Slashdot Mirror
Predicting Life 100 Years From Now
New submitter Simon321 writes "BBC News has an interesting article about the top predictions for life 100 years from now. The highlights include extensive farming of the ocean, wiring all sorts of computers to our brains, space elevators, and the break-up of the United States. 'There are some indications already that California wants to split off and such pressures tend to build over time. It is hard to see this waiting until the end of the century. Maybe an East Coast cluster will want to break off too. Pressures come from the enormous differences in wealth generation capability, and people not wanting to fund others if they can avoid it.'"
'There are some indications already that California wants to split off and such pressures tend to build over time. It is hard to see this waiting until the end of the century. Maybe an East Coast cluster will want to break off too. Pressures come from the enormous differences in wealth generation capability, and people not wanting to fund others if they can avoid it.'
And who is making such outrageous claims? A geologist? Perhaps a seismologist? Perhaps even just some sort of basic scientist?
From the beginning of the article:
Here is what futurologists Ian Pearson (IP) and Patrick Tucker (PT) think of your ideas.
"Futurologist?" What does it take to call oneself a 'futurologist?'
Well, from Ian Pearson's page I'd guess he's got some communication technology background? Or perhaps an author? From his list of achievements:
Ian Pearson has been a full time futurologist since 1991, with a proven track record of around 85% accuracy at the 10 year horizon.
So you could estimate he has a (0.85)^10 or ~19.7% accuracy at the 100 year horizon? Do you get to pick which issues you have to weigh in on? How accurate do you have to be? Are these just yes or no? Multiple choice?
And Patrick Tucker looks to be little more than an author and interviewer. Sorry for the character assassination or ad hominem attacks but these guys are sci-fi authors, essentially. Reprinting their claims of North America breaking apart in anyway within 100 years is less than prudent.
My work here is dung.
Oops. Your conservative is showing.
California is the 8th largest economy in the world. Period. It would be a world power on it's own.
California would do quite well on it's own given it's natural resources and it's western US shipping ports.
California sees less return on federal dollars than is taken in taxes. (Who's the parasite, again?)
California's population and land size give it country sized problems with state sized control and funds.
Actually, California gets less back from the federal government then we pay out. We would be in much better financial shape if we didn't have to subsidize other states.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Predictions of the Year 2000 from The Ladies Home Journal of December 1900
http://www.yorktownhistory.org/homepages/1900_predictions.htm
Some spot on. Others... not so much.
You completely miss the point. California, and most of the "blue" states, are "giver" states - their citizens and businesses pay more in federal tax (income and otherwise) than they receive back as services. California receives $0.78 (in things like highway dollars and education) per dollar of tax paid. source. For fun, compare "red" states with "blue" states. About 75% of Bush and Gore's electoral votes came from taker and giver states, respectively.
The GP's point was that if those 25c no longer "left" the state, California would be better off.
The best part was you complaining about ignorance and being "factually wrong".
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Yeah, don't bother looking up the statistics or anything. Just make a sarcastic comment to insinuate you know what you're talking about.
In 2005, California paid $290 billion in taxes and received $240 billion in federal spending. California's deficit currently stands at $11 billion. Now, I'm no mathematician, but I'm pretty sure 290 - 240 > 11.
As a Canadian currently living in Quebec... I don't think you're right. California seems to be reasonably productive, at least compared to the rest of the US. It has a large debt, but so does the rest of the country. I believe they even pay out more in taxes than they take in from the feds.
Quebec on the other hand has always been a gimme province, has a population who prefer not to work all that hard (not saying there's anything wrong with that, provided you can pay for it yourself) and systemic corruption levels FAR above the rest of Canada. They're also isolationist, and anti-English, which can't help when all your neighbours and potential trading partners are English speaking countries.
Quebec can't even keep their bridges and highways from falling apart, and that's WITH subsidies from the rest of the country. California has excellent highways.
Just because someone holds a position for a second doesn't mean the money is not at risk and has not left the fund.
Further hedge funds and high frequency trading rarely coincide. Money must be invested to earn returns. HFT doesn't change that.
You clearly _don't_ understand and should stop embarrassing yourself until you learn some things.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
California sees less return on federal dollars than is taken in taxes. (Who's the parasite, again?)
You sure about that? Hint: look at all the Federal expenditures in California, including welfare.
Yes, we are sure. Our federal tax imbalance is similar in size to our budget deficit.
You could at least base your claims on logic and numbers instead of emotion and expectations.
[1] 2009 Tax Burden Report
[2] 2006 Tax Burden Report
[3] Tax burden by state, 1981-2005
[4] California 2011-12 Budget Outlook
.:Semper Absurda:.
More so as of late though- and according to my friend Barb, who walks the streets of Portland, Oregon twice a day- it's the newcomers, particularly the young, who are the angriest. Makes sense though- you had an ambitious father and mother who provided a fancy home and all the toys you could want, then they get foreclosed on and your entire family ends up on the street, your sense of entitlement is going to hit reality awfully hard and you're going to be a threat to society.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.