Evening All,<br /><br />I was just reading an interesting article by a Dr Curry who believes that in 1000 years time humans will have split into 2 sub species one tall, good looking and inteligent the other pretty much the opposite and he also thinks that we'll become so dependant on technology that we'll become to be like domesticated animals...How do you guys see our future ? Ive mentioned the time period 500 years to also ask what kinda technology do you think will be common place then cause im fairly sure its something we cant really begin to imagine right now, not only that thou but do you think by then the solar system will be colonised to say pluto even thou its not classed as as planet now and do you see nanotechnology becoming common place to enchance our abilities and life spans being tripled and such could go on for a while but what do you guys think the world(s) will be like in 500 years time?<br /><br />Thanks for reading Isare.
- Status
Definitely will have a global population crash/war (after a few test runs in India and Mexico) and the resulting collapse of technology and infrastructure will just be starting to turn around in 500 years. Earth will be repopulated by isolated human communities from marginal areas. Should still be resources available and the environmental damage from the collapse will be abating.<br /><br />There won't be much evolution of the human surviviors, but I bet after 10 Cycles changes will be very noticeable.<br /><br />How much knowledge and information can be transmitted across a collapse is hard to say. Some information that might be best left untransmitted (religious practices that hasten a subsequent population collapse springs to mind) probably will come through just fine. Information that might be useful (chlorine makes bad water drinkable) will probably have to be relearned the hard way.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
Humans are already domesticated, in fact we are the first domesticated animals. We domesticated ourselves, then dogs and horses. I don't think we will split along Eloi-Morlock lines - if Humanity survives long enough to speciate, we will blossom into dozens or hundreds of new species (especially in off-Earth environs). If there is no crash in the next 100 years, we will probably see the first forced speciation by genetic manipulation. Natural/breeding pressures will also create new species, but technology will amplify and speed the process. I've argued before that we are already in the middle of a technologically-mediated speciation event due to social and subcultural practices.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
Two biological species? Who knows? People who try to predict the future based on one thing are naive. This is why most science fiction stories of the future are silly. They don't take into account so many other extremely powerful ideas, inventions and breakthroughs that change humanity in ways completely unpredictable.<br /><br />Genomics/biotechnology, nanotechnology and advanced artificial intelligence is just around the corner. It has been predicted by Ray Kurzweil and others that artificial human level intelligence will be here before 2030 according to 100 years of computer performance and growth. Humans will become increasingly dependent on their technology, much like we are today except on more intimate and profound levels. We will see a mergence of biological and artificial life.<br /><br />Check the link below for a much better description than I can provide here.<br /><br />http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1<br /><br /><br /><br />SLJ
Yeah, Borg, but without the attitude.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
Thanks for that link SpacelifeJunkie, i found that article extremely interesting also a little dismayed when i realised his SETI paragraphs did make sense 
always liked to think something "more" was out there has he published any more articles since? (the one was dated 2002 i think it was) <br /><br />Thanks again
always liked to think something "more" was out there has he published any more articles since? (the one was dated 2002 i think it was) <br /><br />Thanks againThat argument against other space civilisations is similar to the argument I proposed in this link btw<br />http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=seti&Number=718323<br /><br />The argument doesnt actually require AI or such, merely self sufficient space habitats. <br /><br />I also expect we would be well on the way with this process ourselves within 500 years.. if not for some massive collapse of course.
Two species: I doubt it. The rational for that would be that tall good looking peeps dont have children with the "ugly" and small: and I do not think that is a rule. If it was, human population would already be divided into two races.<br /><br />I also unfortuately believe there may be a population crash in the 21st century: we are just growing and polluting our environement too fast. <br /><br />I also do not buy the idea that technology will incessantly continue to advance. I believe technology is an answer to demand created by a growing population. Stabilising or reducing the population should sigificantly slow down technological advances, if not put an end to them.<br /><br />I would tend to believe the colonisation or not of space is in the balance: either it takes place before the crash, in which case it may be able to sustain itself after the crash; or it does not take place at all, and after the crash there will be no demand or means for it to exist.<br /><br />I would say the 21st century is probably at the crossroads between man expanding into space or staying on Earth for a good many centuries more.<br /><br />Just an interesting number: if the population of space "colonists" (by colonists I mean a population that actually lives off in situ ressources entirely) is 1'000 in the year 2100, assuming an internal growth rate of 2%, that would make it 2'700'000 in the year 2500. If we make it this century, we may be all over the solar system by then, ie: the Moon, Mars, asteroids, jovian and saturnian satellites, trans-neptunian objects maybe too. A lot depends on the drive for people to set themselves up far from the Earth, but the worst things get on Earth, the greater the drive...<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>“An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” John F. Kennedy</em></p> </div>
Thanks for the link, SLJ. I do believe Ray Kurzweil is fundamentally wrong: he bases his view of exponential technological growth almost only on the rate of advance in computer technology. It is probable that computer technology will continue to advance at an exponential rate but that is not the case for other technologies.<br /><br />For example, the liquid Hydrogen / liquid Oxygen rocket engine: in the 1960's we could get an ISP (a measure of performance) of 400s from it, in the 1980's it was 455s, and today it is 465s. I do not call that exponential at all: rather I would call it assymptotic. Same thing for the rate of change in cars, airplanes and machinery in general: we are only optimising technology on a very minute scale every year. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>“An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” John F. Kennedy</em></p> </div>
Hey i suppose you could argue that technological progress in propulsion performance is hindered by an irrational fear in my opinion, there was designs for nucleared powered space ships back in the 1960s but due to people instantly relating nuclear to dooms day and mushroom clouds it never really took off, however with the new found interest in going back to the moon by multiple nations maybe we'll see a new space race to mars. We seem to at our most innovative in competition thou that could just be because they have public opinion wanting the end result and not minding on the means used to get it.
I would tend to disagree with you Isare. <br /><br />The 1960 NERVA engine had an ISP of 830, a mass of 6'500 kg and a thrust of 264'000 N (thrust-to-weight = 41).<br /><br />The 1991 NERVA 2 had an ISP of 925, a thrust of 333'000 N and a mass of 8'500 kg (thrust-to-weight = 39).<br /><br />The 2007 Triton nuclear rocket has an ISP of 940, a mass of 2'200 kg and a thrust of 66'700 N (thrust-to-weight = 30).<br /><br />You will note a slight increae in ISP over time but a decreasing thrust-to-weight ratio. There is clearly no exponential advance in technology, just incremental. <br /><br />And do note that a nuclear drive would reduce the mass of a trans-lunar vehicle by 40% "only". Whatever the advances in transportation techology, they are not comparable to those obtained in information technology, where processor speed doubles every two years. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>“An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” John F. Kennedy</em></p> </div>
"I do believe Ray Kurzweil is fundamentally wrong: he bases his view of exponential technological growth almost only on the rate of advance in computer technology."<br /><br />Not true, although I will admit that he spends a lot of time in this arena. Kurzweil argues that the Law of Accelerating Returns is more fundamental than Moore's Law and silicon transistors. The LAR is fundamental to intelligence in general. The fundamental constants of the universe gave rise to life and intelligence. Therefore it is inevitable that humans will reach the state we are in because it is an extension of evolution and the big bang itself. That is, of course, if we avoid natural disasters and our own self destruction beforehand. His emphasis on computer performance is two-fold. First, the data is easy to obtain and very objective. They fit nice on the curves! Secondly, one of his postulates is that intelligence is the most powerful force in the universe and the computer is mankinds greatest invention because it shows the potential for man to extend this power indefinitely.<br /><br />I will concede that rocket engines have not obeyed exponential performance improvement very well. But, try not to focus too directly on one piece of the large technological pie. If you look at the sum of all transportation technologies over the last 1000 years and combine that with the relative ease, safety, cost, frequency and popularity of travel by the general population today, you will see that rocket performance fits a little better. You must also consider factors like the number of launches, mass to LEO, dependence on space technology, etc. I realize many of these factors are difficult to quantify but you get the idea. Compare all of these factors over the last 75 years, not just ISP numbers.<br /><br /><br />SLJ
" i found that article extremely interesting also a little dismayed when i realised his SETI paragraphs did make sense"<br /><br />Isare,<br /><br />When I read his book, "The Singularity is Near," I found his treatment of SETI and mankind's uniqueness in the universe one of the most profound ideas in the book. His case for humans to be "at the top of the food chain" is so compelling I can't view the universe in any other way.<br /><br /><br />SLJ
"We will be the Borg, but prettier."<br /><br />Too funny. I find it ironic that our beloved Star Trek views the intrisic value of humanity to be biological and evil to be the combination of machine and life. When in reality, we can accurately chart mankind's increasing dependence and slow mergence with the technology we create, all while we slowly eliminate human suffering one disease and one problem at a time.<br /><br /><br />SLJ<br /> <br /><br />
The startrek universe has sort of taken on a life of its own. What will be the difference between a universe in our imagination and a virtual reality once we have artificial intelligence?<br /><br />We are good at finding ways to wrap ourselves in envronments that pander to us. Look at the huge multidiscipline technology that goes into online games.. to create a world where problems can be solve by hitting things repeatedly with a big club.<br /><br />I dont see us stagnating to much because of this though. Evolution will keep rewarding whoever keeps a foot in the real world, whatever that is.
I feel puzzled at all of this concern about population growth. Fertility rates have been dropping for decades in nearly every part of the world. In 2003 the Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat reduced its median estimate of human population for the year 2050 by two billion people to 8.9 billion with declines in population projected thereafter.<br /><br />We have been witnessing a change in the pattern of human reproduction for more than 50 years. Apparently some haven’t noticed. The experience of every industrialized country in the world (except Israel) is that when females between the ages of 15 and 40 have reproductive choice in respect to significant aspects of their lives (technological, economic, religious and cultural), they choose to have fewer than the replacement number of children. <br /><br />For whatever reason human females aged 15 to 40 choose to reproduce below the replacement rate.<br /><br />A larger and larger percentage of human females have achieved this ability to choose due to better communications, economies and changing attitudes towards females in the work force and in many other areas. If the current trend in fertility rates continues unabated, Homo Sapiens will be extinct in 500 years having failed to reproduce.<br /><br />So don’t sweat overpopulation. That’s yesterday’s problem.<br /><br />Bob<br />
Sounds a bit like the film 'Children of Men'.<br /><br />Anyway, I had heard that part of the problem was chemicals in everyday products<br />like washing powder, clothes dyes, vehicle pollution, etc.<br /><br />Surely as technology evolves & we learn more about this, the problem will be reversed.<br /><br />The biggest threat IMO is the demographic time bomb, a vast number of older people<br />in relation to the younger age groups. Who will look after them, as they grow old.<br /><br />The result possibly is that a large number of people will pass away in a relatively sort <br />time frame, thus evening things out for a while.<br /><br />Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>
“I had heard that part of the problem was chemicals in everyday products like washing powder, clothes dyes, vehicle pollution.†<br /><br />Do you have some source in mind? <br /><br />But do keep in mind that fertility is a very complex subject, which is easy to obfuscate. <br /><br />For instance, in the United States reported failures to carry to term are much higher today than 50 years ago. But, before you start buying organic consider: abortion is legal today; it wasn’t 50 years ago. Fertility treatments, which induce shorter gestation periods, essentially didn’t exist 50 years ago. <br /><br />Sperm count is inversely related to ambient temperature. If population shifts south or global temperatures rise, sperm counts will decline. Increased sexual activity reduces sperm counts (there’s only so much to go around). <br /><br />Are you quite sure that “as technology evolves & we learn more about this,†these particular problems “will be reversed?â€<br /><br />Bob
At least as we are all agreed there is something we have to be horribly worried about.<br /><br />Global warming is bound to trigger an ice age resulting in an increase sperm production, creating a population boom and over-industrialisation that will no doubt sterilise us all. <br /><br />phew. well at least no one is saying food and pot are bad for you too.
Fertility is not the same as sperm count.<br /><br />I think it would be more correct to say, “At our present level of ignorance some people think they know that ‘Global warming is bound to trigger an ice age.’â€<br /><br />Sorry, but the US government will tell you that pot is worse than arsenic. They would say, "We know that arsenic has some medicinal uses, but we know pot does not.†<br /><br />Bob <br />
I think in 500 years time the human race will be gone, the reason for this is, 1 global warming will have destroyed us by then, 2 we are so ignorant as a race, we will not realise global warming till its to late.<br /><br />I also think that by the year 2507 we would have had to populate a different planet, also we would of made contact with more intelligent races, which would improve our technology alot.<br /><br />Thats my prediction.
We're not that bad off yet. All we need to secure is a central database of scientific journals and general knowledge, and to a lesser extent, a cultural equivalent.<br />Knowledge is the only truly unreplaceable substance. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
No one will take up the challenge so far: are we on the verge of a speciation event? Between genetic manipulation and our emergence into new niches, Humanity should begin to split into several species. This could easily happen in 500 years, following what is happening with technology and societies. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
The tendency is for man to shape his environment to suit his needs, rather than the opposite.<br /><br />That said, there ain't much you can do about a g-field. For instance, humans living on Mars will no doubt adapt to 1/3g. Will those changes make them "not human"? Time will tell. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Does a cosmic 'glitch' in gravity challenge Albert Einstein's greatest theory?- Started by Admin
- Replies: 35
-
-
-
A video made by me about space and the loneliness in the universe- Started by drakotol
- Replies: 54
-
Boeing Starliner rolls out to launch pad for 1st astronaut flight on May 6 (photos)
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 1
-
-
X-ray spacecraft reveals odd 'Cloverleaf' radio circle in new light (image)
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 4
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram