this post was submitted on
12 points (65% like it)
25 up votes 13 down votes
all 73 comments

[–]roosterlollipops 13 points14 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Dunno man. When I was a little kid, I figured that the year 2000 was gonna be a big deal; flying cars and world peace and shit...

I figure it's gonna be a lot like it is now, just dirtier and more crowded.

[–]Rubin0 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

More assholes on Bluetooth.

[–]MrSurly 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Huh. Weird. I usually just put it in my ear.

[–]darklooshkin 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

A Bluetooth-based asshole collective... I think that sums it up.

[–]TheMemo 10 points11 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Much like today. Only worse.

[–]punninglinguist 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

One specific prediction: I think China is going to be the next melting pot. They've set themselves up for a population crash with the one-child policy, and they'll have no choice but to admit young, ambitious immigrants. This will have huge consequences for the way the country is run.

[–]eaturbrainz 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Sooo... Firefly?

[–]cartoonvillain 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yea exactly like that, sans the dashing rogues, desirable call girls, interstellar travel, sexy mechanics, interesting plot lines, and people driven by higher moral imperatives... exactly like Firefly.

[–]eaturbrainz 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Sooo... Dollhouse?

[–]somewiseperson[S] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I agree and disagree. China's population has continued to grow even with the one child policy and the policy is only enforced in urban areas and even then you can still apply for a second child. Some families even simply buy off officials in order to have a second child.

China will play a vastly bigger role in the future though due to how the country's economy is rapidly growing and also once the youth in china is at an age where they start to inherit the country a lot is going to change policy wise. Once the young people from the tiananmen square days grew up and start assuming more dominant roles the country changed a lot, and it is seen by us today. The self proclaimed communist country has starbucks, mcdonalds, kfc etc which formerly they considered evils of the west.

TLDR; China will play a major role in the future but not with immigrants it will because the of their economic growth and the ideological changes of it's former youth.

[–]punninglinguist 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's been 21 years since the Tiananmen Square events. Those student-aged protesters are now in their late 30s and early 40s. Yet the young and middle-aged Chinese seem as nationalistic and supportive of the Communist Party as they've ever been.

You may be right about the population dynamics not turning into a problem (though I think the unbalanced male/female ratio will wind up being dangerous). But I don't really see China flowering into a democracy simply through a changing of the guard.

[–]somewiseperson[S] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The male/female ratio is actually far more balanced than you might think. The bit about chinese families killing their babies if they're girls is completely made up, if the family has a girl they can apply to have a second child or they can leave the country to have a second child (although that child will not be granted citizenship status).

The US government has the exact figures if you're interested.

[–]punninglinguist 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

0-14 years: 17.9% (male 128,363,812/female 109,917,641)

There are almost 20% more boys than girls in the whole country, and I understand that in some regions it's even more skewed. That actually seems pretty unbalanced to me.

[–]somewiseperson[S] -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

at birth: 1.14 male(s)/female

under 15 years: 1.17 male(s)/female

15-64 years: 1.06 male(s)/female

65 years and over: 0.93 male(s)/female

*total population: 1.06 male(s)/female * (2010 est.)

there you go saved you the work.

[–]punninglinguist 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Just to clarify, by "boys" and "girls" I meant the under-15 bracket. The sex ratio for the whole population is not relevant if it's balanced out by geriatric women.

[–]slippage 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

One big question I always have about the face of the future is whether or not we will still have races like we do today or if the melting pot will finally melt and we will all look the same. This wouldn't be a 50 year process though, more like 100-200 year but well before the time of interstellar colonies and that sort of thing.

[–]punninglinguist 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I imagine that there will still be a spectrum of colors, but that sexy recessive-gene-linked traits like blue eyes and red hair will disappear.

:(

[–]Seefor 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Party like it's sin-gu-la-ri-ty!

[–]toasterweasel 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The way things look now unless something changes the world will continue to be run by huge corporations. If the bailouts did anything it told the fat cats that they don't have to fear the public as long as they are pacified. That being said the next 50 years could hold a lot of technology improvement as long as we don't kill ourselves off or a major land war doesn't occur. I just think when I graduated from college in 2001 how different things were in the IT field. I had a fucking MSDOS course for fucks sake. I'm still waiting for the big innovations though and that magic pill that will eat my fat so I don't have to diet or exercise. Oh yeah and a holodeck would be awesome.

[–]ArJooDeJew 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

or a major land war doesn't occur.

ESPECIALLY not in Asia.

[–]toasterweasel 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You would be crazy to do that. Almost as crazy as betting against a Sicilian when death is on the line.

[–]darklooshkin 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

For me, i am thinking that direct interfacing between humans and their computing/communications systems will become reality eventually. I cannot possibly anticipate the when, but i think that humans will essentially become a hub of interlacing networks between the human and the devices the human uses in everyday life.

In effect, our brains will be extended by our gadgets. Who needs an AI when you can effectively control and compute anything man-made straight from the brain?

Bear in mind, the time span for this may be extremely long term (centuries, maybe? A human is a complicated machine to safely interact with), but i anticipate significant advances towards this goal in the next 50 years.

On the other side of things, genetic engineering. How do you deal with massive environmental problems, space radiation, lack of food and/or drinking water in certain areas or even the fact that your country is now under 2 metres of sea water in winter? The answer is simple: change yourself to suit the environment! Stay young for decades rather than years, give yourself a set of gills, deactivate those pesky cancer genes or just give your children the IQ of a Tesla or an Einstein!

This is another area in which i anticipate major steps will be taken in the next 50 years, especially amongst more environmentally conscious societies. We may be able to influence the development or inhibition of certain genetic interactions in order to produce desired outcomes on a regular basis. Done properly, this should extend humanity's ability to stay on planet earth long after its current depart-by date has been reached. It is also, after all, less traumatic to the environment than having to terraform the planet again.

Which brings us to my final idea of what the near future will look like: terraforming will become THE big thing. Not in the "1000 years later, Mars looks like Earth" way, but in the "hey, that space station is full of trees!" way. In essence, what i am talking about is creating artificial environments capable of sustaining a human population as well as themselves, artificially engineered to produce either the complete package for supporting earth-based organisms in deep space/on barren planetary bodies or for supporting other tasks, such as supplying raw materials to space-based industrial processes (food, wood, chlorophyll etc...). Space farming may be another factor too. This hinges on our ability to generate and/or manipulate magnetic fields in a continuous manner, though; if we cannot do so, the only protection for an artificial environment such as this one would be a bio-dome, a major no-no if you are looking for a procedural and flexible biosphere.

TL;DR: Direct Human-machine interfaces, major advances in genetic engineering and "terraforming" aka the creation of sustainable human-capable artificial environments in otherwise extremely hostile environments. This is what i think the future could yield, as long as those damn fundies don't screw too much with the next generation of scientists.

[–]iHateusernames1 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Direct human interface yes, since they already have that, terraforming not for hundreds or even thousands of years if ever.

Without going into crazy amounts of detail I'll just say terraforming isn't as easy as science fiction has made it out to be, it would be an incredibly, incredibly lengthy and complex process.

[–]darklooshkin 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Exactly, hence the caveat on small artifical biospheres in already controlled environments (space stations with forests stuff) rather than massive planet-wide engineering solutions. I doubt we could even get to candidate terraforming planets within 50 years, let alone start work on actually changing them to suit us.

However, we could focus on turning barren areas in space (the moon, for example) into a small network of clustered artificial biospheres, thereby making certain areas capable of sustaining small populations. Yes, it relies rather heavily on semantics, but it would be terraforming of a sort.

[–]iHateusernames1 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

self-sustaining biospheres could be placed on the moon but the moon itself will never be terraformed because of the effect it would have on the earth. Otherwise I do see your point.

[–]darklooshkin 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Actually, i hope that the small, self-sustaining biosphere becomes more prevalent a view than planetary terraforming. After all, one size fits none in space (no gravity, lotsa radiation, tight spaces...), and the requirements of a truly self-sustaining environment is largely dictated by the inputs and the expertise of those that design, test and build these environments. Small biospheres have the advantage of lowering the cost of failure, providing the opportunity for increased experimentation and giving birth to a much more diverse sample for when the time comes to scale up these environments.

The other advantage lies in the fact that transporting a planetary ecosystem to where it's needed is just bloody stupid. Small biospheres, though, have the added benefit of being able to survive transportation and be seeded where they are needed and/or wanted most, which leads to a form of evolution.

TL;DR: You're right, planetaryor even satellite terraforming is merely a crazy-ass dream for now, but small sustainable oxygen and organic matter factories in space is something else entirely.

[–]Zirvo 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Man I hope it's got flying cars. What a jip we were supposed to have those ages ago.

[–]Cebs 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Ever seen a motorway accident? Yeah, now imagine that, but in the air, and falling rapidly toward the ground. I'm not so big on flying cars yet

[–]Zirvo 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

pshaw. minor technicality

[–]darklooshkin 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The answer: space trains!

[–]zerobot 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I've been saying this for years. Everybody who wants flying cars has never actually thought about the consequences. Has anybody ever had their car stall on the highway? What happens? They pull over to the shoulder and call for help. What happens when your flying car stalls? You fall to the ground crushing humans or buildings that are in your way, and you are most likely dead if this happens.

And what about accidents, like you said? How about two huge flying cars, or flying trucks crashing into each other and then hurling to the ground killing countless innocent bystanders?

We will never have flying cars. I guarantee it.

[–]MrSurly 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

s/jip/gyp/

But yeah, I agree.

[–]slippage 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Flying cars would be cool but hard to license. I would like to see something along the lines of what was in Minority Report where you have personal vehicles that can travel on smaller roads but interstates and highways (where much of the traffic jams and fatalities occur) would have automated control of your car and allow for very high speed travel.

[–]Thagirion 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm still waiting for 2020 and the world of Neuromancer, sure, it's a bleak and unforgiving world, but hey, when I was first asked what I want to become when I grow up, I answered: Console Cowboy.

[–]rbrumble 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The first iteration of the Cyberpunk RPG was set in 2013. Interestingly, we have advanced well beyond what was imagined in some ways, but are woefully behind in others. For all he got right, Gibson's world didn't include mobile phones - just try to imagine today without them.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

In fifty years, I expect that humanity will no longer be the driving force behind technological growth. In a hundred years, I doubt there will be many humans left in any sense that we would recognize.

[–]somewiseperson[S] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

What do you mean "humanity will no longer be the driving force behind technology"?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I mean that we'll have made machines that can perform every intellectual exercise that a man can perform, and some that he can't. Some of these machines will turn their attention to designing more machines, or improving their own architecture and design. In short, once we solve a few more hard problems of AI and robotics, technology will begin to improve itself by itself, for itself, with no input from humanity at all. Synthetic intelligences will reach levels that humans never could, no matter how far out on the bell curve they might be. They'll outnumber us, exceed us, and eventually our niche will disappear. We will, in short, expire and be replaced by our children.

[–]somewiseperson[S] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

As odd as this is to say in the scifi subreddit you watch way to much scifi haha. There is no way in 50 years we'll have sentient AI or have robots doing the thinking for us, maybe 100 at the absolute least.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago* 

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Consider this: computers as they are today are five million times more powerful than they were just 40 years ago. You can already buy enough storage space to store the entire contents of the human brain for about ten grand. You only need about a petaflop of proccessing power to emulate every synapse in real time, and modern CPU's can already manage multiple Gigaflops. If we maintain the trend, we'll have affordable computers that can emulate the human brain, in real time, in a bit less than forty years. That's ignoring other potential technologies like neuromorphic chips, which use engraved silicon neurons to 'simulate' the actions of tens of millions of neurons on a tiny chip, many times faster than real time.

EDIT: It's ten petaflops, according to Kurzweil's math. My mistake.

[–]punninglinguist 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't think we're going to get strong AI for free out of Moore's Law. Having the hardware to accomplish a task is far less important than understanding the task and how to translate it into algorithms. We've had computers more than powerful enough to emulate human walking for a while now... yet we don't have a bipedal robot with a human-like gait. Because the precise physics of something as simple as the human walk are still somewhat beyond us. I think the human brain will keep stumping us for quite a while yet, personally.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Walking robots are getting better. Still a little uncoordinated, but it could pass for a mildly drunk human, if seen from the waist down wearing clothing.

As far as AI goes, even with the limited processing power available right now, some very surprising progress is being made. Jeff Hawkins is doing good work, and Darpa has some interesting ideas. Advancements are being made by a lot of smaller projects with more limited goals. Even Google is making small-but-critical advancements in the field that I suspect will pay off in a big way. Anyway, if worst comes to worst, we can start slicing frozen brains open and reproducing every synapse one at a time. You don't have to completely understand the contents of a book to copy it.

[–]slippage 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Do you think it is possible and what do you think the consequences of programming computers for creativity would be?

[–]somewiseperson[S] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[citation needed]

[–]digiorno 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The same as now because legacy technologies really don't like letting go of their grasp on the market. Any progress forward will be because it is no longer profitable to remain was we are for one corporation or another.

[–]darklooshkin 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

But that has always been true. And with the growing pressures on resources, systems, manufacturing and population, legacy technologies are becoming unviable more rapidly than ever before (think Moore's law as applied to technology).

That, combined with the pressure to innovate faster than anyone else (who knows when that fancy flying car of yours is suddenly obsolete) will drive technological and social engineering ever forward.

Until the bombs fall

[–]digiorno 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That is an interesting point. I had three different professors tell me this year that in their tests and in microprocessor research in general they are having to use cheaper and less effective metals and compounds because they know the good stuff is becoming too expensive and increasingly scarce for large scale production.

[–]darklooshkin 2 points3 points ago* 

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Well, that is largely because the rare metals market has been rather stealthily cornered by a couple of oligopolies who throttle supply in order to increase their returns. But that's the point: it's a market of an extremely scarce resource which is the linchpin of modern computing technology. This market has only existed for 60 years and it's already depleting the available supply quicker than it can find it!

In effect, this will remain a problem until viable alternatives can be procured, probably in the form of nano-scale transistor structures, that have the same advantages as the inputs they are supposed to replace without the drawback of having to dig for the stuff. This research is already yielding results (carbon nanotube structures, for example), and the first true rare earth replacements are probably going to become viable in the next 10-15 years.

The bigger problems that we face are the depletion of seemingly un-depletable resources, such as drinking water. This is not a severe global problem yet, but it's quite easy to figure out that the next generation of warfare is going to center around acquiring and protecting these natural resources for geo-political purposes. Yet, there is hope: desalination plants, air purification filters etc are all examples of how we're already gearing up with a view towards limiting the damage. And where there's a problem rearing its ugly head over the horizon, you'll soon have waves of organisations willing to throw money at it until it goes away. Expect the first wave of this technology to hit the headlines in 5 years and the market in 15, if we're lucky.

TL;DR: Resource scarcity is an old problem, and it's becoming more prevalent globally. More expensive electronics is just the start: this century is the age of scarcity, where mineral and natural resources become manufacturing targets rather than mere inputs. This is the future for us: something vital gets scarce, we manufacture it and make money. This cycle has already begun, and will be the aim of the next industrial revolution. Your professors haven't even begun to scratch the surface of the problems we face and the value of the solutions will be worth in terms of money and future human endeavours.

[–]Fosnez 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

In the next 50 years? We go one of two ways - resource wars, or space colonization (Note I said space: Space factories / habitats, not planets..)

[–]darklooshkin 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Not just space colonisation, either: the emergence of the first extra-planetary industrialised society, too.

On Earth, i think that most, if not all infrastructure-related processes (factories, transport, utilities etc) will become fully automated, with humans merely maintaining the maintenance routines and sorting out bugs in the system's hardware and/or software.

[–]somewiseperson[S] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Are you retarded? This is 50 years we're talking, we're not going to have an "extra-planetary industrialized society" in 50 years.

[–]darklooshkin 1 point2 points ago* 

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No, but we will see the first big signs of its emergence in the next 50 years. The actual EPIS emerges in 100 years, on the back of the first factories in orbit that WILL be established in 50 years' time.

Another thing: you are underestimating the pace at which new technologies, solutions and markets are pursued and adopted. Ask anyone from 50 years back what that building-sized behemoth would become and "internet access" is generally not the first thing that would come to mind. You make the same mistake with space as our ancestors did with computers. And to me, that IS a sure sign of stupidity in this day and age.

[–]somewiseperson[S] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Maybe in 150 years. First you have to have people who want to live in space, a sizable amount of them (for it to be a "society", then you need to figure out how to make everything that works on earth work in space, then you need to build infrastructure.

If you want context on this you need only look at the international space station, it is the pinnacle of human engineering for living in space and it's nowhere even close to being able to have an "industrialized society" live there.

[–]AlanCrowe 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I had a stab at futurology back in 2001. I thought of my prediction as a sober, serious one, perhaps even a boring one, but certainly a likely one.

Nine years later it is not looking good because little has happened. But what if I change the timescale. What if I drop my 2010 to 2020 time frame and say this will happen in fifty years. What do you think of my prediction for 2060?

[–]appleseed1234 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Depends on how much our ambition declines. We could have been where we want to be in 2060 right now if we'd started in 1980. Mars and shit.

[–]Nosty85 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I Am Legend without Will Smith and Zombie/Vampire thingies.

[–]somewiseperson[S] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So basically a world with no people?

[–]Nosty85 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That is what it boils down to. The world shall be ruled by non-human animals and mannequins.

[–]somewiseperson[S] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

non-human animals as opposed to human animals?

[–]G_Morgan 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

We'll have 10 times as much bandwidth as we do today. Naked airport scanners will be good enough to create an entire porn industry around them. Cars will get 60 MPG.

[–]bbkbad 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

i will be hugely dissapointed if we arent all driving electric cars.

[–]azureice 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's hard to say... look back at old predictions from the 50's, 60's. Nobody predicted the internet. People predicted certain things about it, like small computers, video conferencing, online shopping... but nobody predicted the culture, the network, the way it really transformed our world.

I wonder when the next thing that will totally transform our world will come around.

[–]robbysalz 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

if it weren't for apple products today wouldn't feel so future

[–]somewiseperson[S] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

if it weren't for apple products today wouldn't feel so douchey.

[–]born_lever_puller -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Take a good look around you. This IS the future.

[–]somewiseperson[S] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Smoke more weed dude, smoke more weed.

[–]jimktrains -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The same as today but with cooler gadgets. I would have given you the same answer a millennium ago

[–]somewiseperson[S] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

but the world today looks nothing like it did a thousand years ago.

[–]jimktrains 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yes it does. Nothing about the human condition has changed besides more machines and knowledge. We have not changed at all.

[–]somewiseperson[S] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

One thousand years ago women and minorities had no rights, they couldn't work, vote, they were bought and sold as commodities. If nothing else you must acknowledge the human rights changes.

[–]jimktrains 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

And we still have issues with that, even in our 'great' country (usa, sometimes forget this is international).

[–]slippage 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–]somewiseperson[S] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The usa does have a ridiculous amount of human rights problems, I think it amazes the rest of the world sometimes.