The world in 4000

[Izzy]

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]

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]

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 :

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]

Originally Posted by ScylaX

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]

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]

Originally Posted by ScylaX

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by ScylaX

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by JiZ53

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.