Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

2017/01/28: An issue regarding the front page of /jp/ has been fixed. Also, thanks to all who contacted us about sponsorship.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 10 KB, 250x255, future_freeway_sign250_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
3258050 No.3258050 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]
Quoted by: >>3258420

Too many shitty threads.

Ok /sci/. Let's have a realistic discussion about what the future holds for humanity.

This is meant to be under the assumption that we don't all perish in a nuclear war or some kind of disease wipes out society.

I used to be apprehensive of the idea of running out of natural resources, not just oil, but also of metals, minerals, etc. However after a while I began to believe that it would not be a catastrophic, society-destroying event like its made out to be. As the scarcity of oil grows, its value will skyrocket, slowly making research into other methods more economically viable than looking for more. Now here's where it gets interesting:

I think that over the next few centuries, we will start seeing a regression of globalization. As international trade and travel becomes more difficult, societies will become more self-sufficient and secular. People may even begin to move away from cities, because there would be no practical use for living in them, you would be too far away from any replenishable resources. Eventually buildings in cities would be demolished and salvaged for their materials.

What are your theories for the future, /sci/? Please no space-related theories... Extraterrestrial colonization has so many flaws that it's bloody impossible to achieve it within this millenium

>> No.3258063

I for one can't wait til bionic augmentations.

But willl we ask for this?

>> No.3258072
Quoted by: >>3258080

>>3258063
Start yourself, DIY style. Some bitch already has magnets in her fingertips and can now "sense" EM fields. Pretty cool shit if you ask me.

>> No.3258079
File: 17 KB, 250x182, image001.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
3258079

>> No.3258080
Quoted by: >>3258098

>>3258072

link it

>> No.3258098
File: 31 KB, 512x384, emergence.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
3258098

>>3258080

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-Dv6dDtdcs

>> No.3258100 [DELETED] 

>Too many shitty threads.

I tried starting a serious discussion, but got nothing except troll replies.

But all I have to do is open a thread with the word "God" and instant 280 replies.

>> No.3258101
Quoted by: >>3258116

>Please no space-related theories... Extraterrestrial colonization has so many flaws that it's bloody impossible to achieve it within this millenium

>implying space is only good for human colonization
>implying colonization isn't a valid endeavor
>implying colonization isn't achievable with today's technologies, if not economical
>implying space won't become increasingly profitable as our resources run out on earth
Oh fuck, I'm mad.

>> No.3258102
Quoted by: >>3258109 >>3258112

>>3258063

life is not a video game

this shit is not going to happen

why is everyone on /sci/ so stupid

>> No.3258109

>>3258102
>The future only holds the expected

>> No.3258112
Quoted by: >>3258121

>>3258102

If you're going to take "realism" to the point of rejecting anything every nerd has ever thought of, then why start the thread?

>> No.3258116
Quoted by: >>3258135 >>3258208

>>3258101

it would take thousands of years to even get to another planet

we are finely tuned to earth's environment. air pressure, gravity, solar radiation to name only a couple

now add the thousands of things that could go catastrophically wrong on such an endeavor

maybe do a bit more research than some star trek episodes and then you can talk with the big boys

>> No.3258118
Quoted by: >>3258170

>>3258063
Bionic augmentation won't happen until we hit some sort of technological plateau.

Nobody would want an implant that will be obsolete in a year and require surgery to replace.

>> No.3258121
Quoted by: >>3258128

>>3258112

that wasnt me

>> No.3258128

>>3258121

Everyone here is essentially the same person.

>> No.3258135

>>3258116

btw i know someone is going to quote >thousands of years and then say something about mars but even that is still damn near impossible, since it would be way too goddamn expensive, dangerous, and there would be no way of getting a profitable amount of ore back

i was referring to planets outside of our solar system

>> No.3258143

I'll throw it out there. What will we be like and how advanced will we be in 1,000,000 years?

>implying all goes well and we don't kill each other and colonize enough planets that if earth gets destroyed humanity will live on

>> No.3258148

discussing the future becomes exponentially more difficult the more unknown variables you introduce

as you seem inclined to take a look at what is properly called the very VERY long run of approximately 40 years it means hoping for any more accuracy than you'd get by flipping a coin isn't really reasonable

we can certainly try to predict some things in that time scale, Moore's law hasn't quite sputtered out yet but you're dealing with a host of uncertainties piling up on top of each other for every "maybe" and "likely"

Overall it doesn't pay to underestimate what we CAN do, it does however need to be tempered with a sense of prudence. What people predicted in the 1900s was that all mail would be delivered through pneumatic tubes-
the reason it isn't is because other than letters the function of which we can apparently manage more easily it frankly costs less to have some guy deliver a package to your hut somewhere in the middle of the desert than it would to add one more tube to your plumbing..
The world will change drastically in ways that are cost-effective and stay the same in ways that are pre industrial carry overs.

>> No.3258157

God

>> No.3258165
File: 57 KB, 537x300, xseed40006ar9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
3258165
Quoted by: >>3258220

>People may even begin to move away from cities

I think we need to go the opposite route and start working on building huge arcologies with everything but dirty/dangerous industries and large scale agriculture contained within an energy efficient small footprint, growing more vertical than horizontal.
I believe mastering an almost self sufficient city of people contained within a single structure will also be the key to serious space exploration.

>> No.3258170

>>3258118
The future is going to be magic. To our eyes, at least. If someone from 200 years ago looked at computers and the internet they'd go "Welp, no fucking way I'm understanding that, must be magic." It's the same with us. Sure, we're smarter, but the fact is that certain aspects of the future will be so advanced it would blow our minds.

>> No.3258182

>Extraterrestrial colonization has so many flaws that it's bloody impossible to achieve it within this millenium

Millenniums are very, very long, my dear.

Remember that we've only had about two centuries of having electricity be an applicable resource, and we're here now.

Multiply that by FIVE and you have a millennium.

The ENTIRETY of technological development since the enlightenment era has been four hundred years, twice that is not even a millennium.


Are you hearing me? A millennium is akin to an eon to technology. An immeasurable age.

>> No.3258190

>>3258135
No ones talking about bringing ore back from mars. Also, there are plenty of legitimate plans for space that don't involve sending generation ships to alpha centauri.

Short term, permanent human settlements in LEO and the moon are perfectly acheivable with today's technology (we already have one on earth orbit).
Medium term, there are plenty of near-earth objects that are incredibly valuable.
Long term, permanent, self sufficient human presence on mars or phobos is not even that technologically daunting.

>> No.3258195
Quoted by: >>3258304

>>3258135
>he still thinks in terms of a scarcity driven economy
>laughingwhores.jpg
no seriously how retarded to you have to be to expect current models of development to outlive the century let alone the next thousand years
I'm not even in the camp of the hopeless extrapolators and a cursory look at the past 50 years is enough to convince me that this isn't the case.

>> No.3258208

>>3258116
It would take a long time to reach another star system, yes. Good thing we don't need to leave ours yet.

We are adapted to a specific set of environments, but we have learned to survive in environments we are not adapted to. Otherwise, there would be no research installations in Antarctica, and no-one would ever have walked on the Moon.

The potential for things to go wrong is always a problem, but it is much more acute in space. Multiple redundancies and over-the-top sturdy construction help to fight this. Of course, things do still go wrong, and they always will. But we still go into space, regardless.

>> No.3258211

don't get me wrong space colonization is far from practical but not even remotely impossible

>> No.3258220
Quoted by: >>3258229 >>3258336

>>3258165

>>I believe mastering an almost self sufficient city of people contained within a single structure will also be the key to serious space exploration.

Bingo. One of the unforeseen benefits of the hab construction boom. Not bad for what originally began as an effort to convert shopping malls, airports and office towers into refugee housing following the war.

>> No.3258222

>>3258135
Expense and danger do not make the colonization of Mars impossible. Settlements on Mars are not likely to be profitable, but that does not mean they will never be established.

If we want ore, we can just mine asteroids, anyway.

>> No.3258229
Quoted by: >>3258258

>>3258220
What the fuck?! Futurebro is still around?

Anything new and exciting happening in the future?

>> No.3258236

Anti-gravity and FTL

If not, i just die in my sleep or kill myself.

>> No.3258244

After the singularity we'll be able to go where we like. We won't need oxygen or traditional food, our robot bodies will be radiation proof and able to hibernate indefinitely without the need for habitats on spacecraft, and as our brains will have been replaced by computers that are hugely faster we will see time much faster, so a 1000 years will seem like a day.

>> No.3258252

Prediction:
people will always be assholes
y/n?

>> No.3258258
Quoted by: >>3258296

>>3258229

>>Anything new and exciting happening in the future?

Confirmed illegal use of weaponized voider technology against the Remnant army's networks of underground bunkers. Finally free to talk about it now that it's all over the news. This morally complicates the war in ways even a lot of hardliners are uncomfortable with. I'm ambivalent.

>> No.3258293
Quoted by: >>3258335

10 billion humans by 2050. Don't assume I'm joking, this is what most scientists believe. Our numbers have gone up by a billion in the last decade alone.

The human population cannot double without hardships. And we will see this population pressure within our lifetimes. Get ready to pay 10 bucks for a loaf of bread.

>> No.3258296
Quoted by: >>3258354

>>3258258

Please detail exactly what voider technology entails, I want to know if I should support it as a proper mad scientist.

>> No.3258304
Quoted by: >>3258321 >>3258335

>>3258195
I know someone's going to come along and
>implying post-scarcity
so I just have to say this:
There is no technological, or fundamental physical, issues with solving the resource and energy shortages we are at the cusp of. There is only one seriously damning pitfall, only one real reason why, by the year 3000, we won't have 900 years of asteroid mining under our belt. That is, in its various forms, national politics, economics, and our current attitude towards space exploration and colonization. It is "impossible" only if, collectively, humanity deems space a waste of time. For this reason, we may never get to space, may never have a post scarce economy. But there are no fundamental laws of physics being broken, and the last 50 years of space exploration have shown it is not outside of our engineering capacity either. It is only ONLY our own shortsightedness, our capacity for distraction that prevents it.

>> No.3258315

>>3258135
A Mars orbital station wouldn't be a bad idea as a way station for asteroid belt mining situations. Not saying it's necessarily plausible in the next 100 years but we could see something relatively soon.

>> No.3258320
Quoted by: >>3258330

Just found this in a thread on /g/.

http://gizmodo.com/5813821/scientists-create-first-memory-expansion-for-brain

The future is gonna be pretty fucking awesome.

>> No.3258321

>>3258304

Right. And we made that choice already. Back in the 70's when people got mad at the moon landings pushing back baseball games.

40 years later we have ipads instead of moon bases.

Humans aren't the characters in books. Humans just want to be happy. They don't want difficulty or strife.

Humanity is and always has been doomed. We didn't evolve to strive, we evolved only to survive.

>> No.3258330
Quoted by: >>3258337

>>3258320

Like you'll be able to afford that. Like society will accept people supplanting their humanity.

People will think augmentation degrades the soul, and it'll be a bad time to be a cyborg.

>> No.3258333

for future reference, this link.
http://www.futuretimeline.net/

>> No.3258335
Quoted by: >>3258347

>>3258293
nine and assumed to have stabilized by that point

>>3258304
true, the greatest threat to mankind's future by this point is itself, but seeing as we're becoming cultishly driven towards space expansion decades before the technology hopes to afford anything other than rudimentary living conditions let alone sustainability I doubt that particular concern will become a problem

>> No.3258336

>>3258220

Wow, /sci/ has become /x/.

They might as well merge the boards. There's no difference.

>> No.3258337
Quoted by: >>3258350

>>3258330

Oh boo hoo. Souls.

Religion is slowly creeping out too.

Why are the people weeping about souls not crying out as the iPhones devour their children's?

>> No.3258347
Quoted by: >>3258363 >>3258370

>>3258335

what cultish drive? Star trek? The occasional sci fi movie that does nothing but give us a different alien to hate?

Most people wouldn't even ride the spaceship one. Nobody wants to live in a hot, humid, smelly, cramped tin can with a hundred other people all breathing the same air and drinking the same water.

If anything, science fiction avoids these truths to paint space exploration as roomy and comfortable with little problems outside of klingons.

>> No.3258350

>>3258337

>religion

>ever going to go away

Sure is summer.

>> No.3258352
Quoted by: >>3258372

-extremely efficient batteries
-ridiculously fast computing
-the complete replacement of wood as construction material
-nuclear fusion power plants
-sentient machines (whether by A.I. or copying of the human brain into software)
-discovery of habitable planets
-confirmation of extraterrestrial life

if you judge by the progress in technology made over the last few centuries, i would imagine that in the future the things humans are capable of with technology will seem almost god-like to us. defiantly by the year 3000 the world be unrecognizable by modern people.

>> No.3258354 [DELETED] 

>>3258296

>>Please detail exactly what voider technology entails, I want to know if I should support it as a proper mad scientist.

The short version is that a Heim device was built to test the two primary predictions of the theory; that at high power levels it would reduce the effects of gravity around it (true but not by enough to be useful) and that beyond a particular threshhold it would push itself up and out of local space into an adjacent dimension where the speed of light differs enough that you can travel faster than the speed of light in local space for as long as you can produce enough power to keep your vessel there. Sort of like expending a great deal of thrust to lift yourself up off the ground so that you can travel faster in air than you could on the ground. Poor analogy, but there you go.

The test vessel returned to local space immediately as an explosion of unprecedented power. The favored explanation is that the laws of physics differ drastically enough in heim space that not only does the drive cease working but the strong force holding its constituent subatomic particles is weakened or eliminated. Some portion was also evidently converted into energy as the power of the explosion was not consistent with predictions if it was a complete matter to energy conversion.

Anyways, useless as an interstellar drive, but very useful as a method of volatile waste disposal or a weapon ever since the development of a related device that create very brief, extreme gravitational differentials using the same technology that accelerates the waste matter literally femtoseconds after it's pushed into Heim space. Gravitational influence here appears to extend there, which purportedly helps explain the weakness of gravity as a fundamental force.

>> No.3258363

>>3258347
Which it will undoubtedly become.
Get the worlds finest scientists , engineers, artist, innovators and millionaires together and ask them if they'd like a free trip to the moon, TECHNOLOGY GETS CHEAPER BUT PEOPLE STAY THE SAME

>> No.3258370
Quoted by: >>3258378

>>3258347
>Nobody wants to live in a hot, humid, smelly, cramped tin can with a hundred other people all breathing the same air and drinking the same water

This just in- Seagoing vessels never existed.

>> No.3258372

>>3258352

>-extremely efficient batteries
Not as profitable as batteries that constantly need to be replaced. Not going to happen.

>-ridiculously fast computing
People still only use computers for games and internet.

>-the complete replacement of wood as construction material
Timber lobbyists have stopped this for the last 100 years with no signs of ever stopping.

>-nuclear fusion power plants
It has nuclear in it. people will resist it.

>-sentient machines (whether by A.I. or copying of the human brain into software)
Slaves will always be cheaper, people fear robot uprising. Development funds will be hard to come by.

>-discovery of habitable planets
That we'll never reach

-confirmation of extraterrestrial life
Maybe shrimps on Europa.

>if you judge by the progress in technology made over the last few centuries, i would imagine that in the future the things humans are capable of with technology will seem almost god-like to us. defiantly by the year 3000 the world be unrecognizable by modern people

Not really. Ray Kurzweil is just a moron who makes really bad figures and graphs.

>> No.3258378
Quoted by: >>3258388

>>3258370

>seagoing vessel

>carries air supply

Oh, you must have meant submarines. But even they can just surface for more air.

My, how stupid you look.

>> No.3258388
Quoted by: >>3258393

>>3258378
Technically, we all breathe the same air. But you don't really have a point, you're just trolling for the hell of it.

>> No.3258393
Quoted by: >>3258404

>>3258388

How is describing what it's going to be like to live on a space anything trolling for no reason? It'll be like living in Kowloon without any chance of fresh air.

>> No.3258404
Quoted by: >>3258419

>>3258393
You're describing what you think it's like, and what you think it'd be like. You're saying that nobody would volunteer to live in space. You are either genuinely misinformed or trolling. Given this is /sci/, I think it's the latter.

>> No.3258419
Quoted by: >>3258433 >>3258456

>>3258404

The ship would be small and cramped because of how much it costs to move things up to space. Space elevators are practically impossible so i don't see the price changing for a long, long time. It would be hot because the heat from the crew and the ship's systems could only be radiated very slowly. Most of the people who would volunteer for space are the losers and forever alones who don't have the skills needed.

I don't know why everybody skips the beginning part of space travel that we might be lucky enough to see the start of in our lifetimes and automatically assume that space travel will be spacious and luxurious like in star wars or star trek.

Do some research.

>> No.3258420

>>OP
I always wondered if the future will bring the slow and subtile revival of dictatorship in all the world's 'big' countries.

And it starts by controlling the internet more and more. For our safety. And people buy it, since, hey, every 4th or so person on the internet is a pedophile.

I should take my tinfoil hat off, I know. Still, I'm afraid it'll turn out that way.

>> No.3258433
File: 70 KB, 516x640, skylabinterior2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
3258433
Quoted by: >>3258443

>>3258419

>>I don't know why everybody skips the beginning part of space travel that we might be lucky enough to see the start of in our lifetimes and automatically assume that space travel will be spacious and luxurious like in star wars or star trek.

You seem hung up on Star Trek and Star Wars. Let it go. Nobody mentioned those except for you. You're arguing against misconceptions none of us have. Spacious is entirely possible, it depends on the size of the heavy lifter rocket. Pic related, a spacious orbital space station in the 1970s. It could be this spacious inside because of the diameter and lifting capacity of the Saturn V rocket. NASA's new heavy launch system:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System

Will make such large capsule sizes possible again, as will SpaceX's heavy lifter. Anyone wishing to build in orbit or on the moon/mars will soon have two heavy lifters to choose from, government and private.

>> No.3258441

You know ships could be entirely automated too. If you can make a car drive itself then logic dictates that you can make ship run itself without fucking up royally

>> No.3258443
Quoted by: >>3258454

>>3258433
While we talk about it, what was Star Trek's explaination for having 'artificial' gravity on ships?

>> No.3258454

>>3258443

Gravimetric plating. The same tech their ships use to take off from/land on planets. They also show people lifting gravimetric "weights', small electronic devices that increase their own gravity to whatever you set them to.

It's a bullshit technology but at least they were consistent in showing it being used for a variety of applications instead of making up a new bullshit technology for each.

>> No.3258456

>>3258419
Yes, it costs a lot to move things out of a gravity well, not to mention construct them to the standards required. This does not mean they have to be small and cramped, but they are not generally very spacious. Instead of just looking at potential inexpensive methods for constructing and launching spacecraft from Earth, as with a launch loop or mass driver. You should also recognize the development of orbital industry and asteroid mining. Of course, we can't predict the future, but this is mostly hypothetical anyway.

A spacecraft or space station does not need to maintain an uncomfortable interior temperature. It depends on its passengers and crew, how much equipment is running, its radiative capacity, etc. If the design runs too hot, add more radiators.

Funny thing about people - they can be educated. If it was not possible to turn untrained volunteers into skilled workers, the modern world would not exist.

We have already seen the beginning part of space travel. Whether a person rides out of the atmosphere in a gold-encrusted stateroom or a glorified closet will most likely depend on how much they are willing to spend.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
reCAPTCHA
Action