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!
Photo

Still alive in 3000


  • Please log in to reply
97 replies to this topic

Poll: Still alive in 3000 (52 member(s) have cast votes)

Which decade born will the oldest people to live to 3000 be?

  1. Voted 1940s or before (6 votes [11.54%])

    Percentage of vote: 11.54%

  2. 1950s (3 votes [5.77%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.77%

  3. 1960s (6 votes [11.54%])

    Percentage of vote: 11.54%

  4. 1970s (6 votes [11.54%])

    Percentage of vote: 11.54%

  5. 1980s (10 votes [19.23%])

    Percentage of vote: 19.23%

  6. 1990s (5 votes [9.62%])

    Percentage of vote: 9.62%

  7. 2000s (3 votes [5.77%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.77%

  8. 2010s (2 votes [3.85%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.85%

  9. 2020s or later (11 votes [21.15%])

    Percentage of vote: 21.15%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1
FutureOfToday

FutureOfToday

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,685 posts
Which generation do you think will be the oldest to survive to the year 3000? I personally think that 1980s-born people, perhaps late 1970s-born people at a push will be the very oldest people to make it to the year 3000.

#2
zEVerzan

zEVerzan

    Orange Animating Android

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,739 posts
  • LocationSome Underground Sweatshop Probably

I as well said people who were born in the late-70's will be the oldest.


I always imagined the future as a time of more reason, empathy, and peace, not less. It's time for a change.
Attention is currency in the "free marketplace of ideas".
I do other stuff besides gripe about the future! Twitter Youtube DeviantArt +-PATREON-+

#3
Ru1138

Ru1138

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,190 posts
  • LocationIllinois

I as well said people who were born in the late-70's will be the oldest.

 

I would say the 1970s as well. Just conjecture on my part though.


What difference does it make?


#4
SG-1

SG-1

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,653 posts
  • LocationUS - Arkansas
50s what if someone lived to be 110 in 1959. That's 2069. By then we may be able to fix aging. Or cryopreserve them. Maybe even before the 40s if they freeze themselves and we can reanimate them. This scenario would be rare and assume that they don't die for 1k years. There is no telling.

Hey.  Stop reading.  The post is over.


#5
zEVerzan

zEVerzan

    Orange Animating Android

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,739 posts
  • LocationSome Underground Sweatshop Probably

Oh god I hope not. The corrupt baby boomer generation must die for the rest of humanity to move on, they are the direct cause of every problem we've had since since the latter quarter of the 20th century.


I always imagined the future as a time of more reason, empathy, and peace, not less. It's time for a change.
Attention is currency in the "free marketplace of ideas".
I do other stuff besides gripe about the future! Twitter Youtube DeviantArt +-PATREON-+

#6
Raklian

Raklian

    An Immortal In The Making

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,051 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC

I picked 1980s. I'm secretly rooting for myself. :D

 

Having the title "Most Ancient Sentient Being in the Universe" has a nice ring to it. :D


What are you without the sum of your parts?

#7
Italian Ufo

Italian Ufo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,190 posts

Oh god I hope not. The corrupt baby boomer generation must die for the rest of humanity to move on, they are the direct cause of every problem we've had since since the latter quarter of the 20th century.

 

In an indefinite life span every humans can improve and become better people. Furthermore, corrupted people were present even in the 70s and 80s and 90s.

This to me seems also an illogical generalization. There were lots of people who were born in the 50s and that were not corrupted or evil. Many individuals of that epoch may even be more valuable to the people we have now.

Also, I don't think that you would feel well if some from the year 3.000 comes and say to you that you should die because you are not spiritual enough.

Personally speaking I would give another chance to every human. Society changes and so human psychology and behaviour. Everyone can become a better person with time and with easier access to resources and other possibilities.



#8
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,802 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

1940s or before due to cryogenic preservation and then a successful revival. Hopefully we will improve cryogenic preservation technology enough by the 2030s or so in order for individuals to be successfully cryogenically preserved and then to get revived with all or almost all of their memories intact. Someone born in the 1940s will only be in his 80s or 90s in the 2030s, and there should be at least a couple of such individuals who will get cryogenically preserved.



#9
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,802 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

50s what if someone lived to be 110 in 1959. That's 2069. By then we may be able to fix aging. Or cryopreserve them. Maybe even before the 40s if they freeze themselves and we can reanimate them. This scenario would be rare and assume that they don't die for 1k years. There is no telling.

Why exactly do you think that cryogenic preservation will take 1,000 years to succeed for humans? Heck, even I, as a pessimist, think that it will take perhaps 200-300 years to succeed for humans.



#10
Smeargle

Smeargle

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 502 posts
  • LocationLuckiest city in the UK

1940s...? Come on now. Even if all this cryopreservation and lifespan extending stuff exists by then, the earliest would have to be something like 2800.


ARADIA: i think i mostly want to see what happens when this whole place breaks apart


#11
Casey

Casey

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 681 posts

1940s...? Come on now. Even if all this cryopreservation and lifespan extending stuff exists by then, the earliest would have to be something like 2800.

 

Do what now?



#12
FutureOfToday

FutureOfToday

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,685 posts
2800 is ridiculous... I'm pretty sure we'll have achieved immortality long before then.

#13
zEVerzan

zEVerzan

    Orange Animating Android

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,739 posts
  • LocationSome Underground Sweatshop Probably
Italian, I'm talking about the corrupt baby boomers who are in power right now, stagnating world politics. Can you imagine what would happen if they got to live forever? It would be our doom. Of course not all baby boomers are evil; my grandparents are baby boomers. I was talking about the ones we need to worry about.
I always imagined the future as a time of more reason, empathy, and peace, not less. It's time for a change.
Attention is currency in the "free marketplace of ideas".
I do other stuff besides gripe about the future! Twitter Youtube DeviantArt +-PATREON-+

#14
Italian Ufo

Italian Ufo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,190 posts

Italian, I'm talking about the corrupt baby boomers who are in power right now, stagnating world politics. Can you imagine what would happen if they got to live forever? It would be our doom. Of course not all baby boomers are evil; my grandparents are baby boomers. I was talking about the ones we need to worry about.

 

Freud said that civilization is necessary for the survival of the species but the pressure to conform makes is it hard for individuals to be happy.

All these stagnating politics you describe, are dictated by past events and civilizations which shaped human psychology in certain directions.

In one economy were goods are indefinite where one worries just how to entertain himself rather than how to survive, than these people will not perpetuated this kind of system because

a) it is not adopt in the epoch we will be living

b) people are subjected to mental plasticity which means that ones behaviour changes according to the culture we live.

 

I think that even if you take Adolf Hitler and you bring him to the year 3,000 eventually he will become a better person.

He won t discriminate Jews because they won't take his jobs and money,  He will found millions of people and hundreds of academies that will appreciate his art, he can play the war on playstation 400 etc etc.

I am talking about him but I could say the same for Napoleon, Caesar, Bush, Gheddaffi, Mafia men, Putin, Alexander etc etc.

 

My dream is to forgive everyone at the end. Peraphs, I would put Hitler under torture for centuries but then I would forgive him and reintegrate him in society.

Maybe he will show also good to humanity.



#15
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,802 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

2800 is ridiculous... I'm pretty sure we'll have achieved immortality long before then.

I think you meant an indefinite lifespan, rather than immortality. Anyway, maybe he meant 2080?



#16
SG-1

SG-1

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,653 posts
  • LocationUS - Arkansas

50s what if someone lived to be 110 in 1959. That's 2069. By then we may be able to fix aging. Or cryopreserve them. Maybe even before the 40s if they freeze themselves and we can reanimate them. This scenario would be rare and assume that they don't die for 1k years. There is no telling.

Why exactly do you think that cryogenic preservation will take 1,000 years to succeed for humans? Heck, even I, as a pessimist, think that it will take perhaps 200-300 years to succeed for humans.

Um, where did you get that from? I never said that.

Hey.  Stop reading.  The post is over.


#17
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,802 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

 

 

50s what if someone lived to be 110 in 1959. That's 2069. By then we may be able to fix aging. Or cryopreserve them. Maybe even before the 40s if they freeze themselves and we can reanimate them. This scenario would be rare and assume that they don't die for 1k years. There is no telling.

Why exactly do you think that cryogenic preservation will take 1,000 years to succeed for humans? Heck, even I, as a pessimist, think that it will take perhaps 200-300 years to succeed for humans.

 

Um, where did you get that from? I never said that.

You said "1K years" in your post here. Or am I misunderstanding you here?



#18
Ru1138

Ru1138

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,190 posts
  • LocationIllinois

About cryonics, I have a feeling chemical reactions can still happen at LN2 temperatures (albeit very slowly); add that to cosmic ray and background radiation damage and there may be a limit as to how long someone can be frozen for.


What difference does it make?


#19
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,802 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

About cryonics, I have a feeling chemical reactions can still happen at LN2 temperatures (albeit very slowly); add that to cosmic ray and background radiation damage and there may be a limit as to how long someone can be frozen for.

As long as this limit is a couple of hundred years or more, I think that we should be okay, unless something extremely unexpected happens.



#20
SG-1

SG-1

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,653 posts
  • LocationUS - Arkansas

 

 

 

50s what if someone lived to be 110 in 1959. That's 2069. By then we may be able to fix aging. Or cryopreserve them. Maybe even before the 40s if they freeze themselves and we can reanimate them. This scenario would be rare and assume that they don't die for 1k years. There is no telling.

Why exactly do you think that cryogenic preservation will take 1,000 years to succeed for humans? Heck, even I, as a pessimist, think that it will take perhaps 200-300 years to succeed for humans.

 

Um, where did you get that from? I never said that.

 

You said "1K years" in your post here. Or am I misunderstanding you here?

Once they are revived, the small amount of people born from the '40s-'50s will have to live around 1000 years and not die.  All sorts of things could go wrong in 1000 years.


Hey.  Stop reading.  The post is over.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users