I'd agree with the gravity of the problems described, but I sincerely disagree with the almost-inevitable turn to optimism towards the end. "Gilding insists he is a realist". Straightfacedly Friedman hands on the assurance that given the choice to trod on as always or change, we'll suddenly wake up and give up greed, sloth, consumerism for some happiness-based economy (which is bullshit, in a catatonic collapse nobody's happy, no one except a few mavericks I guess).

How is that supposed to happen? I get it, miraculously, so we don't have to get off our precious asses now and can wait it out till the crisis sweeps us off into some kind of all-together-now rapture.

Already the ice-caps are melting off, within my lifetime world population has doubled, food-prices are rising, life for very many people in this world is starting to get more difficult, bit by bit. Yes, there is technological advancement, yet the price of energy has steadily been rising, at the same time fundamental world problems are on the rise as well. It does not suffice to assume that we invariably will find technologies in time to mitigate all these problems. We are in for trouble and very many people will feel the consequences.

How harsh they'll be is hard to tell in advance, but there's reasonable evidence that they (and arising social dynamics, i.e. war) could be lethal to the social and economic world system du jour, when given several decades to do their magic.

So it's better to think ahead and take action, as individuals and as society.