Futurism, imagining what might be....

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Point taken. I should have said from my experiences.

In the interest of fairness to you, too, I've also seen students whine and b!tch so much because they got a A- as opposed to an A that it became a national tragedy and the professor gave in. It doesn't happen very often, but I've not NEVER seen it before.

Unrelated:

Apparently, there were two guys in my faculty that had a project to do in their physics class; they invented a dirty bomb just to show that is was plausible. The Canadian government subsequently took them away. This happened in the late 90's / early 00's I think? This was confirmed by multiple professors to me and Ozy_Flame.

Moral of the story: Don't do a project that's TOO good.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

The whole point of society evolving is to improve the lives of humans, so I wouldn't be surprised that, in 1000 years (barring no apocolyptic major wars or natural disasters), we will reach that state.

Funny thing is the only way society evolves is if someone strives to get ahead of another.

Evolution and abundance cannot coexist.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Funny thing is the only way society evolves is if someone strives to get ahead of another.

Evolution and abundance cannot coexist.

Um... Evolution occurs just find regardless of the conditions. The conditions merely serve as an influence.

There have been many instances where human society has improved due to war and strife. There has also been many instances where it has improved simply by dumb luck or through peaceful altruistic reasons.

For instance: information technology owes a great deal to the near constant state of war in the 20th century. And Canada's medical system owes a great deal to the idealistic notions of Tommy Douglas.

You cannot argue that society only advances in one way.

Society has continually evolved since it was a mere whisper of what it is now. Whether or not it has been in a continual state of advancement is up for partisan argument, but evolution has always been there.

[Devils'Advocate]

I remember studying Shakespeare and found it all very, very depressing. The themes of Shakespeare would be relevant 500 years before his time and are still relevant 500 years after his time. We see McBeth in every boardroom/office.

We've seen technological advances going so fast while our societal advances inch forward. You can say that in North America, advances have been made - who would have thought 10 years ago that it was possible for a black man to even be considered for president, much less be leading in the polls a month before election day. But we still have ethnic cleansing, the caste system of India.. and tell me that a Muslim man (or woman for that matter) would have a chance to be Prime Minister, much less President.

One hundred years, no matter what the technology, isn't going to change that humans are monkeys, driven by two motivating factors: greed and fear.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by llama64

You cannot argue that society only advances in one way.

Well to date abundance has never existed so there's nothing to argue on that front. Society has only advanced in a state of scarcity.

To me saying we'd get to this state is like trying to count to infinity. The second you get there you stop counting, but if you stop you're not there.

[4X4]

I only read the first two posts, so I'm not sure how this thread has developed. I'm responding right away because I'm eager to post something that I've wanted to discuss for awhile:

I watched a documentary recently (super interesting, called Earth: something or other. Not Planet Earth, something else). In this show they got in to weather patterns and how ocean streams strongly affect weather patterns and vice versa. After watching this show, I happened to be thinking of what would happen if the polar ice caps started melting significantly and caused sea levels to rise. My first thoughts were of how to keep sea levels at their present heights.
My first "solution" to this was to fill up unused spaces with excess ocean water. I got to thinking about what would happen if some rich SOB somehow managed to "buy" Death Valley and then build a canal from the Pacific and fill it up. Then he'd have prime oceanfront real estate to sell to developers. Wow, cool... Takes money to make money.

Ok, don't bother pointing out that you cant buy an environmental reserve or that there are thousands of protected wildlife or that still salt water would be less than desiriable to make a lake out of or tha it would be insanely expensive to build this canal... This is not my point.

My point is that doing this would put water where desert is. And that would severely affect weather patterns, which would affect ocean streams.

So that got me thinking... How does one study what would happen if humanity did something so significant? Who is qualified to study that? Do we have even the computer power, let alone brain power to study something like this?

All I could figure is that in the future, projects that have the potential to alter the Earth, significantly and very, very quickly will be considered, proposed, attempted and successfully built, to the benefit or detriment of humankind.

Humanity is very closely on the verge of being capable of changing weather and ocean patterns. And what we do in the western hemisphere will affect the eastern hemisphere. And vice versa of course.

So back to my example of building an oasis in death valley. Say it was built. Suddenly there's a lake the size of Erie in the middle of what used to be a desert. Suddenly there's alot of moisture in the air where there used to be very little. Suddenly there are high pressure systems where there are usually low pressure systems. Suddenly air that would never be routed from one area to another starts routing that way. The vacuum that it leaves draws air from somewhere else, right? And now there is a significant change in weather patterns.
Who knows what that means? What would the changes be? Is there such a thing as an Earth Engineer?
I don't know, but I've been having sci-fi fantasies about this kind of stuff lately.

In theory, one country could steal another country's rain. Or it could foist excess moisture upon one. Or it could inadvertantly upset the very delicate stream pattern in the oceans. Imagine what would happen if the gulf stream stopped or reversed. Europe would have winters like Canada and the northern US. The 45th parallel runs straight through portland, the great lakes, montreal, halifax, france, italy, eastern europe.

Anyway, that's what I'm thinking about as far as what the future holds. The ability or the study of what massive projects could potentially do to weather patterns.

One more quick example: what if Africa were suddenly rich and they decided to do something that would bring water back to the Sahara. Afterall, that's alot of real estate that's sitting pretty much unused. What if they somehow did something like that, and it caused another part of the earth to go barren?

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

^^ hehe.. I have sci fi fantasies about green chicks like captain kirk used to nail, but yours are good too.

crazy stuff when you start to think of what we're capable of.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by 4X4

In theory, one country could steal another country's rain.

A sci fi book whose story is basically along what you're saying. Canadian author, I think.



http://www.amazon.ca/Droughtlanders-.../dp/0670065455

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by peter12

This is all cute and great, but how do we reach a point of no scarcity? It's impossible.

Maybe we quit being completely self-serving and gluttunous? There is more than enough food in the world for everyone, even today. Its distribution and ethics that force millions into starvation while North America wastes over 1/3 of its food in the garbage.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Thor

2. Eventually all things needed by human kind, are not only available, but available for free.

How could this be possible?

Even just the basics -- they've never been "free". You always had to do something (or pay something) for your shelter and food and clothes. I don't see how that could change.

[Phanuthier]

Thor - first off, good idea for a thread. If I were a skill giver, I'd give you skill just for the idea.

Originally Posted by Bagor

...
Students are slipping through the cracks and progressing all over the place starting with high school. Don't make the grade? Meh. Here's some extra work for you.

The result? Students entering 3rd level education that have no business being there in the first place and under the false impression/delusion that they are quaified to be.

What happens at university level. The exact same thing. Fail an exam and they b!tch and whine so much that for many profs it's just not worth the hassle and they don't have the time. They get a little bit of extra homework and they slip on through.
...

Bagor - what the hell kind of school do you go to?

Originally Posted by 4X4

Who knows what that means? What would the changes be? Is there such a thing as an Earth Engineer?

4x4 I don't know if I'm even answering your question because I don't understand what exactly you were trying to get at, but yes there is something called an Environmental Engineer - though the field is mostly for the government and sewege and stuff. Civil Engineers can usually do this stuff too.

The ideas you propose are too radical IMO and will upset nature's equalibrium. I don't think it'll happen.

What I think will happen instead is some sort of infrustructure to hold water levels near land lower. I have no idea how the hell you do that or if its even possible, just a guess.

As for my answers to the future ... and yes, I realize some may be extreme (but who thought we'd have computers and internet do what we're doing now, 100 years ago?) ... and not all points may be consistant ...

Politics

Politically, I think we'll see an ongoing battle between capitalism, socialism and communism ... battles for success and failure on all of them.

I can also see (but not correlated to the previous idea) that the power of societies being controlled by business, not the government, and societies will be directed by major corporations. I can see the idea of government slowing dying, or their control of their population being much lower. I can see 95% of the value/products/IP being owned by 5%, and the seperation between the wealthy and everyone else grow.

I believe the amount of people moving in the world and the economies drawing closer together (ie. the difference between the 1st world and the 3rd world drawing closer together) will furthur bring an end to politics, and people will start to align with their lives and the people around them, rather then as a country.

Economics / Business

As above in politics, I can see the direction of the economy dictated by a small majority - in a sense, communism except the governance of the state isn't a political party, its a business.

Although not really origanal, and to anyone's surprise ... I believe the world powers will be China, India and Brazil.

On the flip side ... I can also see the idea of big corporations dying. Everything in the information is about speed. The internet moves information - and products to an extent - faster then ever before. The amount of overhead and corruptions makes corporations too slow, and instead of 2-3 big companies, I can also see 9-10 middle sized companies controlling an industry.

I can see the idea of car dealerships, furniture stores (i.e. The Brick), clothing stores, etc all dying. I think everything will be purchased via internet (tigerdirect, newegg, etc) and the way we can buy computers over the internet (i.e. Dell) will be institued into how people buy cars, furniture, etc. The stores will soon be for your cheaper products, like a food and office supplies. The only stores that will survive are the ones that have a warehouse/wholesaler idea, such as Ikea.

I can see the idea of credit/banks/interest also failing and being phased out, a huge hit to bigger corporations.

I think jobs will be scarce and 50% of the jobs out there are programming. I believe knowledge is power, that science / engineering will control 40% of the jobs, trades 30%, medical 15%, business 10%, and everyone else will make up the 5%. I think we'll see fields like poli sci be phased out and rendered useless, and the arts phased into science / design engineering.

Science

I could go all day here.

I think computers will move from semiconductors to photonics / laser electrions. I think Moore's Law will come to an end, but we can only go so far with desktop computers and laptops (speed, power consuption etc). The cost to make smaller and smaller technology is fundimentally too expensive

Instead of speed/power/performance in computers, I think we'll see interfaces improve. For instance, Google and Vista. (no seriously). I believe it was Picasa that has facial recognition for photo tagging, and Vista has audio commands that write into Notebook as long as your monotone. As we improve on the human-computer interface, I could see audio-controlled electronics entering the market and visual recognition much improving. Instead of writing out our essays, we can just say it.

I believe non-product producing science will struggle as politics in society starts becoming less and less, and will be religated more to acadamia rather then government reserach labs.

I believe we will see the majority of electronics wireless.

I believe we will have a cure for cancer, aids etc.

I do NOT believe man will move out from earth and live in space.

I believe eco-cities will start to sprout, most notably in China and India. I believe inefficient societies and urban sprawls will struggle and slowly die.

I believe we will still rely on oil/gas, though not nearly as heavily. I believe in solar power, wind power and biofuels. I think those countries that rely on oil/gas for power (i.e. Canada) will start to see their population migrate closer to the equator and more stable environments.

I believe within 100 years, we will finally be concerned with the environment, and people will actually care about the environment rather then refuse to give up their SUVs and bitch that David Suzuki (sp?) is a dumb boob who doesn't know what he's talking about.

I believe portable electronics will be the norm, again with better human-computer interface. Electronics will be more robust and even flexible electronics.

I believe TV's and movie theators will be 3D ... without the use of polirzation goggles.

I believe there will be a constant battle between national defense and science, as "terrorists" start to exploit the use of certain types of science of their "terrorist" activities.

I believe military will be mostly all autonomous robotic vehicles (instect size UAVs, UAVs for scouting, etc)

I believe we will struggle with building battaries as natural resources run dry

I believe after 100 years of portible consumer electronics, limited resources will force us to mine marginal wells of resources/mines/etc forcing prices up and even more, seperate the have's from everyone else.

I believe spintronics will go no where

I believe AI will eventually - eventually - start to interface and start mimicing the human brain networks.

Medical

I believe the medical field will begin to be controlled by high-tech, most notably in the field of medical rudametary diagnostics. The idea of the GP will be phased out and medical professionals will work in hospitals for only the more serious cases.

I believe cloning, genetic engineering and artificial limbs will all be a regular by then.

I see drug delivery being the dominating science and the hot topic people talk about. The research in drug delivery and pharmacy will draw the 2 closer together for better/safer/more accurate medicine.

phew that was alot of random ideas

[jydk]

edit

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Bagor - what the hell kind of school do you go to?

My wife's a Prof.

If you want to know the school PM me. Honestly, I'm not making it up for the sake of dramatics.

And as I said, I should have said "from my experiences". I realise it's a bit of a broad brush statement and was wrong.

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by Bagor

My wife's a Prof.

If you want to know the school PM me. Honestly, I'm not making it up for the sake of dramatics.

And as I said, I should have said "from my experiences". I realise it's a bit of a broad brush statement and was wrong.

In my experience as both a student and an instructor I agree with Bagor. Often times the student is given the benefit of the doubt and pushed through to the next level even if they have no business being there.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

The ideas you propose are too radical IMO and will upset nature's equalibrium. I don't think it'll happen.

Probably not in the next 100 years, but it'll happen. Mainly what I'm getting at is that in the future, we will begin altering the Earth on a much larger scale than we already do. Right now we build little canals to bring water to farmers in dryer areas. We build islands to put airports on (no, not aircraft carriers, island airports), we do all kinds of things that are exponentially out of the realm of possibility of people just 100, 200, 300 years ago.

I think that it wont be long before the capability is there to significantly alter the Earth's weather patterns to better suit humankind. So what I was getting at was that in the future, there will be engineers that devise ways to irrigate dry lands without the use of canals. Perhaps we will bring rain clouds instead.

[jolinar of malkshor]

I think a lot of these grand ideas can be achieved for humans IF something else comes along that can occupy us, such as space exploration. If we get to a point we we can have all our needs for free and most of our wants, space exploration could give us the void left from everything being free.

[Dion]

Logan's Run

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by jydk

"bold" To me it reads a bit pretentious and arrogant.

Yeah, I don't think CG fully understands the meaning of school and what garners success in professions. I don't think you are "challenged" to do calculus or read Shakespear in school, because school is more about development, notably socially at a young age. It isn't until high school that they start becoming more academic teaching, and both are important. As for studying medicine and law, there are so many other factors then being able to multiple numbers in your head and so on.

Originally Posted by 4X4

Probably not in the next 100 years, but it'll happen. Mainly what I'm getting at is that in the future, we will begin altering the Earth on a much larger scale than we already do. Right now we build little canals to bring water to farmers in dryer areas. We build islands to put airports on (no, not aircraft carriers, island airports), we do all kinds of things that are exponentially out of the realm of possibility of people just 100, 200, 300 years ago.

I think that it wont be long before the capability is there to significantly alter the Earth's weather patterns to better suit humankind. So what I was getting at was that in the future, there will be engineers that devise ways to irrigate dry lands without the use of canals. Perhaps we will bring rain clouds instead.

There are a few reasons I doubt this,

- the science and our ability to model that science is very different from microscopic and macroscopic situations. We can't even being to predict the consequences of doing something like that because there are so many factors involved.
- the politics of science. Its one thing to be able to invest something new or design something new, but science is a funny thing - some people are so scared of science that the faster and harder science evolves, the harder and more scared people are to fight the system back. Doing something of the order you are doing will see great opposition.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

There are a few reasons I doubt this,

- the science and our ability to model that science is very different from microscopic and macroscopic situations. We can't even being to predict the consequences of doing something like that because there are so many factors involved.
- the politics of science. Its one thing to be able to invest something new or design something new, but science is a funny thing - some people are so scared of science that the faster and harder science evolves, the harder and more scared people are to fight the system back. Doing something of the order you are doing will see great opposition.

Ok. But if you told someone 100 years ago that we'd be able to circumnavigate the earth in a day, let alone 80, they wouldn't believe you. Ditto with going to the moon and sending stuff to mars, saturn, pluto and beyond.

I'm not sure why you think this is so out of reach. Again, I'm not saying we'll be doing it tomorrow or even within the century, but it's not much further away.

As for the politics of science, it's not like the US consulted Russia when they started the nuclear program. And internally, if a government started research on how to bring precipitation to a dry area, the opposition would be there, but there would also be alot of advocates. Stem cell research is a good comparison. They're thinking that they can create blank cells. Sounds great to me. Maybe not so much for a different person.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Ok. But if you told someone 100 years ago that we'd be able to circumnavigate the earth in a day, let alone 80, they wouldn't believe you. Ditto with going to the moon and sending stuff to mars, saturn, pluto and beyond.

I'm not sure why you think this is so out of reach. Again, I'm not saying we'll be doing it tomorrow or even within the century, but it's not much further away.

I think the difference (RE: scaling up the science) is that we're talking about different avenues of science. As an idea of going to the moon, planes etc ... the science was not out of reach. As an outsider, it may seem grand but the scientific concepts are simpler.

Now I am reserved here when I say this since I'm no environmentalist ... but as far as I know, world climate is a bit of a different animal when it comes to science. When we wanted to build a space shuttle or a airplane, we were able to forward-engineer from idea to concept to design to implementation. The environment is a bit of a different animal as far as I can tell when it comes to engineering it. We're talking more about cause-effect, seeing the results and explaining it rather then forward-engineering it to meet desired outcomes. For your example or manipulating cloud movement ... to me, its one thing to see a cloud move from A to B and use science to explain how it happened. But to have some sort of specification, then design something to meet it, that is very different. Another example, earthquakes. As scienctists, we are able to generate information predicting a earthquake 24 hrs in advance ... sort of. We get alot of false positive too, and we have no idea how to account for because there is so much going on.

Originally Posted by 4X4

As for the politics of science, it's not like the US consulted Russia when they started the nuclear program. And internally, if a government started research on how to bring precipitation to a dry area, the opposition would be there, but there would also be alot of advocates. Stem cell research is a good comparison. They're thinking that they can create blank cells. Sounds great to me. Maybe not so much for a different person.

I'm not talking about the talking heads in congress or the senate or those that want to argue Marxism. I'm talking about societies attitudes towards science when it conflicts their emotions, religious beliefs and so on. Environmentalists and religious protesters will fight too and nail to this type of science IMO.

I'm not saying there there is 0% of this going on ... JMO.