What do you think the future will be like in 20-50 years?

[tankuroded]

Every computers will have connected to the Internet.

Aircrafts will have a warp system.

 

[Dotini]

Our planet can theoretically support human life for another few million years. But that's theoretical. In reality, swings in the climate may drastically affect modern civilization within the next few thousand. (I'm talking, of course, of the next "Ice Age")

In the long term, our species' survival hinges on the ability to colonize other worlds within the Solar System. Put our eggs in other baskets. This will also allow our species to outlive the Sun's red giant phase.

In the very long term, it hinges on the ability to colonize other worlds around other suns, or the ability to thrive in space without the support of a natural planet.

In the very, very, very long term, it hinges on the ability to escape the Universe before usable energy sources dry up.

I think its silly to dream about escaping planet Earth in order to "save our species".

I have a better idea! Let's save planet Earth by escaping our species!

The problem with our species is that it has transcended its animal nature by becoming overly self-conscious and technological. Over time, this has led to anti-Darwinianism, i.e., survival of the unfittest, and a culture of overpopulation, overexploitation of resources, pollution and moral degeneracy. All this points to a bad end for the human race.

The obvious solution is to return to our roots; to return to our animal nature where we can live once again in balance with nature. This can be accomplished in one of several ways. The gradual way would be to breed out intelligence and self-awareness through a series of medical interventions. The quick way would be to set off a global electromagnetic "stupid bomb" which would destroy human consciousness and return all humans instantly down to the level of a bonobo. We would all live like apes again with sticks and rocks as our highest technology. All previous technologies would simply decay, rot and rust away.

From Nature we sprang, and to Nature we shall return.

 

[Kneedragger]

I have a better idea! Let's save planet Earth by escaping our species!

The problem with our species is that it has transcended its animal nature by becoming overly self-conscious and technological.

"If you were to remove all insects from the planet, within 5 years all life would basically be either dead or near collapse; thats how important insects are to the chain of life on earth. If you were to remove humans from the planet, within 5 years life on earth would already begin to flourish like never before."

..but you think our over self-consciousness is a problem for the species and this isnt right. We are meant to outgrow the species! It isnt a design fault, its an expression of how impervious consciousness is ..the stumbling block is with minds that think outgrowing means literally 'out', as in, another planet in space. This is just silly.

What passes for intelligence is mostly a mixture of extreme ego-centricity -and hidden cowardice, as the ego cannot dare accept consciousness as the only real reality. The future? Ask yourself what the *past* will be 20 years from now and the answers will still elude you. Youre missing the point.

 

[Golfman]

Sorry

Fallout 4!!

 

[terminator363]

the ipod obama

 

[niky]

From Nature we sprang, and to Nature we shall return.

Humanity is the only species currently alive on this planet capable of transcending its own nature.

Despite the idea that our current situation leads to "survival of the unfittest"... the truth is... the unfit survive, but the fit survive even better. And longer. Western mores prevent successful (rich) men from having harems... we should be encouraging it! Let the fittest have the most babies!

The idea of "returning to Nature" is actually counter to the natural order. A species' prime imperative is to survive. And in order for our species to survive, we have to expand to new habitats, wherever they may be.

Escape the universe? To where?

Another one. A newer one. It would probably take a tremendous amount of energy to do it, though. I guess we could create gigantic wormholes by smashing galaxies together. :grin:

Conversely, we could stop the heat death of the Universe entirely if we ever learn how to reverse entropy. Maybe finally learn how to exploit vacuum energy or the "Casimir Effect" (where two plates nanometers apart induce quantum effects which result in a force being generated between them) and somehow manage to keep ourselves alive while the last stars fizzle out.

Of course, we'd have to find a way to survive the inevitable decay of protons and the final evaporation of the black holes that will be all that is left of the galaxy and star-forming phase of our Universe... but then, if we can actually use quantum effects, we can make our own protons out of vacuum.

 

[kikie]

Read this or ask him: http://www.johntitor.com/

He's a time traveler from 2036.

 

[Touring Mars]

Humanity is the only species currently alive on this planet capable of transcending its own nature.

...and the only species currently alive capable of wiping itself out without any help from nature...

"survival of the unfittest"

Fitness in purely Darwinian terms isn't the problem - it's our fitness as a society that is the problem. I reckon that this planet is more than capable of sustaining a much larger human population, if only we could figure out how to do it without the "culture of overexploitation of resources". The idea that rich, successful people are more "fit" to live on this planet than others is not correct. Even the poorest people on Earth are examples of supreme biological fitness, but their unfortunate lot in life is not determined by their biology or by evolution, but by the shortcomings of human society. Being rich and comfortable in human society is not a measure of how successful a biological organism you are.

Read this or ask him: http://www.johntitor.com/

He's a time traveler from 2036.

Doesn't water expand when it freezes? If the polar ice cap melted, wouldn't sea level go down?

edit: I just read that sentence again...

 

[Omnis]

Niky, do you think all the information will be able to be learned and retained by humans if or when they get to the point to where they're engineering the universe(s)?

We might need to be able to externalize memory somehow like in Ghost In The Shell. Every time I think of the future, I think of GitS cyborgs.

 

[Kneedragger]

From that John Titor site:
"There is a difference of philosophy between us that should be clarified. Since I believe that all possible outcomes and events are possible, probable and certain, it is impossible to assign "goodness" or "badness" to a person or situation.
On some other worldline, I am an insane time traveler causing destruction and death while (name of forum member who confronts John on a regular basis) chases me with his band of devoted followers. However, on this one, I am not. Since both events are certain, their value is neutral."

I felt a calm and sense of 'deep grin' after reading that. Sometimes I crave company and this made me feel at home again for a minute, like it was from a friend or familiar mind. I never heard of this person before (john titor) but reading that statement was a nice surprise. It hints that the container of our minds, as people, is far bigger than we suppose ..along with stating the multiple-worldline idea. Nice.

 

[niky]

Niky, do you think all the information will be able to be learned and retained by humans if or when they get to the point to where they're engineering the universe(s)?

We might need to be able to externalize memory somehow like in Ghost In The Shell. Every time I think of the future, I think of GitS cyborgs.

Well... if we survive over a billion years into the future... it's likely we won't even recognize ourselves. I'd think "cyborg" would also too mild a term to describe the results...

...and the only species currently alive capable of wiping itself out without any help from nature...

Itself and almost everything else on Earth except the insects and bacteria... Even with our powers of life and death, we fail at killing off bacteria!

Fitness in purely Darwinian terms isn't the problem - it's our fitness as a society that is the problem. I reckon that this planet is more than capable of sustaining a much larger human population, if only we could figure out how to do it without the "culture of overexploitation of resources". The idea that rich, successful people are more "fit" to live on this planet than others is not correct. Even the poorest people on Earth are examples of supreme biological fitness, but their unfortunate lot in life is not determined by their biology or by evolution, but by the shortcomings of human society. Being rich and comfortable in human society is not a measure of how successful a biological organism you are.

It's a measure of how successful a social organism you are. Which is why I put "survival of the unfittest" in quotation marks... because the truth is... if they survive and multiply, despite poor living conditions, no medical care and a lack of food, yes, the poor definitely are biologically fit.

Ties in with the "America" thread... eugenics doesn't work because the factors seen as vital by those proposing eugenics are not necessarily survival factors... just those deemed "useful" by the proponents of the program.

I'm not saying the poor are unfit. Just that the rich are the "fittest" in this particular environment. Coincidentally... the biological imperative for success shows in the behavior of many rich and powerful men... who actually do seek out multiple partners and have many children.

I don't know if I put it in the "America" thread... but I also believe that "survival of the fittest" applies to societies. Societies that are fit prosper, over the long term. Which is why many totalitarian societies don't, even with a huge amount of natural resources (oil), and why even China has had to adopt more and more Western values to prosper economically. I personally believe that factors that determine fitness in a society include how they approach education, health care and employment programs for the poor... but as I said there... only time will tell which political philosophies will actually thrive.

Unfortunately... we also have a problem with our global society... in which the laws that govern the behavior of nations are not always properly or evenly enforced. If trade laws, for example, were properly enforced, farming in many third world countries would become more economically viable, and it would raise the standards of living there.

And maybe this culture of overexploitation could be controlled with better policing of utilization of shared resources (fish stocks are the prime example, water, another). But I fear that we may not be able to control overfishing until it's way too late.

 

[Dotini]

I also believe that "survival of the fittest" applies to societies. Societies that are fit prosper, over the long term.

Numerous highly intelligent remarks in this post, Niky. Well done. I choose only one to comment upon. Here I must ask what you mean by "prosper"? And what you mean by "long term"? Some of the ancient Egyptian societies, I'm thinking of the "Old Kingdom", lasted a few hundred years and undoubtedly prospered for a time. Classical Greece and Rome each lasted for X hundred years, and are counted by most as successful societies. Does it mean anything that they are gone now? Earlier in the Neolithic, it's likely some now nearly forgotten societies lasted a thousand years or longer. But is it right to say they "prospered", or merely survived for a long time? And what about our own society, when did it really begin? When did the Philippine society begin? Do the tribesmen of the interior count? In the case of the US, it began more or less in the 17th Century, culminated in the revolution of 1776, and is still here today. But perhaps you now mean global society?? Did it begin in the Peace of Westphalia, in the Industrial Age, the Atomic Age, or the Computer Age? When did the clock start ticking for us?

Respectfully yours,
Dotini

 

[Omnis]

I'm not saying the poor are unfit. Just that the rich are the "fittest" in this particular environment.

Actually, this isn't really valid as a measure of darwinian fitness. Poor and rich are not genetic traits. You also can't measure the fitness of individuals. The population sample of humans includes both poor and rich when you take fitness of our species into account. One rich guy screwing every gold digger in town has no meaningful effect on a population. Compared to the millions of "poor" families with 10 kids per couple, it's really an anomaly.

 

[Kneedragger]

And what about our own society, when did it really begin? When did the clock start ticking for us?

I think Stalin pointed out that the loss of one life can be experienced as tragedy, but that the loss of a hundred thousand is a statistic. And he would know. But it relates to your rhetorical questions-

Anytime you treat a society of people as an individual you introduce distortions. Its a necessary thing to do, and for lots of good reasons, but it cant help but separate actual, single, human lives from their mooring. And meaning. And this is true whether the intention behind the classification is good or ill. When did certain societies really begin? Its the same question anti-abortion people ask but directed at individual life ..its the same question. When does the clock start ticking? Indeed.

And you certainly wouldnt want a history professor, or a Soviet dictator, to be the one to decide when an individuals life becomes 'officially valid' and his decision turned into law, just because he was also adept at determining when ancient societies began or ended. When does the clock start ticking? Well who made the clock? Do you even know? Can we even know? And you dont have much time to answer, because, well, the clock is ticking..

 

[niky]

It's difficult to pinpoint how long we have left. I doubt that we will ever completely lose the knowledge and technology developed in the past century... but as I said, resources will be a big problem if we don't expand to other environments within the next thousand years.

Actually, this isn't really valid as a measure of darwinian fitness. Poor and rich are not genetic traits. You also can't measure the fitness of individuals. The population sample of humans includes both poor and rich when you take fitness of our species into account. One rich guy screwing every gold digger in town has no meaningful effect on a population. Compared to the millions of "poor" families with 10 kids per couple, it's really an anomaly.

The only valid measure of darwinian fitness is how many offspring you have and how successful they are at having their own, whether due to genetics, brains, money, whatever.

That rich guy is a drop in a billion-drop bucket, but he's still spreading his seed wider than most anyone else, and giving his offspring better chance to survive than most others. A poor man can have the same number of kids, but he doesn't have the resources to ensure they'll all survive till adulthood and have children, themselves.

 

[Omnis]

We can't say that for sure without looking in retrospect

 

[niky]

We can't say that for sure without looking in retrospect

True. There's also something to be said about whether said theoretical billionaire achieves proper transmission of values. Because without that, his progeny will not be as successful as he is, and less likely to have as many children as the "grand old man".

(I've been sitting in too many business seminars... ...I could almost write a book on the perils and pitfalls of family-owned enterprises and succession issues)

 

[infamousDee]

Escape the universe? To where?

That's exactly what I was thinking, especially since the term universe literally means "all that exists."

 

[Kneedragger]

..since the term universe literally means "all that exists."

uni = one/single

So 'multiverse' would be the correct escape hatch, although yeah, probably harder to locate.

 

[marchi]

Not much will change. Things will simply just become more efficient and faster as it has done for the past 10-15 years. We'll have break throughs in medicine, but new diseases. Dubai will be no more then a memory buried under sand. Tilke race tracks will still bore everybody to sleep.

They'll find a cure for de ja vu

 

[kikie]

We, the human race, will go back to nature. We, the human race , are going to be fed up with the problems technology brings forth. Technology will still exist and will advance and get better but in harmony with nature and not a nature-destroying-technology.

In the year 2525, when men is still alive, .....

 

[kikie]