Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
After 1000 years or so it would be just another planet/star system/galaxy/another species of intelligent beings.
Sure sounds like fun and interesting in the short term but the human condition doesnt lend itself to doing the same thing over and over again for eternity, sounds like a form of living hell to me..
Also this living forever could have some unwanted side effects like what happens if you get stuck in a situation thats not so great like inadvertently getting buried alive or your trans galactic space ship breaks down in the middle of nowhere.,then that eternity wont be so great.
I have a feeling there are wonders out there that will amaze us and there are, also, terrors out there that would "freeze our soul". So I would not venture to far until our technology was so advanced I could deal with any situation I could possibly run into.
Is there a chance I will get bored with life? I suppose there is always that chance and if that point does come I could always choose to die as I don't think we should be forced to live like the "Q" are in Star Trek.
The idea of living forever is a nice dream, and perhaps someday it may even become possible. But it certainly could never be a life as we know it now. In order to stop the ageing process, all transcription errors would have to be stopped. But it is inevitable that some would creep in, no matter how good the technology is in the future, and eventually over time the errors would accumulate and lead to old age. Then one must consider the rise and fall of civilizations throughout our history as a species. For that matter, the rise and fall of species dominance and extinction throughout the history of life on our planet. It is probable that even with the best technology, that our species will eventually decay and fall from the heights we manage to reach. And then how will you continue your anti-ageing treatments that repair damage? It wouldn't be practical to have a permanent one time treatment, as the only reasonable option for the repairs necessary (as I can see from my perspective at this point in time) would be via nano machines. But anything self-replicating has the same chance for errors to creep in over time just as our DNA does. So any treatment would have to be an ongoing one.
Our planet cannot hold trillions of people and sustain them by resources produced here. And the prohibitive cost of growing food and producing other needed resources elsewhere off-planet and then transporting them here make that scenario an unlikely one. In all probability, if such a thing as life extension is ever discovered then it will most likely only be given to those deemed worthy of such a gift. In other words, politicians, the extremely wealthy, and those the government decides are necessary for the "good of the people" while the vast majority will either never even know such a treatment exists or will simply never even be given the option for such treatment.
Sure there is an awful lot of stuff to know and learn in the universe we know, and I imagine even billions of years wouldn't be a long enough time to see and discover it all. Maybe that is one of the downsides of being as aware of ourselves and our surroundings as we are. No species before us has risen to such heights of awareness, and with all the wonder and glory of the universe to marvel at we must also have to face the probability of never seeing any but the most miniscule fraction of it all. I don't know exactly what type of afterlife there might be, but I can only hope to be given the grand tour in it because I really don't think there is a chance I will ever see it in my lifetime.
I am grateful I was born into relative wealth on the global scale, where a great many live in the most abject poverty and live in terrible and dangerous conditions. I was given a great lifespan by having the good luck to be born in a country where there is modern medicine and plenty of food. I was fortunate to be born into a country that does not doom its females to a life of enforced ignorance and virtual enslavement, with education available to all who want it and who are willing to work for higher education. Yes, I want more. Probably most of us with imagination and intellect do. But I am grateful for the advantages I have purely because of luck. My life could have been much much worse. Or even ended before it had barely begun.
I hope for a long life. There is so much I want to learn, and much I want to see.
The idea of living forever is a nice dream, and perhaps someday it may even become possible. But it certainly could never be a life as we know it now.
Life is always changing and evolving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ode
In order to stop the ageing process, all transcription errors would have to be stopped. But it is inevitable that some would creep in, no matter how good the technology is in the future, and eventually over time the errors would accumulate and lead to old age.
With enough technology any problem can be solved. Just take one step at a time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ode
Then one must consider the rise and fall of civilizations throughout our history as a species. For that matter, the rise and fall of species dominance and extinction throughout the history of life on our planet. It is probable that even with the best technology, that our species will eventually decay and fall from the heights we manage to reach. And then how will you continue your anti-ageing treatments that repair damage?
Perhaps or perhaps not. Once society gets extremely advanced and on thousands of planets in multiple galaxy's it will be nearly impossible to wipe it out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ode
It wouldn't be practical to have a permanent one time treatment, as the only reasonable option for the repairs necessary (as I can see from my perspective at this point in time) would be via nano machines. But anything self-replicating has the same chance for errors to creep in over time just as our DNA does. So any treatment would have to be an ongoing one.
Its to hard to know what the medical technology will be like 1,000, 10,000, 100,000 or more years from now and what will be possible. The key is making it to that point and yes right now it would take multiple treatments and that is ok.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ode
Our planet cannot hold trillions of people and sustain them by resources produced here. And the prohibitive cost of growing food and producing other needed resources elsewhere off-planet and then transporting them here make that scenario an unlikely one.
Based on current technology I would agree. Based on future technology well anything is possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ode
In all probability, if such a thing as life extension is ever discovered then it will most likely only be given to those deemed worthy of such a gift. In other words, politicians, the extremely wealthy, and those the government decides are necessary for the "good of the people" while the vast majority will either never even know such a treatment exists or will simply never even be given the option for such treatment.
At first maybe but as with any new technology the cost will come down for everyone to use. I plan on being one of the first even if the cost is 100,000 dollars or more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ode
Sure there is an awful lot of stuff to know and learn in the universe we know, and I imagine even billions of years wouldn't be a long enough time to see and discover it all. Maybe that is one of the downsides of being as aware of ourselves and our surroundings as we are. No species before us has risen to such heights of awareness, and with all the wonder and glory of the universe to marvel at we must also have to face the probability of never seeing any but the most miniscule fraction of it all. I don't know exactly what type of afterlife there might be, but I can only hope to be given the grand tour in it because I really don't think there is a chance I will ever see it in my lifetime.
This is exactly why I want to live forever as I am not in a rush to see if there is a afterlife.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ode
I am grateful I was born into relative wealth on the global scale, where a great many live in the most abject poverty and live in terrible and dangerous conditions. I was given a great lifespan by having the good luck to be born in a country where there is modern medicine and plenty of food. I was fortunate to be born into a country that does not doom its females to a life of enforced ignorance and virtual enslavement, with education available to all who want it and who are willing to work for higher education. Yes, I want more. Probably most of us with imagination and intellect do. But I am grateful for the advantages I have purely because of luck. My life could have been much much worse. Or even ended before it had barely begun.
I hope for a long life. There is so much I want to learn, and much I want to see.
I am grateful as well and want to live as long as I can and will do all I can to accomplish that.
Last edited by Josseppie; 08-29-2011 at 02:38 PM..
Once societies get to a certain level of development people tend to have less kids. It happened in the U.S. and Europe so there is no reason to think it won't happen in the rest of the world once they become advanced. Especially if we can live for a long time as there would be no rush to start a family until you are much older.
It's true that generally people are having fewer children in the U.S. and parts of Europe. I would certainly hope that other locations around the world would practice the same thing, but since the population rate is continuing to increase, that indicates it isn't practiced globally.
I fully agree with your view that if extreme longevity could be achieved, it would make perfect sense to not be in a rush to start a family until you're older. Or conversely, start a family when you're younger, and stop before you get much older. The problem is that much of the world still live in ignorance, and believe that having more children will ensure that the parents will be supported by their children as they get older. And the problem with that is that the age old traditions are rapidly falling by the wayside. More frequently, the kids move away from the parents to where the jobs are, and increasingly do not support their parents because it's all they can do to support themselves, or provide a pittance, and yet those children cling to the same traditions hoping their kids will eventually support them.
China, which has the largest population of any country in the world, came to the conclusion that it's not realistic for families to continue having large numbers of children. They instituted a tax system to encourage couples to have only one child. The idea is that people are rewarded for having smaller families. It's not viewed as a very popular system though. I'm not sure how effective it really is. India is second in terms of being heavily populated. Educating people would perhaps be better, but much of it is related to income. People living in poverty are less likely to change their age old traditions. It's a complex problem that needs a workable solution.
Quote:
For most things you are right, information technology is not one of those things, just look at More's law. The gaming industry uses that to figure out when to develop games so the computers will be capable of playing them. That is all Ray did, build a model that goes out 20 to 30 years to figure out what computing technology will be like he does not make random predictions of what the future will be like which is what most people do. To be honest I don't listen to them and movies while cool are not something I would listen to when it comes to specific date. For example in Star Trek they break the light barrier in 2063 but that was just a random date a writer picked and will have no significance in the real world. Same with Space Odyssey.
Moore's Law is fine relative to computing, but it's not an end-all answer to other complex problems in the world. It does not provide a real world solution, such as providing an equitable distribution of wealth, meaning that opportunities to gain better knowledge (information) by the economically underprivileged is limited. What we often take for granted, isn't always the same in other countries.
We have a house in Thailand, and spend a great deal of time there. Thailand has faced the same problem of trying to tackle issues such as better education, smaller families, and better opportunity to financial security. Ignorance and relative poverty is still very much a part of the country. Many people simply accept things as they are because they can't change it. One effort taken by the government is to provide something like 100,000 free computers (laptops, I think) to kids from families with low incomes to help provide better access to education and information. A couple of decades ago, there was a move to educate people about prevention to reduce the birth rate as well as sexually transmitted diseases, but a big reason was also to stem the population growth rate since it was recognized tht if unchecked, it could lead to some big problems. It seems to have made some progress (Growth rate there has declined by over 50% since 2000), in reducing the birth rate, but it's still a far cry from making much of an impact on locals in villages and small rural towns (which is where the majority of people live), who live away from urban cities. It's not uncommon for young teenagers to start having kids. But at least an effort in being made to enable citizens to make better choices, which are voluntary choices. The higher the education level, the more likely is it that people will have fewer children.
Quote:
How do you know the Earth can't support trillions of people especially if we use the moon to grow food?
Think about it. Figure out the land surface of the Earth is. Allow for locations that are not suitable for housing. Allow for areas on the planet necessary to maintain the planet's ecosystem. People will still need to work, so that means space to occupy factories and businesses won't available for housing. Allow access space for transportation and walking. Allow space to distribute power. Then figure out how much space the average person needs. Trillions of people on the Earth? I don't think so.
About growing food on the Moon. Since you're suggesting using the Moon to grow food to supply trillions of people on Earth, part of it depends on what kind of food is to be grown. Plants require certain nutrients to survive and grow. I don't think the Moon has the right nutrients necessary. But even if it did, those nutrients would be rapidly depleted by the materials shipped back to Earth. Meat production is probably out of the question to be raised on the Moon.
Adding to the problem of lunar food production to feed the trillions of people on Earth, it all has to be transported from the Moon to the Earth. The problem then is one of how economical is that. Even if travel between the Earth and the Moon becomes cheap enough to be worthwhile, there will need to be spaceports (lots of them) on the Earth for such a system, and that means more land space on the planet not suitable for people to live on.
Don't get me wrong. The ideas sound great, but only until we start figuring out what would be required to manage the needs of trillions of people. Even with an advanced information system, my bet would be that the system would determine that method isn't efficient enough in relation to the energy spent.
Quote:
I have more faith in technology then you do. In my opinion science can answer any question and solve any problem.
And there's the big difference. It isn't really so much about faith. It's about taking action to achieve results. If the results don't work (and that's always possible), all the faith in the world isn't going to change much, is it? What is technology if not for the people who develop it?
Quote:
If technology increased linearly then you would be right it would take hundreds or thousands of years for us to have the kind of technology to terraform Mars or the Moon. However, since information technology grows at a exponential rate it will be much shorter. Honestly I am not able to make a good prediction of when we will develop such things as atmospheric condensers but I would not be surprised if we had a better idea of how it could be done this century and actually done next century. This is just me guessing but with exponential growth of technology things will start moving really fast.
Where computing would make a huge jump is if quantum computing becomes a practical reality. It's in the very beginning stage of figuring it out and still a long way from being anything useful right now, although some experiments have been done. I think it could eventually replace current computer technology and likely introduced in the next 20 years or so (hard to say), most likely for sciencific research. It could well be available to the general public shortly after. Imagine what that would do for creating VR graphics. It could be really amazing.
Quote:
I agree the key is what we will do in the next 20 to 40 years out. That is nano technology and re-engineering genetics and virtual reality to solve current problems allowing us to live longer. Then we can work on the problems living longer will create.
The only problem I have with enabling greater longevity, in particular extreme longevity (say 500 years or longer) is who would be a candidate for it? It's probably fair to say someone with enough money. I can kind of see it applied for manned space missions such as traveling to another star system. Of course, that would require a long more than just enabling a long life. There are some drawbacks to be sure, but it's feasible. If it could eventually become affordable for the general public, sure, it would be a voluntary decision, but I be inclined to think more than just a few people would like that option. I'm still inclined to think there'd need to be a public understanding about population control, and I'm not so sure how that would work out. Human beings are already able to choose to have kids or not, but on a global scale, it's not really working out. So how would population control be managed? Would rules need to be in place? Should it be reserved for only a select few? How should it be enforced if many people went ahead and reproduce irresponsibly after being treated to induce extreme longevity? It's a pretty complex procedure to consider any time soon.
I admire your enthusiasm but there are some pretty big holes in your projections regarding the future of computational power.
First, you say that by 2029 computers will be as smart as humans. Where didja snag this date from? Too: you have to better define the word "smart." As far as calculating and memory power, computers have been "smarter" than us for decades now. But what we're talking about here is, if and when computers will be able to reason. I think the techno-geeks call this "fuzzy logic." Will they someday posess reasoning ability? Morality? Self-awareness--which is the type of mental component that separates us from animals? You gotta remember; we're a long way off from that right now; computers cannot yet even be trusted to drive a car in city or highway traffic conditions. Why? Too many variables and "maybes" involved.
And your 2045 prediction of computers being smarter than "all humans combined." This is sort of a say-nothing repetition of your first statement, since all humans combined are not really smarter than just one human. It's just an increase in numbers, not an enhancement.
And, uhh..I don't think there is an "aging gene." Aging is an overall cumulative process a living organism undergoes. Genes pass along information. Physicians have reckoned that, even if a human being is born in perfect health with no pre-genetic disposition to any disease, and then is coddled and partakes in perfect nutrition and exercise and environment, the maximum age he or she could expect to live is about 110. Tiny quantum computers in your cells (nanotechnology) are not going to be able to reverse this.
As of right now, your best bet to be alive, say, 500 years from now is to undergo Cryogenic suspension, like Walt Disney. That field is becoming viable, but still has some bugs in it.
Theoretically people could live between the ages of 120-125 based on the number of times our cells divide (according to one of my texts), the problem is that most develop some form of disease that ends up killing them before they can reach that age. Now I'm pretty sure that in 3-4 decades people will be able to live to that age or a little more if we have the following (which we're getting close too):
-Organ factories
-improved Stem Cells treatments
-finding a way to lengthen Telomerase without causing cancer
-drugs that extend life. There's already one that could extend the life of mice the only problem is that it suppresses the immune system. So, scientists are trying to figure out the mechanism it has in the body that enables life extension and thus find a way to use that mechanism without affecting the immune system
It's true that generally people are having fewer children in the U.S. and parts of Europe. I would certainly hope that other locations around the world would practice the same thing, but since the population rate is continuing to increase, that indicates it isn't practiced globally.
The places where the world population is increasing is generally third world countries. Once they become first world I don't think you will see the population increase that you see now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar
I fully agree with your view that if extreme longevity could be achieved, it would make perfect sense to not be in a rush to start a family until you're older. Or conversely, start a family when you're younger, and stop before you get much older. The problem is that much of the world still live in ignorance, and believe that having more children will ensure that the parents will be supported by their children as they get older. And the problem with that is that the age old traditions are rapidly falling by the wayside. More frequently, the kids move away from the parents to where the jobs are, and increasingly do not support their parents because it's all they can do to support themselves, or provide a pittance, and yet those children cling to the same traditions hoping their kids will eventually support them.
If I was going to live for a long time I would not even think about starting a family till I was over 100. Why rush it? That sounds odd now but once the new reality sets in having a family at 25 or 30 will seem as odd to them as having a family at 15 does to us today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar
China, which has the largest population of any country in the world, came to the conclusion that it's not realistic for families to continue having large numbers of children. They instituted a tax system to encourage couples to have only one child. The idea is that people are rewarded for having smaller families. It's not viewed as a very popular system though. I'm not sure how effective it really is. India is second in terms of being heavily populated. Educating people would perhaps be better, but much of it is related to income. People living in poverty are less likely to change their age old traditions. It's a complex problem that needs a workable solution.
They are still a third world country with third world country issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar
Moore's Law is fine relative to computing, but it's not an end-all answer to other complex problems in the world. It does not provide a real world solution, such as providing an equitable distribution of wealth, meaning that opportunities to gain better knowledge (information) by the economically underprivileged is limited. What we often take for granted, isn't always the same in other countries.
Exponential growth only applies to information technology. However, we are at the point where information technology touches every part of our lives so we will see dramatic improvements. Will there still differences between the have and have nots? Sure but it will be less then it is today and everyone in virtual reality will be equal as no one will be able to tell if you are in a million dollar mansion or a 1 bedroom rent controlled apartment.
I, also, want to say that I know it won't solve our all problems instantly but I do believe in time it will help solve most of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar
We have a house in Thailand, and spend a great deal of time there. Thailand has faced the same problem of trying to tackle issues such as better education, smaller families, and better opportunity to financial security. Ignorance and relative poverty is still very much a part of the country. Many people simply accept things as they are because they can't change it. One effort taken by the government is to provide something like 100,000 free computers (laptops, I think) to kids from families with low incomes to help provide better access to education and information. A couple of decades ago, there was a move to educate people about prevention to reduce the birth rate as well as sexually transmitted diseases, but a big reason was also to stem the population growth rate since it was recognized tht if unchecked, it could lead to some big problems. It seems to have made some progress (Growth rate there has declined by over 50% since 2000), in reducing the birth rate, but it's still a far cry from making much of an impact on locals in villages and small rural towns (which is where the majority of people live), who live away from urban cities. It's not uncommon for young teenagers to start having kids. But at least an effort in being made to enable citizens to make better choices, which are voluntary choices. The higher the education level, the more likely is it that people will have fewer children.
I have to admit I do not know much about Thailand but aren't they considered a third world country?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar
Think about it. Figure out the land surface of the Earth is. Allow for locations that are not suitable for housing. Allow for areas on the planet necessary to maintain the planet's ecosystem. People will still need to work, so that means space to occupy factories and businesses won't available for housing. Allow access space for transportation and walking. Allow space to distribute power. Then figure out how much space the average person needs. Trillions of people on the Earth? I don't think so.
Today the Earth population could fit inside Texas and everyone would have 1,000 square feet to live. So if the population was a few trillion people with the kind of technology society will have by then it should be easy for them to live comfortably on this planet with room to spare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar
About growing food on the Moon. Since you're suggesting using the Moon to grow food to supply trillions of people on Earth, part of it depends on what kind of food is to be grown. Plants require certain nutrients to survive and grow. I don't think the Moon has the right nutrients necessary. But even if it did, those nutrients would be rapidly depleted by the materials shipped back to Earth. Meat production is probably out of the question to be raised on the Moon.
Adding to the problem of lunar food production to feed the trillions of people on Earth, it all has to be transported from the Moon to the Earth. The problem then is one of how economical is that. Even if travel between the Earth and the Moon becomes cheap enough to be worthwhile, there will need to be spaceports (lots of them) on the Earth for such a system, and that means more land space on the planet not suitable for people to live on.
Don't get me wrong. The ideas sound great, but only until we start figuring out what would be required to manage the needs of trillions of people. Even with an advanced information system, my bet would be that the system would determine that method isn't efficient enough in relation to the energy spent.
The technology to terraform the moon won't be around for a while but neither will the planets population topping 1 trillion people. My point is science will have time to work on the so called overpopulation issue and I believe it will come up with a answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar
And there's the big difference. It isn't really so much about faith. It's about taking action to achieve results. If the results don't work (and that's always possible), all the faith in the world isn't going to change much, is it? What is technology if not for the people who develop it?
It will take both but I am a optimistic so I look at the future with that view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar
Where computing would make a huge jump is if quantum computing becomes a practical reality. It's in the very beginning stage of figuring it out and still a long way from being anything useful right now, although some experiments have been done. I think it could eventually replace current computer technology and likely introduced in the next 20 years or so (hard to say), most likely for sciencific research. It could well be available to the general public shortly after. Imagine what that would do for creating VR graphics. It could be really amazing.
It will be! According to Ray by 2029 computers will achieve intelligence and that will change everything. He is not making some random prediction but using accepted methods on how information technology grows. As far as virtural reality we should have that before 2029. I can't wait and that is why I am so focused on it now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar
The only problem I have with enabling greater longevity, in particular extreme longevity (say 500 years or longer) is who would be a candidate for it? It's probably fair to say someone with enough money. I can kind of see it applied for manned space missions such as traveling to another star system. Of course, that would require a long more than just enabling a long life. There are some drawbacks to be sure, but it's feasible. If it could eventually become affordable for the general public, sure, it would be a voluntary decision, but I be inclined to think more than just a few people would like that option. I'm still inclined to think there'd need to be a public understanding about population control, and I'm not so sure how that would work out. Human beings are already able to choose to have kids or not, but on a global scale, it's not really working out. So how would population control be managed? Would rules need to be in place? Should it be reserved for only a select few? How should it be enforced if many people went ahead and reproduce irresponsibly after being treated to induce extreme longevity? It's a pretty complex procedure to consider any time soon.
First off I believe the light barrier will be broken so when people talk about how long it will take to get to other stars I just tune them out as in time I believe we will be able to get anywhere in the universe instantly. That is when the real travel will begin.
We are a very young civilization and yes we have many issues we have to overcome. In time we will my main point is I want to be around to see us overcome the issues not die in 80 or 100 years and miss it all.
The places where the world population is increasing is generally third world countries. Once they become first world I don't think you will see the population increase that you see now.
That's exactly right. And if some effective incentives and education aren't put in place to encourage a lower population rate, those populations will continue to increase. I don't think we're going to see many "third world countries" becoming "first world countries" any time soon.
Quote:
If I was going to live for a long time I would not even think about starting a family till I was over 100. Why rush it? That sounds odd now but once the new reality sets in having a family at 25 or 30 will seem as odd to them as having a family at 15 does to us today.
I agree, why rush it? That's the mystery question. Unfortunately, there are loads of out of date traditions that have been around for ages and are not so easy to break. Why do some people start having children at the age of 15 or younger, and others wait until they are in their 20s or 30s? The point I was trying to make is that even if extreme longevity were available to everyone on the planet who wanted it, what's to stop them from limiting the size of their families? Think about societies that practice polygamy.
Quote:
They are still a third world country with third world country issues.
Sure, parts of China seem rather backward, but as a nation, China has moved up to become an important world economic power. It's getting hard to find something that isn't "Made in China" anymore. Technologically speaking, I think they're still lagging, but not by much. They're catching up fast. But you're quite right, they do have issues to deal with, which is no easy task considering the size of their population.
Quote:
Exponential growth only applies to information technology. However, we are at the point where information technology touches every part of our lives so we will see dramatic improvements. Will there still differences between the have and have nots? Sure but it will be less then it is today and everyone in virtual reality will be equal as no one will be able to tell if you are in a million dollar mansion or a 1 bedroom rent controlled apartment.
I, also, want to say that I know it won't solve our all problems instantly but I do believe in time it will help solve most of them.
Only because information technology is the only point you're emphasizing. But you can't say that exponential growth only applies to information technology. Global population growth is not occuring linearly. It's exponential. Please show me how it is anything other than exponential.
Quote:
I have to admit I do not know much about Thailand but aren't they considered a third world country?
Thailand is considered a "developing nation". That said, urban cities like Bangkok, Chiang Mai, Khon Kaen, they are as progressive and modern as any city in the U.S., although they're also a hodge-podge of wealth and poverty. Out of the cities in rural villages where most of the country's population live, while conveniences can be found, life is still like a step back in time. Thailand is one of the largest exporters of rice. The hilltribe villages are about as close to third world conditions as can be. Thailand is a mix of old and new.
Quote:
Today the Earth population could fit inside Texas and everyone would have 1,000 square feet to live. So if the population was a few trillion people with the kind of technology society will have by then it should be easy for them to live comfortably on this planet with room to spare.
Wouldn't that be cozy? There's plenty of room, but not for trillions of people. You're not taking into account places that are simply not habitable. Care to live on the Matterhorn or Mt Everest? How about the tundra, or the Sahara? You're also not taking into account that huge areas that are vital to the planet's ecosystem would have to be razed. Plenty of room to live comfortably? I guess you could squeeze lot of people into buildings that are a mile high and the size of Rhode Island though. Go for it. I don't think I'd be too happy in a world that looked like it came straight out of the films "Heavy Metal" or "Bladerunner".
Quote:
The technology to terraform the moon won't be around for a while but neither will the planets population topping 1 trillion people. My point is science will have time to work on the so called overpopulation issue and I believe it will come up with a answer.
It will take both but I am a optimistic so I look at the future with that view.
I'm an optimist as well and I also like to look at the potential of the future. I just happen to have a different view, and frankly, I have no idea what will happen or not happen.
Quote:
It will be! According to Ray by 2029 computers will achieve intelligence and that will change everything. He is not making some random prediction but using accepted methods on how information technology grows. As far as virtural reality we should have that before 2029. I can't wait and that is why I am so focused on it now.
Sorry to disagree, but Kurzweil does not have a crystal ball to peer into the future. They are his views as a futurist. He may be right, or a least close on some things, but then again, he might be wrong. we won't really know for sure until we get there.
Quote:
First off I believe the light barrier will be broken so when people talk about how long it will take to get to other stars I just tune them out as in time I believe we will be able to get anywhere in the universe instantly. That is when the real travel will begin.
"Fasten your seat belts. We're about to make the jump into hyperspace." Tune it out all you want, but unless you're a photon, or the universe itself, there isn't enough energy to "break the light barrier". That doesn't necessarily mean that there can't be shortcuts or alternatives. For instance, if an advanced scanner to scan every atom in your body and converted into information, then it's possible to beam that information to somewhere else at the speed of light (not breaking it). Of course, there's have to be a receiver on the other end, and there'd probably be two of you in the universe, you and a copy of you. Guess which one gets to take the trip? Or it might be possible (still speculative) to develop a spacecraft that can slide through space-time. It doesn't need to travel faster than light speed to get to a destination. Maybe there's a way to open a wormhole and make it stable. In any case, better hope you don't land in the middle of a star or a black hole though. That could be most embarrassing as well as an abrupt end to any hope for an extreme longevity.
Quote:
We are a very young civilization and yes we have many issues we have to overcome. In time we will my main point is I want to be around to see us overcome the issues not die in 80 or 100 years and miss it all.
I'd like to see it all as well, but as you indicated earlier, that probably won't happen any time soon.
Over population will not be a issue because technology will solve any issues we could have. Just look at Courescant on Star Wars as it shows with the right technology earth can easily hold trillions and trillions of people. That being said I suspect we will leave our planet and galaxy, I know I will, and it will be impossible for us to "overpopulate the universe". You bring up a interesting point about sudden death and the universe coming to a end. The answer to sudden death is backing ourselves up like we do a computer so if we die they will activate the back up and it will it seem like we went to sleep and woke up. As far as the end of the universe. If we manage to live that long the kind of technology we will have will enable us to do things that we cant even imagine now. So that is something I am not even worried about.
well they still had alot of the same issues we face today..Han was a broke and in debt and well they send collections after him he flew a small as luke said "piece of junk" cargo ship and well luke skywalker was just a poor moisture farmer..Also the empire was falling apart because of it's massive military costing to much to keep going...
heck luke had to sell has speeder to come up with the $$$ to pay han and chewie to take them off the planet..Plus the two deathstars had major design flaws but the empire was like the modren Us where it can project force anywhere in the world they ruled and protected diffrent solar systems near the center of the devloped part of the galaxy..
they were a type 3 civilization we are type 0 but are close to type 1
In Parallel Worlds, Michio Kaku explains that physicists sometimes use these classifications in correlation to a civilization's energy consumption and the laws of thermodynamics.
A Type I civilization is classified as a civilization which can harness planetary forms of energy, especially that "they are able to utilize the entire amount of solar energy striking their planet, or 10^16 watts."
A Type II civilization is classified as a civilization which has exhausted the energy attainable on their planet and has therefore moved on to harnessing and extracting the energy produced from their star. "They are able to consume the entire energy output of their star and might conceivably control solar flares and ignite other stars." From there, they may also utilize other planets in their solar system as power sources.
A Type III civilization is classified as a civilization which has exhausted the attainable energy from their solar system and has therefore moved on to extracting energy from farther reaches of their galaxy, including extraction from many stars and solar systems.
That's exactly right. And if some effective incentives and education aren't put in place to encourage a lower population rate, those populations will continue to increase. I don't think we're going to see many "third world countries" becoming "first world countries" any time soon.
I am all for that as I think a more educated world is a better world. I just don't want to stop our progress because of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar
I agree, why rush it? That's the mystery question. Unfortunately, there are loads of out of date traditions that have been around for ages and are not so easy to break. Why do some people start having children at the age of 15 or younger, and others wait until they are in their 20s or 30s? The point I was trying to make is that even if extreme longevity were available to everyone on the planet who wanted it, what's to stop them from limiting the size of their families? Think about societies that practice polygamy.
That is a good point. I do envision the Earth with a trillion people someday but there is no way this plant will be able to handle the population growth that will come alone so we must leave and colonize other worlds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar
Sure, parts of China seem rather backward, but as a nation, China has moved up to become an important world economic power. It's getting hard to find something that isn't "Made in China" anymore. Technologically speaking, I think they're still lagging, but not by much. They're catching up fast. But you're quite right, they do have issues to deal with, which is no easy task considering the size of their population.
I have been to China and while they are doing some great things I still see them as a third world country. I don't think it will be that way in 100 years and that is a good thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar
Only because information technology is the only point you're emphasizing. But you can't say that exponential growth only applies to information technology. Global population growth is not occuring linearly. It's exponential. Please show me how it is anything other than exponential.
I was not thinking about population growth but about advancements. I can see population growth growing exponentially, except in Pueblo as its been growing slowly and this is one city I want to see exponential growth so we can pass up the Denver CSA lol.
I will expand on my first comment. I think Earth will be the center of the human race. It will be the most populated and very dense and the center for government and business. The farther you go out the worlds will be colonized but be less dense. For people like me who want to live on a urban planet I will stay here and for people who do not they would move to Mars or Pluto or another moon we have terraformed. There really is a lot of real estate in this solar system that if utilized right there should be no issues of overpopulation for a very long time if ever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar
Thailand is considered a "developing nation". That said, urban cities like Bangkok, Chiang Mai, Khon Kaen, they are as progressive and modern as any city in the U.S., although they're also a hodge-podge of wealth and poverty. Out of the cities in rural villages where most of the country's population live, while conveniences can be found, life is still like a step back in time. Thailand is one of the largest exporters of rice. The hilltribe villages are about as close to third world conditions as can be. Thailand is a mix of old and new.
I need to visit one of its large cities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar
Wouldn't that be cozy? There's plenty of room, but not for trillions of people. You're not taking into account places that are simply not habitable. Care to live on the Matterhorn or Mt Everest? How about the tundra, or the Sahara? You're also not taking into account that huge areas that are vital to the planet's ecosystem would have to be razed. Plenty of room to live comfortably? I guess you could squeeze lot of people into buildings that are a mile high and the size of Rhode Island though. Go for it. I don't think I'd be too happy in a world that looked like it came straight out of the films "Heavy Metal" or "Bladerunner".
I think we will have mile high sky scrapers in our large cities. To be honest I would love if Pueblo looks like this in a few hundred years.
For people like me who want to live in a urban utopia like this we will stay here for people like you who do not they will move to the outer planets like Mars.
I'm an optimist as well and I also like to look at the potential of the future. I just happen to have a different view, and frankly, I have no idea what will happen or not happen.
Fair enough. I can't argue with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar
Sorry to disagree, but Kurzweil does not have a crystal ball to peer into the future. They are his views as a futurist. He may be right, or a least close on some things, but then again, he might be wrong. we won't really know for sure until we get there.
He does not have a crystal ball and he is the first one to say that. To be honest shows that try to predict the future by using a "crystal ball" are boring to me and I rarely watch them. Look at this video as he explains how he can't predict future events but can predict what computers will be like.
Look at 3:15 as that is when he addresses your question about being able to predict the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar
"Fasten your seat belts. We're about to make the jump into hyperspace." Tune it out all you want, but unless you're a photon, or the universe itself, there isn't enough energy to "break the light barrier".
I fundamentally disagree with this. In my opinion we will break the light barrier and we will be like Star Trek its not a matter of "if" but "when".
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar
That doesn't necessarily mean that there can't be shortcuts or alternatives. For instance, if an advanced scanner to scan every atom in your body and converted into information, then it's possible to beam that information to somewhere else at the speed of light (not breaking it). Of course, there's have to be a receiver on the other end, and there'd probably be two of you in the universe, you and a copy of you. Guess which one gets to take the trip? Or it might be possible (still speculative) to develop a spacecraft that can slide through space-time. It doesn't need to travel faster than light speed to get to a destination. Maybe there's a way to open a wormhole and make it stable. In any case, better hope you don't land in the middle of a star or a black hole though. That could be most embarrassing as well as an abrupt end to any hope for an extreme longevity.
Warp speed is just the start in time we will find faster ways but that is way off in the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar
I'd like to see it all as well, but as you indicated earlier, that probably won't happen any time soon.
well they still had alot of the same issues we face today..Han was a broke and in debt and well they send collections after him he flew a small as luke said "piece of junk" cargo ship and well luke skywalker was just a poor moisture farmer..Also the empire was falling apart because of it's massive military costing to much to keep going...
heck luke had to sell has speeder to come up with the $$$ to pay han and chewie to take them off the planet..Plus the two deathstars had major design flaws but the empire was like the modren Us where it can project force anywhere in the world they ruled and protected diffrent solar systems near the center of the devloped part of the galaxy..
they were a type 3 civilization we are type 0 but are close to type 1
In Parallel Worlds, Michio Kaku explains that physicists sometimes use these classifications in correlation to a civilization's energy consumption and the laws of thermodynamics.
A Type I civilization is classified as a civilization which can harness planetary forms of energy, especially that "they are able to utilize the entire amount of solar energy striking their planet, or 10^16 watts."
A Type II civilization is classified as a civilization which has exhausted the energy attainable on their planet and has therefore moved on to harnessing and extracting the energy produced from their star. "They are able to consume the entire energy output of their star and might conceivably control solar flares and ignite other stars." From there, they may also utilize other planets in their solar system as power sources.
A Type III civilization is classified as a civilization which has exhausted the attainable energy from their solar system and has therefore moved on to extracting energy from farther reaches of their galaxy, including extraction from many stars and solar systems.
star trek was type 2 and star wars was type 3
As long as humans are around there will always be issues lol.
I have read about the different type of civilizations for a long time. I hope I am around to see us at a type 3 as I think it will be the great time to be alive.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
