Skip to main content
Log In | Register

TR Memescape


Topic: Life on Earth in 100 Years (Read 277 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • 1,967

  • 671

Life on Earth in 100 Years

  • 2,690

  • 641

Re: Life on Earth in 100 Years
Reply #1
Blog won't load, sez 'error'. :(

Or... maybe it's a conceptual writing exercise and means to ironically suggest we can't possibly know the future.

  • 1,967

  • 671

Re: Life on Earth in 100 Years
Reply #2
Hm. It loads for me but it's slower than before. Maybe it's getting too much traffic right now.

  • 2,690

  • 641

Re: Life on Earth in 100 Years
Reply #3
Probably. I'll try later.

  • RAFH
  • Needs a Life
  • Have a life, already.
  • 3,048

  • 246

Re: Life on Earth in 100 Years
Reply #4
The usual. Ad by Samsung.

Won't everything be just so super-telekinetic or something.

Perhaps for the 1%. The rest of us may get some benefits.

And if there's going to be flying cars, they better work out the whole autonomous driving thing because as it is, most people are terrible drivers. Just the other day someone smashed into the Churches Chicken place up the road at 4am. I mean, WTF? "I guess I'll just take a hard right here. Oops."
Are we there yet?

  • 2,690

  • 641

Re: Life on Earth in 100 Years
Reply #5
from the page:

Quote
Dr Maggie Aderin-Pocock, a space scientist who co-authored the report for SmartThings, says, "Our lives today are almost unrecognizable from those a century ago. Just ten years ago, technology like SmartThings would have been inconceivable, yet today developments like this let us monitor, control and secure our living spaces with the touch of a smartphone, Dr Maggie explained.
I don't know where she was hiding ten years ago, or even twenty or thirty, but it's not the least bit true that such tech was 'inconceivable' so recently. Much of it was in use by the wealthy, and was predicted as early as the 50s.

I'm nit-picking, of course, I followed the blog source back and it is here: https://www.minds.com/MemeticStudios which seems to be an 'unusual stories' or clickbait stories aggregator.

It isn't easy to find good future discussions via search. The very word 'future' has been co-opted by the advertising industry, especially the tech sector.

'k, bit pessimistic today. :ohdear:

  • 1,967

  • 671

Re: Life on Earth in 100 Years
Reply #6
Have you ever read David Brin's novel Earth?

It was written in 1990.  His near-future speculation is already on the mark in a lot of ways, and the direction continues to look pretty accurate.

  • 2,690

  • 641

Re: Life on Earth in 100 Years
Reply #7
I haven't, though I've read a couple Brin novels, most recently Glory Season. He always has some interesting science - GS features a lot of complex genetic and social manipulation enforced by culture.

Science fiction writers have often seemed better at prediction than 'futurologists', not only regarding science but also social and cultural progress.

  • RAFH
  • Needs a Life
  • Have a life, already.
  • 3,048

  • 246

Re: Life on Earth in 100 Years
Reply #8
Have you ever read David Brin's novel Earth?

It was written in 1990.  His near-future speculation is already on the mark in a lot of ways, and the direction continues to look pretty accurate.
Gibson is better.
Are we there yet?

  • 1,967

  • 671

Re: Life on Earth in 100 Years
Reply #9
Yeah, Glory Season's culture and history are complex and covoluted, especially given how those convolutions were meant to create a society so stable it might better be termed "static.".

Brin describes himself as a scientist, futurist and author.

  • Faid
  • Needs a Life
  • 2,626

  • 485

Re: Life on Earth in 100 Years
Reply #10
Stopped reading after "drone taxis".
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • 2,690

  • 641

Re: Life on Earth in 100 Years
Reply #11
They always go the flying car route. Right back to the 40s at least, futurists have dreamed of flying personal cars. It's rare they address the hazards of so many vehicles travelling in three dimensions. Aircraft require great diligence to prevent collisions.

In the mid-sixties my high school liked to bring in these travelling 'educational' exhibits. One of them was a demo of 'future technology'. I can't recall much of it, but one example was a refrigerator that included some kind of hovering technology, either an air cushion or powerful magnets, I can't remember. The demonstrator triumphantly pushed the fridge around with one finger and predicted all large appliances and furniture would include this convenience. Half a century later I'd settle for some sturdy wheels on my fridge, still not a feature, not even on my washer, though my grandmother's 1940s behemoth of a wringer washer included them.

  • Faid
  • Needs a Life
  • 2,626

  • 485

Re: Life on Earth in 100 Years
Reply #12
Yeah the flying car prediction is pretty much a constant for over a century. Even in the 1890s there were predictions of private flying baloon-coaches. And yet, no one even had a glimpse of say, computers (let alone the internet).

Predictions fail us because 99% of the time we go the easy route: Look at what represents 'cutting-edge tech' in our day, and simply project it magnified to the future. The drone thing represents that (inherently lazy) type of imagination nicely: "So, what's like hot right now? Hmm, gotta be them drone thingies, right? OK let's say we have those in a hundred years, only bigger and better, like- I know! Drone TAXIS! Did I just blow your mind or what?".

We often smile condescendingly, when we see old pictures showing how people once imagined the future (you know, like aerial traffic jams with biplanes in the thirties, or 'atom-powered' hoovers in the fifties). But I often imagine that our descendants will see our predictions, in all our 'news sites' and 'online articles' (preserved in some historical database 'museum', perhaps)... And smile even more.
  • Last Edit: July 06, 2016, 06:46:37 AM by Faid
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • 57

  • 11

Re: Life on Earth in 100 Years
Reply #13
Perhaps it isn't realistic, but people are still working on developing the widely available personal aircraft ("drone taxi") idea.

  • 6,705

  • 987

Re: Life on Earth in 100 Years
Reply #14
To see into the future, it seems to me that we are looking at what massive data crunching could produce and how poverty is likely to be addressed in alternate scenarios of relative resource abundance and scarcity.

That or a post-apocalypse situation.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
  • 4,042

  • 825

Re: Life on Earth in 100 Years
Reply #15
Fuck the flying cars. All of these have just come through in the last couple of days.

Australia's vast kelp forests devastated by marine heatwave, study reveals

Quote
A hundred kilometres of kelp forests off the western coast of Australia were wiped out by a marine heatwave between 2010 and 2013, a new study has revealed.

About 90% of the forests that make up the north-western tip of the Great Southern Reef disappeared over the period, replaced by seaweed turfs, corals, and coral fish usually found in tropical and subtropical waters.

The Great Southern Reef is a system of rocky reefs covered by kelp forests that runs for 2,300km along the south coast of Australia, extending past Sydney on the east coast, down to Tasmania and, previously, back up to Kalbarri on the west coast.

It supports most of the nation's fisheries, including the lucrative rock lobster and abalone fisheries, and is worth about $10bn to the Australian economy. It is also a global biodiversity hotspot, with up to 30% of species endemic.

Dr Thomas Wernberg, from the University of Western Australia's oceans institute and lead author of the study, told the Guardian that 100km of kelp forest died following a marine heatwave in 2011 which saw the ocean temperature increase by 2C.

The death of the kelp caused the functional extinction of 370sq km of rocky cool-climate reefs, extending down the coast from Kalbarri, about 570km north of Perth, Western Australia.

Great Barrier Reef: government must choose which parts to save, says expert

Quote
Governments must decide which parts of the Great Barrier Reef they most want to save and confront the prospect that some of it may be doomed, an expert on conservation modelling has warned.

University of Queensland professor Hugh Possingham said agencies, including the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, needed to make tough decisions about which parts of the natural wonder are most worth preserving "rather than trying to save everything".

Possingham said the looming "triple whammy" of global warming's impact on the reef - warmer seas, more acidity and more cyclones - meant time was running out and "triage" priorities were needed.


'Shocking images' reveal death of 10,000 hectares of mangroves across Northern Australia

Quote
Close to 10,000 hectares of mangroves have died across a stretch of coastline reaching from Queensland to the Northern Territory.

International mangroves expert Dr Norm Duke said he had no doubt the "dieback" was related to climate change.

"It's a world-first in terms of the scale of mangrove that have died," he told the ABC.

Dr Duke flew 200 kilometres between the mouths of the Roper and McArthur Rivers in the Northern Territory last month to survey the extent of the dieback.

He described the scene as the most "dramatic, pronounced extreme level of dieback that I've ever observed".
Truth is out of style

  • 2,690

  • 641

Re: Life on Earth in 100 Years
Reply #16
That's more than tragic, os. :(

And it's been cold here, in almost mid july, for the last 3 days. They had frost in some parts of Newfoundland. It's 12C right now.

On the bright side, our kelp forest seems a bit more healthy.

  • 1,967

  • 671

Re: Life on Earth in 100 Years
Reply #17
I ran across this page yesterday.  Artists' impressions from about 100 years ago, of what the year 2000 would look like.  The war vehicles are pretty eerie.  And the personal flying machines look Da Vinci-esque.  H.G. Wells and Jules Verne seem to have shaped some of the visions.  Playing croquet on the ocean floor was pretty cute!