How long do you suppose humans will continue to exist? How will we go out, if we do at all?
Will we self-destruct before achieving a Type I civilization, and if so how? Nuclear armageddon? Destroying the environment to the point that it can no longer sustain us? Or maybe you think a huge meteor will hit the earth before we get to that point? Maybe you think Jesus will return to Earth soon? Maybe you think computers will be come self-aware and extinguish humanity? Zombie apocalypse anyone?? Or perhaps you think we will endure and achieve a Type III civilization, possibly even escaping the death of the universe somehow?
(Link to the different types of civilizations, for those not in the know)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love." --Carl Sagan
Food and blood pathogens are becoming extremely hard to control.
6.9 billion (now) +8% every ten years or so for 270 years = nearly 22 billion.
My guess is, we will become very crowded. Many developing countries (2nd world) will crumble economically into poverty and unrest. Many developed countries (1st world)will crumble and become the new (2nd). Places like the USA and Japan will end up like Ukraine or Afghanistan, or post war Bosnia. Those places will end up like Somalia or worse.
Pathogens will evolve and become more resilient to antitoxins.
Population overcrowding + rampant and resilient disease and infection + more poor and malnurished + more fighting over resources = the fall of mankind.
My guess is Stem Rust (ug99) evolves, jumps the pond and kills 82% of the worlds grain crops. This causes massive amounts of starvation and wrecks economies. The fallout is sociopolitical. Revolts, governments are toppled, poverty spreads faster. Malaria evolves and spreads like wildfire. A few more natural disasters make it even worse. The richest take their money and run for the hills. The rest of us kill each other for scraps.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Its just a big loop. We build and populate until we implode our civilazation and small pods of immune people start all over. Humans will be here as long as the planet is livable.
Humans have not existed for as long as the planet has. Therefore it is not sound thinking to assume that humans WILL exist as long as the planet is livible.
Livible for one species may not be livible for humans.
I was simply predicting the "fall" of mankind in my previous, not a complete extinction, so in a way i agree with you.
However, to say that we will always be here so long as the planet is livable is jumping to a conclusion.
It is very possible we could be wiped out by diseases, famine, and war...while lions tigers and bears live on just fine.
Its possible that ALL land mammals die off, but fish and insects move on.
The Sun has billions of years left in it, so does the earth (millions at least - barring a meteor 5 miles across)
I seriously, honestly doubt that humans will make it.
Humans are roughly 12,000-15,000 years old, and look at what we have done and how we are. Mankind will fall (my guess) in 270 years. But if I had to guess complete extinction...I'll say 12,000 more years TOPS.
We can barely afford to keep up social services, schools, and healthcare right here in America. I highly doubt we will be cruising the universe a la Star Trek, or colonizing planets any time soon...if EVER.
Honeslty, the sad part is that even if say we do move to Mars and terraform it and turn it into a second home...it is because we took a huge dump all over this one. Mars would eventually suffer the same fate.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Food and blood pathogens are becoming extremely hard to control.
6.9 billion (now) +8% every ten years or so for 270 years = nearly 22 billion.
My guess is, we will become very crowded. Many developing countries (2nd world) will crumble economically into poverty and unrest. Many developed countries (1st world)will crumble and become the new (2nd). Places like the USA and Japan will end up like Ukraine or Afghanistan, or post war Bosnia. Those places will end up like Somalia or worse.
Pathogens will evolve and become more resilient to antitoxins.
Population overcrowding + rampant and resilient disease and infection + more poor and malnurished + more fighting over resources = the fall of mankind.
This is all based on the assumption that population growth will continue at its present rate for the next 270 years. It may not. Or it may. But I certainly wouldn't assume that it will. In fact, from what I've seen, the population growth rate is slowing, not remaining constant. (Source)
Besides this, estimations are that we will achieve a Type I civilization in 100 -200 years, well within your 270 year estimate of the downfall of humanity. Yes, Mars is an option and so is the moon, and we may wreck those too. I think we'd be a lot more careful to maintain a sustainable environment on either of those since it would be developing around us. We'd also have space colonies which could house people as fast as we could make the space stations.
My guess is Stem Rust (ug99) evolves, jumps the pond and kills 82% of the worlds grain crops. This causes massive amounts of starvation and wrecks economies. The fallout is sociopolitical. Revolts, governments are toppled, poverty spreads faster. Malaria evolves and spreads like wildfire. A few more natural disasters make it even worse. The richest take their money and run for the hills. The rest of us kill each other for scraps.
That sounds more realistic to me. Although I don't really know much about it to check it for plausibility.
Its just a big loop. We build and populate until we implode our civilazation and small pods of immune people start all over. Humans will be here as long as the planet is livable.
I agree with this, largely...
...though I don't think that it's a certainty that mankind survives this cycle "as long as the planet is livable".
Cycles related to political upheavals, combined with natural disasters, periodic microbial epidemics, and the dangerous technology escalation, make implosions inevitable.
I do believe that there is a very real possibility that one of the implosions can be deep enough to take us below endangered and into extinct. Advancing technology makes us less safe, not more safe, from implosion. Advancing technology makes the world smaller (e.g. one person can taint the entire world food supply not just a river, e.g. we all live on ONE island, instead of having geographically isolated populations safe from a supermicrobe - your superflu may go from Melbourne to Tehran within 72 hours, e.g. the bomb I build tomorrow may take out 100,000,000 people at a time, not 100, e.g. using tech to cram lets say 40 billion on the planet someday with no robustness built into the system, means cascade failure is very likely).
What is the long term species advantage of individuals having the power to blow up an entire county? None. It's a species survival disadvantage.
What is the long term species advantage of individuals having the power to blow up an entire county? None. It's a species survival disadvantage.
Very true. However, colonization of Mars and the moon, as well as having space colonies, would restore the separation of populations. If we can get to that point, we can survive a global implosion.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love." --Carl Sagan
Our population grows at about +8%-10% every 15 years.
6.9 billion (now) +8% every ten years or so for 270 years = nearly 22 billion.
My problem with overpopulation theories is that it assumes that mankind is the civilizational equivalent of an idiot walking into a glass door, picking himself up, and doing it again and again. While I do believe that population has quite a ways to go before it peaks, most developed countries have negative/close to negative population growth because the "price" of having a child only increases as development increases. As the world becomes even more populated, I think we will see some trends toward fewer children per household, or even marriages w/o children*. And even then, with agricultural technology improving as it has been, mass starvation is still a long ways away.
*Both assuming that population has approximately peaked.
We can barely afford to keep up social services, schools, and healthcare right here in America. I highly doubt we will be cruising the universe a la Star Trek, or colonizing planets any time soon...if EVER.
Mankind has continued to make scientific progress almost continuously since the Industrial Revolution, times when very few people were formally educated and thought that the little things swimming in their water meant that it was healthy. I'm sorry, but those issues seem like complete non-sequiters to scientific development.
Personally, I see innovation and development outpacing the most serious problems that will arise, and if we can get a serious energy source and artificial intelligence, I don't think there's anything short of global catastrophe that man'd be unable to deal with(global catastrophe being sun explosion, meteors hitting the earth, and climate change, if it's serious enough).
Alternate scenario : WW3 pops out, wipes millions leaving that much more ressources for the people left to go on for another couple thousand years.
More seriously, the assumption that the population will keep growing so fast may nto be entirely accurate. Different factors have to be considered.
The acceptance of homosexuality in society means less conception. If only because gay couples who don't want a kid can't end up with a "mistake".
There's also less of an urge for heterosexual couple to have children. Compare how 50 years ago, priest and pastors would remind people how it's their god-given duty to conceive children and all that. Lately it's phased more into a "Your like is not complete until you have a kid". However that trend could end or at least be less spread resulting in more childless couples.
Even couples who, many years ago could have been pressured in having half a dozen kids could now be satisfied with one child.
It's hard to say in any case. Frankly I'm still hoping we're all going to live in Star Trek ships by 2030.
PS : Just compare technology from 100 years ago to today. Who's to say what we'll have in 270 years?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It is always easy to be tolerant and understanding...Until someone presents an opinion completely opposite to your own.
Imo, anything short of catastrophic climate change or physical destruction humans will be able to survive, albeit at much smaller numbers. I'd say it's inevitable that there will be a nuclear war or some kind of militaristic use of nuclear weapons eventually and soon we will have to drastically change how we live due to the climate.
So if I were to say "you're a complete douchebag who has his head up his ass so far he's using his own eyeballs as glasses," you'd simply shrug it off?
No trees were harmed in the sending of this message; however, a significant number of electrons were slightly inconvenienced.
IMO Technology is going to be the downfall of our society. It will cause us to implode. The small pods that survive will be those that remember or still do the meanial manual chores so many have forgotten about or just dont care to do anymore. We are really spoiled with some of the everyday things technology gives us every day. Electricity for one. A large earthquake that effects the Niagra falls or ruptures the Hoover dam and huge portions of the country (and Canada if the falls) will be without electrical power. What good are all the electrical appliances without power to run them? The people who have the knowledge of solor aor wind power along with agriculture will be those pods that survive or help those who survived move on.
As for my statement about being around as long as the planet is survivable, many have pointed out situations where I could be wrong. I hope I am not, but none of us know.
So, wanted to quickly just hit the issue of overpopulation.
Assuming that the population will continue to rise is idiotic. People only have large numbers of kids when their country is under developed. A large number of developing countries have already begun to level off their populations. The average number of children in Bangladesh per couple, for example, is now 2.1. Developed nations, like the US and Japan, have fewer. Japan actually is having trouble replacing its population because of their lack of extensive immigration. As the world continues to develop, more nations will trend more to the middle, and given enough time, the world population might actually begin to decline.
Most estimates I have seen estimate that the world population will top out somewhere between 7 and 9 billion people.
However, that doesn't mean that overpopulation might not be the end of us. At 9 billion inhabitants on Earth, we might just straight up not have enough resources. Thats already an issue all over the world. However, recent scientific breakthroughs, as well as future ones, may help us maintain a constant large population. Its becoming easier to produce large amounts of nutritious food. Moreover, there is a worldwide tendency towards producing more nutrient efficient food. Recent developments in genomics may help the world establish a stable source of clean water. Its really a question of wait and see.
That being said, there are hundreds of thousands of ways the world might end, and I dont to pretend to know which of those might happen first.
Despite its flaws, I am extremely optimistic about the potential of humanity. We are the most powerful and self-aware species that we know of.
We will continue until the universe folds in on itself. Meaning, indefinitely. Millions of years or more.
Well, that depends on how you define potential. Humans have a great amount of adaptability, which is our strength, but at the same time it causes the greatest problems in our own society because of differences.
I think other animals that have been theorized to be self-aware may have it right, like Elephants or Dolphins. They're more or less happy.
Well, that depends on how you define potential. Humans have a great amount of adaptability, which is our strength, but at the same time it causes the greatest problems in our own society because of differences.
I think other animals that have been theorized to be self-aware may have it right, like Elephants or Dolphins. They're more or less happy.
Huh? How are you judging elephant and dolphin happiness?
Even if that were true, I'm not sure you could compare human happiness with elephants or dolphins. We are different creatures.
I think that the more likely ending of humanity, is when our president gets drunk at a strip bar and orders and emergency football activation in which he starts a nuclear war with Russia, China, etc. in which the planet is decimated by nuclear proliferation. Fun ain't it?
OR
The asteroid Apophis will hit the earth 18 years from now and kill us all. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/13may_2004mn4/
As someone else said, link in the OP. Type I civilization can harvest the energy of an entire planet and has likely begun colonizing places besides their home planet. Presently, humanity is Type 0.72
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love." --Carl Sagan
Obviously we are different creatures. My point was only that advancing in technology and society may not be the best choice for long-term human happiness.
This is a pretty interesting website that gives a completely theoretical timeline of future human technological innovation and existence. Takes some time to read, but the ideas it presents range from pretty cool to absolutely awesome.
However theoretical, I like to think that Moore's Law and human innovation will eventually give birth to true AI (predicted within the next 30-40 years) which will either decide humanity is not worth keeping around or will coexist with us. AI's infinitely more powerful ability to process information will lead to technological innovations the likes of which we won't be able to even comprehend unless humans integrate and augment themselves with AI. There are even those who believe the eventual creation of this "singularity" will mean the end to humanity as we know it and that future humans could possibly become immortal, the rate of technological advances (which would translate over into fields of medicine) would be that fast.
I know what some of you are thinking, "This is stuff of science fiction, like 'The Matrix' or 'Terminator', it won't possibly ever happen!" Yet this is a real area of interest from a lot of people in the science and tech sectors, like Google and NASA levels of interest. The science is there for this to happen in our lifetimes and to me its a very exciting and very scary possibility.
That's all assuming a rogue meteor doesn't obliterate us in the next 10-25 years.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sig by Sash of deviantART FEAR THE SPEAR ARSENAL F.C.
USA
I think some kind of event is going to happen that will take away our ability to produce electricity and we will go back to living they way people did back in the 1700's.
Most demographers feel we'll hit about 7-8 billion, and then decline. One of the major aspects of the "Population Bomb" is that these are more or less system shocks. I imagine that we'll see countries go into three directions:
1. China and the US
2. Western Europe (mixed, relatively stable population)
3. Decline-Russia
As we move farther into the Anthrocene, I fully expect to see more evasive species get taking over more biomes. New forms of plant life from genetically altered plants and animals to come into the system. We're seeing the reemergence of some new forms of megafauna such as boars interbreeding with domestic pigs.
I feel humans will begin to recede back and move into more inhospitable regions such as the arctic before we head to space. We've still not conquered the wastes of Antarctica. The next 100 years are going to be amusing, sadly I won't live to see much of the fullfilment of it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Most demographers feel we'll hit about 7-8 billion, and then decline. One of the major aspects of the "Population Bomb" is that these are more or less system shocks. I imagine that we'll see countries go into three directions:
1. China and the US
2. Western Europe (mixed, relatively stable population)
3. Decline-Russia
As we move farther into the Anthrocene, I fully expect to see more evasive species get taking over more biomes. New forms of plant life from genetically altered plants and animals to come into the system. We're seeing the reemergence of some new forms of megafauna such as boars interbreeding with domestic pigs.
I feel humans will begin to recede back and move into more inhospitable regions such as the arctic before we head to space. We've still not conquered the wastes of Antarctica. The next 100 years are going to be amusing, sadly I won't live to see much of the fullfilment of it.
There's still plenty of real estate in Siberia too.
Will we self-destruct before achieving a Type I civilization, and if so how? Nuclear armageddon? Destroying the environment to the point that it can no longer sustain us? Or maybe you think a huge meteor will hit the earth before we get to that point? Maybe you think Jesus will return to Earth soon? Maybe you think computers will be come self-aware and extinguish humanity? Zombie apocalypse anyone?? Or perhaps you think we will endure and achieve a Type III civilization, possibly even escaping the death of the universe somehow?
(Link to the different types of civilizations, for those not in the know)
http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/history/world-population-growth.htm
I could link more but this is fine.
Our population grows at about +8%-10% every 15 years.
http://www.ars.usda.gov/Main/docs.htm?docid=14649
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaria
Food and blood pathogens are becoming extremely hard to control.
6.9 billion (now) +8% every ten years or so for 270 years = nearly 22 billion.
My guess is, we will become very crowded. Many developing countries (2nd world) will crumble economically into poverty and unrest. Many developed countries (1st world)will crumble and become the new (2nd). Places like the USA and Japan will end up like Ukraine or Afghanistan, or post war Bosnia. Those places will end up like Somalia or worse.
Pathogens will evolve and become more resilient to antitoxins.
Population overcrowding + rampant and resilient disease and infection + more poor and malnurished + more fighting over resources = the fall of mankind.
My guess is Stem Rust (ug99) evolves, jumps the pond and kills 82% of the worlds grain crops. This causes massive amounts of starvation and wrecks economies. The fallout is sociopolitical. Revolts, governments are toppled, poverty spreads faster. Malaria evolves and spreads like wildfire. A few more natural disasters make it even worse. The richest take their money and run for the hills. The rest of us kill each other for scraps.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Humans have not existed for as long as the planet has. Therefore it is not sound thinking to assume that humans WILL exist as long as the planet is livible.
Livible for one species may not be livible for humans.
I was simply predicting the "fall" of mankind in my previous, not a complete extinction, so in a way i agree with you.
However, to say that we will always be here so long as the planet is livable is jumping to a conclusion.
It is very possible we could be wiped out by diseases, famine, and war...while lions tigers and bears live on just fine.
Its possible that ALL land mammals die off, but fish and insects move on.
The Sun has billions of years left in it, so does the earth (millions at least - barring a meteor 5 miles across)
I seriously, honestly doubt that humans will make it.
Humans are roughly 12,000-15,000 years old, and look at what we have done and how we are. Mankind will fall (my guess) in 270 years. But if I had to guess complete extinction...I'll say 12,000 more years TOPS.
We can barely afford to keep up social services, schools, and healthcare right here in America. I highly doubt we will be cruising the universe a la Star Trek, or colonizing planets any time soon...if EVER.
Honeslty, the sad part is that even if say we do move to Mars and terraform it and turn it into a second home...it is because we took a huge dump all over this one. Mars would eventually suffer the same fate.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
This is all based on the assumption that population growth will continue at its present rate for the next 270 years. It may not. Or it may. But I certainly wouldn't assume that it will. In fact, from what I've seen, the population growth rate is slowing, not remaining constant. (Source)
Besides this, estimations are that we will achieve a Type I civilization in 100 -200 years, well within your 270 year estimate of the downfall of humanity. Yes, Mars is an option and so is the moon, and we may wreck those too. I think we'd be a lot more careful to maintain a sustainable environment on either of those since it would be developing around us. We'd also have space colonies which could house people as fast as we could make the space stations.
That sounds more realistic to me. Although I don't really know much about it to check it for plausibility.
...though I don't think that it's a certainty that mankind survives this cycle "as long as the planet is livable".
Cycles related to political upheavals, combined with natural disasters, periodic microbial epidemics, and the dangerous technology escalation, make implosions inevitable.
I do believe that there is a very real possibility that one of the implosions can be deep enough to take us below endangered and into extinct. Advancing technology makes us less safe, not more safe, from implosion. Advancing technology makes the world smaller (e.g. one person can taint the entire world food supply not just a river, e.g. we all live on ONE island, instead of having geographically isolated populations safe from a supermicrobe - your superflu may go from Melbourne to Tehran within 72 hours, e.g. the bomb I build tomorrow may take out 100,000,000 people at a time, not 100, e.g. using tech to cram lets say 40 billion on the planet someday with no robustness built into the system, means cascade failure is very likely).
What is the long term species advantage of individuals having the power to blow up an entire county? None. It's a species survival disadvantage.
Very true. However, colonization of Mars and the moon, as well as having space colonies, would restore the separation of populations. If we can get to that point, we can survive a global implosion.
My problem with overpopulation theories is that it assumes that mankind is the civilizational equivalent of an idiot walking into a glass door, picking himself up, and doing it again and again. While I do believe that population has quite a ways to go before it peaks, most developed countries have negative/close to negative population growth because the "price" of having a child only increases as development increases. As the world becomes even more populated, I think we will see some trends toward fewer children per household, or even marriages w/o children*. And even then, with agricultural technology improving as it has been, mass starvation is still a long ways away.
*Both assuming that population has approximately peaked.
Mankind has continued to make scientific progress almost continuously since the Industrial Revolution, times when very few people were formally educated and thought that the little things swimming in their water meant that it was healthy. I'm sorry, but those issues seem like complete non-sequiters to scientific development.
Personally, I see innovation and development outpacing the most serious problems that will arise, and if we can get a serious energy source and artificial intelligence, I don't think there's anything short of global catastrophe that man'd be unable to deal with(global catastrophe being sun explosion, meteors hitting the earth, and climate change, if it's serious enough).
More seriously, the assumption that the population will keep growing so fast may nto be entirely accurate. Different factors have to be considered.
The acceptance of homosexuality in society means less conception. If only because gay couples who don't want a kid can't end up with a "mistake".
There's also less of an urge for heterosexual couple to have children. Compare how 50 years ago, priest and pastors would remind people how it's their god-given duty to conceive children and all that. Lately it's phased more into a "Your like is not complete until you have a kid". However that trend could end or at least be less spread resulting in more childless couples.
Even couples who, many years ago could have been pressured in having half a dozen kids could now be satisfied with one child.
It's hard to say in any case. Frankly I'm still hoping we're all going to live in Star Trek ships by 2030.
PS : Just compare technology from 100 years ago to today. Who's to say what we'll have in 270 years?
No trees were harmed in the sending of this message; however, a significant number of electrons were slightly inconvenienced.
As for my statement about being around as long as the planet is survivable, many have pointed out situations where I could be wrong. I hope I am not, but none of us know.
Assuming that the population will continue to rise is idiotic. People only have large numbers of kids when their country is under developed. A large number of developing countries have already begun to level off their populations. The average number of children in Bangladesh per couple, for example, is now 2.1. Developed nations, like the US and Japan, have fewer. Japan actually is having trouble replacing its population because of their lack of extensive immigration. As the world continues to develop, more nations will trend more to the middle, and given enough time, the world population might actually begin to decline.
Most estimates I have seen estimate that the world population will top out somewhere between 7 and 9 billion people.
However, that doesn't mean that overpopulation might not be the end of us. At 9 billion inhabitants on Earth, we might just straight up not have enough resources. Thats already an issue all over the world. However, recent scientific breakthroughs, as well as future ones, may help us maintain a constant large population. Its becoming easier to produce large amounts of nutritious food. Moreover, there is a worldwide tendency towards producing more nutrient efficient food. Recent developments in genomics may help the world establish a stable source of clean water. Its really a question of wait and see.
That being said, there are hundreds of thousands of ways the world might end, and I dont to pretend to know which of those might happen first.
We will continue until the universe folds in on itself. Meaning, indefinitely. Millions of years or more.
Well, that depends on how you define potential. Humans have a great amount of adaptability, which is our strength, but at the same time it causes the greatest problems in our own society because of differences.
I think other animals that have been theorized to be self-aware may have it right, like Elephants or Dolphins. They're more or less happy.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Huh? How are you judging elephant and dolphin happiness?
Even if that were true, I'm not sure you could compare human happiness with elephants or dolphins. We are different creatures.
OR
The asteroid Apophis will hit the earth 18 years from now and kill us all.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/13may_2004mn4/
As someone else said, link in the OP. Type I civilization can harvest the energy of an entire planet and has likely begun colonizing places besides their home planet. Presently, humanity is Type 0.72
mxmlmn on cockatrice
Because it's been documented:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/unforgettable/emotions.html
Obviously we are different creatures. My point was only that advancing in technology and society may not be the best choice for long-term human happiness.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
This is a pretty interesting website that gives a completely theoretical timeline of future human technological innovation and existence. Takes some time to read, but the ideas it presents range from pretty cool to absolutely awesome.
However theoretical, I like to think that Moore's Law and human innovation will eventually give birth to true AI (predicted within the next 30-40 years) which will either decide humanity is not worth keeping around or will coexist with us. AI's infinitely more powerful ability to process information will lead to technological innovations the likes of which we won't be able to even comprehend unless humans integrate and augment themselves with AI. There are even those who believe the eventual creation of this "singularity" will mean the end to humanity as we know it and that future humans could possibly become immortal, the rate of technological advances (which would translate over into fields of medicine) would be that fast.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2048138,00.html
I know what some of you are thinking, "This is stuff of science fiction, like 'The Matrix' or 'Terminator', it won't possibly ever happen!" Yet this is a real area of interest from a lot of people in the science and tech sectors, like Google and NASA levels of interest. The science is there for this to happen in our lifetimes and to me its a very exciting and very scary possibility.
That's all assuming a rogue meteor doesn't obliterate us in the next 10-25 years.
Sig by Sash of deviantART
FEAR THE SPEAR
ARSENAL F.C.
USA
1. China and the US
2. Western Europe (mixed, relatively stable population)
3. Decline-Russia
As we move farther into the Anthrocene, I fully expect to see more evasive species get taking over more biomes. New forms of plant life from genetically altered plants and animals to come into the system. We're seeing the reemergence of some new forms of megafauna such as boars interbreeding with domestic pigs.
I feel humans will begin to recede back and move into more inhospitable regions such as the arctic before we head to space. We've still not conquered the wastes of Antarctica. The next 100 years are going to be amusing, sadly I won't live to see much of the fullfilment of it.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
There's still plenty of real estate in Siberia too.