How will the world evolve in the lifetime of the New Year babies? Futurologists tell Shane Hegarty what children of 2004 can expect
'Never predict anything," said the film producer Samuel Goldwyn, "especially the future." So here goes. A child born in Ireland in 2004 may see the following in his or her lifetime: computers that are more intelligent than humans; aend to retirement; a truly multicultural Ireland; the eradication of hereditary diseases; an average life expectancy of 90; the end of fossil fuels; and Dublin winning the All-Ireland Hurling Championship.
Some things are more certain than others. For instance, at the beginning of the 1990s few guessed that Ireland would experience such an economic boom or that it would become a country of net immigration rather than emigration. Futurologists told us that retail outlets would no longer be based on bricks and mortar but on silicon and credit cards; yet we still trudge the high street. Telecommunications companies looked to videophones as the future, without guessing that text-messaging would become so prevalent it would begin to influence the English language.
A child born this year, though, will take for granted some things that are still novel to us. They will benefit from the new roads and Dublin's Luas system and Port Tunnel. They may marvel at how we once smoked in offices and pubs rather than being constrained to a huddle outside the office lobby and our own homes. They may even marvel at why we ever smoked at all.
They may be paying for political scandals that occurred years before they were born. Bertie Ahern says that the Planning Tribunal could last another 15 years. Pat Rabbitte believes that will more likely stretch to 30.
Meanwhile, just as one generation grew up under the threat of Cold War, this generation may grow up in a world shadowed by the battle between the West and Islamic fundamentalism. "Experience culture", in which people travel to gain experience, may yet be threatened by events similar to the Bali bombing.
A child born in Ireland in 2004 will also grow up in a multicultural society. The seeds planted by recent immigration will have flowered. He will not know the old homogenous Ireland, but a multi-ethnic one and its impact on both society and culture. The experiences of other countries prove that it will inform art, writing, fashion and music.
If the issue is handled clumsily by us, our children may grow up in a country in which ethnic clashes, ghettoisation and marginalisation breed deep societal problems. An Irish identity that has already changed in recent times, may alter dramatically to accommodate these demographic changes.
The first child born in Ireland this year was to Armenian parents. Born in the National Maternity Hospital at Holles Street, Dublin, at one minute past midnight, Natalie Arutunayan preceded her twin sister Angela by seven minutes. They are daughters of Ashot and Rozanna, who believe that the girls' lives in Ireland will be good, as they grow up with two brothers and a sister already born here.
In Galway, 2004's second arrival, Aoibhe Carroll, was born to Siobhán and Noel. The proud father was a little preoccupied by the immediate health of mother and baby to be thinking 40 years ahead, but he had noticed the cultural mix in the maternity unit of University College Hospital.
"It's here that you really notice the difference. Every second child born seems to be of foreign parents. That's all good. It's different to before, but it means that we will get to learn a lot about ourselves."
The Arutunayan twins will be part of the new, hyphenated Irish, an Irish-Armenian growing up alongside Irish-Nigerians or Irish-Chinese.
According to Gerard O'Neill, of trend-spotters Amárach Consulting, we should not necessarily look to the UK to see what sort of impact this will have on us. "With the UK, most immigrants had a historical connection, but for those coming to Ireland there is no connection, no legacy of empire to provide common identity. We are crafting something different and we are only at the very start of that dynamic now."
O'Neill is currently working with a Dublin Institute of Technology group, the Futures Academy, on the Dublin 2020 project, recently commissioned by the Dublin Chamber of Commerce to predict the demographic, environmental and industrial possibilities ahead. Nevertheless, while greater Dublin continues to absorb almost 50 per cent of the population, he does not believe that the next generation will necessarily grow up as either rural or urban.
"It will be more a suburban culture," he suggests. "There is already a growing trend of Dublinitis, where people are getting tired of crime and traffic and the general stresses of living and commuting within the city. Young people now see themselves moving out farther afield. Dublin is not seen as a city for settling down and having kids. Both New York and London became young people's cities and Dublin will become the same, accelerated by pressures of living and simple lack of space. People will look for a better quality of life."
Quality of life is a common theme through many long-term predictions. O'Neill is not alone in believing that increased wealth will not necessarily mean increased happiness through amassing of material goods. "They won't need another car or TV, but might instead crave other things that help them feel well. There will be a boom in what we call the 'wellness market'. Health farms, retreats and spiritual wellness will be a very substantial part of the life of the 2004 child."
The environment will also be a concern. Among futurologists, the watchword is "sustainability", the belief that the current habits of the West can't go on or we will trash the environment completely. The next generation will be bemused by our levels of wastage as well as burdened with the responsibility for cleaning it up. There will need to be changes in behaviour and our relationship with the environment.
"A child born in 2004 will not be putting diesel in their car," says O'Neill. "They will probably be driving a hydrogen-powered car. It will be a very different world. In fact, there might be a return of airships and solar-powered sailing ships. Windmills will become a familiar sight. They will see the end of the era of cheap energy and will have to get used to paying more."
Their careers may be based on what Charles Handy describes as a "portfolio life"; the notion of working selective hours in different jobs, balancing leisure and work time until several years beyond the current retirement age.
"A child born in 2004 can forget about retirement," O'Neill insists. "The idea of compelling adults, who are wise, experienced and healthy, to stop working will seem ridiculous. There will be a gradual dissolution of retirement as a concept, although this will, in part, be compelled by economic necessity."
That economic necessity will be born of an ageing population, a probability that has been nagging at us for several years now, with some believing it to be an economic and societal time bomb. O'Neill is not so pessimistic.
"There will be a different impact than is now envisaged. Already, 50 is being described as the new 20 because at that age, people have no kids, their mortgage might be paid off. They have their health and probably a bit more money than they had in their 20s, so they move around, often living outside Ireland. Besides, those in their 60s and 70s will expect to be as healthy as the average fortysomething is now. So I think that the idea of hospitals being full of elderly is a gloomy vision that's been overdone."
However, those who grew up seeing their parents retire in their 50s and head to the sun with a healthy pension fund may resent having to work into their 70s. There is also a predicted pensions crisis which will prevent many from retiring in the first place, while the ageing population might mean a labour crisiswithout the input of older workers.
Lifespan expectations will continue to change. By 2045, the average life expectancy is likely to be 85, although scientists differ on how long people will be capable of living. Some believe that the practical limits of the human body mean that they won't necessarily be swinging all the way into their 100s. Others think that people will eventually expect to live to 120 or beyond.
Which brings us into the more radical predictions of what's to come, although some things that appear outlandish are gaining mainstream scientific currency. The term "post-human future" is increasingly heard; the theory that our evolution may be ignited by artificial intelligence, genetically modified humans or thought-controlled machines. Ian Pearson, a futurologist at British Telecom, predicts that by the time this year's child reaches adulthood, computers will have surpassed us in intelligence. And he doesn't mean specific intelligence, such as beating us at chess, but genuine consciousness.
"We really believe in BT that you have to achieve consciousness," admits Pearson. "Without that the computer does not understand context. It needs to be part of the experience, to understand what we are about and what it is about. It must be aware of its own thinking process, attitude and emotions. That's something you can't explain through equations in a computer programme."
Such a development would lead to enormous moral, ethical, philosophical and theological issues for the next generation. What should a computer be allowed do and what should it not? Should it have recreational time? Should it be paid? Should an intelligent computer have voting rights and a say in political and social decisions. If you pay it, then what if it invests in its own projects and begins to employ and pay us? What if it doesn't like us? Pearson believes contemporary debates over cloning and stem-cell research make useful practice for those that lie ahead. The next 100 years may see the next development of human evolution.
"I wouldn't include that as a possibility but as an inevitability," says Pearson. "We will definitely be tinkering with genomes. We will be linking our nervous systems with computers. A child born today will take this kind of thing for granted. If you had the chance, of course you'd modify your children. Of course you would delete the gene for cancer or cystic fibrosis. This will be standard in a few decades time. You can't hold it back. You might make it illegal in Ireland, but that won't make it illegal everywhere. You won't get global consensus on the issue. There will be resistance, battles, riots outside biotechnology labs. But it will gradually happen anyway."
Not everyone accepts this. Leading evolutionary psychologist Stephen Pinker recently pointed out that this dawn of genetic enhancement is far from inevitable, thanks to a range of cultural and scientific obstacles. Nevertheless, the notion that we are on the brink of something major has gained currency in recent years, with varying predictions as to what that might bring.
The British astronomer royal, Martin Rees, last year claimed that the human race has only a 50-50 chance of surviving the 21st century. The end might come from any number of sources: genetically-engineered killer viruses, intelligent computers, nuclear weapons or even an asteroid impact.
"Over the past 2,000 to 3,000 years human beings as such haven't changed," Rees recently told the Guardian, "but in this century human beings - as we know from the potentiality of genetics and targeted drugs and implants into our brains and all kinds of things - could change." He titled his book The Final Century. The American publishers changed that to The Final Hour. We enjoy the thrill of a good scare story.
Of course, 30 years ago, the threat of nuclear war was so real that many didn't believe we'd make it this far. Both Gerard O'Neill and Ian Pearson agree that things will probably get better rather than worse. It will be no Utopia, but it will not be so dystopian either. The next generation will take it in their stride.
"We have a good adaptability to change," concludes Pearson. "They'll manage."