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.'"
Futurologists don't need a background in science, only an audience.
From a canuck pov, California is a lot like Quebec. Both have large debts, highly self-inflated opinions of themselves, and have a highly convoluted parasitic nature with both the federal government and other states/provinces. If they went up and left, they'd be in a crash bankruptcy within 2 years, and be begging to come back, as their own entitlement programs would cause them to collapse from within. As it stands now, their own entitlement programs are causing them to collapse from within.
Om, nomnomnom...
I predict there will be unrest in the middle east.
Retrospectively,
- in the eighties AIDS was said to be cured by 2000
- in the seventies nuclear plants were created, expecting all the technical uncertainties to be solved by 2000
not mentioning studies, novels, sci-fi movies that made an unsuccessful attempt to describe a world in a 30~50 years future
And they want to predict the world in 100 years from now?
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
30 years ago all sorts of stuff was being predicted. space colonies this that. all we ended up has been a widening income/wealth inequality with those amassing wealth doing nothing with that wealth but letting it amass more wealth sitting in the banks. there is no way in hell we will have space elevators, this that, as long as the rich can make more money without making anything. why invest in a space elevator, why you can just let the money sit in hedge funds and let it become more money overnight, without considerable risk ... the only ones who will do these would be new internet-era entrepreneurs and rich boys like the ones who are investing in space x thingies etc now. and no way in hell their numbers and wealth can make these stuff come true in a way that would matter for the public.
You have such a deep misunderstanding of the real world, I'm surprised you can manage to get food into your mouth to survive. The article summary seems to have triggered your "I AM THE 99%" response. However you don't seem to understand the nature of wealth. People like you sit back and complain that the rich have all their money in the bank, so there isn't any left for you. The reality is that weathy people invest their money to remain wealthy. What the hell do you think a hedge fund is? Like most investments, it puts the money to work.
If a space elevator could ever be made profitably, those kinds of funds are the ones that would invest. Poor, aimless, unmotivated fools will never make it happen. No such venture was ever done for charity. Columbus was sponsored by the Portuguese crown in a search for wealth in trade routes. The Apollo program was sponsored by the USA so as to not fall behind in the USSR and risk the cold war. A space elevator represents a huge opportunity for wealth generation. You don't think greed would make it happen if it was possible? You're just plain wrong.
-d
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
You spelled "War of Southern Treason" wrong.
The South started the war, so I fail to see how it could be Northern aggression.
low taxes, small government, etc - and other tea party type things
don't fool yourself, they also want to meddle.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
What would such a thing need us for?
What is even more disturbing is that the exponential trend identified by Moore can be found in completely unrelated economic figures, energy use figures, patent volume figures, and many more.
Humans seem destined to ride an exponential wave, and not to notice until it's too late.
And all the while, the Fermi paradox waits before us like a dark chasm.
Not just the British Empire. The Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, The Russian Empire, The French Empire, The Spanish Empire, the USSR.
Empires rise, and then they fall again. The USA is on the same path as all the empire before it. Only the timing varies.
First, the GP said nothing about the state budget.
Second, that's a perfect example of the broken window fallacy. The citizens pay the Federal Government, and in so doing, give it money that cannot be spent for other things. The correct question is how much the citizens of California as a whole send to the federal government versus the amount that the federal government sends back. The answer to that is "a lot more", with the sole exception of the last couple of years (in which California has gotten more than it sent in, but so has every other state). In most years, California gets back somewhere in the ballpark of eighty cents for every dollar it sends to the feds.
Again, the amount is immaterial. What's important is the cost-benefit ratio. The blue states, on the average, get far less benefit for their federal tax dollars than the red states. This is fairly well established and can be trivially proven by examining the numbers.
Unless, of course, you consider the security benefits. Consider how the wide difference in wealth between the U.S. and Mexico has caused serious safety problems near our Southern border. Now consider what would happen if the Southern U.S. were similarly poor because California stopped propping them up. And that is why the argument of California getting less out than it puts in falls flat—not because it isn't true from a purely numbers point of view, but rather because there are unquantifiable externalities that the argument fails to take into account.
That's grossly incorrect.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.