Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

What futuristic stuff do you think will/won't exist


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#21
CyberMisterBeauty

CyberMisterBeauty

    The most beautiful male in the universe

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 464 posts
  • LocationThe largest city of the year 2192,celebrating my 200th birthday

What futuristic concepts do you think are purely sci-fi and will not exist vs ones that are real and that we (or our descendants) will see?

1. Teleportation I think is purely sci-fi. I mean of macroscopic objects because I know we have teleported some quantum objects.

2. Nanobots I think are purely Sci-Fi because of limitations in size. Micro-bots might become real though. Anything smaller than 100 micrometers might be out though.

3. Faster than light travel. I think this is pure science fiction except perhaps for faster than light communication once we have established a transceiver at the other end (extra-terrestrial).

4. Laser weapons. I think they'll be impractical. I think we'll mostly use bullets/missles battlestar Galactica style.

5. Shields to protect us from lasers/munitions. I think we will develop shields, but mostly to protect us from radiation.

That's all for now. List the stuff I'm missing! Be well, I will add more later or explain why I believe the way I do if asked to clarify.

 

If you think that teleportation of macroscale and big objects are impossible, you may also think that matter replicators are impossible as well.Right?If you can teleport particles so why can't atoms be teleported since atoms are basically made of three subatomic particles(electrons, protons and neutrons)?

 

Nanobots aren't impossible because there are many small complex things in the nanoscale like proteins and viruses.And everything is made up of atoms, so if we manipulate atoms we could create nanobots and they could built anything rearranging atoms and molecules.

 

I also think laser weapons are impossible because lasers are light and light particles(photons) cannot hurt and interact with matter(unless if they contain very high frequency and energy like gamma rays).But I think plasmonic weapons and energy based weapons are possible.



#22
Unity

Unity

    Information Organism

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,442 posts

Sure Unity:
Mining - We grow with technology. By the time we are capable of this ridiculous massive engineering and logistic task, better technologies evolve.
Space travel - Travel times huge, uncomfortable. Views from space through your helmet spaceship windows wouldnt be much more interesting than on your pc. More likely weightlessness would be the greater experience. The masses have little interest in space.
Colonies - Great for an apocalyptic scenario, or when Trump decides aliens, meteorites or zombies attack. Forgets the entire history of mankind and civilisation. We are social beings, heading to a future less dependent on all things physical.


I really hope you're not right, but I fear you may be. I need more pragmatists in my life haha. I hope the EmDrive is real and cuts our travel times.

#23
rennerpetey

rennerpetey

    To infinity, and beyond

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 175 posts
  • LocationLost in the Delta Quadrant

 

  • de-extinction: i don't care what people are going to say, it is impossible

why do you think that?


Pope Francis said that atheists are still eligible to go to heaven, to return the favor, atheists said that popes are still eligible to go into a void of nothingness.


#24
Jakob

Jakob

    Fenny-Eyed Slubber-Yuck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,224 posts
  • LocationIn the Basket of Deplorables

 

What futuristic concepts do you think are purely sci-fi and will not exist vs ones that are real and that we (or our descendants) will see?

1. Teleportation I think is purely sci-fi. I mean of macroscopic objects because I know we have teleported some quantum objects.

2. Nanobots I think are purely Sci-Fi because of limitations in size. Micro-bots might become real though. Anything smaller than 100 micrometers might be out though.

3. Faster than light travel. I think this is pure science fiction except perhaps for faster than light communication once we have established a transceiver at the other end (extra-terrestrial).

4. Laser weapons. I think they'll be impractical. I think we'll mostly use bullets/missles battlestar Galactica style.

5. Shields to protect us from lasers/munitions. I think we will develop shields, but mostly to protect us from radiation.

That's all for now. List the stuff I'm missing! Be well, I will add more later or explain why I believe the way I do if asked to clarify.

 

If you think that teleportation of macroscale and big objects are impossible, you may also think that matter replicators are impossible as well.Right?If you can teleport particles so why can't atoms be teleported since atoms are basically made of three subatomic particles(electrons, protons and neutrons)?

 

Nanobots aren't impossible because there are many small complex things in the nanoscale like proteins and viruses.And everything is made up of atoms, so if we manipulate atoms we could create nanobots and they could built anything rearranging atoms and molecules.

 

I also think laser weapons are impossible because lasers are light and light particles(photons) cannot hurt and interact with matter(unless if they contain very high frequency and energy like gamma rays).But I think plasmonic weapons and energy based weapons are possible.

 

1. Teleportation isn't possible. Period. Claims that it is are just irresponsible pop science journalism. From Wikipedia: "Because it depends on classical communication, which can proceed no faster than the speed of light, it cannot currently be used for faster-than-light transport or communication of classical bits."

 

"Matter replicators" is a misnomer as they don't replicate anything, they simply create objects from existing matter. I prefer the term nanofabricators. Teleportation has nothing to do with that--though nanofabricators pose difficult physics and engineering challenges for other reasons. (These issues are compounded in the Star Trek version which apparently also involves atomic transmutation.)

 

2. You're doing physics wrong. Lasers are energy. A lot of energy concentrated on a small area produces excess heat. Excess heat is generally bad for most people and things. What do you think this is? Oh and lasers literally are energy-based weapons. We call them "directed energy weapons".

Laser_Weapon_System_aboard_USS_Ponce_%28


Click 'show' to see quotes from great luminaries.

Spoiler

#25
Jakob

Jakob

    Fenny-Eyed Slubber-Yuck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,224 posts
  • LocationIn the Basket of Deplorables

 

 

  • de-extinction: i don't care what people are going to say, it is impossible

why do you think that?

 

Clearly for no sound reason whatsoever, as we've already done it: https://en.wikipedia...i/Pyrenean_ibex


  • rennerpetey likes this

Click 'show' to see quotes from great luminaries.

Spoiler

#26
Ewolf20

Ewolf20

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 170 posts
  • LocationColumbia,sc

 

 

 

  • de-extinction: i don't care what people are going to say, it is impossible

why do you think that?

 

Clearly for no sound reason whatsoever, as we've already done it: https://en.wikipedia...i/Pyrenean_ibex

 

the reason is because it's impossible to keep what the animal originally acted like as well as creating viable populations of them. as much as ii want to go to a park filled with mammoths and sabtertooth tigers, it's just not really possible.



#27
rennerpetey

rennerpetey

    To infinity, and beyond

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 175 posts
  • LocationLost in the Delta Quadrant

 

the reason is because it's impossible to keep what the animal originally acted like as well as creating viable populations of them. as much as ii want to go to a park filled with mammoths and sabtertooth tigers, it's just not really possible.

We're not recreating animals based on what we think they were like, We are literally growing them from cells we've found and preserved.  It's the same as cloning.  If you clone a sheep, it will still look, feel, and act like a sheep.  It will be a sheep.  If we clone a woolly mammoth from Hair we've found in ice, it will still look, act, and feel like a woolly mammoth.  IT WILL BE A WOOLLY MAMMOTH.


  • Jakob likes this

Pope Francis said that atheists are still eligible to go to heaven, to return the favor, atheists said that popes are still eligible to go into a void of nothingness.


#28
Jakob

Jakob

    Fenny-Eyed Slubber-Yuck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,224 posts
  • LocationIn the Basket of Deplorables

 

 

the reason is because it's impossible to keep what the animal originally acted like as well as creating viable populations of them. as much as ii want to go to a park filled with mammoths and sabtertooth tigers, it's just not really possible.

We're not recreating animals based on what we think they were like, We are literally growing them from cells we've found and preserved.  It's the same as cloning.  If you clone a sheep, it will still look, feel, and act like a sheep.  It will be a sheep.  If we clone a woolly mammoth from Hair we've found in ice, it will still look, act, and feel like a woolly mammoth.  IT WILL BE A WOOLLY MAMMOTH.

 

Exactly. On the other hand, once this stuff gets more advanced, we can create entirely new animals and plants, and even build entire ecosystems from scratch to meet our whims. I, for one, am a huge advocate of creating unicorns. Just splice rhino genes into a horse and we're good to go. Or perhaps a narwhal would be better considering the shape of a unicorn horn:

Oftheunicorn.jpg


  • rennerpetey likes this

Click 'show' to see quotes from great luminaries.

Spoiler

#29
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 716 posts
  • LocationLondon

Mike The Average

Mining - We grow with technology. By the time we are capable of this ridiculous massive engineering and logistic task, better technologies evolve.

Space travel - Travel times huge, uncomfortable. Views from space through your helmet spaceship windows wouldnt be much more interesting than on your pc. More likely weightlessness would be the greater experience. The masses have little interest in space.

Colonies - Great for an apocalyptic scenario, or when Trump decides aliens, meteorites or zombies attack. Forgets the entire history of mankind and civilisation. We are social beings, heading to a future less dependent on all things physical.          

 

So for mining, are you saying we will achieve the ability to break atoms apart and rebuild them into different elements, before we manage practical asteroid mining? Mining, isn't really a technology, its basically the act of extracting materials from the environment. I could agree that we wont have a bunch of rugged individualists in their independently owned mining vessels drifting through the asteroid belt with massive drills. But the idea that we will never extract resources from space seems odd. 

 

Space and colonies:

Just because the masses have little interest in space doesn't mean we won't explore or pursue it. The masses had little interest in global exploration in 0AD but we still eventually figured out where everything was and huge numbers of people moved or migrated, by uncomfortable, dangerous and slow sailing ships to other parts of the world over the next thousand years, which by your logic would never have happened.

 

The only reason for humanity to never get into space travel or colonisation, would be for us to achieve an incredible utopia on earth, upgrading the carrying capacity infinitely, or eliminating the human desire to procreate (and we'd need 100% agreement on doing that, because any groups disliking the status quo in a highly advanced society would probably be up for terraforming Venus or whatever, unless we just murdered dissenters, in which case that's probably pretty dystopian and we'd get people trying to escape to other planets.) 

 

Jakob

  • You won't get to live forever unless you have a very loose definition of "you", "live", or "forever".
  • No teleportation of physical objects. Though I can imagine workarounds that are just as good.
  • Anything that implies human nature will change. Caveman principle.
  • Little to no control over higher toposophic minds. No magical perfect super AIs that always do your bidding and never have their own interests that may conflict with yours. Unless an even higher sophont creates one and give it to you.
  • There are of course many techs we could develop, but probably won't because they're pointless. Like battle mechs or glowing laser swords.

 

Longevity: still can't wrap my head around why you think an indefinite lifespan is either physically impossible, or just somehow beyond the ability of human intellects to solve, no matter how long we try. I could see the argument that we wont manage it for 1000 years or longer, so if when you said "you won't get to..." you literally meant people alive today won't. In which case I can see your point.

 

Teleportation: Does look impossible. If it were somehow possible, I doubt it would ever be practical for any kind of large scale use, it would probably need physical laws to break down inside black holes, or weird wormhole physics or something.

 

Human Nature: In our essential motivations we are the same, agreed, but many aspects of how people behave and societal norms etc. have changed massively since cave man times, so it depends on how you're defining human nature. 

 

AIs: Do you believe super intelligent AI is not creatable by humans? Or that it will inevitably go out of control? Assuming it is possible to create them then:

If you build something's brain, you get to decide how it thinks, it doesn't matter how smart it gets, if you have built it's brain to only want to do one thing, it will only want to do that thing, and all of it's awesome intelligence will end up devoted to doing that thing, because It doesn't want to do anything else. The real danger from superintelligent AIs comes from humans controlling them, and from people giving stupid motivations, that lead to them killing us all.

 

BattleMechs and Laser swords: These may someday be created, but not for the envisioned sci-fi uses in actual combat, I would definitely be up for watching 100ton battlemech wrestling as a sport, and I imagine people thousands of years from now(when it might be practical), will also think so. Similarly laser swords, more for the coolness than any practical use.  

 

Ewolf20

sex-bots: if you want a  sex bot with feelings, wait a few centuries.

 

So first you say sex-bots won't happen, then you say "sex-bots with feelings" wont happen. One of those technologies will be much much much harder than the other. 

 

Saying " we will never have sex bots" seems silly since we already do. and saying "we will never have sentient artificial robot people capable of having sex with people" seems silly because the sex part is trivial compared to the "sentient AI with feelings" part.



#30
Mike the average

Mike the average

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,473 posts
Should add by space travel I am referring to the upcoming recreational industry as planned by Musk/Branson etc.

Space should be the domain of science, with intelligent drones as human proxies.
  • Unity and Alislaws like this
'Force always attracts men of low morality' - Einstein
'Great spirits always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds' - Einstein

#31
Unity

Unity

    Information Organism

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,442 posts
That makes a lot more sense. Thanks for clarifying!

#32
Jakob

Jakob

    Fenny-Eyed Slubber-Yuck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,224 posts
  • LocationIn the Basket of Deplorables

Should add by space travel I am referring to the upcoming recreational industry as planned by Musk/Branson etc.

Space should be the domain of science, with intelligent drones as human proxies.

Why though? Space is awesome, we should get out and colonize. Being on Earth is no fun.


Click 'show' to see quotes from great luminaries.

Spoiler

#33
Mike the average

Mike the average

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,473 posts

 

Should add by space travel I am referring to the upcoming recreational industry as planned by Musk/Branson etc.

Space should be the domain of science, with intelligent drones as human proxies.

Why though? Space is awesome, we should get out and colonize. Being on Earth is no fun.

 

Lol come on Jakob, you know I slow clap the real intention behind your words. 


'Force always attracts men of low morality' - Einstein
'Great spirits always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds' - Einstein

#34
Jakob

Jakob

    Fenny-Eyed Slubber-Yuck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,224 posts
  • LocationIn the Basket of Deplorables

 

 

Should add by space travel I am referring to the upcoming recreational industry as planned by Musk/Branson etc.

Space should be the domain of science, with intelligent drones as human proxies.

Why though? Space is awesome, we should get out and colonize. Being on Earth is no fun.

 

Come on Jakob, you know I slow clap the real intention behind your words.  Or do you actually have legitimate reasons lol. 

 

What?


Click 'show' to see quotes from great luminaries.

Spoiler

#35
_SputnicK_

_SputnicK_

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 61 posts
  • LocationUSA

I do not believe that intelligent civilizations in our galaxies are likely to exist. I make this assumption based off the following:

1) If an civilization becomes sufficiently advanced, it will develop technology that approaches light speed (or if in the realm of physics, FTL)

2) At this point, it is beneficial for said civilization to utilize this technology to conquer and utilize all the available resources around it (i.e. planets for land, stars for energy, black holes for antimatter, ect)

3) If this continues, at some point the entire galaxy will be colonized (in the case of the milky way galaxy, this would take 100,000 years at light speed)

 

With these assumptions, our entire galaxy should be colonized. If there exists even ten intelligent civilizations in our entire galaxy, why hasn't even one attempted to colonize all of the space around it? Shouldn't we have heard from them by now? While humans have only existed the last 100,000 years, our galaxy is almost 13.8 billion years old. From a statistical standpoint, its seems the height of folly that we should be the first. Yet that's exactly where the evidence points us.

 

There are, of course, potential solutions to this problem. It is possible that intelligent species do not wish to utilize the energies of all the stars in its galaxy, but prefers to stay confined. Or, perhaps, intelligent species choose to "hibernate" until the galaxy is colder, allowing their technology to run much faster.

 

I find it more likely, however, that we are alone in this galaxy. It could be because of a "great filter", which lies in front or behind us, or it could be because intelligent life evolving is an exceedingly rare event. Or both. Whatever the case, one cannot ignore the results so far: despite our best attempts at communication, the universe has remained silent. 


  • Unity likes this

Artificial intelligence will reach human levels by around 2029.

Follow that out further to, say, 2045, we will have multiplied the intelligence, the human biological machine intelligence of our civilization a billion-fold.
-Ray Kurzweil


#36
BasilBerylium

BasilBerylium

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 548 posts
  • LocationArgentina

or it could be because intelligent life evolving is an exceedingly rare event.

Maybe they are developing at our pace (supposing only humanoid civilizations exist).



#37
_SputnicK_

_SputnicK_

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 61 posts
  • LocationUSA

 

or it could be because intelligent life evolving is an exceedingly rare event.

Maybe they are developing at our pace (supposing only humanoid civilizations exist).

 

That again, is statistically an unlikely event. According to the "cosmic calendar" analogy: if the Big Bang took place on January 1, then the advent of humans is mapped to December 31 at midnight. 


Artificial intelligence will reach human levels by around 2029.

Follow that out further to, say, 2045, we will have multiplied the intelligence, the human biological machine intelligence of our civilization a billion-fold.
-Ray Kurzweil


#38
Unity

Unity

    Information Organism

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,442 posts
I'm not sure if humans are the only ones out there, but I do think this is true. We are not racing against super intelligent AI in a battle for cosmic supremacy. I feel like that is likely a mythos we are developing based on our present misunderstanding of technology and taking certain analogies too far. The brain is highly efficient at what it does and computers do not come anywhere close on the front of information density per pound of the good ol' human brain. I do think it would be pointless to go to the stars with a warlike mentality. I think there is probably such an abundance of free space out there that any civilizations that exist are still trying to catch up in utilizing it for life. I also think we may well be the first. We won't know what to do with the sheer abundance that space offers. I once saw a calculation that said it would take self replicating probes 5 million to 30 million years to cover the milky way with probes, but what if we never develop fusion drives for instance and must always travel at slower speeds? The limiting factor would be human population. There just wouldn't be enough of us to send out teams to other planets to colonize in our biological bodies because there may be too many habitable ecosystems in our Galaxy for a puny population of 7 billion to colonize. Sure we could theoretically send out self replicating robots to colonize in our stead, but what would be the point if there wouldn't be enough humans to back it up with manned missions for hundreds of thousands of years? Maybe that is the situation that we are in and if so that is VERY exciting. I think there may not be a great filter. We will have to learn to adapt to a heating planet, but if we can manage to keep warming under control perhaps we can launch to the stars and generate a whole new era of exponential exploration and wealth creation, but more importantly of knowledge creation and scientific advance. If we all have infinite stuff because of 3d printers and plentiful resources then stuff becomes immaterial. What matters most is replicating knowledge and I see the Galaxy as a place where humans will expand out and generate a knowledge based economy where physically constructing knowledge by deploying the architecture, people, and material necessary for it becomes our primary purpose.

Edit:

Here is the article on how long it would take to colonize the Galaxy with von Neumann probes.

https://phys.org/new...lien-probes.amp

A mere 10 million years. Now assuming we don't create perfect self-replicators, they cannot achieve 10% of light speed, we don't develop true artificial intelligence, etc it could take significantly longer. Let's do a new calculation. Let's say we send a craft with hundreds of thousands of crew to our nearest system 4 light years away at 10% light speed. That means 40 years to land and start a colony. A few hundred thousand people will take A LONG TIME to get to millions of people in order to send out another expedition. Remember it took 12,000 years to go from millions of humans to our present day population. Add in broken machines, the necessity to terraform, the temptation to stop at nearby moons and rest, etc and it could take millenia to set up one self-replicating colony. Maybe we're just lucky and we'll evolve on each planet to adapt over hundreds of thousands of years and become virtually unrecognizeable to present day humans. Imagine in a few million years a humanity that is as wildly different and kaleidoscopically beautiful as a milieu of hues that we can barely begin to recognize. That is what I hope for.
  • Jakob and _SputnicK_ like this

#39
Jakob

Jakob

    Fenny-Eyed Slubber-Yuck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,224 posts
  • LocationIn the Basket of Deplorables

 

A mere 10 million years. Now assuming we don't create perfect self-replicators, they cannot achieve 10% of light speed, we don't develop true artificial intelligence, etc it could take significantly longer. Let's do a new calculation. Let's say we send a craft with hundreds of thousands of crew to our nearest system 4 light years away at 10% light speed. That means 40 years to land and start a colony. A few hundred thousand people will take A LONG TIME to get to millions of people in order to send out another expedition. Remember it took 12,000 years to go from millions of humans to our present day population. Add in broken machines, the necessity to terraform, the temptation to stop at nearby moons and rest, etc and it could take millenia to set up one self-replicating colony. Maybe we're just lucky and we'll evolve on each planet to adapt over hundreds of thousands of years and become virtually unrecognizeable to present day humans. Imagine in a few million years a humanity that is as wildly different and kaleidoscopically beautiful as a milieu of hues that we can barely begin to recognize. That is what I hope for.

The Sol system, with its vast population, will provide a steady supply of colonists for a great many nearby stars--it'll be centuries by the time the frontier is too far to reach from Sol within a human lifetime. By this point, other colonies could well have hundreds of millions of people--population will grow very rapidly due to lack of limiting factors on a new world--and be able to send forth a few tens of thousands of their own citizens to push back the frontier. Yes, it would be a long time before there were other systems with billions of people, but it would happen.

 

Alternatively, Isaac Arthur proposes that a ship would travel to a nearby star system, drop off whoever wants to get off, and then those who stay on would head to another star system, reproducing to build up their numbers.


  • Alislaws likes this

Click 'show' to see quotes from great luminaries.

Spoiler




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users