Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTerrorist
|
I don't know why but I always find these "100 hundred years into the future" guessing games annoying, so if I come off antagonistic... please pardon it. I can;t help it!
Who made up that list? #2, #3, #4, #7, #13 are laughable. #9 has already occurred.
#9 nuclear fusion has been possible via tokamak and FI processes for a while now. It's even reached break-even points. So how is this at a prediction and not just a: "Let's look at current technology and say that in X years it will still be here!" Solar farming is also effectively a non-prediction. The only thing #9 predicts is the disappearance of wind energy... great? What about Liquid Thorium Reactors? How bout any of the other actually theoretical energy production methods?
#4 would be frightening beyond imagination not to mention akin to pure magic (yes, yes sufficiently advanced tech is like magic) at this point in time because of the chaotic formulations involved in even the simplest weather patterns when looked at not only from a global scale but extra-planetary. Our weather isn't some nice random number generator that we can muck with as we please and to be able to control it would be like saying we can control the sun... because we'd effectively have to to stop its micro-effects on our weather (the slightest change induced by the sun would cause a massive butterfly effect on our "controlled weather"). Sure, we might get very good at
predicting the weather but we're likely never going to gain full control over it (and why would you bother? It would be so painstakingly difficult) so long as the system is open to external influences such as but not limited to: the Coriolis Effect, Solar Winds. Solar Spots, Solar Releases. Then again, reading over the paragraph again what they're talking about isn't controlling the weather but mediating it.
#2 & #7 I'll believe right after Quantum Computing breaks out of its 5-10 year stupor of no progress and someone comes around to clarify two things: how does the brain actually work, why would these be good ideas? (Futurists honestly puzzle me with their fascination on merging man with machine, why not just bioengineer better people? Did mother nature's continuing work really not sit well with them, because I feel that her billions of years of experience probably trump our couple hundred.) Otherwise, the prediction is again half a non-prediction and futurist mumbo-jumbo that I'd expect from the mouth of Kurzweil. We can already send signals through wireless to machines (such as a replacement limbs) to have them function as extensions of our physical selves. Uploading of thoughts, ideas, and in general the qualia that define a person to the internet, however, are straight from Kurzweil's notes of "uploading human brains by 2050!", sure Mr. Kurzweil. While we're at it, let's also solve the
No Cloning Problem. (Also, complete aside, but why would people want to augment their fleshy carbon-based brain with... anything? Your brain is already susceptible enough to damage but now your going to introduce a weakness that it didn't have previously with no real benefit that talking doesn't convey.)
#3 espouses hive minds... pass. It also espouses the end of humanity because immortal super people means immortal, unchanging, super people, ripe for destruction by your ever changing, ever menacing viruses. Let's not forget super stupidity.
Bioengineer people to be better, healthier, longer living, but don't make everyone immortal. That would just wreck society and people's motivation to do anything. Only a handful of mindsets would ever be able to handle immortality without falling into the pit of disinterest because of infinite time.
I'm going to stop now... I'm sorry.