I was having some interesting discussions with some friends the other day. We started talking about how crazy things are in the present in terms of technology. To state the obvious, our parents couldn't have fathomed that some of the technologies we use commonly everyday would have existed 10, 20 years ago. We all agreed that in the coming decades, we ourselves would be pleasantly surprised by the progress made, and that there would definitely be at least a few big things that we couldn't imagine as of now.
One of my friends posed the question: How far do you think we can get?
An obviously difficult question to answer - how the hell can I read into the future?
While I can't answer that, I have a strong belief that there's really only one way our species can go (and this is in many, possibly all, aspects - technology, morals, evolution, etc).
Barring any catastrophic events where we kill ourselves off, or an asteroid destroys earth, alien invasion, etc.. I think that, given enough time, we would reach somewhere. But this "somewhere" is pre-destined, or set in stone. (something I like to think about is the view that time isn't really how we experience it, but it's already there. In a sense waiting to happen, to be experienced, etc.)
My favorite example to use is this: Imagine that in the present, there were no cars. No automobiles. You'd think that in the future, whether it's 50, 100, 200 years from now, that it would be created, right? And this is because we, as humans, make use of our surroundings, our environment, and eventually advance our technologies accordingly. Cars being invented, at some point in time, is a FACT. It is bound to happen, the only real variable here is WHEN it will happen. Can we extrapolate this kind of thinking far, far into the future?
This is why I was thinking that whatever advancements are in store for us in the future, is bound to happen. The only factor being time here. It may sound kind of crazy but it also seems to make sense when you view it from other lenses.
If it's physically possible in our realm to time-travel, it will happen in the future. That's a possibility that's naturally there as determined by our universe. It's part of our environment, and if given a theoretical infinite time to live, I think we would achieve it. If it's possible to achieve immortality (maybe not physically but through preserving our consciousness in some sort of computerized way), it will happen. These are both big assumptions, and they could be very wrong, but I'm just using them as examples. The key note is that "IF" it is possible, it should happen.
There's of course the realistic possibilities that we'll never make it that far. There's the inevitable catastrophic asteroid, or some crazy alien invasion, that could spell doom for us. But aside from those things that are really entirely out of our control, the biggest limitation for our progress is ourselves. Remember all the bullshit like the dark ages, and other time periods in history where men had opposed scientific progress, and in some cases even going as far as to kill people in the name of hypocrisy if found promoting science? Whew. I'm glad that for the most part the world is out of that disgusting era.
But there's still quite a lot of groundwork to be done here. As one issue is taken care of, some others pop out. Humanity, as a species, is still at a very infant stage when you look at the bigger picture. We're immature, fighting and arguing about many things that are trivial (in the bigger picture) but nevertheless seem so important and critical at the moment. Racial segregation and extremism, religious bullshit and vices, insanely horrendous human rights violations, etc.. these are all BASIC things that need to be fixed.
I like to be optimistic so I'm just going to venture and guess that it will happen. Some day in the future, we'll be rid of a lot of this bullshit. Women in the middle east won't be looked down upon, fascist dictators will tumble and people will starve no more at command, crazy religious extremists won't be killing others based on their beliefs. It'll probably be impossible that these issues be completely gone, but that's okay. There's always going to be outliers, but as long as it's a very minute and minimal percent of the population it should be manageable.
Some times I really wish I was born a couple thousand years from now. What things would be like would blow our minds.
Sorry and thanks for the long read. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.
In particular, if you disagree with the notion of a destined reality, I'd like to hear your opinions and your guesses of what may happen instead.
If you agree, do you think we'll get there? Or do you think our species is destined to, in a sense, implode on itself?
In this world, is the destiny of mankind controlled by some transcendental entity or law? Is it like the hand of God hovering above? At least it is true, that man has no control, even over his own will.
References aside, I think it's impossible to tell what the future holds. I think the world needs a total apocalypse to halt the train of technological progress; it'll happen one way or another. We made it through the Cold War without blowing everything up, so there's hope, but nothing is guaranteed.
If we think with logic, I believe that humanity progress is limited just by resources available in the Universe, if we assume human brain can infinitely evolve.
If the brain cannot evolve after a certain point, then we are limited by that too.
Personally I think humans will make it overall. So much progress has been made in the last century, and because technology feeds on itself I think it will lead to even greater advances at a faster pace. I think for the most part humans are sufficiently evolved in their systems of governance that we'll be able to keep things together even with global warming affecting us.
I can't really say whether something like pre-destination exists though. Its a pretty metaphysical topic, we don't know to what degree only one path exists for us. If I understand you correctly I think you basically are talking about determinism.
Its a shame our lifespans are so short, we won't be able to see all the tremendous potential humanity has ahead of it. But, with the growth of technology, maybe we'll get to see a few special moments . Its nice to think about
Are you familiar with the Kardashev scale? Basically it says that any civilization has a typical path of technological advancement by first controlling resources on its own planet, followed by resources in its own solar system followed by resources in its own galaxy. It's pretty fascinating if you're interested in this kind of stuff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale
"Cars being invented, at some point in time, is a FACT. It is bound to happen, the only real variable here is WHEN it will happen."
I actually don't think this is true. I'm not saying i know it won't happen, that's just as untrue. I just don't see a reason for technological advancement aside from an extrapolation of the past. That's a pretty good reason to expect it, i think. I mean, for the last decades, our knowledge has increased a great deal, and consequently, technological advancement has increased at an incredible rate. Atm, there isn't really a reason to think that will stop in the near future. But still, i think there are some nuances to be made. I think it's possible people aren't thinking about the same thing. Well, what's our horizon? Are we talking about the next gadget samsung will produce? Well, that's kindof straightforward. Of course we will advance that far. There's also the scientificilly proved method we only need to make work economically. It's a stretch to say it will be of practicle use to us commoners, but yeah, it will probably be used at smaller scale at least. Between this and pure imagination there's of course the theoretical knowledge of which we lack all methodical means of practically using it, like time traveling. Will it ever happen? I don't know. To get back to your own example of cars, if we are in a world where no steam engine exists, a car would seem like magic to me, i probably couldnt imagine it, without some kind of horselike power in it. If we would have steam engines, only used at small scale, i would certainly think a car could be made, but i'm not sure it could efficiently used by you and me. Etc.. Too lazy for the third.
Going to your original question: is it all destined? Or, because i don't like that question: are we headed somewhere? Well, we're constantly going through the stages i mentioned in multiple fields, regarding mutiple (potential) objects. If you are headed somewhere, assuming an finite path, these constant 'waves' should stop at some time. I don't think we have a reason to think it stops. We don't really have a reason it continues either. Imagination is a good thing. Like NeuroticPsychosis mentioned the Kardashev scale; although i think it's not really justified to talk about surely reaching another level, it certainly isn't impossible, and this creativity helps us as a civilisation to manage our own progression. At a fundamental level though, there's nothing certain.
Actually, it's just like the question if god does or does not exist. There is no conclusive evidence he does or does not exist. Proving he does exist seems pretty arbitrary and based on selected experiences. Proving he doesnt exist is even harder, how would you know the difference between something that has no (provable) physical interaction with the world and something that doesnt exist? + Show Spoiler +
Both sides in the god issue can be used for both sides in the technological issue, in a sense
Well, i don't care either way, but i just don't know.
On April 18 2014 09:00 fabiano wrote: If we think with logic, I believe that humanity progress is limited just by resources available in the Universe, if we assume human brain can infinitely evolve.
If the brain cannot evolve after a certain point, then we are limited by that too.
evolution doesnt work that way people have a bad habit of attributing a ladder like progression to evolution that represents advancement and some kind of ultimate goal but in reality evolution is more like a puddle of water that expands and fills cracks and contracts based on external enviromental forces
also to the op its been calculated that 99.9% of species to have ever existed have eventually gone extinct. the average length of existence is around 10 m years. Extinction is pretty much unavoidable. I think a much more interesting question would be "what will replace us when we are gone?"
Well, if you believe that, from all possible 'universe states' there's a chance of matter and existence as we know it happening, it's a necessary fact that everything that can happen, will happen eventually. It's the whole monkey typing Shakespeare thing, infinity is weird.
So, there will necessarily be a reality where humans die off instantly, or exist until some variant of heat death. Sometimes Humans will make cars, sometimes they wont. If it can be, it will be.
Our odds this time around? no clue. I presume we'll spread out to avoid a single catastrophe fairly quickly, mostly because of just how much we can't stand one another, and then last until either society fails us or Universal catastrophe strikes, but there's a good chance we all die over something stupid here shortly.
On April 18 2014 09:00 fabiano wrote: If we think with logic, I believe that humanity progress is limited just by resources available in the Universe, if we assume human brain can infinitely evolve.
If the brain cannot evolve after a certain point, then we are limited by that too.
evolution doesnt work that way
also to the op its been calculated that 99.9% of species to have ever existed have eventually gone extinct. the average length of existence is around 10 m years. Extinction is pretty much unavoidable. I think a much more interesting question would be "what will replace us when we are gone?"
This is fun to think about. I think birds of prey (ravens, eagles, falcons, hawks) have it after us.
I'm more concerned with the "fact," as OP puts it, of human decline happening within the next couple generations. We have no visible predator that actively feeds on us, with the exception of disease, so our population as a species is unbounded. Eventually we will reach a population plateau where most people will have a worse physical existence than they have now. Their tech existence might improve, they might have hovercars, better cell phones, neural implants, etc, but if some basic problems aren't solved, the majority of people are going to be coughing more and going hungry, or instead they will be getting weird diseases from fake food.
So the concerns are mostly just these three: water supply, of which we have plenty (for now) if we find an efficient means of desalinization, food supply, which we will probably have trouble with for a long time (I think most people will be eating something like soylent in the far future, especially if the bee population doesn't increase), and pollution, of which there seems to be no end or reasonable reduction in sight.
An interesting question you might ask yourself is, what would happen if all humans just suddenly vanished? There's actually a book about this idea, but I can't remember the title atm (sorry, I might come back later and post it if I can). The main thing I would be interested in is stuff like radioactive waste and nuclear power plants. Really radioactive stuff in general just sucks imo. But imagine if we just suddenly go poof, and then one day an intelligent species comes to the planet, or evolves after us, and accidentally finds our radioactive waste dumps? There's no good universal way to write "don't dig here, this shit is bad for you," and the best way I know of to keep such a sign intact is to build giant pyramids.
Re: tech, I think if we do invent time travel and/or immortality/self-healing, that it will be kept from 99.9999% of the people on the planet and used only by a select few.
Anyway, fun to think about. I have to go to sleep but of course there's always more to discuss.
It's human nature to progress. We will progress until we are destroyed. Our final creation will be a singularity AI, an AI superior to human intelligence in every way... including its ability to improve itself. When that happens, the singularity AI will make all of our progress for us, and we will leech off of its genius until we go extinct. Everything that happens before that "end-point" in human progress is far from set in stone. To use your car example: there may be another, as of yet undiscovered technology that can fulfill the purpose of a car, while being drastically different in how it functions. Said technology will likely never be discovered, simply because there is no point in inventing an alternative to cars when we already have cars.
On April 18 2014 09:00 Ettick wrote: In this world, is the destiny of mankind controlled by some transcendental entity or law? Is it like the hand of God hovering above? At least it is true, that man has no control, even over his own will.
References aside, I think it's impossible to tell what the future holds. I think the world needs a total apocalypse to halt the train of technological progress; it'll happen one way or another. We made it through the Cold War without blowing everything up, so there's hope, but nothing is guaranteed.
On April 18 2014 14:48 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: It's human nature to progress. We will progress until we are destroyed. Our final creation will be a singularity AI, an AI superior to human intelligence in every way... including its ability to improve itself. When that happens, the singularity AI will make all of our progress for us, and we will leech off of its genius until we go extinct. Everything that happens before that "end-point" in human progress is far from set in stone. To use your car example: there may be another, as of yet undiscovered technology that can fulfill the purpose of a car, while being drastically different in how it functions. Said technology will likely never be discovered, simply because there is no point in inventing an alternative to cars when we already have cars.
This sums up everything. I believe we will this point.
If it's possible to achieve immortality (maybe not physically but through preserving our consciousness in some sort of computerized way), it will happen.
It will happen. Quite probably within this century, and as such it's likely that those living now might also be alive to see the next millennium, especially if you are young.
I should be clear what I mean by biological immortality.+ Show Spoiler +
I don't mean living forever, but I mean defeat of aging and death as a consequence of it, so called biological immortality. People will still die from accidents and crazy mishaps, and when you start adding up thousands, or hundreds of thousands of years, eventually you are going to die somehow. In fact if we take this out all the way, assuming our current theories about the universe are correct we are all ultimately doomed sometime in the future as all the stars will exhaust their stores and go dark, and eventually the universe itself will reach "heat death"
We started talking about how crazy things are in the present in terms of technology. To state the obvious, our parents couldn't have fathomed that some of the technologies we use commonly everyday would have existed 10, 20 years ago. We all agreed that in the coming decades, we ourselves would be pleasantly surprised by the progress made, and that there would definitely be at least a few big things that we couldn't imagine as of now.
It's a belief held by many that technological innovations follow an exponential looking curve, and that we are right now just at the base of that inflection point. Technology is clearly increasing at ever faster rates right now. The big question is does that continue unabated, or does the graph of technological progress rise exponentially for a while but then level off?
Our final creation will be a singularity AI, an AI superior to human intelligence in every way... including its ability to improve itself. When that happens, the singularity AI will make all of our progress for us, and we will leech off of its genius until we go extinct.
Some people predict that will happen in the next 30-50 years. Your outcome is one possibility, of course another is that what comes of that simply wipes us out.
I think if we do invent immortality/self-healing, that it will be kept from 99.9999% of the people on the planet and used only by a select few.
No chance. Not even a sliver. You think we are going to tell people that it's now possible not to die but "hey it's only for the really privileged". If anything it will be the exact opposite, and government funded/provided. Not doing so would literally be giving people a death sentence.
also to the op its been calculated that 99.9% of species to have ever existed have eventually gone extinct. the average length of existence is around 10 m years. Extinction is pretty much unavoidable. I think a much more interesting question would be "what will replace us when we are gone?"
This is certainly possible. But if we don't topple ourselves or kill the planet in the next couple hundred years I think the odds go up dramatically. We will possess the technology to stop almost any major cataclysmic event, and have an ability to alter our environment unlike any species before. In the past species usually died because shit when bad in their environment: a new predator, food supply issues, ice age onset, etc. Most of this stuff is dealt with by technology in one fashion or another.
I really think the next several hundred years are critical. Its hard to say how collapsible the global society is but if that stays intact it won't be long before we are colonizing other worlds, dramatically increases our chances of survival.
If the brain cannot evolve after a certain point, then we are limited by that too.
If we are thinking in an unbounded way, its's easy to postulate a situation in which the brain is artificially evolved via integration of technology. Or you could do it the natural way via genemoics, which is basically an informational science; and those too are following exponential patterns. It's not exceptionally far-fetched to envision a point where we can just decide what genetic traits we want, add in the proper genes, and voila!
Learn from the past, make plans for the future and live for the present, thats what i say. I disagree with your blog all-togheter. While everyone would like to live in a world where there is peace, no human rights violation, no religious bullshit, that is not the world we live in. And dreaming about the future as a state of peace and perfection will not give anything to the world right now. You wanna change the world, make it a better place? start from here, start from now. Change things around your envorement. They are many things that can be fixed, many people that can be helped.
“Alice came to a fork in the road. 'Which road do I take?' she asked. 'Where do you want to go?' responded the Cheshire Cat. 'I don't know,' Alice answered. 'Then,' said the Cat, 'it doesn't matter.”
On April 18 2014 14:48 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: It's human nature to progress. We will progress until we are destroyed. Our final creation will be a singularity AI, an AI superior to human intelligence in every way... including its ability to improve itself. When that happens, the singularity AI will make all of our progress for us, and we will leech off of its genius until we go extinct. Everything that happens before that "end-point" in human progress is far from set in stone. To use your car example: there may be another, as of yet undiscovered technology that can fulfill the purpose of a car, while being drastically different in how it functions. Said technology will likely never be discovered, simply because there is no point in inventing an alternative to cars when we already have cars.
This sums up everything. I believe we will this point.[/QUOTE]
Reminds me of this
also the necessary evolution of the car analogy doesn't necessarily work because man has the unique ability to change the present course of fate, as a few auto manufacturers did in the past and destroy the more superior rail system in order to boost their bottom line.
When humans are involved probability curves for what should and shouldn't happen go out the window.
It's mankinds obligation to halt the inevitable chill or crunch of the universe. If we can manipulate natural conditions under fixed conditions, if we can reverse the entropic nature of matter-energy, if we can find ways to understand what space really is, because it's this weird kind of vessel everything we (can possibly) know exists inside of, we will maintain what exists and become what we've always aspired to become.
On April 19 2014 02:17 Makro wrote: if the humans act like a virus, then we are going to explore and conquer other planet of the universe endlessly fo rressources
I feel like cancer is more appropriate than virus, but that's just semantics :p
On April 18 2014 14:48 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: It's human nature to progress. We will progress until we are destroyed. Our final creation will be a singularity AI, an AI superior to human intelligence in every way... including its ability to improve itself. When that happens, the singularity AI will make all of our progress for us, and we will leech off of its genius until we go extinct. Everything that happens before that "end-point" in human progress is far from set in stone. To use your car example: there may be another, as of yet undiscovered technology that can fulfill the purpose of a car, while being drastically different in how it functions. Said technology will likely never be discovered, simply because there is no point in inventing an alternative to cars when we already have cars.
I was huge Isaac Asimov fan in highschool and used to share the dream of "singularity AI". Now, though, I think there is already an intelligence superior to human intelligence. A single cell, or an atom even, is such an amazing feat of engineering. The closest we can come to such genius is through imitation. The engineering behind our brains and bodies I think will always be superior to anything we craft with our hands. So even if we judge our creation's intelligence to be superior to ours, it still doesn't supersede us. I think such dreams are hubris of wanting to be the creators rather than the created. Or, that may be our ultimate purpose... who knows.
On April 19 2014 02:17 Makro wrote: if the humans act like a virus, then we are going to explore and conquer other planet of the universe endlessly fo rressources
I feel like cancer is more appropriate than virus, but that's just semantics :p
For a long time, I've also viewed humans as a kind of virus. In the sense that we spread out and proliferate, consuming resources, and giving back little to what we take, it seems like we do fit in with an obviously loose definition of a virus.
Have you guys heard of the Gaia Hypothesis? In a nutshell, it states that the entirety of the planet (not just living things) co-exist and co-operate in such a way that our planet itself is a living organism. We all interact in such a way that the living planet achieves a sort of homeostatis where everything is in a sort of balance, and whenever some events occur that tilts it, we manage to balance it back.
It's an incredibly interesting theory, and it's supposedly had some effects on how particular science fields approach things.
I remember reading a really interesting (but at the same time, wildly interpretive and "out-there") take on the hypothesis. It said that the planet is indeed a living being, and that while many view humanity as as virus that'll ultimately be detrimental to its existence, the theory viewed humans as being the evolving "brain" of the planet. In a sense, the planet has reached a point where it cultivated an environment that was healthy and suitable enough to create organisms that could truly think.
The author also posed the question, and this is just what I can vaguely recall: The ultimate purpose of living beings is to reproduce, or to be able to keep themselves alive through keeping their genes, DNA, etc. alive. If the planet is really living, how does the planet aim to achieve this?
He answered: the planet will reproduce, in a sense, through us. When we get to the point where we start reaching out for the stars, colonizing planets, terraforming, etc. That, in a way, is a form of the planet Earth reproducing, or keeping its signatures and genes alive.
Really interesting theory, although it probably won't have any real impact on anything until way further into the future (if it ever does).
To give some credit to the thinking that the planet is living, he mentioned a few analogies: - giant redwood trees are living, right? We imagine trees to be living things. But the truth is that 99% of the tree is actually dead. The only thing that is alive is some layer near the bark area, and the rest is just a dead skeleton, part of the tree that used to be alive in the past but is now no more. - we obviously consider ourselves alive, but inside our bodies are parts and pieces that we wouldn't categorize as being alive. Things such as the skeleton. But as an entire whole, we do see ourselves as being living, and even those "dead" parts serve a vital purpose to keep the living WHOLE alive.
On April 19 2014 02:17 Makro wrote: if the humans act like a virus, then we are going to explore and conquer other planet of the universe endlessly fo rressources
I feel like cancer is more appropriate than virus, but that's just semantics :p
For a long time, I've also viewed humans as a kind of virus. In the sense that we spread out and proliferate, consuming resources, and giving back little to what we take, it seems like we do fit in with an obviously loose definition of a virus.
Have you guys heard of the Gaia Hypothesis? In a nutshell, it states that the entirety of the planet (not just living things) co-exist and co-operate in such a way that our planet itself is a living organism. We all interact in such a way that the living planet achieves a sort of homeostatis where everything is in a sort of balance, and whenever some events occur that tilts it, we manage to balance it back.
It's an incredibly interesting theory, and it's supposedly had some effects on how particular science fields approach things.
I remember reading a really interesting (but at the same time, wildly interpretive and "out-there") take on the hypothesis. It said that the planet is indeed a living being, and that while many view humanity as as virus that'll ultimately be detrimental to its existence, the theory viewed humans as being the evolving "brain" of the planet. In a sense, the planet has reached a point where it cultivated an environment that was healthy and suitable enough to create organisms that could truly think.
The author also posed the question, and this is just what I can vaguely recall: The ultimate purpose of living beings is to reproduce, or to be able to keep themselves alive through keeping their genes, DNA, etc. alive. If the planet is really living, how does the planet aim to achieve this?
He answered: the planet will reproduce, in a sense, through us. When we get to the point where we start reaching out for the stars, colonizing planets, terraforming, etc. That, in a way, is a form of the planet Earth reproducing, or keeping its signatures and genes alive.
Really interesting theory, although it probably won't have any real impact on anything until way further into the future (if it ever does).
To give some credit to the thinking that the planet is living, he mentioned a few analogies: - giant redwood trees are living, right? We imagine trees to be living things. But the truth is that 99% of the tree is actually dead. The only thing that is alive is some layer near the bark area, and the rest is just a dead skeleton, part of the tree that used to be alive in the past but is now no more. - we obviously consider ourselves alive, but inside our bodies are parts and pieces that we wouldn't categorize as being alive. Things such as the skeleton. But as an entire whole, we do see ourselves as being living, and even those "dead" parts serve a vital purpose to keep the living WHOLE alive.
What you guys think?
i didn't get in touch with this kind of theory but i really like it, it makes sense for me
btw maybe one day teamliquid will have his own part of a planet somewhere, but i'm going too far :D
My favorite example to use is this: Imagine that in the present, there were no cars. No automobiles. You'd think that in the future, whether it's 50, 100, 200 years from now, that it would be created, right? And this is because we, as humans, make use of our surroundings, our environment, and eventually advance our technologies accordingly. Cars being invented, at some point in time, is a FACT. It is bound to happen, the only real variable here is WHEN it will happen. Can we extrapolate this kind of thinking far, far into the future?
Many facts in the past history were influenced by something we could define as "casual" and then as a chain effect, they also changed what happened later and so on. To the point that a very slight difference in what happened centuries ago would completely change the world we live in now. For example, some of the great battles of history were really close and the outcome had huge consequences on everything that came later.
But before jumping into conclusions like "everything is casual", from the purely philosophical point of view, I would say that nothing is casual. Everything is determined by relations of cause and effect, but we call "casual" something which we can't know the causes of. The concept of "fortuity" helps us in our daily lives but it's something fictitious. For example there are many laws in physics and chemistry which are probabilistic, because they are related to the movements of atoms or particles which we often regard as casual, but they aren't, it's just that they are determined by factors we aren't able to analyze. So if you see it from this point of view, nothing is casual and therefore every event is already determined.
However this brings to the usual problem: if everything is already determined, then am I unable to make choices? Well the answer would be yes, because that includes also when I try to prove I'm able to by making a different choice from what I think would be pre-determined. I like the position Spinoza (a dutch philosopher of the 17th century) had on this regard. He said that man is never free (although he is totally convinced of the opposite), but he can become only once he realizes that everything is necessary and that he is not free.
I hope I was able to explain myself.
P.S. I honestly doubt the human race will make much more progresses in technology... at least not without a new renewable source of energy which would substitute oil.
Inevitably technology will result in catastrophy one way or another.
Scenario 1: A future where a single person will be able to create a bomb so powerful that it will be able to destroy a part(or whole) planet. Some kind of subatomic/antimatter bomb created in one's garage. Someone will create it and someone will abuse it's power.
Scenario 2: A future where survailance and mind control techniques & technologies will be so powerful that a ruling person/party will literary be able to control the thoughts and actions off all people. This is an Anti-Scenario1 situation where the government will actually do this to "protect the people" and itself ofc. because single individuals will be able to do too much damage.
On April 19 2014 22:51 LastWish wrote: Inevitably technology will result in catastrophy one way or another.
Scenario 1: A future where a single person will be able to create a bomb so powerful that it will be able to destroy a part(or whole) planet. Some kind of subatomic/antimatter bomb created in one's garage. Someone will create it and someone will abuse it's power.
Scenario 2: A future where survailance and mind control techniques & technologies will be so powerful that a ruling person/party will literary be able to control the thoughts and actions off all people. This is an Anti-Scenario1 situation where the government will actually do this to "protect the people" and itself ofc. because single individuals will be able to do too much damage.
So either way the destination is clear:
Other than the possibility that neither of those will happen, you're spot on!
On April 19 2014 22:51 LastWish wrote: Inevitably technology will result in catastrophy one way or another.
Scenario 1: A future where a single person will be able to create a bomb so powerful that it will be able to destroy a part(or whole) planet. Some kind of subatomic/antimatter bomb created in one's garage. Someone will create it and someone will abuse it's power.
Scenario 2: A future where survailance and mind control techniques & technologies will be so powerful that a ruling person/party will literary be able to control the thoughts and actions off all people. This is an Anti-Scenario1 situation where the government will actually do this to "protect the people" and itself ofc. because single individuals will be able to do too much damage.
So either way the destination is clear:
I think we will see the second scenario. The scandals around nsa and british secret services and the overall way these scandals were handled by the governments show how fast we are developing towards a system like that in 1984. So every technology that might be used to communicate freely will be forbidden, development will be slowed down considerably. Maybe we will hit the overall standstill.
The interesting question is if that development will repeat in the not-yet-industrial countries or not.
I hope the first scenario happens before. I prefer a nuclear holocaust to total surveillance.
One thousand/two thousand/eons from now is already set in stone. Every action that living organisms do is determined the the chemical/physical/biological processes that govern those actions. The future is set in stone.
Also, if time travel were possible, we would likely have seen a time traveler by now; we haven't. We would have to deal with the grandfather paradox. We would have to deal with the addition of energy in the universe (which is a closed system). Highly unlikely that time travel will ever be possible.
However, one thing you can do is travel at tremendous speed (preferably in a strong gravitational field, such as a black hole) for a few years, and you could "travel" many years into the future.
Similarly, if extraterrestrial life existed within the observable universe (and therefore within distance to be able to travel to us), they would have visited us by now. Highly unlikely that extraterrestrial life exists.
Similarly, if extraterrestrial life existed within the observable universe (and therefore within distance to be able to travel to us), they would have visited us by now. Highly unlikely that extraterrestrial life exists.
Dunno. Look at where we are now, we've made it to the moon. We certainly don't have a meaningful way to get anywhere far in galaxy yet, let alone the universe.
Now, extra-terrestrial life could have had a head start on us, as Earth only really got rolling about 9 billion years into the universes existence; but I'm not sold on the extra-terrestrial life hasn't visited us therefore we are alone argument.
Another possible way to looking at it assuming your thought process is correct is that civilizations that do reach levels of technology at our or greater than ours have a tendency to destroy themselves, hence why the haven't shown up.
if extraterrestrial life existed within the observable universe (and therefore within distance to be able to travel to us)
This is correct in the sense of the observable universe can only be as big as light has had time to travel, however to the best of knowledge and current theories it is possible to get to places faster than light speed; i.e. something like the Alcubierre drive, which to the best of my understanding is believed to work theoretically. It's just finding exotic matter...if it exists.
EPT
. Its nice to think about
![[image loading]](http://ivarfjeld.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/hell-burning.jpg?w=470)
