EPTFarther out it'll be cyborging people out and the end of standing armies as we know it replacing them with use of remote craft and small elite groups of augmented fighters for precision strikes. You're already seeing that now in many aspects..
Paradigm Shifts in History - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Parnage
United States7414 Posts
Farther out it'll be cyborging people out and the end of standing armies as we know it replacing them with use of remote craft and small elite groups of augmented fighters for precision strikes. You're already seeing that now in many aspects.. | ||
|
zeratul_jf
United States808 Posts
| ||
|
Oshuy
Netherlands529 Posts
On July 31 2013 23:27 GreenGringo wrote: Peak oil won't be a paradigm shift. There's already electric cars that are just as good as petroleum-powered alternative. Virtually all our energy comes from the Sun and it's a pretty natural course of events that we'll have to start using it. Global warming may well result in a major paradigm shift, as we might have to adjust the way we live our lives, and whole parts of the world might become unliveable. Peak oil / Global warming are two elements of the same event: humain society resource needs outgrow what our home planet currently offers. We have the same problems regarding water, rare earth, farmable land, ... the limiting factor in our development is no longer the technology to achieve a goal, but the material impossibility to do everything our technology could offer. At this point, we wouldn't be able to provide current western living standards to 7 billion people. From that point on, there are numerous possibilities, all of which probably qualify as paradigm shifts for the discussion. Aiming our technological development at ressource optimization ; active research of additional ressources (ocean floor, asteroids, deep earth drills, ...) ; active research of alternative ressources (energy of course, but also recycling, replacement of oil-based plastics, ...). We are already working on all of those, what we do not see yet is mid/long-term impacts. A lot of scenarii have been proposed, no idea which one will come to pass in the next 200 years. Opposition between rich and poor countries (a fact, but would it lead to conflicts ?) ; new wars for ressources other than oil/land (water conflicts between india/pakistan, gold/diamond conflicts in africa, ...) ; forced cooperation between countries to enforce resource repartition (nah, but maybe some inforced ressource management IMF-like) ? a ressource disappearing faster than expected triggering a huge crisis ? a technological breakthrough that takes us to another planet or frees us from some resource needs (nanotech ?) ? Of course, the next alien invasion/apocalypse will free us from such questions. | ||
|
Dargo
United States2 Posts
| ||
|
DDie
Brazil2369 Posts
There will be a major natural disaster/war breaking out before that, and that's going to be next paradigm shift. | ||
|
goody153
44020 Posts
| ||
|
never_Nal
Costa Rica676 Posts
It's all wrong, I don't think we will have a nuclear war, powerful countries know this is stupidity, what's the point in a nuke war?, after you get nuked you won't be a "strong" country for years. To me a nuke war is just self destruct for the world, so it's highly unlikely anyone will allow this. What's the point of finding a new "world"? We can't even take care of ours as it is we would just destroy another planet...Honestly, isn't it better to find new/creative solutions for the place we already live in? I'm not saying it's all bad, of course we want scientific breakthroughs and all that cool stuff, but really, why not focus on our current status and home. I don't think we will have some sort of "oblivion(movie)" world or some post-apocalyptic setting. I think humanity will have some hard years until we start to really focus on the problems at hand  | ||
|
GreenGringo
349 Posts
On August 01 2013 00:22 Oshuy wrote: Well, peak oil will force our hand and we'll have no choice but to go green. That's inevitable. But by then, the damage might already have been done. The ice caps, for example, might have melted sufficiently to flood much of northern Europe. Agriculture might be destroyed in a lot of countries. Peak oil / Global warming are two elements of the same event: humain society resource needs outgrow what our home planet currently offers. We have the same problems regarding water, rare earth, farmable land, ... the limiting factor in our development is no longer the technology to achieve a goal, but the material impossibility to do everything our technology could offer. | ||
|
GreenGringo
349 Posts
You do get spin-off benefits, but the same is true of almost anything. You don't play the violin because it's good exercise for your right arm. | ||
|
packrat386
United States5077 Posts
On July 31 2013 02:57 Dryzt wrote: according to Tesla, he could achieve this, but the oil bankers wanted nothing of it once they caught wind of the full scope and it was fully suppressed, we may never know as those in power now are the same families from then still living off the profits of oil and banking. free energy removes the need for both. This claim has never really made much sense to me. If he actually had a machine that could make a near endless supply of energy for very little he could just patent the thing and make zillions. Oil and banking have nothing to do with it, his machine probably didn't work. Also please explain why free energy removes the need for banking? People are going to want to store their money somewhere besides under their matress -> banking. On July 31 2013 06:42 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Meant solar system wise but even so such efforts would surely deliver dividends not only economically but in leaps and bounds in computer, engineering, software and even the material sciences. As for war seems a bit of a stretch as when governments, or even a world government, claims something they make sure they receive incentives and will easily place muscle to make sure it is delivered just look at colonization and conquest throughout history. I don't think its as much of a pipe dream as you think. If we were only able to get below light speed travel, then to for any army to travel to even the nearest star would take 2 years, and it would take the same amount of time to send any messages. Anything other than command on sight would be impossible, and the people you were planning on attacking will have had 2 years more to develop new technologies and build more defenses. It simply takes too long to do, and thus pockets of the human race would get isolated and prevent total extinction by war. As for whether you're going to see the harms of modern colonialization, we have little reason to believe that anything lives on most of the planets that we're looking at. Alien life, though it may exist, appears to be exceedingly rare and its unlikely that we would want to destroy intelligent life that we find. I should note that its definitely possible for there to still be wars between colonial factions in the same solar system, it just seems unlikely to be able to have interstellar warfare work out without faster than light travel. | ||
|
Hryul
Austria2609 Posts
On August 01 2013 01:05 GreenGringo wrote: Well, peak oil will force our hand and we'll have no choice but to go green. That's inevitable. But by then, the damage might already have been done. The ice caps, for example, might have melted sufficiently to flood much of northern Europe. Agriculture might be destroyed in a lot of countries. you do know that human progress was able because we went away from "green"? The car is a great improvement to the horse. The plane would be unable without mining. The tamed river is better for living than the mosquito-plagued swamps most "natural" riverdeltas were. Now going green would reintroduce our dependency on nature instead of making us more independent and free. We can't control the weather thus requiring more energy. (you lose energy due to the process of storing it. 2nd law of thermodynamics). When was it ever a good idea to improve our dependence on "mother nature" instead of replacing it with technology? Mostly because we already have ideas how to do so. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
| ||
|
Dwelf
Netherlands365 Posts
| ||
|
Oshuy
Netherlands529 Posts
On August 01 2013 01:05 GreenGringo wrote: Well, peak oil will force our hand and we'll have no choice but to go green. That's inevitable. But by then, the damage might already have been done. The ice caps, for example, might have melted sufficiently to flood much of northern Europe. Agriculture might be destroyed in a lot of countries. We have lots of choices, not too sure what "green" means to you in the context. Don't understand "damage might have been done" either. Destruction of a few countries and a few hundred million casualties wouldn't be a paradigm shift. The reaction to such an impact might. | ||
|
DDie
Brazil2369 Posts
On August 01 2013 00:58 never_Nal wrote: You guys are really pessimistic about this, it's funny how movies give the strangest ideas to people, and even make a wrong conception about effort and time, Movies= Terrible things always happen in the future, and little effort=great rewards. It's all wrong, I don't think we will have a nuclear war, powerful countries know this is stupidity, what's the point in a nuke war?, after you get nuked you won't be a "strong" country for years. To me a nuke war is just self destruct for the world, so it's highly unlikely anyone will allow this. What's the point of finding a new "world"? We can't even take care of ours as it is we would just destroy another planet...Honestly, isn't it better to find new/creative solutions for the place we already live in? I'm not saying it's all bad, of course we want scientific breakthroughs and all that cool stuff, but really, why not focus on our current status and home. I don't think we will have some sort of "oblivion(movie)" world or some post-apocalyptic setting. I think humanity will have some hard years until we start to really focus on the problems at hand That has nothing to do with movies, never in the human history there was a period of absolute peace, the last ''terrible'' thing wasn't WW2, we had vietnan, korea, iraq (1 & 2), we have the pakistani-india border, palestine-Israel, i could go on and on. ''War'' is in the nature of man, and any of the conflits that we currently have today can escalate out of control in an instant. Most the shifts people said in this thread are several decades away, it's just logical to assume that before that we will have another armed conflict. To be honest, i dont even consider space exploration a thing because that's such a massive enterprise it would require the entire world's mutual cooperation and that's never going to happen (if anything, history again teaches us that people only truly unite in the face of extinction, so an event of that sort would have to happen before, and that would be de paradigm shift) | ||
|
packrat386
United States5077 Posts
On August 01 2013 03:22 DDie wrote: That has nothing to do with movies, never in the human history there was a period of absolute peace, the last ''terrible'' thing wasn't WW2, we had vietnan, korea, iraq (1 & 2), we have the pakistani-india border, and i'm not even going to mention palestine-Israel. ''War'' is in the nature of man, and any of the conflits that we currently have today can escalate out of control in an instant. Most the shifts people said in this thread are several decades away, it's just logical to assume that before that we will have another armed conflict. To be honest, i dont even consider space exploration a thing because that would require the entire world's mutual cooperation and that's never going to happen (if anything, history again teaches us that people only trully unite in the face of extinction, so an event of that sorts would have to happen before) Space exploration and colonization doesn't require the cooperation of everyone. For example, if the US were to say that they would recognize any land claims made on the moon based on use and occupation (you have to be there using it to get the land) then there would be a large incentive for private companies to go up there and begin minign, colonizing, etc. Yes if your idea of space exploration involves the peoples of the world holding hands on the ISS then its going to take a while, but all it takes to get people into space is to declare it open for business. | ||
|
DDie
Brazil2369 Posts
On August 01 2013 03:26 packrat386 wrote: Space exploration and colonization doesn't require the cooperation of everyone. For example, if the US were to say that they would recognize any land claims made on the moon based on use and occupation (you have to be there using it to get the land) then there would be a large incentive for private companies to go up there and begin minign, colonizing, etc. Yes if your idea of space exploration involves the peoples of the world holding hands on the ISS then its going to take a while, but all it takes to get people into space is to declare it open for business. Then China would do the same, then Russia, India and every other Nation, it would basically be the new Age of Discovery, a race, and that leads to what? War, that's why the world cooperation is needed. In any case, even with private funding that's several decades away, and moon exploration is not even scratching the surface. | ||
|
packrat386
United States5077 Posts
On August 01 2013 03:36 DDie wrote: Then China would do the same, then Russia, India and every other Nation, it would basically be the new Age of Discovery, a race, and that leads to what? War, that's why the world cooperation is needed. In any case, even with private funding that's several decades away, and moon exploration is not even scratching the surface. Private funding isn't the issue, the problem is that the Outer Space Treaty is usually interpreted to make the holding of any property on celestial bodies to be illegal. Also there is no need for it to lead to war as long as countries recognize other companies claims to land. You should note, the proposal is not for the US to claim land on the moon, but to say that it will recognize the claims of private entities that do, regardless of where they are from. There are several authors that support this idea, and if you want I can PM you some of their works. | ||
|
FlilFlam
Canada109 Posts
Regardless of which direction society chooses to go militarily, socially, or economically, i think the next real change is going to take place in the minds of the youth, due to the fact they are going to have access to more information from a younger age than anyone throughout history. Information will become the new power, and as they say, eventually the truth will out. | ||
|
FlilFlam
Canada109 Posts
On August 01 2013 03:40 packrat386 wrote: Private funding isn't the issue, the problem is that the Outer Space Treaty is usually interpreted to make the holding of any property on celestial bodies to be illegal. Also there is no need for it to lead to war as long as countries recognize other companies claims to land. You should note, the proposal is not for the US to claim land on the moon, but to say that it will recognize the claims of private entities that do, regardless of where they are from. There are several authors that support this idea, and if you want I can PM you some of their works. I thought the "space treaty" referred an agreement to keep weapons out of space. If i had to speculate I would guess that the notion of holding properties in space is not one that has been thoroughly fleshed out in international politics. The first entity to actually gain access to something valuable in space would be the ones with the agenda to push for "space ownership rights". The fact that right now there is nothing anyone has access to in space that is of some practical value which can be "owned" is what leads me to guess that it is not yet an issue among space faring entities. | ||
| ||
