5 ms·

These predictions are like puzzle pieces that don't fit together. If 50% of the population are COVID invalids, who's going to be doing the (building) work for

These predictions are like puzzle pieces that don't fit together. If 50% of the population are COVID invalids, who's going to be doing the (building) work for a new economic boom? You can't seriously say "I'm going to make predictions - but let's just ignore the most important health event for over a century." So - mRNA vaccinations. If you can vaccinate against AIDS, flu, cancer (being investigated...), and the rest, you get a bimodal population where a fair proportion of those born before Vaccination Day are cripples, and potentially everyone born after is super-immune to many killer diseases. The important word being "potentially." Political implications? Just a bit. If there's a permanent Moon base - so what? Does anything really change? How? (What - in practical and economic terms, as opposed to symbolically - did the ISS change?) Can you even have a self-sustaining Moon base without relying on Earth. (Hint: not for a long time.) Cars: I really don't think many people are going to be thinking about cars in 2030-2040. Cars are useless if your roads/buildings are flooded/burning. Robots? Possibly. (See also: economic boom. Kind of) But behind this the real issues are psychological. The planet without toxic media and mad billionaires is a much nicer place than the planet with them. Many of the biggest trad-media offenders will be dead by 2030. Will they be replaced? Will there be a Metaverse Abstinence movement? Can one be engineered? I'd like to believe we can beat the raccoons yet.

SavantIdiot 5y ago
I'm with you 100%. I think Stross is just going for laughs. 2031 is way too soon for much of this, when you consider where we were in 2011 compared to today. Musk may shoot his load to the Moon or Mars for twitter likes, but in terms of funding and feasibility, I don't think he'll have the same billions to play with in 10 years, and NASA needs a decade headstart. China and India seem unlikely to shoot for Mars since they are focused on the global production (China) or their own capital boom (India).
maxerickson 5y ago
The "Great Lakes megalopolis" is hundreds of feet above sea level and getting wetter with the warming. Lots of people will still be worried about cars for a long time.
gregmac 5y ago
> If there's a permanent Moon base - so what? Does anything really change? How? (What - in practical and economic terms, as opposed to symbolically - did the ISS change?) There are a lot of benefits from the ISS: There's the joint effort between otherwise adversarial countries. Even if it's just "symbolic" the most optimistic view of this would be it's been a contributor to preventing an outright war. There's also the inspirational aspect that gets people interested in STEM with a very concrete and exciting application (even little kids find rocket launches exciting). More people interested in and entering STEM fields means more technology advancements. I'd argue this is not just a "symbolic" benefit, even in the case of inspiring kids where it can take a decade or more for them to graduate and actually start contributing. There are also lots of real,b practical improvements to life on Earth. Sometimes it's just another use of technology developed for space, which otherwise wouldn't be pursued or funded, such as improved ways to grow plants, water purification, and remote medical and surgical procedures. It's not that these aren't possible to fund purely for Earth-based applications, but the trouble is the people with the money and skill don't have the need, and vice-versa. There's also been unpredictable discoveries, such as bone density loss in astronauts leading to better understanding bones at a cellular level and treatments for things like osteoporosis. There's also a bunch of discoveries from experiments in zero-gravity: growing microbes, crystal structures and in fluid dynamics. It's a good assumption that being on the Moon will have similar technology advances and (currently unknowable) discoveries. [1] https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/15_ways_iss_benefits_earth https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/15_...
SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
> If 50% of the population are COVID invalids, who's going to be doing the (building) work for a new economic boom? This is a good question to raise, and IMHO does not invalidate the original piece: Two plausible predictions, but how do they interact? Which one gets the short end of the stick? Are the able-bodied hard at work throwing up temporary homes for invalids?
- groby_b 5y ago
  Combine this with "but robots", and a somewhat small group of actual human beings will still be needed to do work. Combine that with the eugenics trend we're currently on, and, well, happy dreams.
  - jumelles 5y ago
    > the eugenics trend we're currently on The what
    - jhgb 5y ago
      The only one that comes to my mind is antivaxxers selecting themselves out of the population. Not sure if that's what GP has in mind.
    - groby_b 5y ago
      * The fervent belief that somehow people with comorbidities dying, or old people dying, is OK. * The continuous drumbeat that the world would be better off if there were just fewer people * The Tanton Group's influence on politics * The rise of nationalism & authoritarianism (which inevitably leads to "the strong shall survive" eugenics movement) * The debate about individual adjustment of healthcare payments based on fine-grained risk assessments. None of these will (I hope?) result in the forced mass-sterilizations of the early 20th century eugenics movement, but these trends overall should give us at least pause. They are all centered on the belief that some people's lives are worth more than others.
SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
> The planet without toxic media and mad billionaires is a much nicer place than the planet with them. Many of the biggest trad-media offenders will be dead by 2030. Will they be replaced I'd like to hope that they won't, but why? The same forces that produced the current crop are no weaker, indeed stronger. Past performance indicates that there will be more.
- redisman 5y ago
  The alternatives popping up are largely even worse than traditional media. Full on Fantasy as news. Whatever makes people feel enraged/smug. I’m not sure why everyone is cheering the death of all these institutions when there are no society stabilizing alternatives anywhere
  - ekanes 5y ago
    You are right. As for why, the incongruent cheering could be because people feel a little betrayed. Personally, I'm bummed that all news has bias and recycling is a sham.
djokkataja 5y ago
> If there's a permanent Moon base - so what? Does anything really change? How? (What - in practical and economic terms, as opposed to symbolically - did the ISS change?) Can you even have a self-sustaining Moon base without relying on Earth. (Hint: not for a long time.) In practical terms, permanent Moon bases could make it easier to get to the rest of the solar system: > Perhaps a more immediate use for this water, though, is to make rocket fuel. Water molecules are made of hydrogen and oxygen, both of which are super useful for rocket propellants. The molecules can be split apart by running an electric current through the water (electrolysis), yielding hydrogen and oxygen, which can then be stored as liquids, ready to fuel a rocket. > If only there were places for rockets to refuel somewhere along the way … like, perhaps, a service station orbiting the Moon. This could allow rockets to leave Earth with just enough fuel to make it to the Moon, where they could then re-fuel before moving on to the next destination. Alternatively, fuel from the Moon could be transported to a fuel depot in low Earth orbit, allowing rockets to dock for re-fuelling closer to home. Either way, it means a more efficient use of fuel and energy that could potentially allow spacecraft to travel a lot deeper into space and lower the costs of space exploration activities. https://www.science.org.au/curious/space-time/mining-moon https://www.science.org.au/curious/space-time/mining-moon I agree that it's not likely to be very significant if we're only looking 10 years ahead, but on a longer timescale, I think it will be almost absurdist to look at the little steps we took to get off planet as unimportant. Sort of like saying that Europe has been largely unaffected by Christopher Columbus getting in a boat and going for a joyride across the Atlantic, though I suppose there could be a case made for that. > But behind this the real issues are psychological. The planet without toxic media and mad billionaires is a much nicer place than the planet with them. Many of the biggest trad-media offenders will be dead by 2030. Will they be replaced? Will there be a Metaverse Abstinence movement? Can one be engineered? This is one way in which I see a Moon base as an important symbol even over the shorter term. Something that could prompt realizations along the lines of: "We're not stuck here on this planet, we can go elsewhere and live in other ways... so maybe we can live in other ways here on Earth, too. Our reality can be what we choose to make of it together, not an 'inevitably' shitty situation where one of us is stomping on the other's head forever."

SavantIdiot 5y ago

I'm with you 100%. I think Stross is just going for laughs. 2031 is way too soon for much of this, when you consider where we were in 2011 compared to today. Musk may shoot his load to the Moon or Mars for twitter likes, but in terms of funding and feasibility, I don't think he'll have the same billions to play with in 10 years, and NASA needs a decade headstart. China and India seem unlikely to shoot for Mars since they are focused on the global production (China) or their own capital boom (India).

maxerickson 5y ago

The "Great Lakes megalopolis" is hundreds of feet above sea level and getting wetter with the warming. Lots of people will still be worried about cars for a long time.

gregmac 5y ago

> If there's a permanent Moon base - so what? Does anything really change? How? (What - in practical and economic terms, as opposed to symbolically - did the ISS change?) There are a lot of benefits from the ISS: There's the joint effort between otherwise adversarial countries. Even if it's just "symbolic" the most optimistic view of this would be it's been a contributor to preventing an outright war. There's also the inspirational aspect that gets people interested in STEM with a very concrete and exciting application (even little kids find rocket launches exciting). More people interested in and entering STEM fields means more technology advancements. I'd argue this is not just a "symbolic" benefit, even in the case of inspiring kids where it can take a decade or more for them to graduate and actually start contributing. There are also lots of real,b practical improvements to life on Earth. Sometimes it's just another use of technology developed for space, which otherwise wouldn't be pursued or funded, such as improved ways to grow plants, water purification, and remote medical and surgical procedures. It's not that these aren't possible to fund purely for Earth-based applications, but the trouble is the people with the money and skill don't have the need, and vice-versa. There's also been unpredictable discoveries, such as bone density loss in astronauts leading to better understanding bones at a cellular level and treatments for things like osteoporosis. There's also a bunch of discoveries from experiments in zero-gravity: growing microbes, crystal structures and in fluid dynamics. It's a good assumption that being on the Moon will have similar technology advances and (currently unknowable) discoveries. [1] https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/15_ways_iss_benefits_earth https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/15_...

SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago

> If 50% of the population are COVID invalids, who's going to be doing the (building) work for a new economic boom? This is a good question to raise, and IMHO does not invalidate the original piece: Two plausible predictions, but how do they interact? Which one gets the short end of the stick? Are the able-bodied hard at work throwing up temporary homes for invalids?

groby_b 5y ago
Combine this with "but robots", and a somewhat small group of actual human beings will still be needed to do work. Combine that with the eugenics trend we're currently on, and, well, happy dreams.
- jumelles 5y ago
  > the eugenics trend we're currently on The what
  - jhgb 5y ago
    The only one that comes to my mind is antivaxxers selecting themselves out of the population. Not sure if that's what GP has in mind.
  - groby_b 5y ago
    * The fervent belief that somehow people with comorbidities dying, or old people dying, is OK. * The continuous drumbeat that the world would be better off if there were just fewer people * The Tanton Group's influence on politics * The rise of nationalism & authoritarianism (which inevitably leads to "the strong shall survive" eugenics movement) * The debate about individual adjustment of healthcare payments based on fine-grained risk assessments. None of these will (I hope?) result in the forced mass-sterilizations of the early 20th century eugenics movement, but these trends overall should give us at least pause. They are all centered on the belief that some people's lives are worth more than others.

SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago

> The planet without toxic media and mad billionaires is a much nicer place than the planet with them. Many of the biggest trad-media offenders will be dead by 2030. Will they be replaced I'd like to hope that they won't, but why? The same forces that produced the current crop are no weaker, indeed stronger. Past performance indicates that there will be more.

redisman 5y ago
The alternatives popping up are largely even worse than traditional media. Full on Fantasy as news. Whatever makes people feel enraged/smug. I’m not sure why everyone is cheering the death of all these institutions when there are no society stabilizing alternatives anywhere
- ekanes 5y ago
  You are right. As for why, the incongruent cheering could be because people feel a little betrayed. Personally, I'm bummed that all news has bias and recycling is a sham.

djokkataja 5y ago

> If there's a permanent Moon base - so what? Does anything really change? How? (What - in practical and economic terms, as opposed to symbolically - did the ISS change?) Can you even have a self-sustaining Moon base without relying on Earth. (Hint: not for a long time.) In practical terms, permanent Moon bases could make it easier to get to the rest of the solar system: > Perhaps a more immediate use for this water, though, is to make rocket fuel. Water molecules are made of hydrogen and oxygen, both of which are super useful for rocket propellants. The molecules can be split apart by running an electric current through the water (electrolysis), yielding hydrogen and oxygen, which can then be stored as liquids, ready to fuel a rocket. > If only there were places for rockets to refuel somewhere along the way … like, perhaps, a service station orbiting the Moon. This could allow rockets to leave Earth with just enough fuel to make it to the Moon, where they could then re-fuel before moving on to the next destination. Alternatively, fuel from the Moon could be transported to a fuel depot in low Earth orbit, allowing rockets to dock for re-fuelling closer to home. Either way, it means a more efficient use of fuel and energy that could potentially allow spacecraft to travel a lot deeper into space and lower the costs of space exploration activities. https://www.science.org.au/curious/space-time/mining-moon https://www.science.org.au/curious/space-time/mining-moon I agree that it's not likely to be very significant if we're only looking 10 years ahead, but on a longer timescale, I think it will be almost absurdist to look at the little steps we took to get off planet as unimportant. Sort of like saying that Europe has been largely unaffected by Christopher Columbus getting in a boat and going for a joyride across the Atlantic, though I suppose there could be a case made for that. > But behind this the real issues are psychological. The planet without toxic media and mad billionaires is a much nicer place than the planet with them. Many of the biggest trad-media offenders will be dead by 2030. Will they be replaced? Will there be a Metaverse Abstinence movement? Can one be engineered? This is one way in which I see a Moon base as an important symbol even over the shorter term. Something that could prompt realizations along the lines of: "We're not stuck here on this planet, we can go elsewhere and live in other ways... so maybe we can live in other ways here on Earth, too. Our reality can be what we choose to make of it together, not an 'inevitably' shitty situation where one of us is stomping on the other's head forever."