Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums

Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/index.php)
-   Critical Thinking (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/forumdisplay.php?f=33)
-   -   The world in 4000 (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/showthread.php?t=121385)

Cavernio 12-1-2011 03:35 PM

The world in 4000
 
So what do you think humanity will be like in 2000 years? What about 1000 years? 500?

I have only a few things that I think, but I don't wanna say them in this post because I don't wanna color what anyone thinks with what I think. And with that, it'd be cool if you answer and think about it yourself before you read the thread so your imagination/ideas are your own. More fun that way, and I think there'll be more variation and creativity.

PS: I'm posting in CT because I want well-thought out discussion and ideas.

dragonmegaXX 12-1-2011 04:16 PM

Re: The world in 4000
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Toymaker (Post 3580981)
Nothing.

Please learn to actually post right, or just get out. Seriously.

Anyways, if you think about it, technology has been increasing exponentially for a long time. 70 years, imagine telling someone that they could have a personal computer that holds terabytes of information and that they could have something like an Ipad where everything is touchscreen.
Then imagine 300 years ago, roughly 3-4 lifetimes, when the industrial revolution hadnt even happened.

With that in mind, I believe one of a few things can happen:
1. One dominant country with a leader that is just a /touch/ too radical could launch nukes 1000 times stronger than Hiroshima and end the world in a nuclear wasteland. It's actually pretty plausible, considering the instability in the minds of some dictators.

2. If everyone on Earth manages to get along, then I honestly expect things that are in science fiction, such as flying cars(such a thing already exists for a few creative people), schools will all be electronic, over super advanced webcams, etc. I think gaming will be ridiculous with some super fancy Virtual Reality Simulator allowing you to actually be in the game(leading to all sorts of addictions and escapism most likely)

3. The longest kingdoms on Earth generally only last under a one or two thousand years, so eventually there will probably be new forms of government to grow alongside that of democracy and communism, both of which are still relatively new in their applicable forms, or even overtake them as the predominant government systems.

4. Earth reaches its carrying capacity, everyone starts dying of starvation, disease, and lack of water, and animals have fun until the world ends.

wildfireskunk 12-1-2011 04:21 PM

Re: The world in 4000
 
I don't think anything any of us come up with would be anywhere near what it's likely to be like, provided that we don't wipe ourselves out with nuclear weapons before we find a way of colonising other planets. The question itself raises a myriad of other questions which could merit a good discussion before even considering it... Will we ever achieve near light/light speed/faster than light travel? What will medical and technological advancements have done to humankind in that time? Will we have created AI that lives upto what people expect in science fiction, and that won't do a Terminator/Matrix on us? Will we have made alien contact, and will it being friendly/hostile?

Personally, I'd like to imagine that in 500 years time human beings are living in a manner somewhat similar to how Ian Banks writes in his books written within the Culture universe. But I'm just a fanboy as I love those books. :3

rushyrulz 12-1-2011 05:19 PM

Re: The world in 4000
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dragonmegaXX (Post 3580984)
4. Earth reaches its carrying capacity, everyone starts dying of starvation, disease, and lack of water, and animals have fun until the world ends.

If we don't start taking some serious population control measures, we'll be at critical mass by year 4000 and we will be screwed, so hopefully there's an epidemic coming sometime in the next 2000 years to wipe out a portion of the densely overpopulated Earth before everyone dies from lack of water.

25thhour 12-1-2011 06:24 PM

Re: The world in 4000
 
I believe that in the year 4000 earth will be a mess. Climate change will have ruined the earth, the earth will reach its carrying capacity and there will be wars over the most simplest neccessities like water, maybe even air. Natural Disasters will wreak havoc over most of the world. But yeah you see where i'm going.

I honestly don't see the earth's future as a good one.

iironiic 12-1-2011 06:31 PM

Re: The world in 4000
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by 25thhour (Post 3581080)
I honestly don't see the earth's future as a good one.

I agree with this. It is part of human nature to try and simplify their life using the resources that are around them. If this mentality keeps up (and chances are very likely), I don't see a promising future either.

EDIT:

Quote:

Originally Posted by rushyrulz (Post 3581037)
If we don't start taking some serious population control measures, we'll be at critical mass by year 4000 and we will be screwed, so hopefully there's an epidemic coming sometime in the next 2000 years to wipe out a portion of the densely overpopulated Earth before everyone dies from lack of water.

You know that if you fit the entire Earth's population into one concentrated area, it would only cover the size of Alaska? Surely in 2000 years, that will be an issue, but I see your point as well.

25thhour 12-1-2011 06:37 PM

Re: The world in 4000
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by iironiic (Post 3581083)
I agree with this. It is part of human nature to try and simplify their life using the resources that are around them. If this mentality keeps up (and chances are very likely), I don't see a promising future either.

Yes, but there is a glimmer of hope. Lots of times it takes a massive disaster for people to realize that their ways are wrong and that they need to change before something exponentially worse happens.

Crashfan3 12-1-2011 07:05 PM

Re: The world in 4000
 
2000 years ago, we still used swords and chariots and only the 90-95% of the population couldn't read or write. The world's population was roughly 250-300 million.

500 years ago, modern science began to take its baby steps, and a well developed sailing industry allowed humans around Europe and Asia to communicate and trade. The world's population was roughly 500 million.

Today, we have cures for millions of diseases, and via the internet we can communicate with someone on the other side of the planet in a few seconds. The world's population recently exploded and is now 7 billion.

In 2500, given the current population trend our population could easily be 50 billion or more. Earth can not support that massive of a society so by the time our population is that great we will either need to set up a colony on the moon or another planet or the massive instability will cause great chaos and global wars for even the most basic resources. Assuming we have found a way to either control or support the immense population, our technological advances by then would be unimaginable. 100 years ago we didn't even have telephones, now our telephones are also internet devices, HD video cameras, and heaven knows what else. By 2500 we'll probably have 50 exabyte memory cards for both our phones and our brains, and people will be able to teleport and fly for all I know. Cures for AIDS and cancer may be developed, and the average human may have a lifespan of 120 years,

By 4000, assuming we haven't wiped ourselves out with either intergalactic thermonuclear wars or our unthinkable population possibly in excess of 500 billion, we'll probably have extremely advanced technology among the likes of being able to selectively modify genetic code at our convenience, telepathy, inception (lol), and lightspeed travel. Humans that die of natural causes may live to be a few centuries old and disease may be something that exists only in history books thought-o-scans.

However, in complete and total honesty, I don't see the human race living up to these claims of indestructibility I mentioned in these last two paragraphs. We are now gaining an extra billion citizens every 15-20 years and the earth is ridiculously overpopulated and polluted. Wars break out over the most trivial bullshit and economies are falling left and right. A new supervirus is on the news every 5 years. If society has not completely collapsed by the year 2250, I will be very surprised. BUT, I don't anticipate the extinction of the human race. There will likely be survivors that find a way to start over with basic societies.

also in 4000 will be the mark of the release of final fantasy MCCLXVI ;o

wildfireskunk 12-1-2011 07:29 PM

Re: The world in 4000
 
I'm of the same opinion of a few here that the most likely outcome is that at some point in the next few centuries there will be a global catastrophe that will cause a huge decline in the earths population. The hope is that if that happens, all of the accumulated knowledge up until that point is somehow preserved so that the much more reasonably sized population can carry on where things were left off. Would be kind of depressing if the world in 250 years was like the scorched wasteland of the Fallout universe.

Another interesting thing would be if that, in the next few decades, various aspects of science met dead ends. Let's say that is was proven impossible to travel at a speed that would allow humans to travel outside the solar system. No way was found to put humans into a survivable suspended animation for long term travel, AI was never developed, practical flying machines (hovercars!) were never developed, Ailens were never discovered, and all of these other things that most people assume will happen in the future turn out not to be possible due to eventual constraints on the way things are made, or it just plain not being able to happen. It's depressing to think that there's the chance that humans might one day reach a technological high, only to have it maroon them here on earth with no prospects for travel beyond the stars.

Mike Weedmark 12-1-2011 08:48 PM

Re: The world in 4000
 
I don't even think people will still be driving in 20-30 years. This isn't much of a post, but anyone the phrase "Peak Oil" means anything to should know what I'm talking about. I'm not an apocalyptarian or anything, but my best guess is that the year 4000 will look a lot like the year 1850 with a few advanced but sustainable and realistic technologies scattered around.

Edit: And probably not 7 billion people.

who_cares973 12-1-2011 10:10 PM

Re: The world in 4000
 
We're already running out of water. There will be wars for basic needs before the 500 mark

cry4eternity 12-1-2011 10:45 PM

Re: The world in 4000
 
I don't mean to just post a link and run, but this website kept my attention for a few hours while reading about all the things that are possible.

http://futuretimeline.net

Though it seems to be based on extrapolated facts and educated conjecture, I found reading this to be quite exciting. Settling the Moon and Mars, technology merging with biology, force fields, femtotechnology, fully automated cities, the disappearance of religion (estimated ~2240), and the perfection of computer science are among the topics discussed.

dragonmegaXX 12-1-2011 10:49 PM

Re: The world in 4000
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by cry4eternity (Post 3581298)
I don't mean to just post a link and run, but this website kept my attention for a few hours while reading about all the things that are possible.

http://futuretimeline.net

.

This is actually pretty cool, and seems pretty possible from the few years Ive read so far.

hi19hi19 12-1-2011 10:51 PM

Re: The world in 4000
 
There will be worldwide issues with basic needs before the 500 year mark. As if there aren't already in many places.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cry4eternity (Post 3581298)
technology merging with biology

lol welcome to today, enjoy your stay

Cavernio 12-2-2011 01:44 PM

Re: The world in 4000
 
Yes, I haven't said stuff yet.

I think that in 2000 years people will be living on the moon and mars, and probably not much elsewhere. I don't think we'll be able to 'teleport' in space or do faster than light travel, but that's just me. I think about 1000 years will be enough for the moon to be colonized, but not necessarily mars.
I also suspect metals will be akin to what plastics are right now; cheap and used everywhere that they can be, because with actual space travel we will be able to mine more than just the earth. (Yeah yeah, I that's like exactly out of any sci-fi universe, so not exactly my own idea, but it makes a lot of sense.) Meanwhile plastics and all products used with them will be very expensive, but we will still manufacture them for things that basically require them.
Food is also another thing that won't be nearly as cheap as it is now; food and personal space. The world will be hugely overpopulated, and by 2000, I bet the moon will be too. I think power will be super cheap, seeing as even now it's all around us just waiting to be changed into something usable, and might be rather like water is now: basically free for everyone. Also, you won't be able to colonize other planets without being able to get there in a decent amount of time, or be able to mine in space, etc, and space will be where the world turns to next to get resources and to have new space to live on.

But I don't think I can really say what the world will be like from a purely...societal point of view. All that I think I can say would be based on resources and reaching limits, and what technology will bring; lots of gizmos and whatnot that people use. I think we'll still have countries and there'll still be politics. There will still be poor and rich people, but what they have will be different. I think that due to overcrowding and therefore not as much food per person, the overall standard of living will be worse than now.
I think medicine will be much better, but there will still be a huge gap between who gets what treatment much like now. I also think that people will have more 'free' time, or at least time when they aren't paid for their work, simply because the people won't be needed to work as much, and hobbies and interests will explode at some point. I suppose if that happens though it will be a little opposite what we have now, where people make work for the sake of making work.
I think that perhaps what someone can buy with infinite money will be less than what a person can buy now, although I still think the poor people will have basically as low a standard of living as now.

I think that in probably only around 500 years we'll have fairly advanced AI's too, although what their role will be and if they will be mobile or anything, I dunno. Probably just helper AI's. I'm not sure if they'll have 'personality' attached to them. I'm thinking more like super advanced Google.

And that's as much as I've thought about the subject. It's really, really hard to predict, especially seeing how fast society can change even now, and then go back to something it was like a hundred years ago.

Cavernio 12-2-2011 01:57 PM

Re: The world in 4000
 
K, so now I've read people's posts, and I'm surprised only 1 other person was like 'yeah, life on the moon and mars!'
I think that *if* we manage to travel near the speed of light, or get ftl travel, we'll manage to colonize other worlds too, ones we don't even know about. I also think they'd still have ties to earth. I think the possibility of humans colonizing a planet and then have no contact with the rest of civilization be very, very slim.

Religion won't disappear unless humanity genetically moves towards smart, aspergian savants, where emotions wouldn't exist. (not saying all aspergerians are smart or emotionally stunted, just picking up on a very niche type of person.)

It seems everyone's views of the world are really dismal. I could totally see us killing most of the human species, but I doubt we'd kill off everyone. We could be put back into the stone age with nuclear explosions and stuff though. But I don't think that will happen; although it does only take 1 person. What we need to do is start storing information in space, safe from the effects of nuclear blasts :-p

Thing like hovercars I don't think would be popular simply because they'd be big. My future doesn't have enough space for individuals or families to own such massive things as even a smart car. Bicycle sized or scooter, maybe. Probably public use of things like that though, just because we'd need to share space-intensive things; lots of public transport.

TheNoSoMan 12-2-2011 02:48 PM

Re: The world in 4000
 
With what dragonmega stated, there are many paths in which the future can take. But from what I see so far, the world in even a 1000 years would be mostly artificial.

Food resources will probably decrease to a point where wars will be staged over it and/or genocides will wipe out a significant portion of the world population so that the Earth may sustain us all. But there is a possibility where we will be able to create our own food that is not directly derived from organic beings. (That also means humans.) Science always has provided us possible ways to adapt effectively.

Choofers 12-2-2011 02:57 PM

Re: The world in 4000
 
Honestly, why does it matter? Unless a procedure is created that stops aging (and is cheap enough for the masses), none of us will be here for the next 500 years, let alone 4000 years.

The link cry4eternity posted is pretty cool though.

Cavernio 12-2-2011 02:59 PM

Re: The world in 4000
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Choofers (Post 3581777)
Honestly, why does it matter? Unless a procedure is created that stops aging (and is cheap enough for the masses), none of us will be here for the next 500 years, let alone 4000 years.

Honestly, why do you matter?

Choofers 12-2-2011 03:11 PM

Re: The world in 4000
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavernio (Post 3581782)
Honestly, why do you matter?

I don't d:

TheNoSoMan 12-2-2011 03:16 PM

Re: The world in 4000
 
Oh god no. An elixir of life that is permanently effective once taken, can be genetically passed on as the dominant gene, and is available to anyone would exponentially increase the world population to unsustainable numbers in no time. It would take genocide to kill everyone off or a counter-elixir as far as I can think of ideas.

TheSaxRunner05 12-2-2011 03:22 PM

Re: The world in 4000
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by iironiic (Post 3581083)
You know that if you fit the entire Earth's population into one concentrated area, it would only cover the size of Alaska? Surely in 2000 years, that will be an issue, but I see your point as well.

Do this .... the rampant disease would wipe out over half the population and problem solved!

But on a more serious note, water usage is the biggest issue for a large population, however many experts studying demographic transition believe the world's population will stable out around 10 billion as the poorer nations industrialize. Birth rates are high where infant mortality rates are high as well. When the Imr lowers, the Br lowers with it.

Demographic Transition in a nutshell -

Stage one - High birth rates and Death rates (have lots of babies because only a few will survive to adulthood)

Stage two - High birth rates and low death rates: population booms

Stage three - Birthrates fall after the imr has dropped

Stage four - relative equilibrium, far lower br and imr

Cavernio 12-2-2011 04:54 PM

Re: The world in 4000
 
It's not necessarily industrialization that makes people have fewer babies, it could be seen as the relative rich/poor that causes poorer people have more kids or richer people to not have as many. Furthermore, this is such a recent thing in humanity's civilization that I'm not sure we can say that even 500 years from now that same societal trend will still exist.

I think that right now a water crisis is a more immediate issue than food, overpopulation/disease or air to breath, but in the long run the earth has a ton of water, and it just gets recycled and reused. We have the appropriate tools to make sewage drinkable even now. It's a matter of infrastructure and shipping/moving. And right now there's probably millions of people who don't have safe water to drink in poorer countries; water usage isn't their problem.

Renevatia 12-2-2011 09:40 PM

Re: The world in 4000
 
Looking at the history of human kind, I have to say I have some hope that the advancement of technology will reach the answer to problems faster than the problems start wiping us out.
We would most likely reach carrying capacity much less than 500 years if our living quarters doesn't get some kind of drastic region expansions, extraterrestrially.
Here is what I would assume would happen, though the time frames will most likely vary greatly, the order shouldn't.



100years
Complete conversion to solar powers, carrying capacity for the human race. Which means the capitalistic nations such as United States will be subjected to opposition as far as resource usage goes, giving rise to newer governments. I'd imagine some kind of compromised communistic government.

200years
Solve gravity. Publicized space travel. Declaring national ownerships of extraterrestrial areas.
Perfecting genetic manipulation, bringing dinos back to life and stuff.
Completion on mechanisms of immortality
***If aliens found, /human. If does not exist, proceed to next step.

500years
Stabilizing space establishments and planet states. Energy crisis.

1000years
Most areas of space explored, end of religion.
***If God does not exist, proceed to next step.
***If God exists then human beings should have wiped 1000 years ago, proceed to next step.
***If God exists and he lied, fight god.
a. If win, proceed to next step.
b. Lose, end game.

Utilization of energy from singularities, solve all future energy crisis, reversing entropy and other crazy stuff with it.
'real' experimentation of time travel
I AAA Vertex beta vrofl

2000years
Multiverse experimentation. Resource issues. Ability to tweak space-time. Create an other-dimension big bang, perfect inter-dimensional travel, pack and move.

4000years
I think this is a bit far to project. Any problems solved in this time will probably all just be problems we don't even know exists yet.
I wouldn't be surprised if we proceed this far, space will no longer be empty but a giant ass infrastructure, or at least filled with infrastructure that takes up a good deal of space.
I highly doubt over population will really ever be a problem. There are much more than enough food for everyone, even now.

dragonmegaXX 12-3-2011 12:18 AM

Re: The world in 4000
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Renevatia (Post 3582181)
Looking at the history of human kind, I have to say I have some hope that the advancement of technology will reach the answer to problems faster than the problems start wiping us out.
We would most likely reach carrying capacity much less than 500 years if our living quarters doesn't get some kind of drastic region expansions, extraterrestrially.
Here is what I would assume would happen, though the time frames will most likely vary greatly, the order shouldn't.



100years
Complete conversion to solar powers, carrying capacity for the human race. Which means the capitalistic nations such as United States will be subjected to opposition as far as resource usage goes, giving rise to newer governments. I'd imagine some kind of compromised communistic government.

200years
Solve gravity. Publicized space travel. Declaring national ownerships of extraterrestrial areas.
Perfecting genetic manipulation, bringing dinos back to life and stuff.
Completion on mechanisms of immortality
***If aliens found, /human. If does not exist, proceed to next step.

500years
Stabilizing space establishments and planet states. Energy crisis.

1000years
Most areas of space explored, end of religion.
***If God does not exist, proceed to next step.
***If God exists then human beings should have wiped 1000 years ago, proceed to next step.
***If God exists and he lied, fight god.
a. If win, proceed to next step.
b. Lose, end game.

Utilization of energy from singularities, solve all future energy crisis, reversing entropy and other crazy stuff with it.
'real' experimentation of time travel
I AAA Vertex beta vrofl

2000years
Multiverse experimentation. Resource issues. Ability to tweak space-time. Create an other-dimension big bang, perfect inter-dimensional travel, pack and move.

4000years
I think this is a bit far to project. Any problems solved in this time will probably all just be problems we don't even know exists yet.
I wouldn't be surprised if we proceed this far, space will no longer be empty but a giant ass infrastructure, or at least filled with infrastructure that takes up a good deal of space.
I highly doubt over population will really ever be a problem. There are much more than enough food for everyone, even now.

Orly?

Also I dont think we can "solve" gravity lol

ScylaX 12-3-2011 09:13 AM

Re: The world in 4000
 
Damn I like how everyone are basically tripping on the future because they estimated the cultural and technology shift there was between today and 2000 years ago.
The progress isn't as regular as you'd think and estimating the future, even with broad approaches would require an accurate study ; it's just as complex as guessing what would have happened "if" you removed or added a fact from the past. And I personally wouldn't try myself to guess which future waits for us, because that's impossible, there are always some "surprise" events that occur while they had a really little probability to happen. And even the smallest change can induces HUGE variations. Just don't even bother thinking about it, it's just all phantasm, I hate thinkings that induces pre-supposed postulates as "considering that everything we progressively estimated is true, that there is no surprise possible" ; from that very moment, any assessment get irrelevant because it'd just match what the world would become if ; instead of matching a formal and accurate reasoning that actually tries to match the reality.

Even estimating the world condition in 200 years would require a really powerful thinking, the more you get in the future, the more misty and wayward it gets. The more the assessments you'll make will be far in the future, the more uncertain it'll be.
And I'm allowing myself to post that because we're in the CT section, I don't mind at all about the fantasies (or delusions, hah) of others, but I'm just getting rational there. I'm just giving a hint there : do you think anybody in the first century - even the wisest philosopher - was able to know, or guess what the whole civilization would have become 2000 years later ? Would have these people thought that the problems they had at that time would remain the same twenty centuries later ?

Trogdor!!!! 12-3-2011 09:34 AM

Re: The world in 4000
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Renevatia (Post 3582181)
Solve gravity.

Please define that. lol

Anyways, whenever I think of the far future, I can only think about the world ending up too over populated, us running out of the necessary resources to supply everyone, and everyone just dying off. Will this happen? Possibly if you look at population growth as of late. Then again, we're not stupid. I'm pretty sure we'll find someway to do something about it, but that's just what I think about if you ask me about the world in 500 years or so.

Edit: I didn't really read any of the other post to find everyone was pretty much talking about this already, but whatever, still throwing my two cents in. :3

ScylaX 12-3-2011 09:48 AM

Re: The world in 4000
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Trogdor!!!! (Post 3582513)
Anyways, whenever I think of the far future, I can only think about the world ending up too over populated, us running out of the necessary resources to supply everyone, and everyone just dying off. Will this happen? Possibly if you look at population growth as of late. Then again, we're not stupid. I'm pretty sure we'll find someway to do something about it, but that's just what I think about if you ask me about the world in 500 years or so.

I briefly studied demographics to know that, so I'm putting this here too : I don't know if people that keeps saying the earth will be super-overpopulated with +50 billions of humans know that or if they're just estimating the same way I was estimating before getting my own knowledge on the subject.
The world population is said to decrease once it'll reach something around 12 billions individuals of population if I don't get it wrong. We'll never get a supersized civilization of billions and billions human on the earth till the resources get so tricky to obtain that we would have to ruin the planet or explore space to get what we need.
It's a natural behavior, when a race is living beyond the resources available, it decreases on its own ; and also, I think somebody already talked about that Demographic transition model in the thread, which pretty much explains why we can't get that astronomical number of humans on the planet : in Europe, the birth rate/fertility rate of the non-immigrant population is dropping each year, the population is getting older and older, and basically, the main source of "young" workers come from the immigration.

FFR4EVA_00 12-3-2011 10:34 AM

Re: The world in 4000
 
all you people saying there will be overcrowding in 2000 years when most projections see the population peaking in no less than 100

foop101 12-5-2011 10:43 PM

Re: The world in 4000
 
I beleive that the population cap of earth is 4 billion and that people are dying... but most would think I'm wrong I guess. Using organic farming methods the earth can only feed 4 billion people, so that is my reasoning. With this "new technology" we have developed in agriculture we are stretching our limits.

2000 years? a bit optimistic.

If we are talking about the earth, I assume it will be a baron wasteland, virtually inhospitable from lack of resources, pollution, and maybe even lack of water.
For people, if we are still here, I assume we will be a space-faring species, travelling from planet to planet, sucking up their resources.

I don't really have an optimistic view of our world, I may just watch to much anime but I see our world similar to Akira (except no blue people) in around 100 years.

iCeCuBEz v2 12-5-2011 10:53 PM

Re: The world in 4000
 
I'll delete this whole slew of nonsense too because I didn't properly cite my sources and wasn't just conceptualizing what Einstein equated in the past as general relativity.

Cavernio 12-12-2011 03:31 PM

Re: The world in 4000
 
Scylax is clearly a mutant without the capacity to imagine.

Also, gravity exists but there is no nice explanation for it. 'Solve' it is perhaps a worse word than 'explain' it to everyone but a physicist.

PlayTrumpet 04-8-2012 08:15 PM

Re: The world in 4000
 
There are too many aspects to take into account, but it'd be nice to think about how far longevity research will have progressed in 2000 years. We've really only just begun, but by the year 4000, it's not completely insane to predict the human lifespan extending at least 100-200+ years from what it is now.

Xx{Midnight}xX 04-8-2012 09:13 PM

Re: The world in 4000
 
Is it wrong to think that humanity will be dead before 1000 years passes?

The reasoning being the human race. Not some rapture or some stupid prophesy. Just our own disregard for the things and people we have.

Mau5 04-8-2012 10:06 PM

Re: The world in 4000
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Renevatia (Post 3582181)
Most areas of space explored, end of religion.
***If God does not exist, proceed to next step.
***If God exists then human beings should have wiped 1000 years ago, proceed to next step.
***If God exists and he lied, fight god.
a. If win, proceed to next step.
b. Lose, end game.

Prejudice ends when?

Also, i'm kinda with Middie on this one :P

WSCB 04-8-2012 10:43 PM

Re: The world in 4000
 
Firstly, thank you for creating this thread. This thread forced me to stop and think for a few minutes. I find this kind of topic very interesting, so I'll just share a couple of beliefs/views:

I highly doubt we'll come close to colonizing the galaxy in 10,000 years, most likely not at all considering the closest star to our solar system is about 4.37 light years away. As light speed is approached, the mass required to accelerate becomes infinite (density becomes infinite). (Meaning we'll never travel light speed, EVER). (Lol, physics application) Our galaxy is around 100,000 light years across (this fact combined with the fact there are billions and billions of other galaxies out there BLOWS. MY. MIND.).

Then again, many developments could take place. I would hate to imagine our world as a wasteland. I would not know how to approach this issue, seeing how we can't establish simple relationships with other countries yet. I still love to imagine the future. I want to see mankind succeed with advanced technology (a cure for every disease on the planet, a way to correct mental illness, the development of perpetual energy, peaceful relationships throughout all of mankind, even space and time travel).

I just can't stand the fact (and I've seen MANY of the facts that point to demise on our planet) that our planet will end up in a useless, worthless condition. If I had the ability to think on the kind of level, to approach basic issues such as cures in the face of complex issues like space travel, I would want to do all that I could to take everything and advance it as far as possible (not just humanly!) To be able to think that way is such a gift most people don't realize it and I'm too young to realize this myself. My mindset is probably pretty far off from many of the smarter users on this site who are past college, have current professions, or hold important positions in the working class world, but I always will think about the future, constantly changing in my eyes, beginning to open my mind up to reality. As long as I can dream however, I will ponder the future (both mine and mankind's). Once again, thank you for creating this thread. There is much I want to post, but I simply don't have the time to do so right now.

If I took this too seriously, I'm sorry. Dx

MinaciousGrace 04-9-2012 04:04 PM

Re: The world in 4000
 
Wait people actually think human civilization will still exist in 2000 years?

More like we'll destroy ourselves via a string of wars over natural resources/political power/religion/race/you looked at me wrong blah blah all the stuff humans have been killing each other en masse over our entire history.

Earth in 2000 years will just be a barren wasteland cratered by humanity's love of violence and destruction. Maybe there will be a few pockets of people desperately clinging on to their meaningless lives. But probably not. In any case whatever is left definitely won't be a civilization.

ScylaX 04-9-2012 05:23 PM

Re: The world in 4000
 
Minacious watched too much movies. This point of view is SO pessimistic I really wonder if you're relying on true objective knowledge and you're biased from the beginning or if you're really biased by the partial postulates that lie in your memory.
The global situation of the civilization keeps improving over the centuries, the fact you can quantify "bad" things happening, or "bad" things being perpetuated (wars and shit) isn't sufficient to sustain conjectures like that. If we were in a context of Cold War, you'd be allowed to critically think that way, but we're past that kind of context since decades ago.
The more the time passes, the more we live confortably, the more extended the civilization and democracy becomes, etc. And I think "pessimistic seers" like you existed since the existence of Reason, just like a disregard of the youth as a "new generation full of bad moral bs", just like Socrates considered the young people as impolite, disrepectful, and all.

That is really naive to fall in this kind of biased opinions with really little things that may explain this thinking. It is realistic to think that the civilization will go on without a major breakdown in the two next millenia because it had never been majorly severed like that. But you may be thinking the civilization will end because of the human being because "we have more technical means to do it than before, we can even blow up the whole planet with the weapons we have". Some dispositions may effectively cause us to pollute the planet and all, but you're making a slippery slope thinking that "this is going on like that, then this will be going on like this, and this, and this" because that's a totally gratuitous conjecture and the relation between the assertions is only ensured by the slim causal correlation they have.
Also, thinking that, because we possibly can make this happen, we will make this happen one day or another is an appeal to probabilities and is another logical fallacy.

We've got past some great risks just like the Third Reich or the Cold War, and the world is running greater than ever. We didn't magically overcome these, this is the intelligence and the maturity of the human being as a collective force that solved these problems. And heck, at the time, nothing allowed anybody to think there was a tangible hope.
No, really, we may pass through some major problems, but nothing in which the civilization will sink ; because the capability for the human being to solve its problems made him achieve the world in which we live in today. And just don't let your mind bias yourself by thinking we may live in a "rotten world" because once again, no living being on earth is more conscious of its own problem than those of the human race.

tl;dr Try to relativize how you're viewing the world because this opinions is really naive and doesn't correspond critically with how the world is doing currently and how the world did in any time of the History.

MinaciousGrace 04-9-2012 06:01 PM

Re: The world in 4000
 
My god you live in a bubble. Let me show you the world we live in.

A) The entire african continent is being squeezed for natural resources by the chinese, indians and various europeans. These countries bribe ministers in said countries to receive exorbitant contracts/cheap raw materials and to look the other way when shit happens. There are mines in african countries where Chinese foremen line up and shoot workers who don't work hard enough, then bribe governments to look the other way. And they do. Billions of people have lived and died as a source of cheap expendable labor for developed countries maybe you forgot about them.

B) American and European foreign aid pumps billions of dollars a year into african countries. This development money gets split between corrupt government officials and large multinational corporations who mock up some semblance of a development project for less than a hundredth of what they should have spent and pocket the difference. Leaving the common population no better off than they were before. You know what the funny thing is, though? This is only happening because foreign aid and general donors are judged not on the quality and results of their donations by their superiors, but by the amount of money that they have successfully spent. This is because everyone in the developed world doesn't actually give a **** about anyone else's suffering, they just want to look like they do. Gr9 people.

C) Declining birth rates in developed countries and increasing birth rates in third world countries means that the world is becoming a worse place. More people are being born into desolate poverty than your cushy european lifestyle each year. The percentage of the world that enjoys freedom and democracy all that great stuff blah blah is decreasing and will continue to do so. I mean I guess maybe statistically you wouldn't see a huge difference in excess poverty population because in many places 90% of those people don't even survive to age 10 but whatever right? The world is a fantastic balloon of ever increasing happiness.

That's the world we live in today. And my god maybe the intelligence and maturity and tenacity of human civilization will allow it to exist for another 2000 years but I for one wouldn't wish that upon the 80% of civilization that only exists for the rest of us to stand on so we can play flash games.

ScylaX 04-9-2012 06:24 PM

Re: The world in 4000
 
Let me re-quote what I said :
Quote:

The global situation of the civilization keeps improving over the centuries, the fact you can quantify "bad" things happening, or "bad" things being perpetuated (wars and shit) isn't sufficient to sustain conjectures like that
If I went to argue on each of your points we'd be twisting the debate a little. You're talking about this just like we're having the greatest structural problems humanity faced since the beginning of the civilization.

You want me to tell you what troubles were happening in the civilized territories back in 500 ? Back in 1700 ? Back at the time of the great industrial revolutions ? These times weren't brighter than our current situation.
I'm pretty sure each of these times had a GREAT lot of problems like this. Just ask an historian. And you could perfectly take the abstract point of each of your thesis to applicate them to each of these times. This is what I mean by being "biased". Because the world is still going on, new problems appear, old problems get solved, or these problems change their form, but there is ultimately no evil behind this. This isn't new some part of the worlds are running into a wall. Does this mean the WHOLE world is running into a wall ? No, let some things fail, let other things get fixed, and just watch it continuing its progress.
To each period and era its lot of problems and troubles (and potential aporias, heh). But they ultimately don't forbid the civilization to have a future. They never did, and I hardly find a critical and objective reason on why it would change from now.

To me, you just showed how biased you were ; so I'm begging for you to put arguments behind the facts you showed me to properly sustain the following conjecture : "In 2000 years, humanity will be basically dead, and the world will be nothing to be happy about."
If I wasn't aware of all of that, I wouldn't have talked about it in the first time. Because your exposition is also the sole expression of the "negative" facts that are happening, thus this is totally partial and subject to be led to risky conjectures going from it.
You have to get a global and impartial view. And this is what I deduced from taking the "negative facts" all along with the "positive facts".

Izzy 04-9-2012 06:25 PM

Re: The world in 4000
 
I believe that humans will exist in the year 4000, but we will most like revert to some kind of retro technological state with a more self sustained life style and a drastically reduced population.

MinaciousGrace 04-9-2012 06:56 PM

Re: The world in 4000
 
Given that as time goes on and technology advances the potential for a single individual to cause mass destruction on a global scale constantly increases, and that the nature of humanity as a violent and destructive species will not change in the next 2000 years, the assertion that civilization will exist status quo or greater is the risky conjecture.

ScylaX 04-9-2012 07:29 PM

Re: The world in 4000
 
Then again, please argument your position. Because there, we're going on a debate that is more speculative than factual or relative to a structure.
Because this is also a point of view I counter-argumented :
Quote:

But you may be thinking the civilization will end because of the human being because "we have more technical means to do it than before, we can even blow up the whole planet with the weapons we have". Some dispositions may effectively cause us to pollute the planet (note : or to make it blow up ten times over again, it's just an example) and all, but you're making a slippery slope thinking that "this is going on like that, then this will be going on like this, and this, and this" because that's a totally gratuitous conjecture and the relation between the assertions is only ensured by the slim causal correlation they have.
Also, thinking that, because we possibly can make this happen, we will make this happen one day or another is an appeal to probabilities and is another logical fallacy.
Don't forget the "human nature" is too ambiguous to be reducible to a "violent and destructive species" - there are primitive pulsions that may make an individual violent at times, but we're talking about GROUPS of people deciding upon the fate of the entire world for this. No citizen have the power to possess something of that amplitude and terrorists have so limited means it's almost ridiculous to think they could blow up an entire country or make something that would have enormous consequences for the planet.

We wouldn't launch a nuclear warhead for any reason - first because they aren't weapons that are meant to be used in the first place, but they're here as a mean of dissuasion and pacification to exactly favor diplomatic outcomes instead of more wars with more men involved. Because I HIGHLY DOUBT that the persons that can launch that kind of technology would be motivated by impulsive influences. Really.
Once again, you should properly re-calculate the actual possibilities for something of that magnitude to happen, because all the current conditions are basically vector of peace, or at least, not to a point that would lead the world to apocalyptic consequences. Catastrophism isn't an option because it's seriously influenced by the "Slippery slope" sophism.

The more powerful that mean is, the more secured it will be (and this is justly to avoid really ugly consequences - and of course, exceptions are bound to happen, Fukushima or Three Miles Island for instance, and yes there are human reasons behind it. And if we talk about it, it's because of how grave it is considered among every single reasonable individual on the planet ; that - maybe - is because it's not considered as a norm, but as a very grave phenomenon), because anybody at that level is absolutely conscious of the consequences it can cause. Don't fall in that rhetorical topic of the "silly politician" or "man at the head of a country".
I don't say that this is impossible to happen (because that's a rule of the critical mind), but considered all the conditions, all the different factors that are playing in it (when you get to seriously think about it), it pretty much boils down the probabilities of this happening A LOT to the benefit of other thesis, that I consider to be more rationnal and more objective (and thus, probably more abstract because carefulness).

MinaciousGrace 04-9-2012 07:38 PM

Re: The world in 4000
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ScylaX (Post 3673230)
We wouldn't launch a nuclear warhead for any reason - first because they aren't weapons that are meant to be used in the first place, but they're here as a mean of dissuasion and pacification to exactly favor diplomatic outcomes instead of more wars with more men involved. Because I HIGHLY DOUBT that the persons that can launch that kind of technology would be motivated by impulsive influences. Really.

have you ever met a north korean

your assumption is that such weapons will always be in the hands of people unwilling to use them, which is just that, an assumption

ScylaX 04-9-2012 07:55 PM

Re: The world in 4000
 
There are clearly responsible individuals at the top of the countries that have a brain, you know. No matter how "crazy" that country may be, it isn't bound to do surprise attacks that may make the whole planet run to its end, they also have a conscience, because this may go to their disadvantage, and decisively.
In a war, the alienated is always the soldier, not the person commanding them, and not the person above the army in any way. Except in some very rare exception, persons that hold the responsibility of a country know what they're doing.
And, I have to say, you're quibbling on a point, because nothing makes the NK bound to stay a dictature too, or a dictature in the same state as it is today.
If the NK is not being very military active, it's because the person(s) leading the country and the army know it would be the end of it if he began to make a serious attack. Don't fall in the rhetorical topic of the "silly dictator, all impulsive and maniac and all". The NK doesn't have any strategical or political interest into doing crazy maneuvers.

Also, the regular North Korean is an alienated individual and a victim of the intensive propaganda of the country, that kind of person isn't by any mean at the top of its country, able to make decisions.
Yes, the risk exists, but I think it will always exist in some form. What is important is how the potentially bellicose causes can manifest themselves to make this happen ? What conditions can make them truly active ?
There are little chances for them to be active, and the chances are even smaller when it comes to if they'd drastically change the face of the planet. And this isn't applicable only for the North Korea, but for EVERY country in the world. They need to HAVE reasons to use them, not just on an impulsive inspiration.
And here, I think the assumption of having one day a crazy madman that will launch a nuclear warhead for whatever reason, with the total acceptance of its army, is something that is really, really unlikely to happen. And I think it'd be stupid to believe your thesis for this very reason, because of the divergence of probabilities.

However,
To a "global despair", we're boiling down the debate to a single example that is as unique as the other countries that constitue the Axis of evil.
And we aren't even sure if they'll stay like that for a significant number of time, in fact.
So I really don't see where you're trying to get with that.

JiZ53 04-10-2012 08:46 AM

Re: The world in 4000
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ScylaX (Post 3673171)
Minacious watched too much movies. This point of view is SO pessimistic I really wonder if you're relying on true objective knowledge and you're biased from the beginning or if you're really biased by the partial postulates that lie in your memory.
The global situation of the civilization keeps improving over the centuries, the fact you can quantify "bad" things happening, or "bad" things being perpetuated (wars and shit) isn't sufficient to sustain conjectures like that. If we were in a context of Cold War, you'd be allowed to critically think that way, but we're past that kind of context since decades ago.
The more the time passes, the more we live confortably, the more extended the civilization and democracy becomes, etc. And I think "pessimistic seers" like you existed since the existence of Reason, just like a disregard of the youth as a "new generation full of bad moral bs", just like Socrates considered the young people as impolite, disrepectful, and all.

That is really naive to fall in this kind of biased opinions with really little things that may explain this thinking. It is realistic to think that the civilization will go on without a major breakdown in the two next millenia because it had never been majorly severed like that. But you may be thinking the civilization will end because of the human being because "we have more technical means to do it than before, we can even blow up the whole planet with the weapons we have". Some dispositions may effectively cause us to pollute the planet and all, but you're making a slippery slope thinking that "this is going on like that, then this will be going on like this, and this, and this" because that's a totally gratuitous conjecture and the relation between the assertions is only ensured by the slim causal correlation they have.
Also, thinking that, because we possibly can make this happen, we will make this happen one day or another is an appeal to probabilities and is another logical fallacy.

We've got past some great risks just like the Third Reich or the Cold War, and the world is running greater than ever. We didn't magically overcome these, this is the intelligence and the maturity of the human being as a collective force that solved these problems. And heck, at the time, nothing allowed anybody to think there was a tangible hope.
No, really, we may pass through some major problems, but nothing in which the civilization will sink ; because the capability for the human being to solve its problems made him achieve the world in which we live in today. And just don't let your mind bias yourself by thinking we may live in a "rotten world" because once again, no living being on earth is more conscious of its own problem than those of the human race.

tl;dr Try to relativize how you're viewing the world because this opinions is really naive and doesn't correspond critically with how the world is doing currently and how the world did in any time of the History.

You are guilty of the same things you are claiming minacious to be guilty of. You do not know how the future will play out, you look foolish calling someone naive when your claims that civilization will last another 2000 years are just as baseless.

Humanity could easily be wiped out by disease, natural disaster, nuclear war, or environmental conditions. Man is but another animal and he is not exempt from extinction. Overpopulation is a major problem and so is the shortage of cclean water. As time goes on there will be more people and fewer resources. At some point in the next 100 years we are projected to hit carrying capacity. A lot of people are going to die, and our technological basis will soon be unsustainable. These things alone are enough for me to doubt our species chances of surviving another 2000 years. There of course could always be a major disaster that completely wipes out life as we know it. This could be at the hand of mother nature or perhaps our own in the form of a nuclear holocaust

ScylaX 04-10-2012 09:52 AM

Re: The world in 4000
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition
There goes the overpopulation theory.
The rest of your post is a slippery slope to me. And I'm not even saying that you're basically unable to properly assess what will happen in 200 years, and how the world will be in one century. How can you doubt so much then ? The problems in 2112 are most likely to be so different from today that you can't even imagine the form they could take.

You see, if you read properly the other posts I made for the debate. I never said this outcome was impossible, I said it was one of the least probable ones compared to other ways the world could become.
It's all a question of probability, and making an appeal to probability in this debate is basically neglecting all of the other possibilities in the name of a psychological bias, and getting definitely obsessed about an unsure truth.
In fact, of course you can't be sure of the course of history, what I said is that it's irrational to believe things that are less likely to happen than other things that are more likely to happen for the reasons I said. That's the point of this speculative debate.

I'm posting there just because I saw some people being wrongfully certain of some outcomes, and being certain of things when their probability to happen is lower than other possibilities unsettles me a little.
Yes nothing is sure, yet it isn't a reason to surrender to fantasms, because there is at least some sense to make there, and this is important. Stop getting obsessed about getting a certitude when you can't bring solid foundations to your thinking, I think an optimistic scepticism is the sanest opinion to have here.

Reincarnate 04-10-2012 10:22 AM

Re: The world in 4000
 
I have more faith in human ingenuity. In a very short timespan we went from riding around on horses to sending shit into space and harnessing the power of quantum mechanics and computers. If someone had made this prediction years ago, it would have sounded absurd. Given another couple thousand years... I can't even imagine how much more we will discover and how much cheaper it'll be to pull off.

SKG_Scintill 04-10-2012 10:27 AM

Re: The world in 4000
 
In 2000 years society will be just another wonky system where people complain about it.
It's been that in egyptian times, it's been that in greek/roman times, it's been that in medieval times, it's been that in renaissance times, it's like that now, and it will be in the future.
Humans adapt, nature is resilient, get over it.

JiZ53 04-10-2012 10:56 AM

Re: The world in 4000
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ScylaX (Post 3673541)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition
There goes the overpopulation theory.
The rest of your post is a slippery slope to me. And I'm not even saying that you're basically unable to properly assess what will happen in 200 years, and how the world will be in one century. How can you doubt so much then ? The problems in 2112 are most likely to be so different from today that you can't even imagine the form they could take.

You see, if you read properly the other posts I made for the debate. I never said this outcome was impossible, I said it was one of the least probable ones compared to other ways the world could become.
It's all a question of probability, and making an appeal to probability in this debate is basically neglecting all of the other possibilities in the name of a psychological bias, and getting definitely obsessed about an unsure truth.
In fact, of course you can't be sure of the course of history, what I said is that it's irrational to believe things that are less likely to happen than other things that are more likely to happen for the reasons I said. That's the point of this speculative debate.

I'm posting there just because I saw some people being wrongfully certain of some outcomes, and being certain of things when their probability to happen is lower than other possibilities unsettles me a little.
Yes nothing is sure, yet it isn't a reason to surrender to fantasms, because there is at least some sense to make there, and this is important. Stop getting obsessed about getting a certitude when you can't bring solid foundations to your thinking, I think an optimistic scepticism is the sanest opinion to have here.


You know nothing of the foundations of my thinking, you know nothing of what I obsess about, you do not know what I know to be certain or uncertain. Do not patronize me.

Cavernio 04-10-2012 11:20 AM

Re: The world in 4000
 
Nothing like a non-native english language poster to teach me new words like 'bellicose'

I feel like societal systems will be what holds or pushes the world forward technologically speaking more than any know-how. Humanity is technologically developed enough to colonize other planets, (specific engineering structures notwithstanding, we'll never have those until we want them) but we haven't and I don't think we will in my lifetime because I don't really see a shift away from money being the primary motivator of society and because I don't see space travel as being a lucrative venture anytime soon.

Nu0n 04-10-2012 11:44 AM

Re: The world in 4000
 
I think in the year 4,000 humans will have even more technology and a larger population due to the success in medical fields. Other then that the civiliation will most likely have an alliance with a few border planets with less technology. Its all just best guess for this kinda stuff anyway. We have no idea what will or will not happen. I dont think we have to worry about being set back though, I have confidence in the Human ability to evolve.

ScylaX 04-10-2012 12:40 PM

Re: The world in 4000
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JiZ53 (Post 3673557)
You know nothing of the foundations of my thinking, you know nothing of what I obsess about, you do not know what I know to be certain or uncertain. Do not patronize me.

What's the point of getting in a critical debate if you're not giving arguments then. Seriously. (and if what you're relying on is just facts or sensible experiences, I can already tell this is what biased you, to me. Because, face it, if you're being obsessed with that, there are good chances you're just being severely psychologically biased and then there isn't any point in getting into a debate. Standing back for a bit to get a larger view, and being more objective is a good way to start. Come on.)

Also I perfectly agree with Reincarnate's and SKG's opinions. The human ingenuity is totally to be trusted and it has always been proved since the existence of the human race on the planet and SKG's point perfectly resonates with what I said earlier.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution