It's amazing how much of our current lives depend on fossil fuels. The computer that you're using to read this thread depends heavily on polymers (plastics and rubber) that are made from petroleum.

The problem is that there still isn't a great substitute. Some reports state that corn-based fuels (such as ethanol) actually require more energy to produce them than they contain - that hardly makes it a sustainable energy source.

I really don't know what the answer is, but I hope that the answer is found before mass chaos sets in as the supplies are depleted. I recently read an article that estimates that the world's supply of oil will run out in about 20 years. That's pretty scary.

[KenWittlief]

maybe technology could be used to address the population increase?

In the recent past couples had children to help with the farm or family business, and to insure that someone will be there to provide for their needs when they are old.

If a couple has no children who will be there for them when they need to be taken care of? Can technology address this?

Another reason why people have children is they want their ideas and beliefs to carry on after their death. We want our accomplishments to be remembered, and we want to be a part of molding future generations, as a parent, grandparent, etc.

What if a persons characteristics could be captured and emulated, by a computer generated character for example? I'm thinking along the lines of those star trek episodes where famous people from the past are re-created in the holodeck, for educational purposes. If a persons character and essence could be captured by a computer generated character, or even by a life-like robotic humanoid form, then in a sense the qualities and characteristics that we develop during our lives could live on after we die

and thereby to some extent, lessen the need to have children who will carry on after us?

[mechanicalbrain]

I think the most important issue currently is within us. I'm talking about our genetics. Normally in the wild animals with physical or mental disabilities die off but since we have removed much of the limiting factors of our species undesirable genetic material. One very apparent aspect is obesity. I have a friend who eats very healthily and exercises but can't drop his weight below 200 pounds. He is not the only person i know who suffers from this problem. This is why i think that their should be a stress on genetic research. I hear lots of people talk about their fear of super humans but i think that without genetic research we end up crippling our selves. I still agree that research should be strictly monitored to avoid abuse though.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by mechanicalbrain

I think the most important issue currently is within us. I'm talking about our genetics. Normally in the wild animals with physical or mental disabilities die off but since we have removed much of the limiting factors of our species undesirable genetic material. One very apparent aspect is obesity. I have a friend who eats very healthily and exercises but can't drop his weight below 200 pounds. He is not the only person i know who suffers from this problem. This is why i think that their should be a stress on genetic research. I hear lots of people talk about their fear of super humans but i think that without genetic research we end up crippling our selves. I still agree that research should be strictly monitored to avoid abuse though.

It's called eugenics. Google it and look it up on Wiki. It's been historically unpopular because it would pretty much end up treating people as a collection of desirable and undesirable traits. More or less slapping a great big number on your forehead rating you for all of time and telling you how worthy you are of having kids.

See also Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, and the movie Gattaca.

[mechanicalbrain]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

It's called eugenics. Google it and look it up on Wiki. It's been historically unpopular because it would pretty much end up treating people as a collection of desirable and undesirable traits. More or less slapping a great big number on your forehead rating you for all of time and telling you how worthy you are of having kids.

See also Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, and the movie Gattaca.

NO NO thats not what i mean at all! What im talking about is not stopping people from breeding but fixing genetic problems they might pass on to their children.

[KenWittlief]

this brings up an interesting aspect of engineering. Take genetic engineering for example. The obvious approach is to take on things that everyone agrees are defects.

Once you've done that, the line between defect and preference becomes blurred. In general, engineers solve problems and make things (systems) better. Once you have a system perfected, or a problem solved, the engineers are done.

And for any given problem there is a "best solution" or best answer. Take cars for example. For a two passenger car there is an ideal aerodynamic shape - the one shape that will give you the lowest wind resistance and the best stability at your target top speed.

Ok - so if all car manufacturers get their heads around this, then one day all two passenger cars will have exactly the same shape, and all 5 passenger cars will have exactly the same shape

to use any other shape would be an error - and engineers do their best to eliminate errors.

Given enough time and free reign, genetic engineering would end up in the same place: there would be one ideal (perfect) human genome. If you start assigning people a task or career before they are born, then there will be one ideal genome for each career or job. In the end lots of people would be exactly the same.

But heres the weird part. Many of the things we value as humans arise out of error conditions. Our heros are doctors and firemen and the guy who pulls you off the roof of your flooded house.

most of the things we do for entertainment and hobbies are based on error conditions. Driving a car at 65mph on a straight and level highway with the windows closed and the A/C set at 71º is downright boring. Driving a convertable down a winding road up and down hills at 65mph is a blast.

in fact, we create arbitrary error conditions for sport. We put a football at one end of the field and tell one team it needs to be at the other end if you want to win.

While we are in the middle - while we are half way to perfection, being an engineer and solving these problems, these error conditions is a very rewarding career. But once we get 'there', once everything is perfect, I think we will be bored to tears

and if we are gentically engineered, we will be bored with each other as well.

[mechanicalbrain]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

this brings up an interesting aspect of engineering. Take genetic engineering for example. The obvious approach is to take on things that everyone agrees are defects.

Once you've done that, the line between defect and preference becomes blurred. In general, engineers solve problems and make things (systems) better. Once you have a system perfected, or a problem solved, the engineers are done.

And for any given problem their is a "best solution" or best answer. Take cars for example. For a two passenger car their is an ideal aerodynamic shape - the one shape that will give you the lowest wind resistance and the best stability at your target top speed.

Ok - so if all car manufactures get their heads around this, then one day all two passenger cars will have exactly the same shape, and all 5 passenger cars will have exactly the same shape

to use any other shape would be an error - and engineers do their best to eliminate errors.

Given enough time and free reign, human engineering (genetic engineering) would end up in the same place: there would be one ideal (perfect) human genome. If you start assigning people a task or career before they are born, then there will be one ideal genome for that career or job. In the end lots of people would be exactly the same.

But heres the weird part. Many of the things we value as humans arise out of error conditions. Our heros are doctors and firemen and the guy who pulls you off the roof of your flooded house.

most of the things we do for entertainment and hobbies are based on error conditions. Driving a car at 65mph on a straight and level highway with the windows closed and the A/C set at 71º is downright boring. Driving a convertable down a winding road up and down hills at 65mph is a blast.

in fact, we create arbitrary error conditions for sport. We pull a football at one end of the field and tell one team it needs to be at the other end if you want to win.

While we are in the middle - while we are half way there, being an engineer and solving these problems, these error conditions is a very rewarding career. But once we get 'there', once everything is perfect, I think we will be bored to tears

and if we are gentically engineered, we will be bored with each other as well.

Your post needs to be more carefully worded. When i first read it i thought you were saying genetic defects keep life interesting! Im sure your talking more along the lines of if we were all the same. When i talk about genetic defects i mean sickle cell anemia, down syndrome, blindness. Also the car example brings up another issue. Just because its the best engineering design for a task is it really the best design for a task. I think most of us know that a while back they designed a car that was nearly indestructable. The problem: after people bought one they would never need a new car! same with lightbulbs. And this also applies to FIRST.