We're told that:

"Australians want a future of sustainable self-sufficiency
and a healthy environment supporting a robust democracy -
free of poverty and inequity."

That was one of the projections, as part of the
"Australia 2050 Project" for the Australian Academy of Science.

We're also told that "Equally Australians fear a future in
which the stability of day-to-day life has been eroded by a
degraded environment, depleted resources, lawlessness or
warfare, limited access to health care and education...
or even increased economic or political inequity and the
fragmentation of social cohesion."

"The question - "What will Australia in 2050 look like?"
will not be answered for another 4 decades. But the future
depends on decisions made today, and that means it is
important to get some early insights into what the alternatives
really are..."

http://theconversation.com/where-is-australia-headed-some-future-projections-12403

Will we end up like the US with:
Racial problems,
Crime,
Gun-Violence,
Continued involvement in wars
and so on ...?

Your thoughts please?

Foxy, I started a thread some years ago tiled Australia 2030.

Back then our economy was booming, anyone who wanted a job, had one, and our car industries, along with manufacturing were looking sort of, ok.

Since then we have incurred a huge debt and additional uninvited guests to cater for, whom by the way from all accounts are better catered for than our own seniors.

The next three to five years will be very interesting as we will have lost our car industry, and no doubt most of the support manufacturing as well. Mining shows little chance of saving us and interest rates can't stay were they are forever. I'm also certain we will either be in, or have been in a recession by then.

The two keys issues in my view are big business and a much fairer tax system and there is little evidence of big businesses being supported, in fact the governments under pressure to tax them out of the country as all most can see is the tax they pay, yet choose to ignore the prosperity they create, which, without them would simply not be there. So be careful what we wish for.

The other taboo subject for some unknown reason is that no one will look at changing the tax system other than to inflict more pain on the payees in the first place, the consumers, by way of an increase to the very inefficient GST.

The cold hard reality is we have cooked our goose and the Kevin 07 gamble simply didn't pay off and while many are sticking it to Tony Abbott, the fact is the libs left a fairytale by way of a dream economy and Tony has inherited a nightmare. Of cause he too has lost his way as he should have sacked that wasted space speaker weeks ago.

Foxy, predictions are very difficult especially about the future.
However I will have a go !
First, we will not have solved the energy problem.
No one took notice of what happened to the European economy when it
relied on wind and solar, in contrast to France's nuclear power.

We will try to run the economy on wind and solar backed up with coal.
The rising cost of coal will have imposed 4pm to 8am power rationing
either by cost or regulation.

The high cost of fuels will have reduced international trade to more
expensive and compact freight.
Fusion will be either still a work in progress or too expensive.

Australian coal will be our main export, but there will be a campaign
to keep it for our use.
Industry will be crippled by power restrictions and high cost.

Australia will in fact be better off than many countries.
Europe will still be struggling to cope with their moribund economies
Farming will be a boom industry but the need to either electrify the
rail network to move food around will be a major project.
Some are proposing steam locomotives, although the Snowy output could
only be used for rail.

Wars, will not be a problem for Australia, as it would be too expensive
to attack Australia when the country next door has land to be taken.

This needs more thought than this but it shows the main restrictions.

"What will Australia in 2050 look like?"

Hong Kong.

Abbott has again put his foot in it signing a free trade deal with China without reading it. Side Letter on Skills Assessment and Licensing [DOCX 39 KB] |. Who knows where that could end up.

We are going further and further down the drain, Subs for Japan.
I can not believe why Abbott is still there.

Thank You all so much for responding to this discussion.

Future projections are difficult to make and I'm certainly
no oracle.

However, there are a few concerns after reading the website
I cited earlier. We're told that Australia's population will
increase 50 - 100 per cent by 2050 with the population
living in the North and West projected to increase at the
expense of smaller Southern States.

It makes sense then that energy consumption will also increase
and we're told that fossil fuels are likely to continue to
supply the bulk of this. However we're also told that black
coal, natural gas and minerals (iron-ore, bauxite,
copper) will be exhausted in 60 to 80 years at the current
rate of extraction.

As far as economic growth goes it's predicted that this will
continue over 2011 - 2050 at around 2.5 per cent per year
and shift towards services and away from primary and
secondary industries like agriculture and manufacturing.

What concerns me most is that experts have estimated that
Australia being a dry continent can only sustain a population
of only 21 million with the current availability of water.
This population estimate has already been exceeded - we're
now over 23 million and growing and with mining and other
activities the water resources are being depleted and
contaminated. In the meantime nothing seems to be happening
in solving the water problem. Reduction of our water resources,
will reduce our food growth, how will we feed the population?

Are we going to import water?

Foxy the "experts" also told us it would never rain again, or at least not enough to fill the dams, due to their obsession with the global warming myth.

That was of course just before half the country disappeared under flood water.

Please don't believe those self appointed experts. They would be a joke, if not so dangerous when their daydreams & fantasies are believed.

We will have stopped wasting precious recourses on sending rather dumb kids to university, & will be back to putting them to work much younger.

We will have woken up to the foolishness of alternative power generation, & have coal fired power giving us our natural advantage again.

We will be exporting much more uranium, but as processed fuel if we become half smart, & perhaps even using some of it ourselves.

We will be harvesting all that oil under the southern barrier reef.

We will have stopped immigration because If we don't, very soon we will be in a Lebanese type civil war long before most of the above has happened.

Bazz I hope you are right, but I started thinking about breeding working horses back in the 70s, when they told me the same thing. Ships will simply move to nuclear power, as developed & proven by the US navy. Land transport will be powered by electricity & methane, with clathrate vacuumed from the deep ocean, & extracted from the tundra.

Fox, "Reduction of our water resources, will reduce our food growth, how will we feed the population? Are we going to import water?"

As a reminder, you are the poster who maintains that Australia is a 'wealthy country' that should open its doors to those millions of economic migrants.

We have the bogan element to thank. The Global Financial Heist ran through the Northern Hemisphere like a sustained blizzard. Thanks to urgent action by the Rudd-Gillard government the GFH was sidelined from Australia. Instead of lending a hand for Australia, all the Abbott-Murdoch Opposition did was carp, demanding we expose Australia to the same GFH blizzard that the global corporations were inflicting. It was pretty obvious they'd bring it to Australia if they could lie their way into office. Sure enough, a torrent of abuse from the Abbott-Hockey mafia, News Ltd and the likes of Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt fooled enough bogans into swinging their votes to Abbott to strip Australia's protection from the backwash of the GFH and bring it storming into our country in the form (inter alia) of two disastrous budgets and a host of administrative cuts to public welfare.

It would have been much worse had the Senate not been able to moderate the attack - for which a head of steam is being built up to nobble the Senate voting system to tame it. Part way to Ken Livingstone's prediction: "If voting changed anything they'd abolish it".

To stop the Tea Party wing of the Corportate and Squatters' Parties imposing a future like that of Greece or worse, the most immediate response needed is to prise the group out of office at the next election.

Foxy, there's plenty of water, but most of it's in Northern Australia. There's also plenty of scope for making better use of the water we have in southern Australia, and in the future desalination is likely to be much cheaper than it now is, and dehumidification may also become a viable water source in some areas.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Hasbeen, the claim that the experts told us "it would never rain again" was merely sloppy reporting by the Murdoch press. It misrepresents their position in two ways:
Firstly, they said "could" rather than would.
Secondly the timeframe they warned us about wasn't for ever; it was until after the dams are empty.
Without the benefit of hindsight, it would've been irresponsible not to take those concerns seriously.

BTW after a Google search, I'm presuming that by "southern barrier reef" you mean the southern part of the Great Barrier Reef. But as far as we know, there is no oil under any part of the Great Barrier Reef. Geologically it's thought to be too young.

Dear Hasbeen,

Australia is one of the standout countries in terms
of human development status.
It is not corrupt. It's science is
world class. However none of this matters
if governments are
not prepared to listen to the scientists or think that
science is a "load of crap."

The earlier website that I cited earlier makes it quite
clear that our rate of productivity is dependant on increasing
our labour force participation - facilitated by education and
health programs and increased participation by people over
65. Managing an ageing population is not going to be easy -
as we know.

However the Australian 2050 Project for the Australian Academy of
Science has, we're told, just published Phase I - which
according to the earlier link is called -
"Negotiating Our Future: Living Scenarios for Australia to 2050"
We're told that this -
"emerged from 35 scientists working together to explore
social perspectives, resilience, scenarios, and modelling as
pathways towards environmentally and economically sustainable
and socially equitable ways of living."

It sounds impressive and if you're interested -
is available for free from:

http://www.science.org.au/publications/australia-2050

Thank You for the additional contributions to this
discussion.

Our future as I mentioned in my opening post does
depend on decisions made today and that means it is
important to get some early insights into what our
alternatives and choices are.

Please keep your comments and ideas coming.
They will be gratefully received.

Basic principle: It does not matter whether AGW is true or not !

Foxy said;
As far as economic growth goes it's predicted that this will
continue over 2011 - 2050 at around 2.5 per cent per year

Fairyland stuff. Why should Australia be able to defy the same gravity
that all other countries are now experiencing ?
Re the water in Southern Australia, it cannot be solved because water is heavy.
Because it is heavy it takes lots of energy to raise it above sea level.
Foxy: how will we feed the population? We won't !
Hasbeen:Ships will simply move to nuclear power, as developed & proven by the US navy.
Probably expensive, and greenies will scream.
>powered by electricity & methane, with clathrate vacuumed from the
deep ocean, & extracted from the tundra.
Catch22: ERoEI ?
Julian:the GFH was sidelined from Australia.
Barnaby Joyce:- "Manage your debt or debt manages you !"
Foxy said:
if governments are
not prepared to listen to the scientists or think that
science is a "load of crap."

For once a government action that has looked forward.
The government has removed the subsidy from wind farms after the
German & others experience They do not work !
Now to finance research into energy.

Solution, Keep the coal for ourselves, we need it to find & build the
next energy regime. No one knows how long it will take.

Dear Foxy
This is my best guess

Racial problems,______________Yes probably worse than present
Crime, ______________________Reduced aging population translates to less crime
Gun-Violence, ________________Less as above
Continued involvement in wars__ worse than present caused by overpopulation and climate change.
Are we going to import water?__ No we will be using desalination and will have to recycle city water.

Aluminum is the most abundant metallic element in the Earth's crust we will not be running out of the stuff anytime soon.

Food production in Australia will not decline but we will likely see more factory farming, and a shift in the food producing areas, but food will become relatively more expensive primarily due high cost of liquid fuels for agricultural equipment.

Energy will be mostly from renewable sources, coal power use will be eliminated and exports of coal will be limited to metallurgical uses only.
Liquid fossil fuels will be expensive and will possibly only account for 30% of the liquid fuels used, most liquid fuels will be produced by solar power stations. 50% of cars will be powered by electricity, but there will be far fewer cars on the road, a lot more people will work from home via computers.There will be a very fast train running along the east coast from Adelaide (possibly Perth) to Brisbane. Air travel we be seriously reduced compared to the present and a lot more expensive.There will no nuclear power stations in operation in Australia apart from any needed to produce medical isotopes.

Australia will be enjoying a boom, the growth rate will be over 3% per year. Booms and busts generally are related to demographics, with most booms being experienced during periods when the majority of the work force is in the forties. According to most projections the largest demographic group in Australia will be in the 42 age group in 2050.

The boom will be related to the personalized production of goods for example when buying cloths you will simply be scanned and a machine will manufacture the items as a perfect fit.

Dear Bazz,

Thanks for that.

Our energy consumption will increase and I agree
with you that fossil fuels are likely to continue
supplying the bulk of this. But we should also be
concerned what happens when our supply is exhausted
in possibly 60 to 80 years, at current rates of
extraction.

Dear Warmair,

Thank You for such a detailed reply.

I shall have to wait and let all of it sink in.
I shall get back to you.

We wouldn't have a problem with the future if we bred our population instead of importing the
riff raff unemployable cast offs of the world.
Just go to your local licensed club and see them there every day ob the poker machines.

Hottair
That's about all you are. If you actually believe anything your saying then you and your kind become
the problem.

Bazz,

What the rest of the world is now experiencing isn't gravity, it's the results of trying to implement austerity while the private sector is weak.

Barnaby Joyce was wrong. He was under the illusion that Australia has limited credit. But in reality Australia has unlimited credit, so a stimulus would be just as affordable if our debt were 200% of GDP than it would if we had no debt at all. As it happens we don't have much debt, but that's got no bearing on whether it's affordable.

Pumping water really doesn't use that much energy. Australia is the world's lowest continent, and most people live in relatively low lying areas.

Nuclear power is too expensive for ships. Most will probably continue to use liquid fuel, though when the wind's blowing some might also put sails up!

Wind farms work very well, but the government's removed their access to cheap finance – despite the fact that it costs then nothing and will result in cheaper electricity prices.

________________________________________________________________________________________

warmair,

Why do you think the VFT would only go as far north as Brisbane?

It would make sense to extend it to Adelaide, but not Perth.
And while there will be fewer flights on some domestic routes, there will be more than others. And there'll be a lot more international flights, particularly to Indonesia.

Did anyone watch Q&A tonight?

It was awesome.

Made me wish that I had studied Physics at school.

And I got the message loud and clear.

Our future depends on Science.

I wonder if any of our politicians watch the program?

Well Warmair, I hope you are right, it would give me a warm feeling
for the future.
However I think you are too optimistic.

Re water, desalination is quite energy intense and true you could
supply only the lowest reservoirs and that would leave supply for the
highest places. However that I suspect is not real problem.
It is the expansion of population to new towns and increasing food
production. We have to cater for times of drought not times of normal rain.
You said:-but food will become relatively more expensive primarily due
high cost of liquid fuels for agricultural equipment.

I agree this is a critical point, if we can solve the electrical
generation problem then we can electrify farming with some difficulties
and new/old techniques. In oldern times ploughing was done by using
a steam tractor at one side of a paddock and a cable to pull ploughs
back an forth. An electric motor could be used in a similar way.
Perhaps a better way would be overhead wires ah la trolley busses.

It is not done that way now because fuel is so cheap.
Re the VFT, I suspect that we will never be able to finance such a
project. It is not generally understood that the VFT construction is
very different to other rail construction.
That is why I propose the "Fast Enough" train project.
We already have the rolling stock in NSW which is capable of speeds
over 125 Miles Per Hour as they are in fact the UK 125s.
They could easily halve the time Sydney to Melbourne.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtcIc05ZdVg

There are many of these videos. It would need track straightening
and track upgraded to higher UK standards.
That is what we can afford.

Dear Foxy
Current world consumption of oil is 93 million barrels of oil a day or 33 billion barrels of oil per year and this is increasing by about 2% per year so if we continue on our current path we would be using 66 billion barrels of oil a year by 2050, but as we are only discovering about 16 billion barrels of oil and gas combined per year, this will force us to consider alternatives such as oil shale and tar sands. The alternatives are more expensive than conventional oil and have higher CO2 emissions, which will be subject to taxes or other limits. This is likely to make synthetic fuels using CO2 as part of the raw materials very likely to be competitive. The two obvious methods are photovoltaic solar power to generate all the raw materials needed or biological methods such as growing algae to produce synthetic oil.

High priced liquid fuels will have a drastic effect on transport which is why I think the VST will be built. There are cases where it is unlikely that there will be an alternative to the internal combustion engine, for example the electric tractor sounds to me to be highly improbable and impracticable. Food prices are bound to rise for this reason, plus fertilizes will also rise because many are currently produced from oil.

The amount of potential renewable energy available in Australia is many times greater than we will need for a very long time, we just have to go ahead and build the infrastructure which for Australia is technically easy. As I have mentioned else where Europe which is smaller in area than Australia currently produces over 3 times more renewable electrical energy than Australia consumes. Renewables do require energy storage, but again there are many ways of doing this.

It is generally accepted that growth is also closely related to energy consumption, as I don't see a problem in providing the extra energy needed in Australia I don't think that a lack of energy will be a limit to growth for us.

Bazz
If all the Australian cities recycle their water it would solve most the water problems.

The Perth"s desalination plant in least in theory is powered by renewable energy.

http://www.watercorporation.com.au/water-supply-and-services/solutions-to-perths-water-supply/desalination/southern-seawater-desalination-plant

Quote
"The plant’s energy requirements are offset by the entire output from two renewable energy farms near Geraldton."

While the VST may not be profitable now, the situation in 35 years time will be very different, for a start there will be many more people to pay for it, it will have a hefty price advantage over all its competitors and it will bring people into the heart of the cities without the traffic problems.

I've got a few more thoughts ...

As our demands increase in the future we're being
told by the experts that there will
undoubtedly be shortages and price increases.
In the case of vital commodities, the results could
be economic dislocation.

Oil is a non-renewable
resource which will inevitably be exhausted one
day. Some resources are plentiful -
we have coal deposits that will probably last for
centuries and can be burned to generate energy as
other resources fail. But the use of a resource
can't be considered in isolation from its potentially
complex environmental impacts.

Some experts glumly foresee a new era of scarcity, in which
economic growth would be replaced, at best, by economic
stability - and at worst, by economic shrinkage.
Others are highly optimistic that we can continue on our
present path, relying on technological innovations to solve
problems in the future, as they have done in the past.

One resource that is very much in short supply in this
country (and elsewhere), is fresh water.

Yet our modern society requires huge amounts of water for
domestic, agricultural, and industrial purposes.

We've seen the recent debate of the proposed mine in the
Liverpool Plains area - which has the richest agriculatural
land and farmers are depended on water from aquifers.
Risking the contamination of the aquifers and without a
dependable water supply this vital region could become
useless for agricultural purposes - a situation that could
cause food shortages and make the economic plight of
today's farmers pale by comparison.

The favoured fix is not to allow mining in areas such as this.
Or possibly as some have suggested to pipe water from
other sources, hundreds of miles away - which could prove to
be a very expensive undertaking and possibly not a viable one.

As I stated earlier - I certainly don't have the answers -
but our future does depend on the decisions we make today -
and that does mean as stated previously that we need to get some
early insights into what our choices are.

Dear Warmair,

Thanks for your continued ideas.

I hope that you're right.

Foxy, many place their hopes on technological developments.
The problem is that those developments are always subject to diminishing returns.
What I mean is that in any field it becomes more and more difficult to
get an improvement in the system.
It is a variation of the lowest hanging fruit syndrome.

Energy Return on Energy Invested is another example of this.
The ERoEI of oil has fallen from 100 to now about 10 averaged over the
world so it is now warning that it will not be practical to continue
searching for new fields. This search & development cost can be seen
in the financial problems of the major oil companies.
BP's of course is well known, Shell is selling assets to pay dividends
Mobils CEO has been complaining of their expenses in search.
The minors in tight shale oil are in great difficulty with bankruptcies
starting to appear.

Coal is better off especially in Australia. It is a problem in the US
with the quality declining. The ERoEI has fallen from 80 to 30 so it
has a way to go yet.

Just note how many times you hear politicians making noises about growth.
Labour & Libs are promising growth, watch the BBC news and see how
many world politicians are promising growth.

It is signals all over. Trouble is the pollies can't hear them.

Warm Air;
I do not think the electric tractors are totally impractical.
Difficult I agree, but if liquids fuels become very expensive it may
well become necessary to find a solution.
It could be a matter of rows of poles across the paddocks and modern
trolley buses can move a long way sideways without losing contact.
Another method could be contact rails spaces several disc plough widths.
There are enclosed systems already in use for other purposes.
Cranes are one place where I have seen them used.
One rail contains two busbars.

If the cost of food can be kept down it will solve many problems.

Foxy what worries me is that while experts suggest we are going to keep growing as you say, other experts suggest we can sustain this growth, while cutting emissions and, supply the needs fir other growing countries. I say other cow tries because if we don't continue supplying them we will have a huge population of dependents.

As for natural gas, I have huge deposits under my Miles land and they are suggesting there's a larger deposit much further down suggesting hundreds of years of supply.

We are in grave danger of becoming the next third world country especially if future governments can't maintain the current closed door policy to illegals. We are likely to be at war ourselves, only it will be the haves defending what they have against the have nots with the do gooders wondering why the with's won't hand it over to those without.

The only thing separating us from the likes of Greece is mining and exports, and the greenies are working overtime to shut down both.

We have enough water, it's just that we waste too much due to our anti recycling policy.

Bathing in A grade drinking water really is quite bizzar. We should be buying drinking water and reusing our piped water.

rehctub, how many people will happily bathe in water they *know* was flushed down the toilet with their pooh yesterday.

Yes, I know the technicalities are feasible.
But it's the psychology that's the trick.

More excellent ideas coming forward and making
me realise just how complex these issues
really are.

It has also made me do a bit more research - and as a result
I've come across the following quote from Tor Hundloe in
his book, "From Buddha to Bono: Seeking sustainability.
Hundloe says - "The language is dated - my apologies":

"All efforts to support economic growth, feed more
people and mine more minerals requires very large amounts
of energy - amounts that are doubling every 12 years...

There is only so much fossil fuel, only so much hundred-million-year
old sunlight in storage. We are burning our capital. We are
close to the end of our fossil fuel economy...

Even if we could invent a perfectly safe and clean source
of energy based on solar power, we would still be defeated
by the fact that the earth's climate can absorb only so
much extra heat before it changes too much for us to stand.

All the energy we ever use ends as heat and it has to go
somewhere. This is a law of physics and has nothing to do
with technology, politics, or economics.

This limit we are just finding out about, gives the final blow
to the widely held idea that if we had more and more high
energy technology we could solve our problems by desalting the
sea, making the deserts bloom, making metals out of granite
and food out of coal. In theory these things could be done, but
in reality such energy intensive solutions can simply not work
on anything like world scale, not because we shall never have the
energy but because we shall have no place to put the heat that
energy turns into..."

What Hundloe suggests for us is:

"We today should have a lower material standard of living so
that people tomorrow will be able to have a standard of
living at all. We can replace material goods with a range of
pleasures that do no harm to the environment. In this sense we will
be richer with less..."

Bazz,
Electrification of paddocks is totally impractical. But battery electric tractors could become practical.

If it were just a case of prioritising investments, we would have diminishing returns. But technological change enables us to overcome that.

EROEI is much less important than many people believe. Obviously we need positive net energy, but energy input is often a small part of the cost input.

Energy use growth and economic growth are two very different things. Although they're strongly correlated, we saw that relationship start to break down when the carbon tax was introduced.

In the days before low cost airlines, 200km/h trains might've been fast enough for a large proportion of the population. But they're not any more, and Britain is planning to build high speed lines for up to twice that speed.

We will always be able to finance a VFT. The real question is: will we be WILLING to?

________________________________________________________________________________________

warmair, why do you call it a VST?

________________________________________________________________________________________

Foxy, thanks to an Australian TV comedy, global warming as the result of too much hot air is known as the WhiteHouse effect.

But it radiates into space quite quickly, and it's nowhere near as big a problem as rising CO2 levels.

________________________________________________________________________________________

rehctub, the biggest thing that separates us from the likes of Greece is that we have our own currency. We can't run out of money, and the value of our currency will automatically adjust to make our exports competitive.

Bathing in A grade drinking water is entirely sensible. And while there's plenty of scope to recycle water, directly recycling it into drinking water is generally a bad idea as too much can go wrong, and most of our water demand is for irrigation.

Dear foxy

Quote Tor Hundloe
"All the energy we ever use ends as heat and it has to go
somewhere. This is a law of physics and has nothing to do
with technology, politics, or economics."

The laws of physics actually state that the earth loses heat to space by radiation thus creating a nice balance for us between the incoming heat from the sun and the heat we lose all the time to space Unfortunately increasing levels of greenhouse gases particularly CO2 interfere with the loss of heat to space thereby increasing surface temperatures.

Adrian
"warmair, why do you call it a VST?"
Simple typing error or possibly because I am dyslexic or both.

Dear Aidan and Warmair,

I am glad that both of you take pollution seriously.

In the early 1970s - decades ago - the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) recommended the
use of pollution taxes. Over 80 years ago one of the last
century's most eminent economists, Pigou called for the
same thing.
The irony is we have so few - and in this country the
current government appears not to believe in them.

Yet experts tell us that this is a tried and true way of
reducing and, if need be, completely curtailing adverse
environmental impacts. Taxes on pollution reduce
consumption - we're told. If high enough they curtail it. Most economists
prefer pollution taxes as the preferred means of dealing
with environmental harm.

It took the medical profession from the 1960s to the present
era to get the public and the governments we elect, to act on
the toxic, life-taking effects of tobacco. Eventually sanity
prevailed, although it took decades.

It is clearly time for economists to commence their campaign for
pollution taxes. With all their power and influence in
society and government, economists are still sitting on their
collective hands.

It is time that things changed.

Here is an interesting website on what Australia's
energy future may look like.

It's worth a read:

http://theconversation.com/what-will-australias-energy-future-look-like-16412