The Year 3000.

Things that don't belong anywhere else. (Check first).

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
styrofoam
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 3:28 am UTC

Re: The Year 3000.

Postby styrofoam » Thu Sep 09, 2010 2:15 am UTC

Zamfir wrote:Given that humans are the closest to AI we have, and humans cannot self-optimize their intelligence, I would even say that intellignece and self-optimizing systems are completely unrelated. You can have either without the other.

That's because we don't understand our brains. We will understand the AI, by nature of making it ourselves. It would also be possible to roll back if an edit makes things worse, not better.
aadams wrote:I am a very nice whatever it is I am.

User avatar
Pez Dispens3r
is not a stick figure.
Posts: 2079
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 3:08 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Year 3000.

Postby Pez Dispens3r » Thu Sep 09, 2010 2:49 am UTC

Zamfir wrote:
Sharlos wrote:I think it would be useful to distinguish between economic and political union honestly.

The EU shows how hard that distinction is. Every step of economic integration has gone together with substantial political integration.

For example, free movement of goods meant that the EU became the main setter of standards and quality norms.

EU laws are binding for member states, and the European Court of Justice can overide national laws.

Competition laws meant that countries are limited in giving special treatment to their own industry.

Free movement of labour within the borders of the EU meant that EU countries have to treat EU citizens from other countries in many ways the same as their own citizens. You can't deny them presence, you have to provide services to them, they pay taxes like normal citizens and even join social security systems (this last is still clunky). They can bring their own driver's license, they can't be asked to pay higher prices for things, etc.

Also, free movement of people required a tighter cooperation between police forces. There is an extensive "framework on the European Arrest Warrant" to facilitate easier extradition of citizens, including countries' own citizens.This is not yet adopted everywhere, but the movement is in that direction.

Tax regimes across the EU are more and more comparable, because otherwise companies and people can shop around for favourable conditions. Still an ongoing process, but for example every country in the EU is required to have a VAT of a least 15%, with exception for clearly defined categories only.

You can go on and on, in more and more detail. A tight economic union is largely impossible without giving up large amounts of sovereignity to the union.

And then, there is of course the Euro. Giving up the ability to set your own macroeconomic policy is a big step, combining economic and political union in one. From the looks of it, the Euro will require even more political integration between its members in the future.

These threads you speak of are pulling the EU together more cohesively, and it would be silly to dismiss how substantial their success has been so far, but I can't assume that's likely to continue indefinitely. As I understand it, the EU had to compromise on some of the major rules it set for itself to assist Greece et. al. financially, and there's also the issue that not all countries have integrated into the EU to the same extent. These are lines of stress which could potentially cause the EU to check its ambitions or else fracture.

The NATO of the eighties offers a handy illustration, as membership in the political union carried some restrictive commitments. The US was committed to repelling a Soviet invasion of the continent but the European member states had to deliver troops and funds towards that defense, and many of them weren't. So when Thatcher was looking to cut funding to her armed forces she had to keep all her NATO commitments (it was critical that Britain supported NATO if the other states were falling short in that regard) and find other places to make the cuts, and they ended up falling on the surface fleets. This sent messages to Argentina that the British were cutting their capacity to defend the Falklands and they mounted an invasion of the islands which Britain was woefully unprepared for (it took Argentinian impotence rather than British competence for the counter-invasion to be successful). And the United States could not overtly support Britain because they were trying to foster better relations with South America. That is, it was NATO commitments which led to the outbreak of the Falklands conflict and hindered the possibility of reacting to it decisively. What would happen if a similar crisis caused a member to bring their EU commitments into conflict with their national interests? We can't always rely on cooperation. And if we look to the United States, the way that dilemma was solved essentially amounted to a federal coup (that is, the federal government established itself as the primary governing body, when before the state governments essentially cooperated together as a union) and a civil war.

There have been claims that, as a global population, we're becoming more enlightened but when the most destructive conflicts and greatest abuses of humanity are within living memory that just rings hollow to me.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I feel like you're probably an ocelot, and I feel like I want to eat you. Feeling is fun!
this isn't my cow

userxp
Posts: 436
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:40 pm UTC

Re: The Year 3000.

Postby userxp » Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:05 pm UTC

By the year 3000 we might or might not have flying cars, AIs, immortality and world peace. But this is just an incredibly tiny part of the future. The amount of time, space and matter-energy that remains in our universe is astonishingly huge.
Think about the year 150 000 000. By that time, we (and by we I mean the closest things to humans that remain) will probably be a type 2 civilization or more (that means able to harness the entire power output of the sun). We could not just travel to other stars, we could move other stars and put them together. And when we have built a giant hydrogen ball near the solar system or wherever we live, we could build an enormous, gigantic computer the size of the Sun. Such computer would be of course be designed to have an efficiency of 99% or more (meaning it uses 99% of input energy to compute) would be able to do at least 1080 FLOPS, and could solve most problems by brute-forcing. You could simulate a sub-universe, with simulated humans that wouldn't know they are being simulated. AI would practically write itself in that computer! And with that much processing power, you could literally solve any problem that can be solved. You could become a god.

Assuming there isn't a World War 3 and we all die before.

User avatar
Robert'); DROP TABLE *;
Posts: 730
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:46 pm UTC
Location: in ur fieldz

Re: The Year 3000.

Postby Robert'); DROP TABLE *; » Thu Sep 09, 2010 8:45 pm UTC

...And even with all of that, you can't break 512-bit RSA. (Well, you could, but it'd take you around 10^53 times longer than the lifespan of the universe) It's impossible to solve a combinatorial explosion with conventional computing, even if you turned the entire universe into computronium.
...And that is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped.

User avatar
Quantum Sunshine
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 4:58 am UTC
Location: Missouri
Contact:

Re: The Year 3000.

Postby Quantum Sunshine » Thu Sep 09, 2010 9:04 pm UTC

Mumpy wrote:
Quantum Sunshine wrote:
Cars, by 2100 will be irrelevant. Not because of jet packs or teleporters or anything like that, but because towns and cities will have grown so much that anything you could ever need will be within walking distance, or no distance at all due to advances in Internet connection.


Really? No visiting family or anything like that? Come on, transport like cars fills a niche now that I don't reckon will become uneeded.


True, visiting family that is outside walking distance, but not long enough to take a plane/train/etc... might still require cars.

As to Sexytalon's comments, those to are good arguments I can't refute.

It seems like we're lacking a little discussion on medicine. So I'll start that by saying that I believe medicine will never peak, people will always be getting sicker, no permanent solution will be found. If cancer is somehow cured, a new disease will be discovered that is even worse.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26528
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: The Year 3000.

Postby SecondTalon » Thu Sep 09, 2010 9:48 pm UTC

Yeah, if we figure out a way to keep people alive for two hundred years, there'll be some wacky thing that happens around the 150 mark that offs people. And then we get that solved, and get hit with 225 failures, and so on. And once there's enough artificial organ replacement going on, there will still be things like ElectroKidney or WifiHeart or whatever the hell they call the wacky robotic syndromes that have more to do with driver failure than anything else, yet still kill people at the 500 year mark.

But that's probably a bit forward looking, compared to the scope here.

As far as world governments go, we'll probably have more countries that are less autonomous. The UN or something like it will have more control than it does now, but it'll be easier for groups to separate from their home nation and become their own, as it were. A worldwide confederation of loosely connected nations, more or less. US'll become a dozen or so, maybe more, for example. Yet overall they may have less control over their landspace than the individual states do today.

Then again, we'll probably all die from Neolung in 2845.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Antimony-120
Posts: 830
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:16 am UTC
Location: Wherever you can look - wherever there's a fight, so hungry people can eat.

Re: The Year 3000.

Postby Antimony-120 » Thu Sep 09, 2010 11:16 pm UTC

Hamorad wrote:Good news everyone! We've got a package to deliver...


*ahem* sorry for the massive dragging this from the depths of antiquity, but it suddenly made me think of this

Spoiler:
Image


moving on to *other* tales of interest inventions of importance...

Assuming no technological singularity, not because I have any real opinion on how likely it is, but because if that occurs I have no bloody clue how things will progress, then I can suggest a few things about the technology of the future:


1. It will be need/want oriented, simply because all technology is.

That is to say that, for example, we will stop using cars IF there is a need to stop. Speaking as someone who has lived in Winnipeg in winter, I can assure you that if there is an option to have my transportation RIGHT THERE rather than waiting for it after walking to a pickup point, I will choose to have the personal car rather than some ultra efficient public network. Another way of putting it is that we'll develop something that replaces the car only if the car needs replacing. More likely is that we'll find ways of reducing the car's resource consumption.

Similarly I don't forsee us becoming completely sedentary and living in pods, simply because we don't WANT to. I like excercise, and I like meeting people in person. Sure you might be able to simulate those things, but why would you? The majority of the population will certainly use advanced Virtual worlds or whatever replaces the internet, but it is unlikely to become the only method of dealing with the world.


2. It will not result in a society where rich and poor are meaningless

In many ways I live in a post scarcity environment. Every single person I know, including those that I would call "poor" (and they call themselves that) lacks for shelter. Or food. Or water, basic safety, healthcare, welfare, education, equality, etc. And yet I can distinctly tell the difference between those that are "well off" and those that are not. As an example using myself, I've been having to save more this last year. Not by any means a lot, I am not ascetic by any means. I eat a lot of meat, I live well, and I go out a fair bit. My "saving" is very limited in scope. I haven't bought new clothes in a long time, at all (I save other ways as well, but that isn't important for the point). This isn't a large issue, my clothes last and have a good deal of wear left in them. But my point is that, even with such a minor thing of near complete irrelevance amidst a life of complete satiation of all desire, people have noticed and commented. Not rudely, not majorly, but it has been noted. My clothes aren't out of fashion per se (I don't tend to buy the latest flash in the pan brand, Ed Hardy seems to be in right now for some reason), but the fact remains that people note that I wear the same few outfits everytime I go out now, the others having gotten too much wear. Thus, even in the height of well-off amidst the well off, the note of having to save is seen.

To show something most people would think of as less petty, one of my friends is quite poor, and all their money is going towards school. They hasn't bought clothes as good as my cast offs in their life. They cannot afford to eat red meat, and wine is for special occasions (specifically it's for the occasions someone gives it to them as a gift). Certainly this is hardly deprivation, they get their calories, their school is largely paid for by scholarship and grants, and their clothing is sturdy and comfortable. Nonetheless everyone knows that my friend is quite poor. Some are rude about it, some are subconciously petty, most don't care, but everybody knows. Deprivation is solved by technological means, Poverty is not.


3. It will have a manual override, backup, fix, or all three.

This is not because we've all seen Terminator, this is for the far more mundane reason that maintenance is always important. Not every piece of equipment will have it, but most will, because things screw up on occasion, and when there's no manual override it results in very bad shit. Witness Toyota and the inccredible everlasting accelerator. Sometimes the override doesn't work (which is what occured to Toyota, the override here being that the acceleration should have been manual to begin with) sometimes they just didn't think about it until it broke (when they DID think about it but didn't include it, that's planned obselescence).

In many ways this is what medicine has always been for a very complicated system we only half understand. Your Pancreas doesn't work? Manual override! (have a needle). Heart a little over the hill? Backup! (Have a Pacemaker). Disease that gets past the bodies defenses? Build a better immune system! (Have a vaccine).

The point is that "catastrophic failure" will not normally result in Chernobyl, and likely never in Nuclear winter. The human race may well die, but you can bet it'll be because WE did it, not some rounding error.


4. It will be sleek and shiny

Because people are idiots.

I'll return another time (maybe) for more political and sociological thoughts, but I think that about sums up my thoughts on technological change. It will be new and exciting, it will change everything, but the extreme points of view are usually based on crazy assumptions.
Wolydarg wrote:That was like a roller coaster of mathematical reasoning. Problems! Solutions! More problems!


****************Signature Dehosted, New Signature Under Construction************************

User avatar
styrofoam
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 3:28 am UTC

Re: The Year 3000.

Postby styrofoam » Fri Sep 10, 2010 12:08 am UTC

Antimony-120 wrote:That is to say that, for example, we will stop using cars IF there is a need to stop.

Might the rising cost of fuel be such a "need"?
aadams wrote:I am a very nice whatever it is I am.

User avatar
Antimony-120
Posts: 830
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:16 am UTC
Location: Wherever you can look - wherever there's a fight, so hungry people can eat.

Re: The Year 3000.

Postby Antimony-120 » Fri Sep 10, 2010 12:49 am UTC

styrofoam wrote:
Antimony-120 wrote:That is to say that, for example, we will stop using cars IF there is a need to stop.

Might the rising cost of fuel be such a "need"?


It'd be a need to change fuels, but not a need to use public transit.

EDIT: This is of course assuming that viable alternatives exist, but given how that seems likely (maybe not quite as nice as infinite gas, but still doable) I'm gonna go with cars (or some form of personal transit) being here to stay.
Wolydarg wrote:That was like a roller coaster of mathematical reasoning. Problems! Solutions! More problems!


****************Signature Dehosted, New Signature Under Construction************************

User avatar
styrofoam
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 3:28 am UTC

Re: The Year 3000.

Postby styrofoam » Fri Sep 10, 2010 4:22 am UTC

Antimony-120 wrote:It'd be a need to change fuels, but not a need to use public transit.

Which is easier; changing fuels, or moving to public transit?
aadams wrote:I am a very nice whatever it is I am.

User avatar
SurgicalSteel
Posts: 1926
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:18 pm UTC
Location: DMV, USA

Re: The Year 3000.

Postby SurgicalSteel » Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:26 am UTC

styrofoam wrote:
Antimony-120 wrote:It'd be a need to change fuels, but not a need to use public transit.

Which is easier; changing fuels, or moving to public transit?
Or changing an entire culture* that relies on and expects everyone to have access to rapid, personal transit. A lot of people are expected to be able to be at work NOW when they are needed NOW be here 5 MINUTES AGO. Unless public transit gets really, really good and really, really frequent (I couldn't think of another phrase, but what I mean is buses every 5 minutes or less instead of every 45 minutes) personal transportation isn't going anywhere without changing the cultural* expectation that everyone can be anywhere in no time flat.

* American culture. I don't really know the cultural attitude of other countries when it comes to this.
"There's spray paint on the teleprompter
Anchorman screams that he's seen a monster (mayday)
There's blood stains on his shirt (mayday)
They say that he's gone berserk."
--Flobots "Mayday"

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7604
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: The Year 3000.

Postby Zamfir » Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:19 am UTC

SurgicalSteel wrote:
styrofoam wrote:
Antimony-120 wrote:It'd be a need to change fuels, but not a need to use public transit.

Which is easier; changing fuels, or moving to public transit?
Or changing an entire culture* that relies on and expects everyone to have access to rapid, personal transit. A lot of people are expected to be able to be at work NOW when they are needed NOW be here 5 MINUTES AGO. Unless public transit gets really, really good and really, really frequent (I couldn't think of another phrase, but what I mean is buses every 5 minutes or less instead of every 45 minutes) personal transportation isn't going anywhere without changing the cultural* expectation that everyone can be anywhere in no time flat.

* American culture. I don't really know the cultural attitude of other countries when it comes to this.

I don't think this is really true. People who rely most on their cars tend to be people who live some distance away from stuff they visit often, especially work and shops. People who really need a minimal commute live close to their work.

If society was really dependent on lots and lots of people who could be at work ASAP, most people would live in dense cities where they can easily cycle to work in 5 minutes. They wouldn't live in suburbs.

User avatar
Kang
Posts: 722
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:30 pm UTC

Re: The Year 3000.

Postby Kang » Fri Sep 10, 2010 12:25 pm UTC

Public transport.
The funny thing is that rising fuel costs or taxation on personal transport, i.e. cars, doesn't make people switch to public transport by the scores for multiple reasons. One is that tickets for public transport usually get the same price increase as petrol gets in most places, simply because the transport companies can easily get away with it. Another important reason is, that the public transport systems in most major cities in reality couldn't take a large chunk of the commuters who go by car now. When I was still attending the inner-city campus of the university I'd sometimes (read: whenever my schedule collided with general rush-hour) have to wait for the third train to arrive just to have the room of getting in there (a seat? What is a seat? I am talking about being crammed in somehow in best hopes that the oxygen on board will last until you reach the next station). A third reason is that personal transport just offers a whole lot more freedom and comfort; not only can I decide when and where I go, but I can also leave my bag on the rear seat without having to look for people trying to steal it, I can turn the radio on, off and to whatever station I like contrary to having to listen to whatever crap that kid across the carriage blares through his headphones in a volume deafening me twenty feet away, I can decide on heating or opening windows instead of having to deal with a nice -5°C to +30°C heat variation in winter whenever anybody opens or closes the door and lastly in fact the interior of my car is about my only personal fortress in which I can do stupid things like singing along to a song on the radio without being judged.

User avatar
Adacore
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:35 pm UTC
Location: 한국 창원

Re: The Year 3000.

Postby Adacore » Fri Sep 10, 2010 12:50 pm UTC

Yeah, when I suggested public transport I was more thinking along the lines of a near-infinite horde of luxury taxis. You'd have a self-contained pod take you everywhere, you just wouldn't own it. Everyone having a private vehicle is so resource-inefficient it's ridiculous. Partly this is also because I am, at heart, a Londoner, and anyone in London who suggested that owning a car was better than using public transport would be laughed out of the room. I imagine the same is true in New York, but I do understand that most major US cities are still built around the principle of everyone driving everywhere. I've not seen it myself, but I've been told that in Atlanta, for example, it's not uncommon to use your car to cross the street to get to a diner for lunch, for example.

Here's a nice graphical example I've always liked. Compare: Wembley Stadium (biggest stadium in the UK) with FedExField (nearest US stadium in capacity) and note the difference in usage of the surrounding land. I wish Google would update their aerial photography of Wembley though, it's been finished for years.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7604
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: The Year 3000.

Postby Zamfir » Fri Sep 10, 2010 2:25 pm UTC

Adacore wrote:Here's a nice graphical example I've always liked. Compare: Wembley Stadium (biggest stadium in the UK) with FedExField (nearest US stadium in capacity) and note the difference in usage of the surrounding land. I wish Google would update their aerial photography of Wembley though, it's been finished for years.


To be honest, the lesson I would get from that is that the Londonners build a freaking stadium in the middle of a dense city, instead of putting it somewhat out of the city.

User avatar
Kang
Posts: 722
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:30 pm UTC

Re: The Year 3000.

Postby Kang » Fri Sep 10, 2010 8:50 pm UTC

Adacore wrote:Yeah, when I suggested public transport I was more thinking along the lines of a near-infinite horde of luxury taxis. You'd have a self-contained pod take you everywhere, you just wouldn't own it. Everyone having a private vehicle is so resource-inefficient it's ridiculous. Partly this is also because I am, at heart, a Londoner, and anyone in London who suggested that owning a car was better than using public transport would be laughed out of the room. I imagine the same is true in New York, but I do understand that most major US cities are still built around the principle of everyone driving everywhere. I've not seen it myself, but I've been told that in Atlanta, for example, it's not uncommon to use your car to cross the street to get to a diner for lunch, for example.

Here's a nice graphical example I've always liked. Compare: Wembley Stadium (biggest stadium in the UK) with FedExField (nearest US stadium in capacity) and note the difference in usage of the surrounding land. I wish Google would update their aerial photography of Wembley though, it's been finished for years.


I see what you mean and can't really disagree. That I can relay stories from using public transport also stems from the fact that for reaching city-center areas a car is just impossible. My point was just that - unless the system changes fundamentally like with that pod idea - public transport in itself is a nightmare.

User avatar
dumbzebra
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 4:59 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere on the moon.

Re: The Year 3000.

Postby dumbzebra » Sat Sep 18, 2010 10:15 pm UTC

We will have computers with which you can design you own body, which will then calculate its exact DNA structure and then grow it in a tube. Then your mind will be transfered into it.
Oh and there will be people claiming the world is going to end 3012 due to a digit mistake in mayan calculations.
As the great philosopher Socrates once said: "No."

User avatar
styrofoam
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 3:28 am UTC

Re: The Year 3000.

Postby styrofoam » Sun Sep 19, 2010 1:56 pm UTC

dumbzebra wrote:We will have computers with which you can design you own body, which will then calculate its exact DNA structure and then grow it in a tube. Then your mind will be transfered into it.

Any evidence, or just wish-fulfillment?
aadams wrote:I am a very nice whatever it is I am.

User avatar
Kang
Posts: 722
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:30 pm UTC

Re: The Year 3000.

Postby Kang » Sun Sep 19, 2010 3:03 pm UTC

I think it's a fairly logic combination of
1. Digitalising the mind. I recently read a story on the BBC website that hinted that a vague idea of that being possible one day exists
2. Decoding the human genome / cloning
Evidence for what will be possible in 2990 years will be provided after the time-travelling symposium last tuesday.

User avatar
Robert'); DROP TABLE *;
Posts: 730
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:46 pm UTC
Location: in ur fieldz

Re: The Year 3000.

Postby Robert'); DROP TABLE *; » Sun Sep 19, 2010 3:57 pm UTC

There's nothing that inherently prevents you from doing it, but protein calculations are ridiculously difficult; Simulating milliseconds of interaction took the entire Folding@Home cluster, about 400k machines. Unless we invent some fairly good shortcuts or turn the whole Earth into computronium, it's not going to be feasible.
...And that is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped.

User avatar
dumbzebra
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 4:59 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere on the moon.

Re: The Year 3000.

Postby dumbzebra » Sun Sep 19, 2010 7:59 pm UTC

styrofoam wrote:
dumbzebra wrote:We will have computers with which you can design you own body, which will then calculate its exact DNA structure and then grow it in a tube. Then your mind will be transfered into it.

Any evidence, or just wish-fulfillment?


Well we will probably have decoded the human genome (and other genomes aswell), and now know what each part does (taken in mind that our medical knowledge progresses just like now).
I think the next logical step would be to try to create the genome for small living cells (bacteria) or viruses to let them do speciffic things (just like it´s allready possible today) or created organs and bodies in certain ways.
The only way this is possible is by digitalizing it and let the hard work do by computers.
The "transfering the mind" thing is probably wishfull thinking though.

And while we´re on biology, I think the next advancement in the plastic surgery will be voice-surgery (I think within 30-50 years).
As the great philosopher Socrates once said: "No."

User avatar
styrofoam
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 3:28 am UTC

Re: The Year 3000.

Postby styrofoam » Sun Sep 19, 2010 9:21 pm UTC

Kang wrote:1. Digitalising the mind. I recently read a story on the BBC website that hinted that a vague idea of that being possible one day exists

I'll swallow that one, okay.
Kang wrote:2. Decoding the human genome / cloning

Uh, even if you did, you'd have to wait for the body to mature into the age you want. That's years of waiting (unless you start making really drastic changes, which take more time to figure out how).
Robert'); DROP TABLE *; wrote: Simulating milliseconds of interaction took the entire Folding@Home cluster, about 400k machines.

... how long?
aadams wrote:I am a very nice whatever it is I am.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: The Year 3000.

Postby LaserGuy » Mon Sep 20, 2010 3:24 pm UTC

I would say there are two possibilities:

1) Civilization will be so advanced that it will be impossible for us to reasonably conceive of anything that they have. I mean, compare what we know about 1000 CE to now. Could they have possibly envisioned computers? The space shuttle? Instanteous global communication networks? Electric light? Incredible surpluses of food, books, clothing, etc.? Peace in Europe? Lasers? Nuclear weapons? Things that we take for granted today would be beyond their comprehension to conceive. Even 50 or 100 years ago, predictions of the future have radically underestimated the power of technology. Pick any book written during either period about the future, and look for things that they predicted, then, that make no sense, given what we know now. Or technologies that they've created for futuristic societies that are inferior on many levels to things that we have now.

With little exaggeration, if you were able to travel back in time 1000 years with some reasonable amount of technology and a good bit of modern knowledge, you would be, for all practical purposes, a god to them. Or at least a sorceror with mind-boggling powers and intellect.

2) Civilization will have, for one reason or another, collapsed into oblivion.

User avatar
styrofoam
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 3:28 am UTC

Re: The Year 3000.

Postby styrofoam » Mon Sep 20, 2010 10:45 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:Or at least a sorceror with mind-boggling powers and intellect.

You mean like the legendary Merlyn? :?
aadams wrote:I am a very nice whatever it is I am.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: The Year 3000.

Postby LaserGuy » Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:53 am UTC

styrofoam wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:Or at least a sorceror with mind-boggling powers and intellect.

You mean like the legendary Merlyn? :?


A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court was what I had in mind when I made that comment.

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: The Year 3000.

Postby SlyReaper » Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:26 am UTC

LaserGuy wrote:Even 50 or 100 years ago, predictions of the future have radically underestimated the power of technology

Not true. 60's futurists told us we'd have jetpacks and hovercars and food pills and Martian colonies by now.
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

User avatar
Kang
Posts: 722
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:30 pm UTC

Re: The Year 3000.

Postby Kang » Tue Sep 21, 2010 6:03 pm UTC

Some science fiction authors of the olden days made predictions that actually came true, and some of their timelines were quite accurate, too. I always found that a bit spooky.

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: The Year 3000.

Postby SlyReaper » Wed Sep 22, 2010 12:26 pm UTC

Kang wrote:Some science fiction authors of the olden days made predictions that actually came true, and some of their timelines were quite accurate, too. I always found that a bit spooky.


Not spooky, confirmation bias. The prediction is only noteable because it turned out to be correct. The incorrect ones we don't hear about.
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

User avatar
Kang
Posts: 722
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:30 pm UTC

Re: The Year 3000.

Postby Kang » Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:54 pm UTC

To a large extend, yes. But what I found spooky is how often the true predictions also include a pretty good estimate on when it becomes true.

User avatar
Robert'); DROP TABLE *;
Posts: 730
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:46 pm UTC
Location: in ur fieldz

Re: The Year 3000.

Postby Robert'); DROP TABLE *; » Wed Sep 22, 2010 8:08 pm UTC

SlyReaper wrote:
Kang wrote:Some science fiction authors of the olden days made predictions that actually came true, and some of their timelines were quite accurate, too. I always found that a bit spooky.


Not spooky, confirmation bias. The prediction is only noteable because it turned out to be correct. The incorrect ones we don't hear about.

But there's also correct ones you don't hear about because they got the name wrong. (though maybe he overestimated a little)
...And that is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped.

Walter.Horvath
Posts: 933
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 11:33 pm UTC
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: The Year 3000.

Postby Walter.Horvath » Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:05 pm UTC

André. Lots and lots of André.

User avatar
Dave_Wise
Posts: 698
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:59 pm UTC
Location: Wales. Explaining much.
Contact:

Re: The Year 3000.

Postby Dave_Wise » Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:37 pm UTC

A vast wasteland littered with skulls and oil drums. Sorry, I'm not in a good mood today.
The future is always bright. Bombs generate quite substantial amounts of illumination
-a friend.

User avatar
Quantum Sunshine
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 4:58 am UTC
Location: Missouri
Contact:

Re: The Year 3000.

Postby Quantum Sunshine » Sat Sep 25, 2010 1:06 am UTC

Robert'); DROP TABLE *; wrote:
SlyReaper wrote:
Kang wrote:Some science fiction authors of the olden days made predictions that actually came true, and some of their timelines were quite accurate, too. I always found that a bit spooky.


Not spooky, confirmation bias. The prediction is only noteable because it turned out to be correct. The incorrect ones we don't hear about.

But there's also correct ones you don't hear about because they got the name wrong. (though maybe he overestimated a little)

I'd like to say that the future is probably predicted right, but fairly inaccurately most of the time. Like times might be off a bit (there sure seems to be a lot of these), and even if a person predicted it right, they predictor may have died and people have interpreted what he has said wrongly. Bla Bla Bla...

Actually, confirmation bias is probably affecting everyone's comments here, including mine.

I think that technologies involving energy will rapidly advance, but certain countries (like the USA), may get left horribly behind and have a very difficult time catching back up. For example, Solar Panels will probably advance very fast in the near future and the USA will be to slow to react.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests