Sorry your browser is not supported!

We are living in the biggest technological booms ever. I've heard estimates that the average commercial computer will surpass human 'processing power' by the 2020s. We've landed on the moon. Spaceships to distant planets are relatively commonplace (arguably). We can fly, we can explore under water, we can 'see' underground, change the ecology of the planet, 'edit' DNA, clone animals (and likely humans), communicate with someone on the other side of the world easily, split an atom, fuse an atom, predict a body's motion, understand light and time, etc. etc. etc.

So, in a nutshell, what kind of technology do you think will be the gateway to the future, and what will have the most impact on the future?

I think it's definitely particle physics (allowing for understanding of new possible technologies, ex. atom bomb), robotics (just watch this), or genetics.

Back to top

Profile PM Email

budokaiman

FPSC Tool Maker

15

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 24th Jun 2009

Playing: Hard to get

Posted: 3rd Jan 2010 02:13

Quote: "I think it's definitely particle physics"

Particle physics, if we can prove the Higgs Boson, we will have made a pretty tremendous accomplishment. Plus with CERN's LHC up and running, we will have a better understanding of hadrons. Particle, Theoretical, and Astro-Physics are all going to make large steps in the next ten years, but until all of those accomplishments happen, we can't really have any expectations.

This signature is legen-wait for it... dary };]

Back to top

Profile PM Email Website

Yodaman Jer

User Banned

Posted: 3rd Jan 2010 02:13

Things like medical advancements (cure to cancer and AIDS anyone?) will certainly be a large factor of the future. Peoples' lives will be extended, life expectancy in general will increase (some guy thinks that within the next century people will end up living two hundred years) and dog gone it, everyone will look good, too!

Another thing is teleportation. If we figure that out (and I hope we do!), gas consumption would reduce greatly as you could be to your destination within a second. The dangers of airplanes crashing and whatnot would disappear. We'd also finally get to meet Mr. Scott.

Another thing is Qauntum Computing. That will eventually replace digital computing as we know it (if they get it figured it out completely). I think I also read somewhere that diamonds will start being put into processors within a decade (so by the 2020s) in order to reach speeds of 80+GHz. So computing even as we know it now will change dramatically in that short of time.

And if we ever figure out time travel...

Sign up here!

Back to top

Profile

CoffeeGrunt

17

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 5th Oct 2007

Location: England

Posted: 3rd Jan 2010 02:30

The game design industry'll crash as mind reading technology develops - so everyone can create the game design in their head, movies and music too I'd imagine...

Then simulated sex will become available, so the species will resort to test tube cloning to survive. Finally, as resources worldwide are depleted, cities will raise themselves on hydraulic legs to begin the final battle for resources...

Back to top

Profile PM Email

Yodaman Jer

User Banned

Posted: 3rd Jan 2010 02:34

You're not a very optimistic futurist there, CoffeeGrunt.

Sign up here!

Back to top

Profile

lazerus

17

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 30th Apr 2008

Location:

Posted: 3rd Jan 2010 02:38

Back to top

Profile PM Email

Seppuku Arts

Moderator

20

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 18th Aug 2004

Location: Cambridgeshire, England

Posted: 3rd Jan 2010 02:42

Quote: "hings like medical advancements (cure to cancer and AIDS anyone?) will certainly be a large factor of the future. Peoples' lives will be extended, life expectancy in general will increase (some guy thinks that within the next century people will end up living two hundred years) and dog gone it, everyone will look good, too! "

I think this will lead to more overpopulation and lack of resources to feed that population, so naturally with advances in medical science, we'd need to be able to expand as a species (ideas have been developed on expanding civilization to sea) but also in agricultural science and producing mass crops - we already had an advancement in that thanks to the nobel prize winning scientist who died over the summer.

Though culling populations might be the other direction, this perhaps offers some dystopian ideas to what our future may contain.

Back to top

Profile PM Website

lazerus

17

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 30th Apr 2008

Location:

Posted: 3rd Jan 2010 03:15

The phrase, "so others may live" comes to mind. And in all honesty i cant see it not happening, places like africa mainly. If cures were developed for Aids and alike, LEDC's would not get them/ not be able to afford them/ or not even told.

I know the phrase is from coast guard rescue, buts use gives a disjointed view of two connotations, the immediate evil for the greater good. That could make a good plotline, corruption,culling, a gespatcho like millitary group working incognito, Class become segigated so the rich get richer while the poor are the plage. The streets of new London are over-run over crowded. Then along came a spider that whispers seductive actions to the acting prime. The plans are set forth the sides are drawn , them or us, a dystopopiate idea indeed. I shall start work at dawn.

I do belive im between sleep and reason.

And i love it...

-Con

Back to top

Profile PM Email

BiggAdd

Retired Moderator

20

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 6th Aug 2004

Location: != null

Posted: 3rd Jan 2010 03:37

Quote: "Things like medical advancements (cure to cancer and AIDS anyone?)"

You can't cure "AIDS", as it is merely a symptom caused by the HIV virus. And South Park already found a cure for HIV, just inject yourself with all your money.

And you can already suppress (not cure) some forms of cancer with Thalidomide, or a newer drug (Which I'm not sure has finished trials yet), which will restrict the blood flow to tumors and the likes.
Obviously Thalidomide has its well known side effects, as well as restricting blood flow to the extremities (fingers, hands, toes etc), which can cause numbness and a tingling sensation.

Personally I think we will notice a large increase in Display Tech (OLEDs, Laser TV, Autostereoscopy etc), Augmented Reality and a massive increase in Data Storage.

Back to top

Profile PM

Terrestrial Productions

15

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 23rd Jul 2009

Location:

Posted: 3rd Jan 2010 03:59

Good evening gents!
I believe that weapons/armor technology (nanotechnology, androids, lasers, IRON MAN , etc.) will be a major component of the near/far future (as always) since throughout history (correct me if I'm wrong) all the major technological advancements that really matter in the world as a whole (internet, pistol/rifle/sniper rifles, vehicles, etc.) all had it's root in war, and in turn all the major technilogical advancements play a big part in war. It's, I believe, a never ending cycle.
I also think that video-game development is a major part (I know you're all thinking "Suck-up") because once we get to the age of being inside the game (like Spy Kids 3), almost everyone will be in it because they can choose how other beings act to them, make their world, doing stuff you normally couldn't do, etc. It all is kind of mind boggling to think about.
Well hope I helped you out here with my bloody good answer!

Terrestrial Productions

Back to top

Profile PM Email

Herakles

16

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 6th Mar 2009

Location: Lost in my own head

Posted: 3rd Jan 2010 05:57

It doesn't matter, since it's all going to end in 2012!

Back to top

Profile PM

OrzeL

15

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 20th Oct 2009

Location:

Posted: 3rd Jan 2010 07:53

Quote: "The Future of Technology?"

Two words, Moon Whales

On a more serious note, I see robotics making most advances in the immediate futures, stuff like that vacuum that cleans by itself will be made. Genetics, Physics and Medical making huge discoveries might take a little longer. They should finish mapping out the human genome project this decade most likely so that will be something to look forward to. TGC will also probable come out with some amazing game making tools. Looks like a bright future.

Back to top

Profile PM

Gil Galvanti

20

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 22nd Dec 2004

Location: Texas, United States

Posted: 3rd Jan 2010 08:11

Yes, we do live in an amazing time in history, where things are developing more exponentially faster than ever before. I love futurology and science fiction, it's so awesome and interesting to me what we could accomplish even within the next 100 years.

I've heard many scientists say they think the first person to live to 200+ years old could be alive today, which at first glance may seem unrealistic, but if you think about it is very realistic. Our understanding of the aging process is increasing exponentially now, and we already understand most of what causes it, and we have at least the basis of a solution for them. Blood cells stop reproducing, so we are developing ways to initiate continual reproduction and youthful cells. Organs fail, so we are learning to artificially (and with quite a bit of success so far) grow organs. Once deadly diseases have now nearly been wiped out of the civilized world (Tuberculosis, Smallpox, Polio), and developments in cancer are getting better and better (I heard 50 years ago a child with leukemia had a 90% of dying, but with today's treatments they have a 90% of survival). It's amazing what we've accomplished and are on the verge of accomplishing recently in the medical field.

I think there is a whole field of science (most likely in the area of quantum/particle physics) that holds the key to unlocking so many questions and unexplained phenomenal that have troubled us for centuries. From my very limited knowledge about quantum physics, there are some very crazy, almost fantasy-like things out there that we have only begun to scratch the surface of. Things that could lead to otherwise impossible technologies (time travel, teleporting, instant data transmission, etc.), and could even explain some strange phenomena that we can't begin to understand right now (possibly things like paranormal activity, the 'soul', unexplained 'connections' between people, memories of 'past lives', etc.).

Of course, computer technology will likely continue to improve at an exponential rate, with Moore's Law holding true. I know, we are apparently reaching the physical limits of how small we can store data, but that's also what they thought 60 years ago when they used vacuum tubes for computers until microprocessors were invented. When people say that, they are only thinking in terms of current technology, but I'm sure some new technology will come up.

Anyways, this is all assuming we don't destroy ourselves through war first

. Hopefully the world will wake up one day soon and realize how stupid the reasons we fight are (ie: 'I want that resource you have.', 'No. I'll trade with you for it.', 'No, I'll just kill everyone that stands in my way to get it.' or even worse: 'I believe in this God.', 'Well, I believe in this slightly different God, let's kill each other to decide whose God is more peaceful.').

But we can only hope the human race survives long enough for people to realize how stupid we truly are

.

Back to top

Profile PM Website

Neuro Fuzzy

17

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 11th Jun 2007

Location:

Posted: 3rd Jan 2010 08:34

Quote: "But we can only hope the human race survives long enough for people to realize how stupid we truly are "

Lol, yeah, do you ever just think "I hate people"?

Back to top

Profile PM Email

HowDo

22

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 28th Nov 2002

Location: United Kingdom

Posted: 3rd Jan 2010 09:01

The only technology that will make the grade is the one that you can afford to buy and is wanted.

Plus companies hiring people who think outside the box and invent things that the average customer didn't know they wanted.

Dark Physics makes any hot drink go cold.

Back to top

Profile PM

Lonnehart

16

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 17th Apr 2009

Location:

Posted: 3rd Jan 2010 09:16

My hope is that as medical technology improves and we start to live longer than nature had intended (max lifespan for a human being in the most ideal of conditions is around 125-130 years or so right now), we also improve our space technology. I'm sure there's a downside there somewhere...

The first "true" space colonists will probably be the best in our society. No one with ties to criminals, gangs, and other desirables would be allowed up into the colonies. There'd probably be exhausted studies on potential candidates so that anyone who has had such a history in their family line going back at least 2 generations or more wouldn't be going up in space as they'd have the potential to "destroy" the space colony.

Of course, that's no guarantee that some insane guy is going to find his way up there to mess things up...

In the beginning there was nothing. There'll be nothing in the end...

Back to top

Profile PM

Libervurto

18

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 30th Jun 2006

Location: On Toast

Posted: 3rd Jan 2010 10:47

Has someone been reading the New Scientist?

I think technology is going to be in everything.
Roads that alert when cracks appear (or even heal themselves),
The desktop computer wont exist in 20 years (or only to programmers),
bound to be crazy health and safety things and environmental technology.
Like drinks bottles that release a coloured dye when they pass their use by date.
The government will find some way of preventing us from doing anything we like and tell us its for our own good. (not implying that I enjoy drinking out of date milk

)
Surely that's not too political?
ooh what's this red dot dancing on my chest?

"With games, we create these elaborate worlds in our minds, and the computer is there to do the bookkeeping." - Will Wright

Back to top

Profile PM Email

CoffeeGrunt

17

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 5th Oct 2007

Location: England

Posted: 3rd Jan 2010 14:41

Hopefully those satellite arrays they have looking for life will actually find something...

Quote: "You're not a very optimistic futurist there, CoffeeGrunt."

Excuse me for noticing that we're on a dying planet...

Although I do admit, global warming floods won't happen - ice in the glass of a water effect here. I'm guessing it's just a way to push the public's resource consumption down as it grows, but it's an ok tradeoff so I'm fine with it...

Even though no-one I know gives one about the planet...

Back to top

Profile PM Email

puppyofkosh

18

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 9th Jan 2007

Location:

Posted: 3rd Jan 2010 15:55

Being able to go 1/10 the speed of light would take us so far, and its not an unrealistic goal either.

Back to top

Profile PM

CoffeeGrunt

17

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 5th Oct 2007

Location: England

Posted: 3rd Jan 2010 15:59

Hopefully coilguns become man-portable, that'd be fun to have...

Not as fun as energy shield or plasma cannons though.

Back to top

Profile PM Email

Errant AI

18

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 24th Aug 2006

Location:

Posted: 3rd Jan 2010 16:11 Edited at: 3rd Jan 2010 16:18

Quote: "Though culling populations might be the other direction, this perhaps offers some dystopian ideas to what our future may contain."

Fun reading from a book co-authored in the 70's by the current U.S. Science Tzar...

Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal

“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

Page 786: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions

“One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.”

Page 787-8: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn’t harm livestock

“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”

Page 786-7: The government could control women’s reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control

Involuntary fertility control

“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

Page 838: The kind of people who cause “social deterioration” can be compelled to not have children

“If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.“

Page 838: Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size

“In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?”

Page 942-3: A “Planetary Regime” should control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born

Toward a Planetary Regime

“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.”

“The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”

Page 917: We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force

“If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.”

Page 944: As of 1977, we are facing a global overpopulation catastrophe that must be resolved at all costs by the year 2000

“Humanity cannot afford to muddle through the rest of the twentieth century; the risks are too great, and the stakes are too high. This may be the last opportunity to choose our own and our descendants’ destiny. Failing to choose or making the wrong choices may lead to catastrophe. But it must never be forgotten that the right choices could lead to a much better world.”

And something from the other side of the pond...

UK population must fall to 30m, says Porritt

Sadly, I doubt cities in the ocean or on the moon are going to happen any time soon when we can be culled to "Save the planet". I have to say that I'm sort of relieved that COP15 was mostly fail.

Back to top

Profile PM Email Website

lazerus

17

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 30th Apr 2008

Location:

Posted: 3rd Jan 2010 17:19

Currently studing Human population in geography, and its not optimistic... Things like culling has been warned and warrented attention to the increasing strain on resources. At the point of food production is shadowed by population growth. The human race will have a global, infrastructure breakdown, causing the world to pretty much fall apart. Mad Max has actually been referenced to when talking on this topic.

The darker side to these discussions were the extermination of races. The largest of which were India and africa due to the lack of contreceptive control and either eniviromental or religious belifes that exasberate the the problems.

Just becasuse you dont belive in them, dosnt mean that thier not there.

Meh, if im going to face impending doom, im gonna sit on the front lines with popcorn, a large coke and just laugh.

-Con

Back to top

Profile PM Email

Herakles

16

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 6th Mar 2009

Location: Lost in my own head

Posted: 3rd Jan 2010 20:45 Edited at: 3rd Jan 2010 20:48

I don't think that new technological advances are going to make that much of a difference. Look at the technology that's already been invented:

We have birth control technology, but there's still overpopulation problems. We have relatively good medical technology, but not everybody has access to it.

The problem lies with human nature and civilization as a whole. People aren't always responsible enough to use birth control. The system currently in place doesn't allow every one equal access to the same medical care. Not every nation has access the same level of technology as others do. And, even if they did, not all governments would use the technology in a wise and fair manner or allow all it's citizens equal access to it.

So, if the reality of human existance is to improve, we've all got to grow up a little. We've got to get over our vices and petty differences and realize that the reason why the world sucks so much is because of us human beings. Human beings have a lot of potential to be better, it's just that most people don't realize it. I don't claim to know what it is specifically what we have to do to get over our vices, but I do know that the way things are going isn't working.

So I'm pretty much and optimistic pessimist. I realize that the world is (and pretty much always has been) a pretty miserable place, and it's getting worse every year. But I also say that things have the potential to be better, if we just got over our petty vices.

Can you tell I like Star Trek?

Back to top

Profile PM

Yodaman Jer

User Banned

Posted: 3rd Jan 2010 20:50

Quote: "Can you tell I like Star Trek?"

I was thinking of that the entire time while reading your post.

Sign up here!

Back to top

Profile

lazerus

17

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 30th Apr 2008

Location:

Posted: 3rd Jan 2010 20:52

Aptly named Herakles, alas we are petty and vices are used to escape our mortality. Who knows? we might wake up one day right?

Back to top

Profile PM Email

NeX the Fairly Fast Ferret

20

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 10th Apr 2005

Location: The Fifth Plane of Oblivion

Posted: 3rd Jan 2010 21:01

Quote: "Who knows? we might wake up one day right?"

It's impossible. There's nothing to wake up from. We're bound by our own nature.

Athlon64 2.7gHz->OC 3.9gHz, 31C, MSi 9500GT->OC 1gHz core/2gHz memory, 48C, 4Gb DDR2 667, 500Gb Seagate + 80Gb Maxtor + 40Gb Maxtor = 620Gb, XP Home
Air cooled, total cost £160

Back to top

Profile PM Website

Herakles

16

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 6th Mar 2009

Location: Lost in my own head

Posted: 3rd Jan 2010 21:12

Quote: "We're bound by our own nature."

But that's the thing. We have redeeming qualities, and there are those out there who have been able to get over some human vices. So we have the potential to be better than we already are.

Back to top

Profile PM

Neuro Fuzzy

17

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 11th Jun 2007

Location:

Posted: 3rd Jan 2010 21:33

Quote: "So, if the reality of human existance is to improve, we've all got to grow up a little. We've got to get over our vices and petty differences and realize that the reason why the world sucks so much is because of us human beings."

O.o Who said that the world sucks so much?

<--- was it him? Don't listen to him!!!!

I think that at this point it would be incredibly hard to wipe out humanity. If there was an ice age, we would find a way to survive. If there was a giant world war, collectively, we would survive. If every possible earth based natural disaster happened at the same time, we would survive. If a gigantic asteroid was headed for earth, we might even survive then. The collective brainpower of the earth vs. a rock?

Back to top

Profile PM Email

CoffeeGrunt

17

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 5th Oct 2007

Location: England

Posted: 3rd Jan 2010 21:34 Edited at: 3rd Jan 2010 21:37

Mankind's selfishness kept us alive in the primitive ages, we can't let go of it now, it's instinct, we won't change ourselves but the world around us, at least not without mass reprogramming, but that's the stuff of Orwellian novels, and people would resist...

However, we've survived the invention of guns, two global wars, and sixty years of being nuclear capable. I'm sure if we can survive sixty years with enough Plutonium to send the planet into an apocalypse without a single launch, then we'll make it, we'll falter, maybe halt from time to time, but we'll keep on progressing...

Everything will get better, not on a year to year basis, but generally as we progress. I mean look at us, would we have this big a indie game design in the 80s, or the 90s? Could I find information as easily as the internet allows? Say all you want about mankind's self destructive nature, but it hasn't stopped us yet, so it won't stop us now...

-=EDIT=-

Just saw Neuro Fuzzy's post..

To prove his point, 2012, a movie about the complete human apocalypse, had to resort to terrible physical science, and over-the-over-the-top disasters to kill off mankind, and they survived in that...

In one form or another, we'll survive. They have vaults where they store all the photos and videos of D-Day and other important events, to preserve our culture and history...

Back to top

Profile PM Email

Herakles

16

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 6th Mar 2009

Location: Lost in my own head

Posted: 3rd Jan 2010 21:38 Edited at: 3rd Jan 2010 21:48

Who said anything about wiping out the human race?

Quote: "but we'll keep on progressing..."

But not all of the progress the human race has made is good. We've progressed disturbingly far with killing technology, and I think (with the way things have been going) it's only a matter of time until there's another large catastrophie. The question is: can the human race change things for the better before that happens?

Back to top

Profile PM

CoffeeGrunt

17

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 5th Oct 2007

Location: England

Posted: 3rd Jan 2010 21:41

I dunno...

I guess I misinterpreted your post on human nature as "WWIII will ded us."

Back to top

Profile PM Email

Gil Galvanti

20

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 22nd Dec 2004

Location: Texas, United States

Posted: 3rd Jan 2010 22:03 Edited at: 3rd Jan 2010 22:05

Quote: "The collective brainpower of the earth vs. a rock?"

Yeah, how could we not survive the impact of just some stupid rock?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYgEwXWilUc
Oh...that's how.

Quote: "I'm sure if we can survive sixty years with enough Plutonium to send the planet into an apocalypse without a single launch, then we'll make it, we'll falter, maybe halt from time to time, but we'll keep on progressing..."

Yes, but so far we've managed to keep nuclear weapons within the hands of people who won't push the big red button because of someone believing in a different God or way of life than them. Obviously the more time goes on, the more likely it is that they will fall into the "wrong" hands.

Quote: "To prove his point, 2012, a movie about the complete human apocalypse, had to resort to terrible physical science, and over-the-over-the-top disasters to kill off mankind, and they survived in that..."

So obviously since mankind survived such events in a disaster movie, they would easily do so if such things really did occur.

Sorry, maybe I'm misunderstanding, but your logic doesn't make any sense to me

.

I think people are underestimating the power of nature. No, I don't think that something like the Yellowstone super-volcano erupting would wipe us out, but it would certainly put a massive dent in our progress as a species. But there are much larger possibilities that would certainly destroy earth (much less, the human race). (like these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risks_to_civilization,_humans_and_planet_Earth

Back to top

Profile PM Website

CoffeeGrunt

17

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 5th Oct 2007

Location: England

Posted: 3rd Jan 2010 22:16

Quote: "Yes, but so far we've managed to keep nuclear weapons within the hands of people who won't push the big red button because of someone believing in a different God or way of life than them. Obviously the more time goes on, the more likely it is that they will fall into the "wrong" hands."

True, but we've prevented it so far, I mean how many of those nutjob Islamic extremists have managed to make dirty bombs, etc, but been caught out?

Quote: "So obviously since mankind survived such events in a disaster movie, they would easily do so if such things really did occur. Sorry, maybe I'm misunderstanding, but your logic doesn't make any sense to me."

I meant that in order for the species to be wiped out, it'd have to be some over the top, crazy ass explosive ground powderingly destructive thing to prevent us from hiding out in a bunker, subway station or cave somewhere to escape it...

Nuclear explosions can be avoided with a bunker, a tsunami with high ground, or a sealed underground vault, a meteorite of medium size, (not that uber rock in that video), could be survived in a vault far away from the epicenter...

Most natural disasters could be waited out if not prevented...

Back to top

Profile PM Email

demons breath

21

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 4th Oct 2003

Location: Surrey, UK

Posted: 4th Jan 2010 00:43

Quote: "how could we not survive the impact of just some stupid rock"

Well, it may kill us, but at least we'd be able to feel smug in our intellectual superiority.

Back to top

Profile PM Website

The Master Dinasty

16

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 14th Sep 2008

Location: Valhalla

Posted: 4th Jan 2010 02:36 Edited at: 4th Jan 2010 03:17

Theres only two things that matter s in the future.

1. Can we make contact with other intellegent beings?
2. Can we directly hook up the mind to a machine so we can simulate in a reality factor games, films and so on?

The only thing i am looking forward to is simulated reality think how much fun disabled pepole can have with that? You know what youre mind thinks is real.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBiyy_e_6U4&feature=related

-Massap2

Beacause massa is the master!
Staring blankly at the sun waiting for my time to come...

Back to top

Profile PM

Neuro Fuzzy

17

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 11th Jun 2007

Location:

Posted: 4th Jan 2010 06:54

Quote: "Yeah, how could we not survive the impact of just some stupid rock? "

I know that there are possible meteorite collisions that could bash earth back into a proto-earth like state, and i know that if one of those hit today we would all be horribly deaded, but we would probably be able to see a large body like that a decade early, which would give us ten years (or so) to throw everything we've got at the meteor. I'm talking preemptive actions. Also, that video doesn't have much basis in reality...

also, lol @ demons breath.

So... I said particle physics, robotics, or genetics (genetics/biology), but I think it's likely all of those will collide. Think quantum computed moon robot controlled by a human being with a genetically engineered USB port in the back of his neck

Back to top

Profile PM Email

demons breath

21

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 4th Oct 2003

Location: Surrey, UK

Posted: 4th Jan 2010 11:22

I think Massap's on the right track. Sod medicine, helping poorer countries and all that hippie rubbish - we need to focus on meeting spacemen and making better video games

Back to top

Profile PM Website

Herakles

16

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 6th Mar 2009

Location: Lost in my own head

Posted: 4th Jan 2010 23:22

There's only one thing I'm concerned about: finishing typing this post so I can sprint to the bathroom before I piss my pants. Yeah, that's about as far into the future as I think.

Back to top

Profile PM

The Master Dinasty

16

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 14th Sep 2008

Location: Valhalla

Posted: 5th Jan 2010 00:05

Quote: "I think Massap's on the right track. Sod medicine, helping poorer countries and all that hippie rubbish - we need to focus on meeting spacemen and making better video games "

lol

thats the things i care about

-Massap2

Beacause massa is the master!
Staring blankly at the sun waiting for my time to come...

Back to top

Profile PM

AndrewT

18

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 11th Feb 2007

Location: MI, USA

Posted: 5th Jan 2010 00:09

Quote: "which would give us ten years (or so) to throw everything we've got at the meteor."

If we attempt to eliminate a meteoroid by means of explosives, guns, etc. the meteoroid will not vanish--it will simply break into dozens of smaller pieces which will ultimately cause as much, if not more, damage as the original meteoroid. So we can safely cross "Blow it up" off of our list of meteoroid impact prevention methods.

i like orange

Back to top

Profile PM

BiggAdd

Retired Moderator

20

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 6th Aug 2004

Location: != null

Posted: 5th Jan 2010 00:14

Quote: "If we attempt to eliminate a meteoroid by means of explosives, guns, etc. the meteoroid will not vanish--it will simply break into dozens of smaller pieces which will ultimately cause as much, if not more, damage as the original meteoroid. So we can safely cross "Blow it up" off of our list of meteoroid impact prevention methods."

err... WRONG! Didn't you watch that Documentary with Bruce Willis? You simply land on the surface, drill down and blow it up.

(I am of course joking...)

Back to top

Profile PM

Yodaman Jer

User Banned

Posted: 5th Jan 2010 00:20

So let's just launch something to "nudge" the asteroid in a different direction. I think launching a

would be sufficient.

Sign up here!

Back to top

Profile

Indicium

16

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 26th May 2008

Location:

Posted: 5th Jan 2010 00:45

Quote: " So we can safely cross "Blow it up" off of our list of meteoroid impact prevention methods. "

Vapourise it

Back to top

Profile PM

puppyofkosh

18

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 9th Jan 2007

Location:

Posted: 5th Jan 2010 00:58

Yeah, I think one of the more effective methods thought up would be to put an object in orbit of the rock/asteroid/whatever in order to gradually change its course.

Back to top

Profile PM

Yodaman Jer

User Banned

Posted: 5th Jan 2010 00:59

Indeed! That way we avoid the risk of nuclear disasters and dangerous fragments of space rock hitting us.

Sign up here!

Back to top

Profile

Indicium

16

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 26th May 2008

Location:

Posted: 5th Jan 2010 01:42 Edited at: 5th Jan 2010 01:43

Or do an armageddon job!

(the movie btw)

EDIT:oh, im a little behind, nevermind XD

Back to top

Profile PM

demons breath

21

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 4th Oct 2003

Location: Surrey, UK

Posted: 5th Jan 2010 07:26

Quote: "Didn't you watch that Documentary with Bruce Willis?"

Blow it off course with a giant fan.

Back to top

Profile PM Website

Toasty Fresh

17

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 10th Jun 2007

Location: In my office, making poly-eating models.

Posted: 5th Jan 2010 08:40

Quote: "If we attempt to eliminate a meteoroid by means of explosives, guns, etc. the meteoroid will not vanish--it will simply break into dozens of smaller pieces which will ultimately cause as much, if not more, damage as the original meteoroid. So we can safely cross "Blow it up" off of our list of meteoroid impact prevention methods. "

But wouldn't those objects just end up spinning endlessly?

Your signature has been erased by a mod - Please reduce it to 600x120 maximum size

Back to top

Profile PM Email

Lonnehart

16

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 17th Apr 2009

Location:

Posted: 5th Jan 2010 09:27

No. They'll keep going. Sure we'll deflect some of them, but the larger pieces aren't going to budge as easily as the smaller one. Of course we could blow them up, but there'd be too many pieces to keep track of. Still, we could simply break the thing apart 'til the pieces are so small they'd burn up in the atmosphere. But I doubt we have enough explosives for that...

In the beginning there was nothing. There'll be nothing in the end...

Back to top

Profile PM

Dazzag

22

Years of Service

User Offline

Joined: 26th Aug 2002

Location: Cyprus

Posted: 5th Jan 2010 09:48