7 ms·

Errr. I think by 2400 we’ve got every chance of living in the ruins of a past grand human civilization. Trillion is nice sci fi. 10,000 years in the future wit

Errr. I think by 2400 we’ve got every chance of living in the ruins of a past grand human civilization. Trillion is nice sci fi. 10,000 years in the future with any recognizable civilization is even more of a stretch.

akie 8y ago
400 years is nothing. I mean, climate change is real and could be very damaging, but what aside from that and war - why do you think we’ll be living amongst ruins? That seems overly pessimistic to me.
- senorjazz 8y ago
  Water is already running out in many areas of the world. Rains are failing worldwide. No water = no food. Where millions perhaps billions of people are on the move, societies will break down. Look what is happening on the European and US borders and the hysteria it generates when the migration is but a trickle of what is to come. Yes humanity and technology is moving forward at record speeds, but at what cost to the world majority? To the environment. I think by 2400 is a rather optimistic figure, it is likely to be much sooner
  - ben_w 8y ago
    Fresh water is running out. If you have enough cheap energy, desalination solves that problem.
- philipov 8y ago
  400 years is enough time for us to nuke ourselves out of being able to sustain our society, and climate change is a classic cause of wars.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  30 years ago there was a very real prospect of a Worldwide nuclear war -- my mother was, in the UK, involved in creation of shelters to allow some kernel to survive the ensuing nuclear winter. Apocalyptic films were portending doom and in school we watched films about what to do if there was a nuclear blast. There have been massive wars/killings, massive famines, massive epidemics. We're in what may well be a local maxima, or perhaps an overall maxima. There are a lot of challenges to face that we need to unify to fight, like water poverty, food security, avoiding escalation of conflict - and not much sign of greater unification (quite the opposite AFAICT). IMO we can turn it around, but we're going to have to have a sudden outbreak of altruism.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > water poverty, food security, avoiding escalation of conflict Two out of three of those problems are getting easier with technology (renewable energy for desalination and smart agriculture). If we leave this maxima, it will be because we permitted nuclear proliferation. Even that isn’t inescapable, however.
ekianjo 8y ago
Thats a pretty pessimistic view to have when we live in an era of ongoing progress in almost every area.
- walkingolof 8y ago
  Yes! Reading tip for the the pessimist: https://www.amazon.com/Factfulness-Reasons-World-Things-Better/dp/1250107814 https://www.amazon.com/Factfulness-Reasons-World-Things-Bett...
- lord_ring_111 8y ago
  Speaking of pessimism, i just hope we humans destroy each other before we destroy earth to pave way to species which is not so hell bent on personal over society.
- crabmusket 8y ago
  A pessimistic or at least skeptical dialectic counterpart to the optimistic/progressive worldview is a valuable thing to have, I think. You can't reach into people's brains and change their temperament (yet! say the optimists) but I don't think we should want to. And not allpessimism/skepticism is based on temperament, though certainly some is.
- pavs 8y ago
  That's a very anthropocentric view. We have a single point of failure. It's not likely to drastically change in any reasonable time-frame.
BjoernKW 8y ago
A stretch indeed but interesting to think about nonetheless: 10,000 years in the future is the premise of Frank Herbert‘s Dune. The novel (or rather the series) depicts a mankind that on one hand in some ways has evolved way beyond humanity’s current capabilities. On the other hand, society has devolved into a feudal state. Some technologies are shunned and outlawed for their destructive potential, most notably nuclear weapons and “thinking machines” (there’s some room for interpretation if this just means AI or computers in general), which have been replaced by “mentats” (basically human computers).
alf-pogz 8y ago
I don't get it. I mean this is the premise of many sci-fi stories, but humanity has made pretty steady civilized progress since its inferred inception. There isn't much of a reason to believe this pessimism.
- jonhendry18 8y ago
  Have you met humans?
- losteric 8y ago
  Prior civilizations collapsed after over-exploiting their environment, and we're making the same mistake on a global scale. Our complex supply chains based on fossil fuels are rather fragile - we will likely survive a collapse at reduced quality of a life, however total recovery may be slow or impossible depending on remaining resources.
  - alf-pogz 8y ago
    We can produce more food than ever with less energy. Knowledge transfer is always improving, and with computer programs it will be even easier to transfer knowledge. You guys need to clarify what "a collapse" is. Not eating as much meat? Do you really think that we would not be able to power our computers or not be able to produce rice/wheat on any industrial scale? The amount of FUD spread without any foundation for it is maddening.
    - ThrowawayR2 8y ago
      > We can produce more food than ever with less energy. Knowledge transfer is always improving... I imagine that's what people said before the Dark Ages too. It's not as if empires and civilizations haven't ever fallen before.
      - alf-pogz 8y ago
        Yes, but civilizations and empires are not representative of the progress of humanity as a whole. Besides, isn't Dark Ages a rejected term by historians now? In addition, what is 200-400 years in the history of civilization? Of course there will be volatility - just like life on an individual level, the stock market, annual crop yields, etc.

akie 8y ago

400 years is nothing. I mean, climate change is real and could be very damaging, but what aside from that and war - why do you think we’ll be living amongst ruins? That seems overly pessimistic to me.

senorjazz 8y ago
Water is already running out in many areas of the world. Rains are failing worldwide. No water = no food. Where millions perhaps billions of people are on the move, societies will break down. Look what is happening on the European and US borders and the hysteria it generates when the migration is but a trickle of what is to come. Yes humanity and technology is moving forward at record speeds, but at what cost to the world majority? To the environment. I think by 2400 is a rather optimistic figure, it is likely to be much sooner
- ben_w 8y ago
  Fresh water is running out. If you have enough cheap energy, desalination solves that problem.
philipov 8y ago
400 years is enough time for us to nuke ourselves out of being able to sustain our society, and climate change is a classic cause of wars.
pbhjpbhj 8y ago
30 years ago there was a very real prospect of a Worldwide nuclear war -- my mother was, in the UK, involved in creation of shelters to allow some kernel to survive the ensuing nuclear winter. Apocalyptic films were portending doom and in school we watched films about what to do if there was a nuclear blast. There have been massive wars/killings, massive famines, massive epidemics. We're in what may well be a local maxima, or perhaps an overall maxima. There are a lot of challenges to face that we need to unify to fight, like water poverty, food security, avoiding escalation of conflict - and not much sign of greater unification (quite the opposite AFAICT). IMO we can turn it around, but we're going to have to have a sudden outbreak of altruism.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > water poverty, food security, avoiding escalation of conflict Two out of three of those problems are getting easier with technology (renewable energy for desalination and smart agriculture). If we leave this maxima, it will be because we permitted nuclear proliferation. Even that isn’t inescapable, however.

ekianjo 8y ago

Thats a pretty pessimistic view to have when we live in an era of ongoing progress in almost every area.

walkingolof 8y ago
Yes! Reading tip for the the pessimist: https://www.amazon.com/Factfulness-Reasons-World-Things-Better/dp/1250107814 https://www.amazon.com/Factfulness-Reasons-World-Things-Bett...
lord_ring_111 8y ago
Speaking of pessimism, i just hope we humans destroy each other before we destroy earth to pave way to species which is not so hell bent on personal over society.
crabmusket 8y ago
A pessimistic or at least skeptical dialectic counterpart to the optimistic/progressive worldview is a valuable thing to have, I think. You can't reach into people's brains and change their temperament (yet! say the optimists) but I don't think we should want to. And not allpessimism/skepticism is based on temperament, though certainly some is.
pavs 8y ago
That's a very anthropocentric view. We have a single point of failure. It's not likely to drastically change in any reasonable time-frame.

BjoernKW 8y ago

A stretch indeed but interesting to think about nonetheless: 10,000 years in the future is the premise of Frank Herbert‘s Dune. The novel (or rather the series) depicts a mankind that on one hand in some ways has evolved way beyond humanity’s current capabilities. On the other hand, society has devolved into a feudal state. Some technologies are shunned and outlawed for their destructive potential, most notably nuclear weapons and “thinking machines” (there’s some room for interpretation if this just means AI or computers in general), which have been replaced by “mentats” (basically human computers).

alf-pogz 8y ago

I don't get it. I mean this is the premise of many sci-fi stories, but humanity has made pretty steady civilized progress since its inferred inception. There isn't much of a reason to believe this pessimism.

jonhendry18 8y ago
Have you met humans?
losteric 8y ago
Prior civilizations collapsed after over-exploiting their environment, and we're making the same mistake on a global scale. Our complex supply chains based on fossil fuels are rather fragile - we will likely survive a collapse at reduced quality of a life, however total recovery may be slow or impossible depending on remaining resources.
- alf-pogz 8y ago
  We can produce more food than ever with less energy. Knowledge transfer is always improving, and with computer programs it will be even easier to transfer knowledge. You guys need to clarify what "a collapse" is. Not eating as much meat? Do you really think that we would not be able to power our computers or not be able to produce rice/wheat on any industrial scale? The amount of FUD spread without any foundation for it is maddening.
  - ThrowawayR2 8y ago
    > We can produce more food than ever with less energy. Knowledge transfer is always improving... I imagine that's what people said before the Dark Ages too. It's not as if empires and civilizations haven't ever fallen before.
    - alf-pogz 8y ago
      Yes, but civilizations and empires are not representative of the progress of humanity as a whole. Besides, isn't Dark Ages a rejected term by historians now? In addition, what is 200-400 years in the history of civilization? Of course there will be volatility - just like life on an individual level, the stock market, annual crop yields, etc.